About the Council

The holy and ecumenical third council was held under Emperor Theodosius the Younger, when two hundred fathers gathered in Ephesus against Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, who called Christ a mere man and taught that the Son of God was united with him by favor toward him. Therefore, he did not allow the Holy Virgin to be called God-bearer, but called her Christ-bearer. The holy fathers subjected him to deposition and anathema.

Slavic Kormchaya. The third ecumenical holy council was held in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, with two hundred holy fathers gathered in Ephesus against the accursed Nestorius, who spoke of Christ our God as a mere man, preaching that the Son of God was united to him by love: therefore, he did not wish to call the Holy Virgin God-bearer, but Christ-bearer. The holy fathers deposed him and cursed him. At that same council, they also set forth nine rules.

The writing of the holy fathers of this council to all the faithful. The holy ecumenical great council gathered in Ephesus, by the command of the pious emperor Theodosius, to all those in all regions and cities, and to bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and all the people: when we had gathered, according to the pious writing, that is, according to the command of our pious emperor, in the metropolis of Ephesus, some withdrew from us, numbering thirty and a few more, who have no authority in church communion, as they lack lordship in the priesthood, being able to do some harm or benefit, since some of them had been deposed: thus, bearing in themselves all the thinking of Nestorius and Celestine, and not having repented openly of this, since they did not wish with us to condemn and curse Nestorius. By the common command of the holy council, it made them aliens to all church communion, and took away from them all action, that is, priestly authority, by which they could harm or benefit anyone.

Canon 1. Since it was necessary that those not present at the holy council, and remaining in their own place or city, for some reason, either ecclesiastical or bodily, should not remain without knowledge of what was decreed at it: we inform your holiness and charity that if any provincial metropolitan, having withdrawn from the holy and ecumenical council, has joined the apostate assembly, or hereafter joins it, or has accepted or accepts Celestine’s thinking, such a one can in no way do anything against the bishops of his province, as he is henceforth already rejected by the council from all church communion and rendered inactive. But he will also be subject to examination by those very bishops of the province and the surrounding metropolitans who think orthodoxly, for his complete deposition from the episcopal rank.

Zonara. When the sacred fathers gathered in Ephesus, after the investigations conducted concerning the impious doctrines introduced by Nestorius, under the presidency at the council of the orthodox fathers of Saint Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who also held the place of Celestine, pope of Old Rome, with the assistance to Saint Cyril of Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, Nestorius, patriarch of New Rome and the imperial city, was condemned and deposed by the definition of the sacred fathers. But three days later, John the patriarch of Antioch and many bishops who arrived with him, whose leaders were Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, and Ibas bishop of Edessa, being grieved that the fathers of the council had not awaited their arrival, expressed censure regarding the deposition of Nestorius, and subjected Saint Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus to deposition. At the same time, Theodoret also issued another twelve chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of Nestorius’s impiety and for the confirmation of the orthodox faith, for the destruction and refutation of those. In like manner, Ibas also composed an epistle. As a result, great discord arose among them, so that the fathers of the council subjected these hierarchs to deposition, as agreeing with opinions similar to those of Nestorius. Therefore, on account of these circumstances, the present rule was set forth, by which the bishops of the dioceses who were not present at the council are informed of the conciliar condemnation of the patriarch of Antioch and the others, and that those possessing hierarchical rights who thought or will think in accordance with Nestorius should do nothing against bishops or laymen.

Aristen. If a metropolitan who was not present at the council holds or will hold to Celestine’s teaching, he is deposed.

Valsamon. After the deposition of Nestorius, John the patriarch of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, and Ibas bishop of Edessa, and others. And since the deposition had taken place in their absence, they expressed censure of what had occurred, and without foundation deposed Saint Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who presided at the council and who also held the place of Celestine, pope of Rome, and together with him Memnon bishop of Ephesus. Meanwhile, Theodoret composed another twelve chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of Nestorius’s impiety, for the destruction and refutation of those. In like manner, Ibas also composed an epistle. But all this the Fourth Council rejected as impious. And the fathers of the Third Council themselves, learning of what had been done by John the patriarch of Antioch and the others against Saint Cyril and those of like mind with him—these latter, as unjustly deposed, they restored; but John and the thirty bishops of like mind with him they declared deprived of all church communion, as having accepted the impious teaching of Nestorius and Celestius. Therefore, the rule determines that, since it was necessary for some of the bishops, absent for valid reasons, not to remain in ignorance of what had occurred, all should know that if any bishop has joined or joins the apostate assembly, that is, the side of John of Antioch and Celestius, such a one will be deposed, and nowhere should he perform anything priestly; but all the surrounding metropolitans and bishops will consider him rejected, as already deprived of the episcopal degree. Such is the content of this rule. And you, if you find in some copies a scribe’s error concerning Celestius (for instead of Celestius, Celestine is mentioned), do not accept what is written in that way as correct; for Celestine pope of Rome was orthodox, as said above, but Celestius was of like mind with Nestorius, that is, a heretic.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any metropolitan or bishop, having left and not come to the council, wishes to think in Celestine’s manner or does think so, let him be rejected and cast out from the church.

Canon 2. But if any diocesan bishops were not present at the holy council, and have taken part in the apostasy or attempt to take part; or, having signed the deposition of Nestorius, have gone over to the apostate assembly: such ones, according to the will of the holy council, are to be completely alien to the priesthood and deposed from their degree.

Zonara. When John of Antioch, and Theodoret and Ibas, as said, opposed the teaching accepted by the assembly of fathers, some other bishops also joined them—some from those not present at the council, others from those who were present and confirmed with their own signatures the definition concerning the deposition of Nestorius. Therefore, the present rule discusses these and decrees that they are deprived of the priesthood. This should be understood properly of bishops; but the expression “deposed from their degree” should be referred to clerics, for they are on degrees, and priests have a greater degree or dignity, deacons a lesser, and the others in order.

Aristen. And a bishop who agrees and is of like mind with Nestorius is excommunicated from the church.

Valsamon. The content of the present second rule is explained in the first rule, for that speaks of one and the same thing with this. But this rule adds that those who signed under the deposition of Nestorius but afterward joined the side of John of Antioch are also considered deposed. And as for the rule mentioning at the end alienation from the priesthood and deposition from the degree, say that alienation from the priesthood refers to bishops, but deposition from the degree to clerics, to whom degrees properly belong, so that clerics who have joined the side of the apostates in any way are subject to deposition. Nevertheless, the first rule, speaking at the end about bishops, also calls the episcopate a degree.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop thinks in the same way as Nestorius and is of one mind with him, let him be rejected.

Canon 3. If any of those belonging to the clergy in each city or village have been forbidden the priesthood by Nestorius and his accomplices for orthodox thinking: we have given such ones the right to receive back their degree. In general, we command that members of the clergy who are of one mind with the orthodox and ecumenical council in no way be subject to bishops who have apostatized or are apostatizing from orthodoxy.

Zonara. Nestorius, being, as said, patriarch of Constantinople, excommunicated some clerics who thought not in agreement with him; the bishops of like mind with him did the same in other cities. Therefore, those who were forbidden the priesthood for disagreement with the impiety of Nestorius and his like-minded ones, the holy council by the present rule has restored to their degrees, and has determined that orthodox clerics in no way be subject to bishops of like mind with Nestorius, neither as clerics nor as those simply being ordained and thus subject to bishops, or obliged to give them a fixed tribute.

Aristen. Whoever was forbidden the priesthood by Nestorius must necessarily perform priestly functions, but whoever was received by him is not consecrated.

Valsamon. Without doubt, some orthodox clerics did not think as Nestorius or the bishops of like mind with him thought, and for this were excommunicated. Therefore, this rule restores such ones to their degrees and adds that not only they preserve their ranks, but all clerics of such bishops in no way submit to them as apostates.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop or presbyter or deacon was deprived of the priesthood by Nestorius, he is most holy. But whomever he received, that one is not consecrated.

Canon 4. If any of the clergy apostatize and dare, either privately or publicly, to hold to the thinking of Nestorius or Celestine: the holy council has judged it righteous for these also to be deposed from the sacred order.

Zonara. This rule also discusses clerics of like mind with the heretics and says that in any case—whether they hold incorrect opinions personally and only for themselves, or publicly teach all and preach—the holy council has judged it righteous (instead of: judged it just and decreed) that they be deposed. And Celestine was of like mind with Nestorius.

Aristen. If some of the clerics were of like mind with Celestine or Nestorius, they should be deposed.

Valsamon. This rule is similar to those preceding it; for it says that clerics who thought in accordance with Nestorius or Celestius—whether they preached their teaching to others or not—are deposed. And the expression “has judged it righteous” is set down instead of: decreed it just.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any clerics think the commands of Celestine’s and Nestorius’s heresy, let them be deposed.

Canon 5. If certain ones have been condemned by the holy council, or by their own bishops, for unseemly deeds; and Nestorius, and those of like mind with him, contrary to the rules, according to his entirely arbitrary action in all things, has attempted or attempts to restore to them communion with the church, or the degree of the priesthood: we have judged it righteous that this be of no benefit to them, and that they remain nonetheless deposed from the sacred order.

Zonara. Some clerics, convicted of crimes for which they are subject to deposition and deprivation of their own degrees, were deposed and excommunicated. But Nestorius, as patriarch, contrary to the rules, received such ones arbitrarily, that is, without discernment, making no distinction between the forbidden and the not forbidden, and gave them communion or degree. Therefore, the fathers decreed that such ones receive no benefit, that is, that the action contrary to the rules brings them no advantage, and judged it righteous, that is, considered it just, that they nonetheless remain deposed, or judged it righteous, that is, imposed the penalty that they be deposed. For the expression “judged it righteous” is taken instead of “punished.” Hence we also say “those justifications there,” that is, the future punishments.

Aristen. To one condemned by a bishop and received by Nestorius, there is no benefit from this. Some metropolitans separated from those gathered at the council in Ephesus and accepted the teaching of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople—this worshipper of man and impious one, of like mind with the Jews—and of Celestius, bishop of Rome; and others left the council and did not wish to vote against these unhallowed and impious bishops, but rather adhered to them and defended them. Therefore, for this reason the holy council determined that those who adhere to Nestorius and Celestius and hold that heresy and think thus should be excluded from the Christian society and excommunicated from the church, and that bishops and presbyters whom Nestorius or Celestius had deprived of the priesthood, because they thought and believed rightly, should again receive their rank; likewise, on the contrary, those who were deposed by their own bishops for certain evil deeds, and were received and justified by Nestorius or Celestius, were unholy and again to be deposed.

Valsamon. You know that metropolitans and bishops can judge their clerics and sometimes subject them to excommunication or even deposition. Therefore, since Nestorius and those of like mind with him, contrary to the rules, received some such ones (that is, excommunicated) into communion, or even restored them to their former degrees, in order to draw them to themselves in this way; the present rule says that clerics receive no benefit for themselves from this, but remain deposed or even excommunicated. The expression “judged it righteous” is here set down instead of: “the council decreed it just.”

Slavic Kormchaya. If any cleric, having been condemned by his own bishop and received by Nestorius, even that one is again not received and unfit.

Interpretation of the five previously mentioned rules. When the holy fathers gathered at the council in Ephesus, and certain metropolitans separated from the orthodox and held heretical commands of the impious Nestorius, bishop of the city of Constantine—this one who believed in a man and thought like the Jews—and of Celestine, bishop of Rome. Certain bishops also remained away and did not come to the council and did not wish to condemn or curse these unhallowed and impious bishops, but rather championed and aided them. For this reason, therefore, the holy council commanded that those aiding Nestorius and Celestine, and holding that heresy and thinking thus, be cast out from the rank and expelled from the church; but bishops and presbyters whom Nestorius and Celestine had deposed from the priesthood, because they thought rightly and believed, should again receive their rank. Likewise again, those who had been deposed by their own bishops for certain evil deeds, and were received and justified by Nestorius and Celestine, are again not holy: and immediately let them be deposed.

Canon 6. Likewise, if certain ones should wish, in any way whatsoever, to disturb what has been done concerning each of them by the holy council in Ephesus, the holy council has determined that such ones, if they are bishops or belong to the clergy, be completely deprived of their degree; but if laymen: be excommunicated from church communion.

Zonara. The preceding rules gave decrees particularly concerning those who were of like mind with the apostates and opposed the council and accepted Nestorius’s false teaching. But this present rule condemns in general all those who attempt to pervert anything in what was accepted at the holy council, and subjects the consecrated to deposition, and imposes excommunication on laymen. This was in Ephesus. But when the hierarchs began to act against one another, and division occurred among them, then the emperor summoned all to the imperial city, reconciled and made peace. And Theodoret confessed that the chapters written by him he had composed in a spirit of enmity, rejected them, accepted the conciliar definitions, and agreed to the deposition of Nestorius, both he himself and the others. This rule was enacted by the council after the impious symbol set forth by Nestorius had been brought to the council and read, as well as the symbol of the three hundred eighteen fathers who were at the first council.

Aristen. A layman opposing the council is deprived of communion, and a cleric is also excommunicated from the church. Whoever again subjects to discussion, or entirely disturbs what was done by the council held in Ephesus, that one, if a bishop or cleric, must be completely deprived of his degree; but if a layman, must be excommunicated from church communion.

Valsamon. This rule is clear, for it determines that those who disturb what was done at the council held in Ephesus, if clerics, are deposed, but if laymen, are excommunicated from church communion. But the seventh rule says that laymen thinking contrary to the dogma (of Ephesus) are subject to anathema. Do not think there is contradiction here; for there is a great difference between contradicting and doubting something about any matter. Therefore, one doubting concerning what has already been established on good grounds must be excommunicated; but one opposing it, as thinking contrary, must be subjected to anathema.

Slavic Kormchaya. A worldly man is without communion who opposes the council. But if a cleric, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. What the holy fathers at the council in Ephesus commanded and ordered, if anyone attempts to pervert this or entirely add to it: if he is a bishop or cleric, let him utterly fall from his degree: but if he is a worldly man, let him be excommunicated.

Canon 7. After the reading of this, the holy council determined: that it be permitted to no one to pronounce, or write, or compose a different faith, other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicaea with the Holy Ghost. But those who dare to compose a different faith, or to present, or to offer it to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth, whether from heathenism, or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: such ones, if they are bishops or belong to the clergy, shall be aliens—bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy; but if laymen: shall be given over to anathema. In like manner: if bishops, or clerics, or laymen are found either thinking or teaching what is contained in the exposition presented by the presbyter Charisius concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten Son of God, or the abominable and perverted dogmas of Nestorius, which are also appended hereto: they shall be subject to the judgment of this holy and ecumenical council, that is, a bishop shall be alien to the episcopate and shall be deposed; a cleric likewise shall be deposed from the clergy; but if a layman: shall be given over to anathema, as has been said.

Zonara. The impious Nestorius not only taught others his godless opinions and openly preached them, but, to greater boldness, set forth also a symbol containing in clear expressions all his evil thoughts and blasphemies concerning the incarnation of the Son and Word of God. This symbol, presented to the council by the presbyter Charisius, and read, was condemned as full of impiety. And the divine fathers determined that the symbol composed at the first council should retain force, and all that is set forth in it; but that no one compose or devise another faith. But if anyone should dare, to those coming to the knowledge of the truth from the Greeks, or from the Jews, or from heretics, to offer another faith, that is, to teach and instruct in opinions perverted and alien to the teaching of the holy fathers, such ones, if bishops or clerics, the divine fathers command to deprive of the episcopate or service in the clergy, that is, to depose, but if laymen, to give over to anathema. In like manner also those who think in accordance with Nestorius, and accept or even teach the blasphemous opinions contained in the symbol composed by Nestorius—which says that the Son and Word of God did not take flesh from the Holy Virgin, but that Christ is a mere man, and that the Son of God and Word was united with him by favor; which divides Christ and God into two Sons and into two hypostases, and calls the Holy Virgin not God-bearer but Christ-bearer—the sacred council determined to subject to the same penalties, whether they be bishops, or clerics, or laymen, that is, to depose the consecrated, and to give laymen over to anathema.

Aristen. A bishop preaching a different faith besides the Nicene is deprived of the episcopate, and a layman is even expelled from the church. Whoever, besides the faith composed by the holy fathers assembled in Nicaea—that is, I believe in one God—adds some other impious composition for the corruption and destruction of those turning to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism, or Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: if a layman, must be given over to anathema; but if a bishop or cleric, must be deprived of the episcopate and service in the clergy.

Valsamon. After the definition enacted concerning the dogma confirmed by the holy council held in Ephesus had been read before all, and likewise the holy symbol set forth at the first council had been read, this rule was pronounced, and it was determined that no one compose another faith; but if anyone dares, to those coming to the knowledge of the truth from the Greeks, or Jews, or from other heretics, to offer another faith; then, when these are bishops and clerics, they must be deposed, but when laymen, must be given over to anathema. The same must be with those who accept Nestorius’s opinions and teach them to others. And since one presbyter named Charisius, having accepted the impious opinions of Nestorius, brought some exposition of Nestorius’s writings, and this exposition was condemned as impious, the rule determines that those who think in accordance with the content of this exposition or teach it are subject to the same penalties.

Slavic Kormchaya. Whoever adds another to the Nicene faith, a bishop is indeed alien to the episcopate: but a worldly man is rejected.

Interpretation. Whoever beyond the faith which the holy fathers of Nicaea, having assembled, set forth—that is, I believe in one God—if anyone adds some other impious composition for the corruption and destruction of those turning from the Greeks, or from the Jews, or from another heresy to the knowledge of the truth: if he is a bishop or cleric, let him be expelled from the episcopate and deposed from the rank. Book of Rules. Before this at the council, the Nicene Symbol was read, and the corrupted exposition of the Symbol presented to the council by the presbyter Charisius of Philadelphia.

Canon 8. The matter, contrary to the ecclesiastical decrees and the rules of the holy Apostles, being newly introduced and encroaching upon the freedom of all, was announced by the most God-loving fellow bishop Rheginus, and the most reverent bishops of the province of Cyprus who are with him, Zeno and Evagrius. Therefore, since common maladies require stronger remedy, as bringing greater harm, and especially if there was no ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Antioch should perform ordinations in Cyprus, as the most reverent men who came to the holy council have informed us both in writing and orally; let those who preside over the holy churches of Cyprus have the freedom, without claim upon them and without constraint upon them, according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to the ancient custom, to perform the ordinations of the most reverent bishops by themselves. The same is to be observed also in the other provinces and everywhere in the dioceses: so that none of the most God-loving bishops extend authority over another diocese which from the beginning and at first was not under his hand or that of his predecessors: but if anyone has extended it and has forcibly subjected some diocese to himself, let him restore it: lest the rules of the fathers be transgressed, lest under the pretext of sacred ministry the arrogance of worldly power creep in; and lest we lose little by little, imperceptibly, that freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, granted us by His own blood. And thus it seems good to the holy and ecumenical council that every diocese preserve purely and without constraint the rights belonging to it from the beginning, according to the custom established from ancient times. Each metropolitan, for his own assurance, may freely take a copy of this decree. But if anyone produces a decree contrary to what is now determined: it seems good to the whole holy and ecumenical council that it be invalid.

Zonara. The hierarch of the church of Antioch was drawing to himself the ordinations of the Cypriot bishops, perhaps because in ancient times the island of Cyprus was under the authority of the governor of Antioch; for from the governor of Antioch a military commander was sent there. Therefore, some of the Cypriot bishops came to this council and explained orally, and at the same time presented a written complaint, that the bishop of Antioch, according to ancient custom, had no right to ordain Cypriot bishops. Therefore, the council, taking into account the coming or arrival of these bishops, determined that the Cypriot bishops, without claim upon them and without constraint upon them, should have the former right according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to the ancient custom. For the thirty-fifth rule of the holy Apostles and the third of the council of Antioch command that bishops not dare to perform ordinations in dioceses not subject to them; otherwise, what they have done is invalid, and they themselves are deposed. And the sixth and seventh rules of the first ecumenical council prescribe that hierarchs preserve ancient customs. Following these rules, the venerable fathers of this council also determined that the Cypriot bishops themselves perform the ordination of bishops on this island, and that the same be everywhere, and that no bishop appropriate to himself a diocese which formerly, or from ancient times and from the beginning, was not under the authority of him and his predecessors. But if anyone, they say, has appropriated to himself a diocese not belonging to him, he must restore it to the one who suffered violence and from whom it was taken, lest the rules be transgressed, and lest hierarchs, having sacred ministry as pretext and covering themselves with it as with some veil, be carried away by the vainglory of worldly power that enters into them, and lest we, being in slavish dependence on what has no right, be deprived of the freedom which the Lord granted us, having shed His blood for the freedom of men. Therefore, the holy council determined that, according to ancient custom, the rights belonging to each diocese be preserved, and gave permission to metropolitans to take copies of this definition; but if, it says, a decree or some writing is produced that enacts and determines something else, and not what is now determined—such is to be invalid.

Aristen. Let the rights belonging to each diocese be preserved purely and without constraint. But whoever introduces a decree contrary to them, such a decree is void. Those bishops who have subjected to their authority another diocese which from the beginning and at first was not subject to them, or have seized some privilege of another episcopal see, will acquire for themselves through this no lawful right; but they must again be returned to those bishops who have right over them. Because the rights of each diocese must belong to it purely and without constraint, and the arrogance of worldly power must not creep in under the pretext of sacred ministry. But the one who introduces another decree, not in agreement and contrary to what is here determined, will gain no benefit for himself from it.

Valsamon. Before the separation of great Antioch from the Roman empire, the emperor sent a governor to it, and he sent a military commander to the island of Cyprus, as subject to Antioch. But the bishops were governed and ordained by themselves. Therefore, when the then bishop of Antioch attempted, as it appears, to perform ordinations in the Cypriot churches under the pretext that the governor of Antioch sends a military commander to the island, the Cypriot bishops reported this to the council of Ephesus. And the council, taking into account their coming or arrival, determined that the Cypriot bishops, according to the rules and ancient custom, be ordained by themselves, as this, it says, must be also in the other provinces and dioceses; for no bishop can appropriate to himself another diocese not subject to him from ancient times, but on the contrary, even those who do something such and who forcibly and arbitrarily retain a foreign province must restore it, lest the rules be transgressed, and under the pretext of sacred ministry, the arrogance of worldly power or vainglory be manifested in hierarchs. The council also determined that each metropolitan take a copy of this rule for his own security, and that no other written decree or imperial command contrary to this rule have force, if anyone produces such. Read also the second rule of the Second council, the twenty-eighth of the Fourth council, the thirty-ninth of the Sixth council, and what is written in them; and you will learn how the churches located in the Roman empire were subjected to the throne of Constantinople, with the exception of some.

Slavic Kormchaya. In each province, for the bishop who is there, and those under it, let the rights be preserved purely and immovably. But if anyone introduces contrary to this statute, he labors in vain.

Interpretation. Whatever a bishop from another province has taken away and taken under his own hands, which was not under them from the beginning, whether a village, or vineyard, or land, or anything else which they have seized from another episcopal see, let them make nothing of it their own, nor retain it, but let them restore it soon to the episcopal see under which it was before: for it is fitting to keep purely and immovably what belongs to each province under it: lest the arrogance of worldly power enter into them with the pretext of hierarchal office. But if anyone introduces another statute, speaking against and opposing what is commanded at this council, he will accomplish nothing, but labors in vain.

The Epistle of the Same Holy and Ecumenical Third Council to the Sacred Synod of Pamphylia Concerning Eustathius, Formerly Their Metropolitan

Since the divinely inspired Scripture saith: Do all things with counsel; it is especially fitting for those who have received the lot of sacred ministry to examine with all precision everything that ought to be done. For with those who desire to conduct their life in this manner, it follows that they are found in a secure position, and are borne along as by a favorable wind in the direction of their desires. This saying is most plausible. Yet sometimes it happens that bitter and intolerable grief, weighing upon the mind, greatly disturbs it, turns it aside from striving toward what is due, and disposes it, as though toward something beneficial, to look upon what is in its essence unfavorable. Something of this kind we have observed to have befallen the most reverent and most pious bishop Eustathius. He was ordained, as has been attested, according to the ecclesiastical rules. But having been disturbed by certain matters, as he relates, and having fallen into unexpected circumstances, afterward, through excessive inactivity, wearied by the struggle with the cares that burdened him, and unable to repel the accusations of his opponents, in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation of his diocese. For to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it fast with spiritual fortitude, as it were to arm himself for labors, and willingly to endure the sweat that promises recompense. But since he once showed himself remiss—though this occurred in him more through inactivity than through negligence and sloth—your piety of necessity ordained the most reverent and most pious brother and fellow bishop of ours, Theodore, for the governance of the church: for it was not fitting that it should be widowed, and that the flock of the Saviour should be without a leader. And since he came with tears, not contesting the city or the church against the aforementioned most pious bishop Theodore, but seeking only the honor and title of bishop: we all felt deep compassion for this elder, and counting his tears as common to us all, hastened to inquire whether he had undergone lawful deposition, or had only been accused by certain persons in some improper actions, who had obscured his good repute. And we learned that nothing of the kind had been done by him, but especially that the renunciation of his diocese was charged against him as fault. Therefore, we do not blame your piety for duly installing in his place the aforementioned most reverent bishop Theodore. But since it is not fitting to reproach greatly the inactivity of this man, but rather it was needful to show mercy to the elder who had dwelt for so long a time outside the city in which he was born and outside his paternal home; we have judged it righteous and determined: that without any contradiction he have the name, and the honor of bishop, and communion; with this alone, that he neither ordain, nor occupy a church, nor perform sacred ministry on his own authority, but only when either the brother and fellow bishop invites him to do so with himself, or, if it should happen, permits him, out of good disposition and love in Christ. But if a more favorable counsel concerning him be resolved, now or hereafter: this also will be pleasing to the holy council.

Zonara. Eustathius, of whom this epistle speaks, was bishop of Pamphylia. And Pamphylia is the diocese of Attalia. Therefore, the named man, having fallen into misfortunes, and through faintheartedness and inactivity having renounced the governance of his episcopal see, presented also a written abdication from the episcopate. Although another was ordained in his place there, yet Eustathius came with tears to this sacred council, and did not demand for himself the restoration of the city or the church, nor did he dispute about them with the one ordained after him, but sought the name and honor of bishop, that is, he wished to be called bishop and to have honor in the thrones and other such things that belong to a bishop. Therefore, the sacred council says: we felt deep compassion for the elder, counted his tears as common to us, and conducted an inquiry to learn whether this man had been deposed according to the rules, perhaps as a result of accusations by someone in some improper actions. But when we learned that nothing of the kind had occurred with him, but that he had renounced the episcopate, and therefore ought to lose it for inactivity, we judged that the inactivity of this man should not be reproached, that is, his incapacity for affairs, but considered that it was better to show mercy to the elder who had long been deprived of his homeland and paternal home. Therefore, we determined and judged it righteous that he have the name of the episcopate, and honor, and communion—that is, the right to enter within the altar and to communicate; but that he himself neither perform sacred ministry nor ordain, unless invited by another bishop to concelebrate with him or to joint ordination, or unless he receive commission from the bishop of that province to perform something of the kind. And we, says the council, have granted him this; but if you resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel, either now or hereafter—that is, grant him some greater rights or privileges—this also will be pleasing to us. From this conciliar condescension, some think to draw the conclusion that bishops are given the right to renounce their churches while retaining the hierarchate. But I think that from this rather the opposite follows, namely, that in antiquity those renouncing the episcopate were deprived of everything they had until then, and after renunciation had no hierarchical right whatever, and were not called bishops. For if it was the custom that one who renounced preserved hierarchical rights, then why precisely did Eustathius come with tears to the sacred council and ask to be called bishop and to have the honor of bishop, and why did the council write about this to the synod of Pamphylia? Therefore, from this epistle it is revealed that complete renunciation by hierarchs from the episcopate was subject to condemnation and did not exist at that time, for in the epistle it is said that “wearied by cares through excessive inactivity, in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation. For to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it fast with spiritual fortitude, as it were to arm himself for labors, and willingly to endure the sweat that promises recompense.” Therefore, that there was no custom then to present renunciations from churches—this is evident from what the council wrote: “in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation.” For it is characteristic only of those to whom the matter appears strange and who are perplexed to say: we know not how this or that happened; but if the matter were customary, there would be no perplexity. The addition: “for to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it” and so forth makes clear that renunciation from hierarchical cares is not permitted, but rather forbidden and condemned. For if even those only at first called to pastoral service for the people, in case of disobedience to those electing them, are subject to excommunication according to the thirty-sixth rule of the holy Apostles until they accept the service, and according to the seventeenth rule of the council of Antioch; then how can those ordained and having accepted leadership over the people be received without peril when they refuse and renounce the service entrusted to them by divine grace? How will such ones not be subject to penalties, but have the distinction of being called bishops and receiving hierarchical honor? This the council of Antioch granted as a privilege to one ordained for some place but not accepted by the people there, not through his own fault but through the disorder and malice of the people, as is said in the eighteenth rule of that council. And the letter of the said epistle shows that all this was condescension to the faintheartedness of Eustathius and his excessive grief. For in the epistle it is said that when he came and with tears asked for this and that, we all felt deep compassion for the elder and counted his tears as common to us all; and a little further: “but since it is not fitting to reproach greatly the inactivity of this man, but rather it was needful to show mercy to the elder” and so forth. Therefore, from this it is evident that the fathers of the council, moved by the tears and deep old age of this man, and fearing lest from excessive sorrow something happen to him, showed the condescension that they showed, but did not set this as a law nor prescribe that it be so in the future. For they certainly knew the rules and would not have determined anything contrary to the apostolic rules and the decrees of the holy fathers before them, nor would they have allowed those wishing both to renounce and to enjoy hierarchical privileges after renunciation. For how could those do this who think that one having once taken upon himself hierarchical care must hold it with spiritual fortitude, and what follows therefrom? But that they did all this, being moved by the tears of that elder—this is revealed both from many other expressions in the epistle and from the following written words: “but if you resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel, this also will be pleasing to the holy council”; they so pitied this man, being moved by his tears and misfortune, that they even encouraged others to mercy toward him and called them to compassion. But if this conciliar epistle is taken as a rule and not as condescension shown to this Eustathius; then why, to those who have renounced their churches and the hierarchate itself, in the case that they again come and weep, are not given both the name of the episcopate and hierarchical rights and honor? Because such a one appears to have once renounced everything and to be deprived of everything, as is evident from the words of the fathers of the council: “we conducted an inquiry to learn whether he had undergone lawful deposition, or had only been accused in some improper actions. And we learned that nothing of the kind had been done by him, but especially that the renunciation was charged against Eustathius as fault.” Therefore, just as if he had been convicted in some improper action, exactly so through renunciation he appears deprived of all episcopal rights, so that he even seems to the council deposed. Nevertheless, the council, inclined by his tears, determined what is contained in the epistle. Therefore, to those who take the epistle as a rule and decree, it will not seem strange at all that those intending to renounce the governance of affairs and the hierarchate itself (which, in their opinion, are separated one from the other) again accept both and appropriate to themselves the title of bishop, and sacred ministry, and honor. Consequently, those who make use of this epistle as a rule and think that it gives bishops the right to renounce their churches while retaining the hierarchate for themselves reason not in accordance with the mind of these venerable fathers. Those concluding thus also contradict another rule. For the council of the six hundred thirty holy fathers held in Chalcedon, in its sixth rule, decreed: “absolutely no one is to be ordained either presbyter or deacon, nor into any degree of the ecclesiastical order, otherwise than with appointment of the one ordained precisely to an urban church, or rural, or to a martyr’s shrine, or to a monastery; but those ordained without precise appointment (the council determined) their ordination is to be accounted invalid, and nowhere to allow them to serve, to the shame of the one who ordained them.” Therefore, if those having a lesser degree without precise appointment are not admitted to ordination, but even if ordained remain inactive, and such a matter seemed so improper that even the ordainer is accounted worthy of shame; then how can one having a greater, or rather the highest of all ranks, become a bishop without appointment and without name, and be called bishop, and be honored with hierarchical rights? For every hierarch at ordination is appointed to some city and is named bishop of it. Therefore, one who has left the city to which he was appointed, and renounced performing sacred ministry in it and watching over the flock of the Great Shepherd therein, how will he henceforth be called bishop, and over whom will he watch? For the name of bishop designates his work and activity; and he who has ceased the activity has thereby lost the name. But he who cannot be called bishop, can he take part in any right of the priesthood, can he enjoy hierarchical privilege and honor? How will he even be named among hierarchs who has no clergy under his authority and does not rule over the consecrated? But to whom the name of hierarchy does not truly belong, to him neither does the activity belong; for one not participating in the name much less ought to participate in the work. Therefore, in conclusion, no one ought to be allowed to renounce the episcopal service laid upon him, except one who declares himself unworthy of the priesthood. But if anyone gives proof that the one renouncing did not receive the episcopate in a fully canonical manner; then the one renouncing, together with presenting the renunciation, ought to be deprived of all priestly rank and every right pertaining to the hierarchate. That renunciation ought not to be allowed is clearly evident also from the third chapter of the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus, where it is said: “but besides this, it is not in accord with ecclesiastical decrees that certain sacred ministers present a written renunciation” and so forth. Seek also what is written in the tenth rule of the holy hieromartyr Peter, archbishop of Alexandria.

Aristen. Eustathius, who ought to have borne the labors of the episcopate with fortitude (for thus every bishop must do), turned his back and faintheartedly renounced it. In his stead Theodore was ordained; but he, with tears and shame, asks for the honor of the episcopate. The one ordained in his stead is guiltless, precisely because instead of accusation he has Eustathius’s renunciation. This bishop Eustathius, through inactivity and being unable to govern the affairs of the church, and to struggle with the cares coming upon him and to withstand them, renounced the governance of affairs, and another was ordained in his stead. Afterward he came to the council held in Ephesus and did not ask for the restoration of the episcopate to himself (for if he had asked this, he would not even have been heard, since he had once renounced it, and another had been ordained in his place); but he sought episcopal honor and communion. And he was acknowledged in this without any contradiction, so that it was permitted him both to be called bishop, and to have honor and throne, and to perform sacred ministry only not on his own authority, but when he receives permission from the brother and fellow bishop out of good disposition and love in Christ. Out of compassion, the fathers of this council proposed to the synod of Pamphylia, to which Eustathius also belonged, to resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel either now or hereafter. This meant—either to receive him into a vacant church, or otherwise to deal with him in some way.

Valsamon. Pamphylia is the diocese of Attalia. And when one Eustathius, who was bishop in it, renounced the episcopate in writing because of certain disturbances and administrative circumstances, but afterward again asked with tears to have only the honor and title of bishop, the holy council was moved by this and, through the present epistle sent to the synod of Pamphylia, determined that the elder be deemed worthy of mercy, and that Theodore, installed as bishop in Pamphylia, remain bishop again, but Eustathius, as not deposed but having renounced through inactivity, have, by condescension, what he sought—that is, the name and honor of bishop, and communion, that is, the right to communicate within the altar; but that he perform nothing episcopal unless there be permission for this from the local bishop. For the council did not consider it just to reproach the inactivity of this man, that is, his incapacity for affairs. On the basis of such content of the epistle, some say that by this epistle hierarchs are given the right to renounce the thrones of churches but to preserve the hierarchate; for, they say, if this were not possible, the council would not have allowed Eustathius to have the name and honor of bishop and, with the consent of the local bishop, to perform sacred ministry. But this, as I think, is unjust. For what was determined by the fathers was determined by condescension; and what is determined by condescension for some useful purpose ought not to be brought forward as an example and retained for the future as a rule. Otherwise, when the epistle itself does not say that Eustathius renounced the performance of episcopal service and retained the priesthood (for he would not have asked to receive what he had); but speaks only of his having renounced the episcopate, and when the fathers did not determine that what was allowed out of compassion in relation to Eustathius has force also for subsequent time—then on what basis do they divide the indivisible and elevate to law what is not contained in the epistle? And I think that this condescension was allowed not without prudence. For when the rules and the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus determine that no one of the priests present written renunciations (because if, they say, they are worthy of service, they must remain in it, but if unworthy, they must not depart through renunciation, but when they are condemned according to the matters); then how can anyone say that the council of Ephesus, and especially the great Cyril who presided over it, made a determination contrary to himself and the other fathers? But as the renunciation of Eustathius, as it seems, was not firm but wavered in some parts; therefore the holy council, by condescension, inclined to such a determination. And that the renunciation of Eustathius was such is revealed also from the epistle itself, in which it is said: “in a manner we know not how Eustathius presented a written renunciation” and as though the acceptance of this renunciation is presented as strange. For if it were unshakable in all things, Eustathius would not have been given the right either to be called bishop or to perform sacred ministry, so that the condescension given in the present epistle is not universal. This is revealed also from what the fathers wrote, that it would be pleasing to the council if from the side of the local bishops there were also some other more favorable counsel concerning this elder. Say further: since the council of Chalcedon determines that absolutely no one be ordained without appointment; then a bishop retaining only the priesthood, as some say, hierarch of what priests will be called, or whom will he teach? Over whom will he exercise episcopate? Absolutely over no one. Therefore, that priesthood alone cannot be retained and preserve force. Seek also the ninth rule of Saint Peter, archbishop of Alexandria.

Slavic Kormchaya. From the epistle of the same council to the bishops in Pamphylia. This is the ninth rule. It is fitting for Eustathius to endure in the episcopate firmly. For this is due to every bishop, but he, turning his shoulders, renounced it harmfully: but Theodore was installed in his place, and he, weeping and beseeching, asking for honor, is guiltless. But the one installed in his place, having clearly his renunciation, is without sin.

Interpretation. This Eustathius, bishop of Pamphylia—and Pamphylia is the province of Italy—being weak and unable to govern ecclesiastical matters, and to manage and direct the cares coming upon him, renounced the governance of ecclesiastical matters, that is, to abandon the episcopate by writing, and another was installed in his place, by name Theodore. And afterward he came to the council of Ephesus, beseeching and bowing, not wishing to receive the episcopate again. For if he had asked for the episcopate again, they would not have listened to him, having once renounced it, and another already installed in his place in it, but asking to have episcopal honor and communion: and he was justified in it by the holy council without any contradiction, so that he might both be called bishop, and have hierarchal honor and seat, and serve and ordain presbyters and deacons, not by his own lordship nor by his own will when he wishes, but when some brother bishop commands him to serve in his church or to ordain someone, out of good disposition and for the sake of love in Christ. But by the mercy of the fathers of this holy council, they added this word to the synod in Pamphylia, saying: but if you accomplish something better concerning him, either now or hereafter: this is, either to introduce him into a vacant church not having a bishop, or in some other way to grant aid to him by gift.

source

On the Council

Zonara and Valsamon. The holy and ecumenical Second Council was held under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, in Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers assembled against the Spirit-fighters, and they set forth the following rules.

Slavic Kormchaya. The holy ecumenical Second Council was held under the Tsar Theodosius the Great, in the city of Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered from various places against Macedonius the Spirit-fighter. And they set forth rules, eight in number. The proclamation of that holy council to the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great, to which they appended the rules set forth by them.

To the God-loving and pious Tsar Theodosius, the holy council of bishops who have assembled in the city of Constantinople from various provinces: The beginning of our writing to thy piety is thanksgiving to God, who hath shewn the kingdom of thy piety for the common peace of the churches and the establishment of the sound faith. Rendering therefore due thanksgiving unto God with diligence, we send also in writing to thy piety the things done at the Holy Council. For having assembled in the city of Constantinople according to the letter of thy piety, first we renewed our mutual union, and then we briefly set forth rules. And we confirmed the faith of the holy fathers which was at Nicaea, and we anathematized the heresies that had arisen against it. To these also we ordained clear rules concerning the good order of the holy churches, which we have appended to this our letter. We now pray thy meekness to confirm by a letter of thy piety the judgment of the holy [council]. For as by the letters summoning us thou hast honoured the church, so also seal thou the end of the things done at the council. And may the Lord stablish thy kingdom in peace and righteousness, and add unto thee the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom to thy earthly dominion. May God grant thee health and shining in all good things to the whole world, by the prayers of the saints, as a king truly pious and God-loving.

These rules were set forth in the city of Constantinople, by the grace of God, by the bishops assembled, one hundred and fifty, from various provinces, by the command of the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great.

Canon 1. The Holy Fathers assembled in Constantinople decreed: Let the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea in Bithynia not be abrogated, but let it remain inviolate; and let every heresy be anathematized, and specifically the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Spirit-fighters, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians.

Zonara. The Second Council was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son; the present rule also calls them Semi-Arians, for they held half of the Arian heresy. The latter taught that the Son and the Spirit are of another essence than the Father and are creatures; but the Spirit-fighters thought soundly about the Son, while they taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, that He is created and does not have the divine nature. Those also were called Semi-Arians who regarded both the Son and the Spirit as creatures, but added: “We think that they came into being not in the same way as the other creatures, but in some other manner; and we say this so that it may not be thought that through generation the Father was subject to suffering”; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial but like in essence to the Father. This Second Council, by the present rule, confirmed the orthodox faith proclaimed by the Holy Fathers who were at Nicaea, and decreed that every heresy be anathematized, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus; but he thought the same as Arius, and even worse and more evil things; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servile, and in no way like the Father. He also re-baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head downward while turning their feet upward, and at baptism performing a single immersion. And concerning future punishment and hell he spoke absurdly, that this is not true, but was said as a threat for intimidation. They were also called Eudoxians after a certain Eudoxius who shared in the Eunomian heresy, who, having been bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness whatsoever to the Father in essence. The Council decrees that the Sabellians also be anathematized, who received their name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, and who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged the three hypostases of the one essence and Godhead into one person, and honoured in the Trinity one person with three names, saying that one and the same sometimes appeared as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit, transforming Himself and at different times assuming different forms. In like manner the Council anathematizes the heresy of the Marcellians, which received its name from the heresiarch Marcellus, who came from Ancyra in Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Sabellius. Likewise it anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only Spirit; and concerning the Word he thought that it is some divine command uttered by the mouth, serving God for the accomplishment of all things, like some mechanical instrument; and concerning Christ he preached that He is a mere man who received the Word of God, not as having essence, but as proceeding from the mouth—and taught that He received the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata said many other great absurdities, whom the Antiochian council deposed. Together with the others the Council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was bishop in Laodicea of Syria, and taught blasphemously concerning the dispensation of salvation; for he said that the Son of God, although He assumed from the Holy Theotokos an animate body, did so without a mind, since the Godhead took the place of the mind, and he thought that the soul of the Lord does not have reason; and thus he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Saviour has one nature.

Aristen. The Nicene faith must be firmly preserved, and heresies must be subject to anathema.

Valsamon. The present holy Second Council was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son; the present rule also calls them Semi-Arians, for they held half of the Arian heresy. The latter taught that the Son and the Spirit are creatures and of another essence than the Father; but the Spirit-fighters thought soundly about the Son, while they taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, that He is created and does not have the divine nature. Those also were called Semi-Arians who regarded both the Son and the Spirit as creatures, but added: “We think that they came into being not in the same way as the other creatures, but in some other manner; and we say this so that it may not be thought that through generation the Father was subject to suffering”; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial but like in essence to the Father. This Second Council, by the present rule, confirmed the orthodox faith proclaimed by the fathers who were at Nicaea, and decreed that every heresy be anathematized, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus, but he thought the same as Arius, and even worse and more evil things; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servile, and in no way like the Father. He also re-baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head downward while turning their feet upward, and at baptism performing a single immersion. And concerning future punishment and hell he spoke absurdly, that this is not true, but was said as a threat for intimidation. They were also called Eudoxians after a certain Eudoxius who shared in the Eunomian heresy, who, having been bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness whatsoever to the Father in essence. The Council decrees that the Sabellians also be anathematized, who received their name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, and who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged the three hypostases of the one essence and Godhead into one person, and honoured in the Holy Trinity one person with three names, saying that one and the same sometimes appeared as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit, transforming Himself and at different times assuming different forms. In like manner the Council anathematizes the heresy of the Marcellians, which received its name from the heresiarch Marcellus, who came from Ancyra in Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Sabellius. Likewise it anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only Spirit; and concerning the Word he thought that it is some divine command uttered by the mouth, serving God for the accomplishment of all things, like some mechanical instrument; and concerning Christ he preached that He is a mere man who received the Word of God, not as having essence, but as proceeding from the mouth—and taught that He received the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata said many other great absurdities, whom the Antiochian council deposed. Together with the others the Council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was bishop in Laodicea of Syria, and taught blasphemously concerning the dispensation of salvation; for he said that the Son of God, although He assumed from the Holy Theotokos an animate body, did so without a mind, since the Godhead took the place of the mind, and he thought that the soul of the Lord does not have reason; and thus he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Saviour has one nature.

Slavic Kormchaya. The faith of the holy fathers at Nicaea must be firmly held and remain. But the things spoken and written against it by heretics, and the heretics, shall be accursed. This rule is clear.

Canon 2. The bishops of the dioceses must not extend their authority over the churches beyond the limits of their own diocese, and must not confound the churches; but, according to the rules, the bishop of Alexandria must manage only the churches of Egypt; the bishops of the East must govern only in the East, while preserving the privileges of the Church of Antioch recognized by the Nicene rules; likewise the bishops of the Asian diocese must govern only in Asia; the bishops of Pontus must have in their charge only the affairs of the Pontic diocese; the Thracians only Thrace. Without being invited, bishops must not go beyond the limits of their own diocese for ordination or any other ecclesiastical administration. While preserving the above-described rule concerning ecclesiastical dioceses, it is clear that the affairs of each diocese will be ordered by the council of the same diocese, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian nations must be administered according to the custom of the fathers that has prevailed until now.

Zonara. Both the holy Apostles and afterwards the divine fathers took much care that there might be good order and peace in the churches. For the Apostles in their fourteenth rule laid down that it is not permitted for a bishop to cross into the diocese of another, leaving his own. And the fathers assembled at the First Council in Nicaea, in their sixth and seventh rules, ordained that the ancient customs be preserved—and that each throne manage the dioceses belonging to it. This same thing the present rule also determines, and commands that a bishop not extend his authority beyond his own diocese, that is, beyond the eparchy belonging to him, over churches outside his diocese, that is, those situated beyond the limits assigned to each (designating by the expression “extend authority” such things as a predatory and disorderly invasion), and not enter the diocese of another. The expression “beyond the limits of their own diocese” means that a bishop cannot perform any hierarchical administration without being invited; but he may if he is invited and receives commission for this from many bishops, according to the indicated Apostolic rule. The rule ordains that the affairs of ecclesiastical administration in each eparchy—such as elections, ordinations, and the resolution of questions concerning excommunications, penances, and the like—be managed by the council of each diocese. And since even among the barbarian nations there then existed churches of the faithful, where perhaps there were few bishops so that there were not enough of them to form a council, or it was necessary for someone distinguished by eloquence to visit frequently the dioceses of other bishops in order to instruct those turning to the faith and establish them in it; therefore the holy council permitted that in the future also they act in accordance with the custom that had been established among them up to that time.

Aristen. No bishop of another diocese must confound the churches by performing ordinations and elevations to thrones in foreign churches. But in the churches that are among the pagans, the custom of the fathers must be preserved.

In many rules it is said that a bishop must not intrude into a foreign episcopate; but each must remain within his own limits, not cross beyond his boundary into another’s, and not confound the churches. But in the churches among the pagans, in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, according to the sixth rule of the Nicene Council, the ancient customs must be preserved.

Valsamon. The sixth and seventh rules of the First Council established which dioceses must be subject to the pope of Rome, the bishop of Alexandria, the Antiochian, and the Jerusalemite. And the present rule determines that the bishops of Asia, the Pontic diocese, Thrace, and others manage affairs within their own limits, and that none of them has authority to act outside his limit and confound the rights of the churches. But if necessity requires that some bishop from his own diocese cross into another for ordination or for some other blessed reason, then he must not intrude into it disorderly and, so to speak, predatorily, but with the permission of the local bishop. And inasmuch as even then among the barbarian nations there existed churches of the faithful, where perhaps they did not ordain many bishops so that there were enough of them to form a council, or perhaps it was necessary for those distinguished by eloquence to visit frequently such eparchies of other bishops in order to establish those turning to the faith: therefore the holy council permitted that in the future also they be guided by such a custom, in view of the necessity of this matter, although it is not according to the rules. Thus, note from the present rule that in antiquity all the metropolitans of the eparchies were independent (autocephalous) and were ordained by their own councils. But this was changed by the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council, which ordained that the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, and also certain others indicated in that rule, be ordained by the patriarch of Constantinople and subject to him. But if you find other independent (autocephalous) churches, such as the Bulgarian, Cypriot, and Iberian, do not be surprised at this. The archbishop of the Bulgarians was honoured by the Emperor Justinian: read his 131st novella, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, Title 3, Chapter 1, placed in the commentary on Chapter 5, Title 1 of the present collection. The archbishop of Cyprus was honoured by the Third Council: read the eighth rule of that council and the thirty-ninth rule of the Sixth Council. And the archbishop of the Iberians was honoured by a decree of the Antiochian Council. They say that in the days of Lord Peter, the most holy patriarch of Theoupolis, that is, great Antioch, there was a conciliar decree that the Iberian church, which was then subject to the patriarch of Antioch, be free and independent (autocephalous). And Sicily, which not many years ago was subject to the throne of Constantinople, is now torn away from it by the hands of tyrants. And I pray that it also be restored to its former rights, through the intercession of our God-guided sovereign, as a certain captive daughter to her free mother. To attach, for the sake of better administration, to some churches other churches that are in the power of pagans is, as is fitting, permitted by the present rule. And recently the Constantinopolitan synod gave the church of Ancyra to the metropolitan of Nazianzus, and to various other hierarchs other churches were given. And to some was granted even the right to sit on the episcopal throne in the holy altar of the attached church.

Slavic Kormchaya. For the sake of limits, let no one confound the church, nor ordain a presbyter or bishop; but the churches of God that are among the nations must hold the custom of the holy fathers.

Interpretation. In many rules it is said that it is not fitting for a bishop to intrude upon a foreign episcopate, but each must remain within his own limits and ordain within his own limits. A bishop, therefore, presbyters and deacons. Likewise also a metropolitan his bishops in his own diocese; let them not leap beyond their own limits and confound the churches. But the churches of God that are among foreign-speaking peoples, which are in Egypt, and Libya, and in Pentapolis, must hold the ancient fatherly custom, as the sixth rule of the First Ecumenical Council which was in Nicaea ordains.

Canon 3. The bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome.

Zonara. After in the preceding rule prescriptions were given concerning the other patriarchal thrones, this rule mentioned also the throne of Constantinople and ordained that it have the prerogatives of honour, that is, primacy or superiority, as New Rome and the city of the emperor, after the bishop of Rome. Some thought that the preposition “after” signifies not a diminution of honour but a comparatively later appearance of this establishment. For although Byzantium was an ancient city and had independent government; yet under Severus, the Roman emperor, it was besieged by the Romans and for three years withstood war, and finally was taken due to lack of necessities for those enclosed in it. Its walls were destroyed, civil rights taken away, and it was subjected to the Perinthians. Perinthus is Heraclea: therefore the ordination of the patriarch was granted to the bishop of Heraclea, since he ordained the bishop of Byzantium. Afterwards the great city was built by Constantine the Great, named after him, and called New Rome. Therefore some said that the preposition “after” signifies time, and not diminution of honour before old Rome. To confirm their opinion they make use of the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council, in which mention is made of the present rule and it is added: “the same also we decree concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of Constantinople, New Rome. For to the throne of old Rome the Fathers fittingly gave prerogatives because that was the imperial city. Following the same consideration, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops granted equal prerogatives to the most holy throne of New Rome, rightly judging that the city which received the honour of being the city of the emperor and the senate, and having equal prerogatives with old imperial Rome, should be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs like that one, and be second after it.” Thus, they say, if they grant it equal honours, how can one think that the preposition “after” signifies subordination? But the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, Title 3, gives grounds to understand these rules otherwise, as they were also understood by this emperor. In it it is said: “We decree, in accordance with the definitions of the holy councils, that the most holy pope of old Rome be the first of all priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, occupy the second rank after the Apostolic throne of old Rome, and have prerogative of honour before all others.” Thus, from this it is clearly seen that the preposition “after” signifies diminution and lessening. For otherwise it would be impossible to preserve the precedence of honour in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that, when the names of their primates are proclaimed, one occupy the first place and the other the second, and in the cathedrae when they come together, and in subscriptions when there is need. Thus, that explanation of the preposition “after” according to which this preposition indicates only time and not diminution is forced and does not proceed from a right and good thought. And the thirty-sixth rule of the Trullan Council clearly shows that the preposition “after” designates diminution, when it says that the throne of Constantinople is reckoned second after the throne of old Rome, and then adds: “and after it let the throne of Alexandria be reckoned, then the Antiochian, and after this the throne of Jerusalem.”

Aristen. The bishop of Constantinople has been honoured with honour after the bishop of Rome.

Equal prerogatives and equal honour with the bishop of Rome must the bishop of Constantinople also have, as also in the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council this rule was understood, because this city is New Rome and received honour to be the city of the emperor and the senate. For the preposition “after” here designates not honour but time, just as if someone said: after much time the bishop of Constantinople also received equal honour with the bishop of Rome.

Valsamon. The city of Byzantium did not have the honour of an archbishopric, but its bishop in antiquity was ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea. History relates that the city of Byzantium, although it had independent government, was besieged by the Roman emperor Severus and subjected to the Perinthians; and Perinthus is Heraclea. But when Constantine the Great transferred to this city the scepters of the Roman empire, it was renamed Constantinople and New Rome and queen of all cities. Therefore the Holy Fathers of the Second Council ordained that its bishop have prerogatives of honour after the bishop of old Rome, because this is New Rome. When this was ordained in this way, some understood the preposition “after” not in the sense of diminution of honour but accepted it only in the meaning of later time, making use, to confirm their opinion, also of the twenty-eighth rule of the Fourth Council, in which it is said: equal prerogatives with the most holy throne of old Rome to have the throne of Constantinople, which is second after it. But do thou read the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, in Title 3, and placed in the scholion on Chapter 5, Title 1 of the present collection, and the thirty-sixth rule of the Trullan Council, in which it is said that the Constantinopolitan throne is second. Seek also the first chapter of Title 8 of the present collection: there we have placed various laws concerning the prerogatives of old and New Rome and the written decree of the holy great Constantine given to holy Sylvester, the then pope of Rome, concerning the prerogatives granted to the church of old Rome. And that now the most holy patriarch of Constantinople is ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea—this derives its beginning from nothing else than that the city of Byzantium, as said above, was subjected to the Perinthians, that is, the Heracleans. Note also by what it is proved that the bishop of Heraclea has the right to ordain the patriarch of Constantinople. In the chronicle of Scylitzes it is said that the patriarch Stephen the Syncellus, brother of the emperor Leo the Wise, was ordained by the bishop of Caesarea, because before that time the bishop of Heraclea had died. We know that also in the reign of Isaac Angelus a certain Leontius, monk from the mountain of holy Auxentius, for the same reason was ordained patriarch of Constantinople by Demetrius, bishop of Caesarea. Note that the throne of Constantinople was honoured with honour by the Second Council—and read Chapter 7 of Title 1 of the present collection and what is written in it.

Slavic Kormchaya. The bishop of the city of Constantine is honoured after the Roman.

Interpretation. Of the same primacy and of the same honour which the bishop of Rome has, the bishop of the city of Constantine also partakes and is likewise honoured, as the twenty-eighth rule of the Council in Chalcedon likewise ordains for this rule. Inasmuch as the city of Constantine is New Rome and was honoured for the sake of the empire and the boyars, for the emperor and the boyars moved there from Rome; and what the rule said, he is honoured after the Roman, does not speak of this as though the Roman were to have greater honour and after him the city of Constantine to be honoured, but this is said concerning the indication of time. Just as if someone had said that after many years the bishop of the city of Constantine will be made worthy of equal honour with the bishop of Rome.

Canon 4. Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder he caused in Constantinople: Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, nor are those ordained by him to any degree of the clergy; and what was done for him and what was done by him—all is void.

Zonara. This Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called Cynics because of their insolence, audacity, and shamelessness. Having come to the great father Gregory the Theologian and been catechized, he was baptized. Afterwards he was enrolled in the clergy and brought completely close to this holy father, so that he even shared meals with him. But desiring the episcopal throne in Constantinople, he sent money to Alexandria and summoned bishops from there who were to ordain him as bishop of Constantinople, with the assistance of one of those closest to the Theologian. When they were already in the church, however, before the completion of the ordination, the faithful learned of it and drove them out. But even after being expelled they did not desist, but withdrawing to the house of a certain musician, there they ordained Maximus, although he gained no benefit from this wickedness, for he was unable to accomplish anything. Thus, by the present rule he was excluded from the church by the holy fathers assembled at the Second Council, who decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not clerics. And finally, when it became known that he held Apollinarian opinions, he was anathematized. The Theologian mentions him in one of his discourses that are not read in the churches.

Aristen. Maximus the Cynic is not a bishop, and everyone ordained by him into the clergy has no priesthood.

For he caused division in the church and filled it with disturbance and disorder, appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and in everything without dispute showing indulgence to those in error, provided only that they held wrong dogmas, according to the word of the great Gregory in theology. Thus, Maximus himself must be deprived of the episcopate, and those ordained by him to any degree of the clergy are deprived of priesthood.

Valsamon. The content of this fourth rule concerns a particular case and does not require interpretation. From history it is known that this Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called Cynics because of their insolence, audacity, and shamelessness. Having come to the great father Gregory the Theologian and been catechized, he was baptized, enrolled in the clergy, and brought close to him. But desiring the patriarchal throne in Constantinople, he made efforts to obtain ordination through money which he sent to the Alexandrian bishops. When these bishops came to Constantinople and attempted to do as Maximus wished, the faithful drove them from the church. But after this they withdrew to the house of a certain musician and there ordained Maximus contrary to the rules. Thus, this holy council excluded him from the church and decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not clerics of any degree. This Maximus, when afterwards it became known that he held Apollinarian opinions, was anathematized. It is written about him in the life of saint Gregory the Theologian, composed by his disciple Gregory; the Theologian also mentions him in one of his discourses that are not read in the churches.

Slavic Kormchaya. Maximus, called the Cynic, is alien from the bishops, and in every way not sacred is whoever was received by him into the clergy.

Interpretation. This Maximus the Cynic is said to be senseless; he tore the church of God and filled it with much tumult and clamour. Appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and ready to forgive all sins to those sinning, for the sole reason that they impiously transgress the commandments. As the great theologian Gregory says, this Maximus must be alien from the episcopate, and all ordained by him—presbyters and deacons and the other clergy—alien from consecration.

Canon 5. Concerning the tome of the Westerners: we accept also those in Antioch who confess the single Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Zonara. The Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having fallen into Arianism, sought to overthrow the First Council. The pope of old Rome informed Constans, the brother of Constantius, about this. Constans in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not cease disturbing the right faith. As a result of this, both emperors agreed that a council be convened and that it judge concerning the Nicene definitions. Thus, in Sardica three hundred and forty-one bishops assembled, who also set forth a definition affirming the holy creed of the Nicene fathers and excluding those who thought otherwise. This very definition the Second Council calls the “tome of the Westerners,” and accepts those who accepted this tome in Antioch. The council calls the bishops assembled in Sardica Westerners. Sardica is called Triaditza. The council called the definition the “tome of the Westerners” because Western bishops alone set it forth: for seventy Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council if the holy Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great did not depart from the assembly. And when the Westerners did not permit this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the council. Therefore the Westerners alone confirmed the Nicene definition, anathematized the heresy of the Anomoeans, and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note from what is related here that the Sardican Council was before the Second Council.

Aristen. The tome of the Westerners, which affirms the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, must be accepted. It is clear.

Valsamon. This rule also is particular. From history it is known that the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having fallen into Arianism, sought to overthrow the First Council. Constans, his brother, who ruled the western parts of the empire, learning of this, in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not cease disturbing the right faith. As a result of this the emperors agreed that in Sardica, or Triaditza, bishops assemble and judge concerning the dogmas set forth in Nicaea. Upon the assembly of three hundred and forty-one bishops, the holy creed of the Nicene fathers was confirmed, and those who did not think thus were anathematized. This definition, accepted also by the Antiochenes, the Second Council calls the “tome of the Westerners”; and it called it the “tome of the Westerners” because Western bishops alone set it forth: for seventy Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council if the holy Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great did not depart from the assembly. And when the Westerners did not permit this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the council. Therefore the Westerners alone confirmed the Nicene definition, anathematized the heresy of the Anomoeans, and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note from what is related here that the Sardican Council was before the Second Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. The decree of the Western bishops, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial and confess one Godhead. For having set this forth they wrote it on a tome, and let it be acceptable to all.

Book of Rules. Here is meant the tome of the Western Bishops, containing the decree of the Sardican Council, by which the Nicene Creed was recognized and confirmed.

Canon 6. Since many, desiring to bring confusion and to overthrow ecclesiastical good order, inimically and slanderously invent certain charges against orthodox bishops who govern the churches, with no other intent than to tarnish the good reputation of the priests and to produce disturbance among the peaceful people; for this reason the holy Council of bishops assembled in Constantinople deemed it good: not to admit accusers without investigation, nor to allow everyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, but also not to forbid all. But if someone brings against a bishop a certain personal, that is, private complaint, such as in a claim concerning property, or in some other injustice suffered from him: in such accusations, neither the person of the accuser nor his faith is to be taken into consideration. It is fitting in every way that the conscience of the bishop be free, and that he who declares himself wronged obtain justice, whatever faith he may be of. But if the charge brought against the bishop be ecclesiastical: then it is fitting to examine the person of the accuser. And first, not to allow heretics to bring accusations against orthodox bishops concerning ecclesiastical matters. And we call heretics both those who have long ago been declared alien to the Church, and those who afterwards were anathematized by us; besides these also those who although they pretend as if they confess our faith soundly, but who have separated and gather assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops. Further, if certain ones belonging to the Church, for certain offences, have previously been condemned and cast out or excommunicated, either from the clergy or from the rank of the laity: these also are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they clear themselves of the charge to which they themselves have fallen subject. Likewise also accusations against a bishop or against others of the clergy from those who themselves have previously been subject to denunciation may be accepted not before they indisputably show their innocence against the accusations brought against them. But if certain ones are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from the communion of the Church, nor condemned, nor previously accused of any crimes, say that they have something to denounce against a bishop concerning ecclesiastical matters: such the holy Council commands first to present their accusations to all the bishops of the diocese, and before them to prove with evidence their denunciations against the bishop who has come under charge. But if the bishops of the united eparchies, beyond expectation, are not able to restore order concerning the accusations brought against the bishop: then the accusers are to approach a greater council of the bishops of the great diocese convened for this reason; but they may not insist on their accusation before they have in writing placed themselves under the risk of the same punishment as the accused, if, in the course of the proceedings, they are found to be slandering the accused bishop. But if someone, despising the decision made after preliminary inquiry, dares either to trouble the ears of the emperor, or the courts of secular rulers, or to disturb an ecumenical council, to the insult of the honour of all the bishops of the diocese: such a one is by no means to be received with his complaint, as having insulted the canons and violated ecclesiastical good order.

Zonara. Here the divine Fathers lay down whom one must accept as accusers of a bishop or clerics, and who must not be accepted, and they say that if someone presents against a bishop a private matter, accusing him, for example, of injustice, that is, of taking immovable or movable property, or of offence, or something of that kind; then the accuser must be accepted—whoever he may be, even if he be unbelieving, or a heretic, or excommunicated, or even completely cut off from the catholic church. For all who declare themselves wronged, of whatever confession or condition they may be, must be admitted and must obtain justice. The fathers spoke of a private matter in distinction from matters of crimes or public matters. Private are called matters concerning monetary loss; and matters of crimes (criminal) are those which cause harm to the rights of the state of the accused; therefore the holy fathers added: but if the charge brought against the bishop be ecclesiastical, that is, such as, for example, would subject him to deprivation of priesthood, such as sacrilege, or ordination for money, or performing some episcopal action in another’s diocese without the knowledge of the local bishop, and the like; in such a case a careful examination must be made of the person of the accuser, and if he is a heretic, he is not to be accepted. It calls heretics all who think not in accordance with the orthodox faith, whether long ago or recently they were excluded from the church, whether they hold ancient or new heresies. And not only those erring concerning the sound faith does the rule not admit to accusation of a bishop in a crime, but also those separated from their bishops and gathering assemblies against them, although they appeared orthodox. Schismatics, according to the rule of Basil the Great, are those who have divided in opinions concerning certain ecclesiastical subjects and questions admitting of healing. In like manner the rule does not admit those who for certain offences have been cast out from the church or deprived of communion. By those cast out one must understand those completely cut off from the church; and those temporarily excommunicated the divine Fathers designated by the word: excommunicated, whether such be clerics or laity: and such cannot be admitted to accusation of bishops or clerics until they remove the charge against themselves and place themselves beyond accusation. The rule commands not to admit to accusation of bishops or clerics such persons who themselves are under some accusation concerning the rights of their state, if they do not prove their innocence in the crimes alleged against them. But if the accuser is hindered by none of the aforesaid causes, but they prove blameless in all respects; then, if the accused is a bishop, the bishops of that eparchy, assembling, must hear the accusation, and either decide the matter, or, if they cannot decide, must refer to a greater council, and by greater council the rule calls the bishops of the whole diocese. By eparchy, for example, one must understand Adrianople or Philippopolis and the bishops in the vicinity of these cities, and by diocese the whole of Thrace or Macedonia. Thus, when the bishops of the eparchy are not able to correct the accused, then the rule ordains that the bishops of the diocese assemble and resolve the accusations against the bishop. But if the accused be a cleric, the accuser must present the accusation to the bishop to whom he is subject, and if the matter is not decided by him, then further proceed as said above. Herein the sacred fathers, following civil law, ordained that the one initiating the case not present the accusation before the accuser in writing certifies that he, in case he does not prove the accusation, himself is subject to the same punishment which the accused would suffer if the accusation against him were proved. Having ordained this, the divine fathers added that he who does not observe this conciliar rule, but either appeals to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical council, must not be admitted to accusation at all, as having dishonoured the bishops of the diocese, insulted the canons, and violated the good order of the church.

Aristen. Even one of evil faith may accuse a bishop in a monetary matter. But if the accusation be ecclesiastical, he cannot present it. Nor can anyone else present an accusation if previously he himself has fallen under condemnation: neither can one deprived of communion, cast out, accused of something, until they clear themselves. But one orthodox, in communion, not condemned and not under accusation, may accuse. The accusation must be presented to the diocesan bishops; and if they are not able to resolve it, the accusers must appeal to a greater council, and may be heard only when they give a written undertaking to suffer the same punishment to which the accused is liable. Whoever without observing this appeals to the emperor and troubles him is subject to excommunication.

Concerning persons who accuse bishops or clerics, an examination must be made: whether this is a heretic, or condemned, or excommunicated, or deprived of communion, or accused by others of crimes and not yet proved clear of the accusation; and if the accusers prove to be such, they are not to be admitted to accusation. But if one bringing an ecclesiastical complaint against a bishop is orthodox and of blameless life and in communion; then he must be accepted and must present his offence before all the bishops in authority. And if they perhaps are not able to render a decision concerning the offences alleged against the bishop, then the accuser must appeal to a greater council, having first given a written undertaking that he must subject himself to the same punishment if convicted of slander, and only then present the accusation. Whoever acts not in accordance with this, and in accusing a bishop troubles the emperor or appeals with accusation to the courts of secular authorities, from such the accusation must not be accepted. But a heretic, if he suffers wrong from a bishop, may without hindrance present accusation against him.

Valsamon. Note the present rule for those initiating judicial proceedings concerning crimes (criminal) against bishops and other sacred ministers. Read also the 129th (143–145) rule of the Carthaginian Council and the laws placed in the commentary on this rule; and you will learn from the present rule and from them to whom it is forbidden to initiate proceedings concerning crimes against sacred persons.

Our enemy Satan has never ceased to defile with slander the intentions of good men, and especially of bishops. Therefore the fathers ordained that every person, honest or dishonest, faithful or unfaithful, having against a bishop a private matter, that is, monetary, is admitted to present a complaint and obtains justice in the competent court. But in a matter of crime or in some ecclesiastical question subjecting the bishop to deposition or penance, he is brought to trial only when the person of the accuser is first subjected to examination. For to heretics the right to accuse a bishop is not given at all. And those excommunicated or previously subject to some accusation cannot initiate accusation against a bishop or cleric until they themselves clear themselves of the accusation. But even when the accuser is such, the rule wishes that a bishop or cleric be brought to trial not simply and haphazardly, but with all lawful precaution and with a written undertaking or agreement to suffer the same punishment if he does not prove the accusation alleged by him. The accusation of a bishop or cleric is presented first to the metropolitan; but if the local council cannot decide the matter, then, according to the rule, a greater council must hear the matter. Whoever acts not in accordance with it, but appeals either to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical council, is not admitted to accusation, as an insulter of the canons and violator of ecclesiastical good order. The rule called private matters monetary matters in distinction from matters of crimes, which are called public because they are initiated by anyone from the people, which does not happen in monetary complaints, since such are initiated only by him who has a claim. And when you hear that the present rule calls heretics also those who pretend as if they confess our faith soundly but who have separated and gather assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops, do not think that you contradict the second rule of Basil the Great, which does not call schismatics heretics, but say that the present rule calls heretics such schismatics who think completely contrary but by pretence appear orthodox, in reality being heretics; while the rule of saint Basil speaks of other schismatics who in reality are orthodox but under pretext of some ecclesiastical misunderstanding have separated, through self-conceit, from the wholeness of the brotherhood. Read the said rule of the holy father. From the last words of the present rule, in which it is said that one acting not in accordance with the rule must not be accepted with accusation, as an insulter of the canons, some strove to conclude that such a one is also subject to deprivation of honour. But it seems to me that from this it does not follow that one acting thus contrary to order is subject to condemnation for insult and consequently to deprivation of honour and after this to deposition, on the basis of the rule which says: “what is clearly said harms, what is implied does not harm”; otherwise how would he be subject to punishment at the discretion of the judge? When one bishop was brought on a criminal matter to the holy Constantinopolitan synod and appealed against the judgment of his metropolitan and his council, by force of the present rule; then some said that if the metropolitan present at the council wishes his bishop to be judged at a great council, let him be judged before him; while others objected that the judgment over him is not in the power of the metropolitan but belongs to the council consisting with him, and that for a bishop it is far more advantageous to be judged by his own council and not to be brought to another council—and for this there is no need even of the metropolitan’s permission. Still others said that the rule speaks of an ecumenical council, while the great Constantinopolitan synod or council is not ecumenical, and therefore the content of the rule has no place in the present matter. But it seems to me that although the synod in Constantinople is not an ecumenical council, since the other patriarchs are not present at it, yet it is greater than all synods, and its archbishop is called ecumenical patriarch—and the advantage belongs not to the metropolitan but to the bishop or cleric brought to his trial. Therefore none of them will suffer harm from the metropolitan permission by force of the law which says: what is done by some serves neither to the benefit nor to the harm of others.

Slavic Kormchaya. Even one of evil faith, if wronged, may speak against a bishop. But if it be concerning an ecclesiastical offence, he may not speak. Nor may anyone else speak who previously has been found in defamations. Nor may one cast out from communion or accused of anything speak, until he lays aside his own. But one of right faith, and in communion, and unknown in defamations, and not accused, may speak, and must show the offence to those in authority. But if they cannot correct it, let him go to a greater council. And without a writing saying, I will suffer this if I speak falsely, let it not be heard. One coming to the church beyond these and making clamour is cast out.

Interpretation. It is fitting to examine the persons and lives of those slandering and speaking against a bishop or cleric, that such be not a heretic, or known in some defamation, or cast out from the church, or from communion, or accused by others of sins and not yet having justified himself of his fault. And if such be the slanderers, do not accept them to accusation of a bishop. But if he be of right faith and of blameless life and a communicant of the catholic church, who brings an ecclesiastical charge against a bishop, let him be accepted and let him declare his offence before all the bishops in authority. But if they cannot correct the offences alleged against the bishop, let him who speaks slanders against the bishop approach a greater council, and let him give to the first council a document, having written on it that if I am convicted of lying in slandering the bishop, I will suffer this or that punishment, and thus it will be established, and he will be assured concerning his declaration. But if he does not do thus, but coming to the emperor and making clamour speaking against a bishop, or comes concerning this to the tribunals of secular boyars, such a one is not accepted to slander a bishop. But a heretic if wronged by a bishop, it is not forbidden him to speak against him and to obtain justice.

Canon 7. Those joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved from among the heretics we accept according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians and Novatians, who call themselves pure and better, the Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, when they give written statements and anathematize every heresy that does not think as the holy God’s Catholic and Apostolic Church thinks, we accept by sealing, that is, by anointing with holy chrism first the forehead, then the eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and in sealing them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. But Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, called Phrygians here, and Sabellians, who hold the opinion of son-fatherhood and do other intolerable things, and all other heretics (for there are many such here, especially those coming out of the country of Galatia), all who from among them wish to be joined to Orthodoxy we accept as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second catechumens, then on the third we exorcise them with threefold blowing upon the face and upon the ears: and thus we catechize them and cause them to sojourn in the church and to hear the Scriptures, and then we baptize them.

Zonara. The present rule teaches how those coming from heresies to the right faith must be received. Certain of such it prescribes not to rebaptize, but to require from them written statements, that is, written testimonies in which their opinions are anathematized, their impiety condemned, and anathema pronounced upon every heresy. To such belong: the Arians, and Macedonians, and Novatians, who call themselves Pure, whose heresies we have defined earlier; and the Sabbatians, whose leader was a certain Sabbatius, who himself was a presbyter in the heresy of Novatus, but had something more than he, and surpassed the teacher of the heresy in malice, and celebrated together with the Jews; and the Fourteen-day observers, who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day it happens to become full; and they celebrate it then in fasting and vigil; and the Apollinarians. These heretics are not rebaptized, because concerning holy baptism they differ in nothing from us, but are baptized in the same way as the orthodox. Thus, each of them, anathematizing his own heresy in particular and every heresy in general, is anointed with holy chrism, and performs the rest according to the rule. But those subject to rebaptism are the Eunomians and Sabellians, whose heresies we have already explained, and the Montanists, who received their name from a certain Montanus, and were called also Phrygians either because the leader of their heresy was a Phrygian, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia, and there many were seduced into it. This Montanus called himself the Comforter, and the two women accompanying him, Priscilla and Maximilla, he called prophetesses. The Montanists were also called Pepuzians, because they considered Pepuza, a village in Phrygia, a divine place, and named it Jerusalem. They commanded marriages to be dissolved, taught abstinence from food, perverted Pascha, united and merged the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixing the blood of a pierced infant with flour and making bread from this—they offered it and communed from it. Thus, these and all other heretics the sacred fathers ordained to baptize: for they either did not receive divine baptism, or, having received it wrongly, received it not according to the ordinance of the orthodox church; therefore the holy fathers regard them as if unbaptized from the beginning. For this is what the expression means: “we accept them as pagans.” Then the rule enumerates the actions performed over them, and that they are first catechized and taught our divine mysteries, then baptized.

Aristen. Rule 7. Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites, Arian, Novatian, Macedonian, Sabbatian, and Apollinarian must be received with written statements, after anointing with chrism all the organs of sense.

They, having given written statements and anathematizing every heresy, are received through anointing only with holy chrism the eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth, and forehead. And in sealing them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rule 8. Eunomians baptized with one immersion, Sabellians, and Phrygians must be received as pagans.

They are both baptized and anointed with chrism, because they are received as pagans, and for a sufficient time before baptism they remain in the state of catechumens and hear the divine scriptures.

Valsamon. This rule divides heretics coming to the church into two classes: and certain it commands to anoint with chrism, with the condition that they first anathematize every heresy and promise to believe as the holy church of God thinks; and others it ordains to baptize properly. And to the first, who must be only anointed with chrism, the rule assigns the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, and Novatians, called also Pure, whose heresies we explained in the first rule of this Second Council. The Novatians were called also Sabbatians after a certain presbyter Sabbatius, who observed the sabbath according to the Jewish custom; they are also called left-handed, because they abhor the left hand and do not allow themselves to receive anything with this hand. Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites are called those who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day this happens, which is characteristic of the Jewish religion. They are also called Tetradites because, celebrating Pascha, they do not break the fast but fast, as we do on Wednesdays; and this they do according to the Jewish custom. For these, after celebrating Pascha, fast the whole seven days, eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread, according to the prescription of the old law. And those subject to rebaptism, according to the rule, are the Eunomians, baptized with one immersion, and the Montanists, so called after a certain Montanus, who named himself the Comforter and through two evil women, Priscilla and Maximilla, uttered false prophecies. To them are assigned the Sabellians, so called after a certain Sabellius, who, among certain other absurdities, said also that one and the same is Father, one and the same Son, one and the same Holy Spirit, so that in one hypostasis three names, as in a man body, soul, and spirit, or in the sun three actions: sphericity, light, and heat. The Montanists are called Phrygians either after some heresiarch Phrygian, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia. Besides this they are called Pepuzians after the village of Pepuza, honoured by them as Jerusalem. They dissolve marriages as abominable, fast a strange fast, pervert Pascha; unite and merge the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixing with flour the blood of a pierced infant and preparing bread from this, make an offering from it. And this is so. But if some orthodox becomes a Montanist or Sabellian and receives the baptism of heretics or does not receive it, must such a one be anointed with chrism or rebaptized, like the other Montanists? Seek concerning this the nineteenth rule of the First Council and the forty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles. And from the present rule note that all who are baptized with one immersion are rebaptized.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 7. Fourteen-day observers, who are also called Wednesday-observers, and Arians, and Novatians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Apollinarians, having given a writing, are acceptable, anointing only all the senses.

Interpretation. All these are heretics: and when they approach the catholic church and having written their heresy and read it before all and cursed it, and with it all heresies, let them be accepted: only anointing with holy chrism the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth; and when we sign them with chrism, saying thus: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. And they are called Wednesday-observers because on Wednesday they eat meat, and on Saturday they fast. These are named Fourteen-day observers because on the fourteenth day of the moon they celebrate Pascha.

Rule 8. (Of the Holy Apostles 50). Baptism not in three immersions is not baptism. Those baptized with one immersion, Eunomians, and Sabellians, and Phrygians, shall be accepted as Hellenes.

Interpretation. And these are heretics who are baptized with one immersion and not three, as the orthodox: these if they approach the catholic church shall be accepted as pagans, and before baptism for a sufficient time are instructed, and let them listen to the divine scriptures, and afterwards are fully baptized and anointed; thus we accept them as Hellenes. On the first day indeed we make them Christians. On the second we make them catechumens, that they be instructed in the faith. On the third day we perform exorcism and blowing thrice upon the face and ears. And thus we instruct them and command them to spend sufficient time in the church and listen to the divine scriptures, and then we baptize them. But before all this let them curse their heresy with a writing, and all others as also the previously named heretics.

source

On the Council

Zonara. The holy and first Ecumenical Council was held during the reign of Constantine the Great, when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. He uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and said that He is not of one essence with God the Father, but is a creature—and that there was a time when He was not. This Arius the holy Council deposed and anathematized, together with those who shared his opinions, and it established the dogma that the Son is of one essence with the Father and is true God and Master, and Lord, and Creator of all that has been created, and not a creature nor a creation. This Nicene Council is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although various local councils had taken place before it, since it is the first of the ecumenical councils, it is placed before the others that occurred earlier, that is, the Antiochian one against Paul of Samosata, which assembled under the emperor Aurelian; the one at Ancyra, at which there was an investigation concerning those who had denied the faith during the times of persecution and afterwards repented—as to how they should be received; and the one at Neocaesarea, at which rules were established concerning church order.

Valsamon. This holy and first Ecumenical Council was held during the reign of Constantine the Great (in the tenth year of his reign), when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. He uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and said that He is not of one essence with God the Father, but is a creature, and that there was a time when He was not. This Arius the holy Council deposed and anathematized, together with those who shared his opinions, and it established the dogma that the Son is of one essence with the Father and is true God and Master, and Lord, and Creator of all that has been created, and not a creature nor a creation. This Nicene Council is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although various local councils had taken place before it, since it is the first of the ecumenical councils, it is placed before the others that occurred earlier, that is, the Antiochian one against Paul of Samosata, and those at Ancyra and Neocaesarea.

Slavic Kormchaya. The Holy Ecumenical First Council that was in Nicaea took place during the reign of Constantine the Great. Three hundred Fathers assembled against the impious Arius, who blasphemed the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; him the holy Fathers anathematized. And they set forth the rules established here. The rules of the First Council are twenty.

Canon 1. If any, in sickness, have had their members removed by physicians, or have been castrated by barbarians: let such a one remain in the clergy. But if any, being in health, have castrated themselves: such a one, even if he has been enrolled in the clergy, ought to be excluded, and from now on none such ought to be promoted. But just as it is clear that this is said concerning those who act with intent and dare to castrate themselves, so on the other hand, if any have been castrated by barbarians or by their masters, but are otherwise found worthy: the canon admits such persons to the clergy.

Zonara. Various rules of the Holy Apostles and civil laws prescribe the same as this present canon. But even after these rules, this matter was often treated with neglect—some who had castrated themselves were promoted to the clergy, while others who had been forcibly castrated by others were not promoted. Therefore the Fathers of this Council set forth the present canon, prescribing the same as the Apostolic Rules and the laws: that is, not to accept into the clergy or advance to the priesthood those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to castration or have made themselves eunuchs with their own hands; and if they had previously been enrolled in the clergy, to depose them from it. But for those who have been injured by others and deprived of their generative members, if they are found worthy of the priesthood, not to forbid their promotion on this account. And one who has castrated himself is understood not only as he who has cut off this member with his own hands, but also he who voluntarily and without compulsion submits himself to castration. This is explained more fully in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Apostolic Rules.

Aristen. Eunuchs may be received into the clergy, but those who have castrated themselves may not be received. It is said also in the Apostolic Rules, namely the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, that one worthy of the priesthood is not forbidden to enter the clergy if he has been castrated involuntarily; but one who has voluntarily castrated himself, as being a murderer of himself, ought not to be received into the clergy at all, and if he is a cleric, he ought to be deposed. Such is also the meaning of this present canon.

Valsamon. The divine Apostolic Rules, the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, have sufficiently taught us how we ought to deal with those who have cut off their own generative organs. In agreement with them, this present canon prescribes not to accept into the clergy or advance to the priesthood those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to castration or have made themselves eunuchs with their own hands, and if they had previously been enrolled in the clergy, to depose them from it; but for those who have been injured by others and deprived of their generative members, if they are found worthy, not to forbid the priesthood on this account. Add also the 8th rule of the council that was held in the church of the Holy Apostles and is called the First-and-Second. When explaining the Apostolic Rules, we wrote that one who castrates himself after ordination due to illness is subject to punishment. But since this present canon says: “If any, in sickness, have had their members removed by physicians: let such a one remain in the clergy,” and then: “But if any, being in health, have castrated themselves: such a one, even if he has been enrolled in the clergy, ought to be excluded,” some have said that one who is castrated due to illness after entering the clergy is not subject to punishment. We reply that this canon is considering those who were castrated not after receiving the priesthood, but before receiving the priesthood, though doubt about them arose only after they had received the priesthood. And if anyone should still object and wish that indulgence be shown to one castrated due to illness after receiving the priesthood, let him hear how the 142nd Novel of Justinian shuts his mouth; it is placed in book 60, title 51, last chapter, and is also included in chapter 14 of title one of the present collection. We say this in the case where someone is castrated after receiving the priesthood without the knowledge of the church; for if someone is castrated with the church’s permission after entering the clergy, he will not, in my opinion, be subject to condemnation—although I have not known any of the ordained to be permitted to be castrated because of illness, even though many have requested this of the Synod, both at the time when I held the office of chartophylax and afterwards, during the patriarchate, out of fear that the performance of this treatment is connected with danger.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let eunuchs be received into the clerical order. But those who cut off their own generative members are not to be received.

Interpretation. Concerning this, it is said in the Apostolic Rules, the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th: to a eunuch worthy of the priesthood, it is not forbidden to enter the clerical order, if he was castrated not by his own will. But if anyone by his own will cuts off his own generative member, such a one is not to be received into the clerical order at all, as having become a murderer of himself. But if he, being a cleric, does such a thing, they command that he be deposed. This canon, therefore, has the same meaning.

Canon 2. Since, due to necessity or other human motives, many things have occurred contrary to the church rule—so that persons who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith, and have been catechumens for only a short time, are soon brought to the spiritual bath; and immediately after baptism they are advanced to the episcopate or presbyterate—it has therefore been deemed good that henceforth nothing of this kind should take place. For a catechumen needs time, and after baptism further testing. For the Apostolic writing is clear, which saith: Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the judgment and the snare of the devil. But if, as time goes on, some psychic sin should be found in a person, and he is convicted by two or three witnesses: let such a one be excluded from the clergy. And he who acts contrary to this, as one daring to resist the great Council, puts himself in danger of exclusion from the clergy.

Zonara. The eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles also determines that one who has come from a pagan life, or has turned from a vicious way of life, should not immediately be made a bishop. And the great Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, prescribing what sort of person should be advanced to the episcopate, says that he should not be a novice (1 Tim. 3:6). Therefore these Fathers also determine that, just as one coming to the faith should not be baptized immediately if he has not been sufficiently instructed in the faith, so one who has been baptized should not immediately be enrolled in the clergy, because he has not yet given proof of what he is like in faith and in life. But if he is enrolled in the clergy and, after testing, appears blameless, yet as time passes he is convicted of some psychic sin, the Fathers prescribe that such a one be excluded from the clergy. A difficulty arises—what is meant by psychic sin, and why only psychic sins are mentioned, but not bodily ones, especially when bodily sins more often lead to the deposition of those who fall into them, while psychic sins do so less frequently. Some say that the Holy Fathers who set forth this rule called every sin that harms the soul a psychic sin. Others call psychic sins those that arise from psychic passions, such as pride, arrogance, and disobedience; for these sins too, if not healed, lead to deposition. This is clear from the example of the so-called Novatians; for they did not err in dogma, but out of pride, calling themselves pure, they did not receive those who had fallen during persecutions, even if they repented, and they had no communion with the digamists; therefore they were cut off from communion with the faithful for their pride and hatred of brethren. So if they were cut off from the church for these sins, how will one remain undeposed who out of pride does not obey his bishop and remains uncorrected? And the fifth rule of the Holy Apostles commands that those who put away their wives under the pretext of piety be excommunicated, and if they remain unyielding, deposed. And the thirty-sixth Apostolic rule prescribes that those called by the election of bishops to the primacy but not accepting this service be excommunicated until they accept it—so that if they do not accept, they remain excommunicated for life, and those excommunicated for life differ in nothing from the deposed. I think it better to say that every sin can justly be called psychic, since it has its beginning in the corruption of the psychic powers. For if what is observed in the soul is divided into three powers—the power of the mind, the power of desire, and the power of irritation—then from each power virtues and vices usually arise: the former when we use these powers rightly and as they were implanted in us by the Creator, the latter when we misuse them. Thus, the virtue and perfection of the power of the mind is piety, thoughts befitting the divine, infallible distinction between good and evil, and what one should choose and what avoid; deviation from this is evil and sin. The virtue of the power of desire consists in loving what is truly worthy of love—I mean the divine nature—and loving deeds that can draw us near to Him. Deviation from this and turning to earthly things is sin arising from the power of desire. Similarly, the virtue of the power of irritation consists in resisting evil and being hostile to it, opposing fleshly lusts, striving against sin even unto blood, and fighting for right doctrine and virtue, according to the word of David: I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved (Ps. 118:158). And the vice arising from this power consists in anger against one’s neighbor, hatred, inclination to quarrels, and grudges. Thus, if, as has been said, sins arise from the psychic powers, the Holy Fathers rightly called sins psychic, following also the great Paul, who saith: There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44), and calls natural the body that is governed by the soul and subject to it, that serves its natural powers, that gives itself to anger and lust, that cleaves to earthly things, and thinks of nothing beyond the earthly.

Aristen. Those coming from a pagan life should not soon be advanced to presbyters, for a novice, not tested over a certain time, turns out bad. And if after ordination it is discovered that someone has sinned, whether before or after the ordination, such a one should also be excluded from the clergy. This rule says the same as the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles, namely, that a recent convert should not immediately be made a bishop or presbyter, lest as a novice he fall into the snare of the devil and incur judgment. According to the eleventh (tenth) rule of the Sardican council, such a one should remain in each degree—that is, the degree of reader, subdeacon, and so on—for at least one year, and thus, if found worthy of divine priesthood, he may be honored with the highest honor. But on the other hand, if anyone after ordination is found to have sinned, he loses his rank.

Valsamon. From the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles we have learned that neither one coming to the church from a pagan life nor one turning from a vicious way of life is immediately made a bishop. Read what is written there. And this present rule adds that such a one is not immediately made a presbyter either, and that no unbeliever is admitted to baptism before sufficient instruction in the faith, because time is needed for testing in this. The rule commands that one who acts otherwise be deposed. And since the rule punishes psychic sins that are discovered after baptism, some have asked what psychic sins are and why the rule mentioned psychic sins but not bodily ones. Some said that psychic sins are those born from psychic passions, such as pride, disobedience, and the like; for these too lead to deposition, as for example the heresy of the Novatians and improper abstinence from marriage and eating meat according to the fifth rule of the Holy Apostles and other rules. But I say that every sin harming the soul is called psychic, even if it begins from bodily or psychic impulse. For this reason the church calls all sins psychic falls, and the rule mentioned only psychic sins because bodily ones are included in them. And concerning the fact that one baptized and enrolled in the clergy is not punished for fornication or murder committed before baptism, read the twentieth rule of Saint Basil and the commentaries on it, and the seventeenth rule of the Holy Apostles.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 2 (Nikon 63). One coming from a pagan life should not soon be made a presbyter. For if not tested over time, a newly planted one is bad. And if anyone after presbyteral ordination is convicted of former sins, let him cease from service.

Interpretation. Like the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles, this rule also says that it is not fitting to make a novice soon a bishop or presbyter, lest as newly planted he fall blindly into transgression and into the snare of the devil. Therefore such a one, according to the tenth rule of the council in Sardica, must first pass through all the degrees—that is, be made reader, then subdeacon, and deacon, and presbyter, and remain in such for the time of one year. And thus if he appears worthy of the episcopate, let him enjoy greater honor—that is, let him be bishop. And likewise if before ordination he sins in any of the said sins, and concealing it is ordained, and after ordination is convicted in that sin, let him be deprived of his rank.

Canon 3. The great Council has absolutely laid down that neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon, nor anyone at all in the clergy, should be permitted to have a woman living with him in the house, except mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who are beyond all suspicion.

Zonara. This rule desires that the ordained be blameless and that no one have even a pretext for suspicion against them. Therefore it forbids all the ordained to live together with women except the persons mentioned. And this is forbidden not only to the aforesaid (that is, ordained) persons, but to all in the clergy. And Basil the Great, in his epistle to Gregory the presbyter, mentions this rule and commands him to remove from himself the woman living with him. “But if,” he says, “without correcting yourself, you dare to touch the sacred ministry, you will be anathema before all the people.” And the fifth rule of the ecumenical Trullan council establishes the same, adding the following: “Let the same be observed also by eunuchs, guarding themselves from reproach. And those who transgress the rule, if they are clergy, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated.” The same as these sacred canons is enacted by the novel placed in the third book of the Basilics. And the eighteenth chapter of the seventh council does not allow a bishop or abbot to enter even country houses where women serve, unless the women are removed from there while the bishop or abbot is present. And the nineteenth rule of the Ancyran council says at the end: “To virgins who join in dwelling with certain men as with brothers, we have forbidden this.”

Aristen. No one should have a woman living with him, except mother, sister, and persons who remove all suspicion. Except for persons who cannot give any suspicion of unchastity—that is, mother, sister, aunt, and the like—this present rule does not allow any other person to live together with any of the ordained, nor do the fifth rule of the sixth Trullan council, the eighteenth and twenty-second rules of the second Nicene council, and Basil the Great allow this; the latter prescribed to the presbyter Gregory to separate from the woman living with him, even though he was seventy years old and it could not be thought that he lived with her passionately.

Valsamon. Concerning subintroduced women, read chapter 14 of title 8 of the present collection, and what is contained in it, and from the 123rd novel of Justinian cited there you will learn that clerics, after admonition, who do not separate from women living with them—of whatever kind they may be except the persons indicated in this present rule—are subject to deposition; and bishops, if found at any time living with any woman whatever, are deposed for this. And note this. Concerning subintroduced women there have been many discussions at different times; some said that an introduced or subintroduced woman is one brought in place of a lawful wife and living with someone in fornication; others said that a subintroduced woman is any woman living with someone who is completely unrelated, even if free from suspicion; and this seems much more correct. For this reason, they say, Basil the Great, in his epistle to the presbyter Gregory, urges this priest to remove the woman living with him and does not determine that he should be deposed for this, as one undeniably and manifestly sinning.

Slavic Kormchaya. For priests and deacons and other church clerics, let no other women be kept in their houses, except mother and sister and aunt (Nikon 33). The great council has utterly forbidden that it is not fitting for bishop, presbyter, deacon, nor any cleric to keep any other woman in his house: but only mother, or sister, or aunt; for these three persons are beyond all reproach.

Interpretation. The rule commands that priests be sinless and have no occasion for sinful reproach. And since some think that this is not said to them, therefore it has been forbidden to all the ordained not to live in their house with other women except the aforesaid persons—that is, mother, and sister, and aunt; for these three persons alone escape all reproach. And not only to the ordained—that is, bishops, or presbyters, or deacons—but to other clerics this has been forbidden. And the great Basil, sending to Gregory the presbyter, mentioned this rule, commanding him to separate—that is, to expel from the house—the wife living with him. But if, he says, without correcting yourself, you dare to serve, be thou accursed by all people. And the fifth rule of the Trullan palace, of the sixth ecumenical council, commands likewise, adding this: Let eunuchs also observe this, taking care to live blamelessly. But those who transgress the rule, if they are clerics, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated. And in the third books of the imperial laws lies a new command that likewise enjoins the same as the sacred rules. And the eighteenth rule of the seventh council does not at all allow a bishop or abbot to come to any court where women are serving, unless the women utterly depart from there beforehand and remain outside until the bishop or abbot departs from them. And the nineteenth rule of the council in Ancyra says at the end: To virgins coming together with certain men as with brothers, we have forbidden this.

Book of Rules. Since the aim of this rule is to guard sacred persons from suspicion, the prohibition laid down in it should apply to those presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons who have no wives; for the presence of a wife with her husband removes suspicion from another female person living with a married man.

Canon 4. It is most fitting that a bishop be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is inconvenient, either due to pressing necessity or because of the length of the journey: at least three should assemble in one place, and those absent should signify their consent by letters; and then the ordination should be performed. But to confirm such actions in each province belongs to the metropolitan.

Zonara. This present canon appears to contradict the first rule of the Holy Apostles; for that one prescribes that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops, while this one requires three, with the consent and agreement of the absent expressed through letters. But they do not contradict each other. For the rule of the Holy Apostles calls ordination the consecration and laying on of hands, while the rule of this Council calls appointment and ordination the election, and determines that the election of a hierarch should not take place otherwise than if three hierarchs come together, having the consent of the absent expressed in letters, in which they testify that they too will follow the election to be performed by the three bishops assembled together. And after the election, the confirmation of it—that is, the final decision, laying on of hands, and consecration—the canon assigns to the metropolitan of the province, so that he confirms the election. And he confirms it when, of the elected, he ordains one whom he himself chooses, together with the other two or three bishops, according to the Apostolic rule.

Aristen. A bishop is ordained by all the bishops of the province. But if not, at least by three, with the consent of the others to the election expressed through letters, and the metropolitan should have the authority to confirm. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops according to the first rule of the Holy Apostles, but he is elected by at least three, if perhaps all the bishops of the province cannot be present due to pressing need or length of journey. However, even the absent ones must express their agreement with the present bishops who are performing the election through letters. And the metropolitan has authority after the election to choose one of the three elected, whomever he wishes.

Valsamon. Here it speaks of how to appoint—that is, elect—a bishop. In ancient times, elections of hierarchs were performed in assemblies of citizens. But this was not pleasing to the divine Fathers, lest the life of those being ordained be subjected to the judgments of worldly people; and therefore they determined that a bishop should be elected by the provincial bishops of each province. And if this is difficult for some well-founded reason or because of the length of journey, the election should not take place otherwise than if three provincial bishops assemble together, having the consent of the absent expressed in written opinions. The ordination of him—that is, the consecration—the Holy Fathers assigned as an honor to the first, that is, the metropolitan, and not only the ordination but also the confirmation of the election. For therefore the one who is to perform the cheirotonia, of the three elected, points out one whom he himself wants, and it is not necessarily the one placed first who is indicated, and then the others. Such is the essence of the canon. Some metropolitans who performed the election of their bishops in the imperial city with three foreign bishops or even their own, without turning to the other bishops of their province, when asked why they do so, used for their aid the thirteenth rule of the Carthaginian council. Read what is written in that canon, and the nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council. This happens when the metropolitan has many bishops in his province. But if, as with many metropolitans, there is one provincial bishop or two, then of necessity the election must be with the actual provincial ones present and with foreign bishops.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop is ordained by all the bishops in the province. But if not, nevertheless by three. And the others having agreed by writing, the metropolitan should have authority.

Interpretation. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops, according to the first rule of the Holy Apostles; however, he is ordained by three if all the bishops in the province cannot come, either because of pressing need or because of the length of the journey; however, they must. And even if they do not come, they must agree by letter to the election with the bishops who have come and are judging and electing, with two or three elected. And then the metropolitan has authority to ordain one of the three elected as bishop, whomever he wishes.

Canon 5. Concerning those whom the bishops in each diocese have removed from church communion—whether they belong to the clergy or to the rank of laity—the rule should be observed in judgment, by which it is established that those excommunicated by some should not be received by others. However, let it be investigated whether they have fallen under excommunication due to pettiness, or contention, or some similar displeasure of the bishop. And so, in order that proper investigation of this may take place, it has been deemed good that in each province there should be councils twice a year: so that all the bishops of the province, assembling together, may investigate such disputes; and thus those who are verifiably shown to have acted unjustly against the bishop may justly be deemed by all unworthy of communion, until the assembly of bishops sees fit to pronounce a more lenient decision concerning them. And the councils should be held, one before the forty days (Great Lent), so that, with all displeasure set aside, a pure gift may be offered to God; and the other around the autumn season.

Zonara. Various rules of the Holy Apostles also prescribe that no one should receive those excommunicated by their own bishops. But since it happens that some are excommunicated unjustly—perhaps out of anger and pettiness on the part of the one excommunicating, or out of some bias, which it also calls displeasure—therefore the sacred Fathers set forth this present canon, commanding that excommunications be subjected to investigation, of course when the excommunicated complain against those who excommunicated them, claiming they were excommunicated unjustly; and the investigation to be by the bishops of the province—either all or the greater part of them, in case some cannot appear at the council with the others, perhaps due to illness, or necessary absence, or some other unavoidable reason. And the Holy Fathers determined that councils be held in each province twice a year, as also laid down by the rules of the Holy Apostles. But the Holy Apostles commanded one of the councils to be in the fourth week of Pentecost, and the other in the month of Hyperberetaeus—that is, October. But the holy Fathers of this Council changed the time, determining instead of the fourth week of Pentecost that the council be before the forty days (Great Lent), and they gave this reason: so that, they say, all displeasure may cease. For one who considers himself wrongly excommunicated will of course complain against the one who excommunicated him; and the one who excommunicated, hearing that the excommunicated does not accept the penance meekly but murmurs against him, will not relate to him impartially. And when they are thus disposed toward each other, how can a gift be offered purely to God? Therefore one council was arranged to be before the forty days, and the other in autumn; and October is an autumn month. At these councils the holy Fathers established to investigate complaints of this kind. And those verifiably and indubitably shown to be unjust (for it is characteristic of one subjected to penance to deny the sin in which the bishop accuses him) will justly—that is, rightly—be deprived of communion by all, until the assembly of bishops sees fit to pronounce something more philanthropic concerning them. But perhaps someone will say: why does the canon assign the decision about the excommunicated not to the one who excommunicated, but to the assembly of bishops? I think this is said for the case when the one who excommunicated persists and does not wish in time to release the person from the penance, or if the one who excommunicated perhaps dies without releasing the one subjected to penance. For then it should be permitted to the council, if it sees that the time of penance is sufficient and the repentance of the one subjected to penance corresponds to the sin, to pronounce a decision about him and release the person from the penance, even if his bishop has not softened and remains unyielding, even if he has already ended his life. The thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles and this present one command councils to be twice a year, while the eighth rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council, renewing this enactment, determines that in each province there be a council once a year from Pascha until the end of October, in the place that the hierarch of the metropolis shall appoint. And for bishops who do not come to the council, though they are in health and in their cities and have no other reasonable and unavoidable occupation, to express censure brotherly or subject them to light penance. Nowadays the matter of these councils is entirely neglected, so that they never take place. Concerning the penance for those not appearing at councils, read the seventy-sixth (eighty-seventh) rule of the Carthaginian council.

Aristen. Those excommunicated by some should not be received by others, unless the excommunication was due to pettiness, or contention, or something similar. Therefore it has been deemed good that councils be held twice a year in each province, one before the forty days (Great Lent), the other around autumn. According to the parable, he who inflicted the wound should also provide the healing. Therefore one excommunicated by his own bishop should not be received by others in such a way—without investigation and without examination—but the reason for the excommunication should be examined, whether the excommunication was pronounced justly, or not due to pettiness—that is, out of anger of the bishop—or contention, or some other displeasure of the bishop. And so, lest the excommunicated be excommunicated arbitrarily, nor the bishops excommunicating them be disregarded if other bishops receive the excommunicated without investigation, this holy Council deemed it good that in each province there be a council twice a year, so that by the common opinion of all the bishops of the same province every church question and every dispute may be resolved, as also the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles prescribes. However, as we wrote there also, the eighth rule of the sixth Trullan council and the sixth of the second Nicene, taking into account the difficulties of the assembling bishops and the lack of necessities for travel, established that a council be held in each province once a year, where the bishop of the metropolis shall decide, between the feast of holy Pascha and the month of October.

Valsamon. It was determined that those excommunicated by some bishops and not absolved should not be received by others. But since it is characteristic of the excommunicated to say that he was excommunicated unjustly, or it may happen that the one who excommunicated dies, this canon commands (as other canons also determined) that all bishops assemble twice a year to the first among them, at which time doubts about those deprived of communion and other church questions are resolved. Displeasure is here called bias. However, what is contained in this present canon about annual councils we do not expound here in detail, because it is no longer in force, and because by the eighth rule of the Trullan council, as well as by the novel of Justinian—that is, chapters 20 and 21 of title 1 of book 3 of the Basilics—it is determined that bishops assemble once. Add these chapters. Seek also the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles and the fourteenth rule of the Sardican council. Read also chapter 8 of title 8 of the present collection.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 5 (Nikon 63). One bound by his own bishop should not be received by another without cause. Those excommunicated by their own bishops should not be received by others. However, unless the excommunication was due to pettiness, or some contention, or something similar of that kind. For this reason it was commanded that a council be held twice a year in each province. The first before the forty days of the holy and great fast, the second around the fruit season.

Interpretation. It is fitting, according to the parabolic word, that he who wounded a person should also heal him. Likewise, one who has received the command of excommunication from his own bishop should not fittingly be received by another without testing and without seeking the cause; but the cause of the excommunication should be examined, lest perhaps the excommunication was not justly imposed on him, but out of pettiness—that is, out of episcopal anger—or out of some contention, or for another such cause done by the passionate will of the bishop; and passionate will is to say: you did not do this for me, therefore be excommunicated. But so that neither the excommunicated are excommunicated without fitting cause, nor the bishops excommunicating them are offended when other bishops receive such without testing: for this reason the Holy Council commanded that a council be held twice a year in each province, so that by the common will of all the bishops of that province every question, and church examination, and every contradiction may be resolved; and the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles commands. However, as we wrote there, the eighth rule of the sixth council in the Trullan palace, and the sixth rule of the seventh council which assembled the second time in Nicaea, because of the scarcity of necessities that the assembling bishops wish to have for travel, commanded a council once a year, where the metropolitan shall choose. And the time of the council is between the feast of holy Pascha and the month of October. For that is the month around the fruit season.

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs be maintained, those accepted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these. Since this is also customary for the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch, and in other provinces, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved. In general, let this be clearly known: If anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Council has determined that such a one should not be a bishop. But if the common election of all is reasonable and in accordance with church rule, yet two or three oppose it out of contentiousness: let the opinion of the greater number of electors prevail.

Zonara. The canon desires that the ancient customs retain their force, as later canons and civil laws also determine. Thus, the canon establishes that the Alexandrian bishop should have primacy over the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Antiochian over the bishops of the provinces subject to him—that is, Syria and Coelesyria, both Cilicias, and Mesopotamia; and that other bishops should have authority over the regions subject to them, just as custom has granted authority to the presiding bishop of the Roman church over the western regions. And the canon desires that these bishops in their provinces have such great privileges that it issues a general enactment: nothing pertaining to church administration should be done without them, the greatest and most important of which is the ordination of bishops. Thus, the canon says: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, such a one should not be a bishop. For although in ancient times the assembly of city citizens elected the bishop, even then after the election they reported about him to the metropolitan, and it was confirmed by him; and the one whom he approved was deemed worthy of ordination. Then the canon adds that if, in an election conducted according to the rules, the greater part is in agreement and of one mind, but two or three oppose out of contentiousness and not for a well-founded reason, and resist the others, the election of the greater number of electors should have force. The same is prescribed by civil laws in monetary matters. The nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council prescribes the same concerning the opposition of bishops.

Aristen. The Alexandrian bishop should have authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Roman over the provinces subject to Rome; and the Antiochian and the others over their own. If anyone is advanced to bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, let him not be a bishop. But if three oppose the election of the greater number, which is conducted according to rule, their opinion should not have force. Each patriarch should be content with his own privileges, and none of them should seize another province that was not from the beginning and originally under his authority, for this is the arrogance of worldly power. But the bishops of each province should recognize their first—that is, the bishop presiding in the metropolis—and not elect a bishop without his consent; and if they elect someone without his consent, such a one should not be a bishop. But if the bishops, assembled with the metropolitan’s consent to perform the election, do not all come to the same mind, but some out of contentiousness begin to speak against it, then the judgment and election of the majority should prevail. And the opinion of those who oppose should not be heeded. Seek also the eighth rule of the Ephesian council, the thirty-fourth Apostolic rule, the second and third rules of the Antiochian council, and the third rule of the Sardican council.

Valsamon. This sixth canon and the seventh determine that, according to ancient customs, four patriarchs should be honored with distinction—that is, the Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochian, and Jerusalem (concerning the Constantinopolitan will be explained in other canons)—and that the Alexandrian should have primacy over the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; similarly the Antiochian over the provinces of Syria, Coelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both Cilicias; and the Jerusalem over the provinces in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia—because, it says, the Roman bishop also has primacy over the western provinces. Thus the canons desire that patriarchs have primacy over the metropolises subject to them, and metropolitans in turn over the bishops subject to them, so that the bishops subject to them do nothing exceeding their authority without them. For therefore the canons also command that one advanced to bishop without the consent of the first should not be a bishop, adding that when an election has been conducted according to the rules but some oppose, the opinion of the greater number of electors should prevail, according to the laws. When this is so determined, someone asked: this canon determines that in all matters the opinion of the greater number should prevail, but the new enactment of our sovereign and holy emperor, lord Manuel Comnenus, issued in the month of July, fourteenth indiction, year 6674, among other things literally determines the following: if not all agree, but some dissent from the majority, or the votes are equally divided, in such a case the opinion of those with whom the presiding judge agrees should have the advantage. Which should be followed? Some said that in church matters one should not follow the novel, and therefore the ancient enactments and canons set forth in agreement with them should have force in these matters; but others on the contrary asserted that the novel was issued for the whole world and for every matter, and is a general enactment. But it seems to me that the rules of this novel have no place in relation to church elections and church matters, lest canonical election be overturned through it. Seek also the nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council. The Jerusalem patriarch is called bishop of Aelia because the city of Jerusalem was once called Salim and Jebus, and after King Solomon built in it the famous divine temple and sanctuary, it was called Jerusalem. Then the Jerusalem people were taken captive by the Babylonians and the city destroyed to the ground. When the Roman emperor Aelius Hadrian rebuilt it, it was called Aelia after his name. By the common name, the city of Jerusalem itself and the whole region subject to it is called Palestine. Some asked: what does the word of the canon mean: “let him have the consequence of honor, with preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis”? And they received in answer that the metropolis in Palestine was Caesarea, and the Jerusalem church was once its episcopal see. Thus the canon desires that the rights of the metropolis be preserved for it, although Aelia has been separated from it and its bishop has received honor because of the saving sufferings of Christ. Seek also from the acts of the fourth council, act 8, and learn that, by agreement of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, it was deemed good that the Antiochian have the two Phoenicias and Arabia, and the Jerusalem the three Palestines; and then it was so determined, but now a change of circumstances has, by custom, altered this also.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let the Alexandrian bishop have authority over Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. And let the Roman bishop have authority over those under Rome. And the Antiochian and the others over their own. But if any bishop is ordained apart from the will of the metropolitan, let him not be bishop, since the canons command that many judges be for the election of a bishop. But if certain three speak against, let them not be heeded.

Interpretation. Each patriarch should have authority over his own boundaries. And let none of them seize another province that was not from above and from the beginning under his hand, for this is the pride of worldly power. It is fitting for the bishops of each province to know and honor their elder—that is, the bishop in the metropolis—and not to elect a bishop without his will. But if they elect someone without his will, such a one should not be bishop. But if, having assembled according to the metropolitan’s will to make judgment and election, they do not come to one will, but some, having fallen into contention, begin to speak against, let the judgment and election of the greater number prevail. And let the opinion of those who oppose not be heeded. And for this seek also the eighth rule of the third council in Ephesus, the thirty-fourth rule of the Holy Apostles, the ninth rule of the council in Antioch, the third rule of the second ecumenical council in Constantinople, and the third rule of the council in Sardica.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop residing in Jerusalem should be honored: let him have the consequence of honor, with preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis.

Zonara. Just as the preceding canon granted privileges in their provinces to the Alexandrian and Antiochian bishops, so this present canon awarded the bishop of Aelia honor in his own province, and determined that for the city of Jerusalem, which is called Aelia, its own dignity be preserved, as presiding over the cities of Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia. For both in ancient times and now this whole region was called and is called Palestine. And the city in the most ancient time was called Salim and Jebus, and afterwards was named Jerusalem. After it was taken by the Romans and destroyed to the ground, the Roman emperor Hadrian, restoring the city, named it Aelia after his own name; for he was called Aelius Hadrian; thus he named it. Some say that the canon called the metropolis Caesarea, namely Caesarea of Palestine, which in ancient times was called Strato’s Tower.

Aristen. Let the bishop of Aelia have honor, with preservation of the dignity of the metropolis. The one hundred twenty-third novel, found in title one of book one, names the bishop of Jerusalem, who is called Aelia, patriarch. Thus, according to this canon, honor as patriarch should be rendered to the bishop of Aelia. But since Caesarea is the first metropolis of Palestine and the holy city, this patriarch should have his honor, and for Caesarea the metropolis (to which he was formerly subject) its own dignity should be preserved. Seek also the twelfth rule of the Chalcedonian council.

Valsamon. This present canon has been explained in the commentary on the preceding sixth canon.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let the bishop of Aelia be honored, with the rank of the Palestinian metropolis remaining intact.

Interpretation. The one hundred and twenty-third new command, lying in the first section of the first imperial books, names the bishop of Jerusalem (for Aelia is called Jerusalem) patriarch. It is fitting, therefore, according to this canon, that the bishop of Aelia—that is, Jerusalem—be honored with patriarchal distinction: since Caesarea, said to be Strato’s, is the first metropolis of Palestine, and under it is the holy city. It is fitting, therefore, for the patriarch of Aelia to have his honor, and for the rank of the Caesarean metropolis to remain intact and preserved, and to have its own dignity, under which the holy city was. And for this seek the twelfth rule of the fourth council in Chalcedon. And why the canon called the holy city Aelia: from ancient times it was called Salim, and afterwards was called Jebus; later it was named Jerusalem. But when the Romans came and plundered and razed it, and afterwards the Roman emperor Hadrian, called Aelius, built the city, he did not name it Jerusalem again, but after his own name called it Aelia.

Canon 8. Concerning those who once called themselves Cathari, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church: it has pleased the holy and great Council that, after the laying on of hands upon them, they remain in the clergy. But before all else, it is necessary that they make a written profession that they will join and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church—that is, that they will be in church communion both with digamists and with those who lapsed during the persecution, for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed. It is necessary that they follow in all things the decrees of the Catholic Church. Thus, wherever—whether in villages or in cities—all those found in the clergy prove to have been ordained from among them alone: let them remain in the same rank. But if, where there is a bishop of the Catholic Church, some of them come to the Church: it is clear that the bishop of the orthodox Church will hold the episcopal dignity; while the one called bishop among the so-called Cathari will have the honor of a presbyter—unless the local bishop should see fit that he also share in the honor of the episcopal title. But if this is not pleasing to him: then, to provide an apparent enrollment of such a one in the clergy, he shall devise for him a place either as chorepiscopus or as presbyter, so that there may not be two bishops in the city.

Zonara. The Cathari are the Novatians; and Novatian was a presbyter of the Roman church who did not receive the repentant among those who had lapsed during the persecution and did not enter into communion with digamists. Therefore, although he did not err in matters of faith, for his lack of mercy and hatred of brethren he was excommunicated and anathematized by the council held in Rome under Cornelius, pope of Rome, during the reign of Decius, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. Thus, this canon determines that adherents of his heresy, when they convert to the church, should be received with a written profession that they will observe the dogmas of the catholic church and will receive those who denied Christ under compulsion, and will arrange for them according to the times appointed for the penance of the lapsed (for this is the meaning of the words: “for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed”), and that they will be in communion with digamists. If they have been ordained as bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, those joining the church from among them remain in the clergy, in their ranks, if in the churches where they were ordained there are no others. Since they erred not by deviation from the faith, but by hatred of brethren and refusal to allow penance for the lapsed who converted, therefore the Council accepted their ordinations and determined that they should remain in their ranks, provided there is no bishop in the catholic church of that city. But if they are in such a church where there is a bishop or presbyter, this bishop should hold the dignity and name of the episcopate, while the one named bishop among the Cathari should have the honor either of presbyter or even of chorepiscopus, so that he may be counted together in the list of the clergy and not excluded from it—unless the bishop of the catholic church, out of indulgence, wishes him to have the name and honor of bishop; but even then he should not act as a bishop, so that there may not be two bishops in one and the same city.

Aristen. The so-called Cathari who join the church must first profess that they will obey the ordinances of the church, and will have communion with digamists, and will show indulgence to the lapsed. And thus those found to have been ordained should remain in their rank—that is, the true (that is, orthodox) bishop should be bishop, and the bishop among the Cathari should be either chorepiscopus or enjoy the honor either of presbyter or of bishop, for there should not be two bishops in one church. Of those coming to the holy, divine, catholic, and Apostolic Church, some are baptized, others are anointed with chrism, and others only anathematize their own and every other heresy. Those deceived by Novatian and named by him Cathari, since they do not accept the penance of those who have sinned and forbid second marriage, if they come to the church and profess that they will receive digamists and show indulgence to those who sinned but repented, and in general follow all the church dogmas and anathematize their heresy and others—they should be received and anointed with the one holy chrism. And if some of them are bishops or chorepiscopi, they again remain in the same dignity, provided that in the same city there is no other bishop of the catholic church ordained before their conversion. For the one who was from the beginning rightly bishop should have the preeminent honor, and he alone should occupy the episcopal throne; because there should not be two bishops in one city; while the one called bishop among the Cathari should have presbyteral honor, or, if it pleases the bishop, let him have even the name of bishop, but he should not exercise any episcopal right.

Valsamon. This Novatian was a presbyter of the Roman church, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. When there was a persecution and many lapsed out of fear of death but afterwards repented, he, puffed up by the demon, did not wish to receive them and had no communion with digamists, as if zealous for chastity. Those who thought in agreement with him are called Novatians, and in mockery Cathari. At the council held in Rome under Cornelius, pope of the Roman church, during the reign of Decius, Novatian was anathematized, as well as those holding his heresy. Therefore the canon says that if any of them with pure repentance leave their former evil and bind themselves to preserve the dogmas of the catholic church, such a one should be received. And if they are clerics, they should necessarily retain their ranks, for they err not in matters of faith but are condemned for hatred of brethren. If they hold episcopal dignity, and in the region where they were cut off there are other (orthodox) bishops, they should not exercise anything episcopal, but it will lie with the (orthodox) bishop whether they have the mere name of bishop or are called by another name; and when there are no local bishops, they should perform episcopal duties also. The expression: “for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed” is used concerning those who lapsed during the persecution and concerning digamists. And clerics, after reception into the church, may be enrolled in the clergy to which they were previously ordained, but only when no other clerics have been appointed in their place; and if such are present somewhere, the same should be done with them as is written above concerning bishops. Perhaps someone will ask: if some of them wish to be advanced to a higher rank, will this present canon hinder this, which at the beginning says: “it has pleased the holy Council that after the laying on of hands upon them they remain in the clergy,” or may they freely receive higher ranks? Resolution. In the eightieth Apostolic rule and in the second rule of this present Council it is established that even complete unbelievers receive ranks of the priesthood. Thus, why should Novatians, called also Cathari, who as has been said have no errors in relation to the faith but are condemned for lack of compassion, not be able to receive higher ranks? And that they remain in the clergy, I think this is determined especially concerning them. For probably some said that they should be received, but only as simple laymen and not exercise the rights belonging to their former ranks. This was not accepted by the Council, but it was laid down to restore them to their ranks. With the name of restoration is connected also the rule of advancement to higher ranks.

Slavic Kormchaya. Heretics called Cathari who come to the catholic church must first profess that they obey the church laws, and have communion with digamists, and forgive those who sin. And if in some city there is a true bishop of that city, and also from these so-called Cathari another bishop or presbyter has been ordained, let him remain in his rank. But nevertheless the one ordained bishop from the Cathari should have honor as presbyter; or if the bishop of that city wishes, let him give him a bishopric somewhere in a village; for it is not possible for two bishops to be in one city.

Interpretation. Of heretics coming to the holy divine catholic Apostolic Church, some are fully baptized; others are only anointed with chrism; and others only curse their own and all other heresies. These called Cathari were deceived into such a heresy by Novatian, presbyter of the Roman church; from him they were also named Cathari, for this reason: because they do not accept the penance of those converting from sins. And they utterly forbid marrying a second time. And digamists they do not at all receive into communion. And such, if they come to the holy catholic Apostolic Church and profess to receive digamists into communion and not to revile second marriage, and to forgive sins to those who sin and repent; and simply to say, following all church commands, having cursed their heresy and all others—let them be received, and only anointed with the holy chrism. But if some of them are bishops, let them again remain in their rank, only if in that city no bishop of the catholic church is found: for such a one will be honored who was from the beginning the true bishop, and he alone sits on the episcopal throne. The one called bishop from the Cathari should be honored as presbyter: since it is not fitting for two bishops to be in one city. But if it pleases the bishop of that city, as we said, let him command him to be called bishop: but let him not touch any episcopal matter. But if he wishes, let him appoint him bishop somewhere in a village.

Book of Rules. The heretics who called themselves Cathari were followers of Novatian, presbyter of the Roman church, who taught that the lapsed during the persecution should not be received in penance, and digamists never received into church communion, and in these proud and unphilanthropic judgments placed the purity of their society.

Canon 9. If any have been advanced to presbyters without examination, or though upon examination they confessed their sins, yet contrary to the rule men proceeded and laid hands upon them: the canon does not admit such to holy ministry. For the Catholic Church unfailingly requires blamelessness.

Zonara. The canon desires that those advanced to the priesthood be blameless and pure from faults that hinder ordination, and that their life and conduct be examined. But if some perhaps are advanced to the rank of priesthood without examination, or when they confessed their shortcomings but the ordainers contrary to the rule ordain them—of such the canon establishes that they should not be admitted, and that there is no benefit for them from the unlawful ordination; for they should be subject to deposition.

Aristen. Those ordained without examination, if afterwards they are convicted of having truly sinned, should be removed from sacred ministry. If anyone having sinned concealed the sin and without examination was advanced to the rank of bishop or presbyter, and if after ordination he is convicted of having sinned, such a one should be removed from the priesthood.

Valsamon. The impediments to receiving the priesthood are various; among them is fornication. Thus, if anyone is condemned as having fallen into the sin of fornication, whether before ordination or after, such a one is deposed. Therefore, the canon says, for one ordained without examination or though having confessed his sin before ordination yet ordained contrary to the rules, there is no benefit from the ordination; but upon inquiry he is deposed. For some said that just as baptism makes a baptized person new, so priesthood blots out sins committed before the priesthood; but this is not accepted in the canons.

Slavic Kormchaya (Nikon 13). Those ordained without examination and after ordination convicted of former sins should cease.

Interpretation. If anyone having sinned and not confessed such sins to a spiritual father—sins that forbid him from the priesthood—and concealing it, and without examination is advanced to the presbyteral or episcopal rank. But if after ordination he is convicted of having committed such a sin, let him be deprived of the priesthood.

source

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

The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles

Chapter 1

There are two paths: one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two paths.

The path of life is this: First, you shall love God who created you; second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, and whatever you do not wish to be done to you, do not do to another.

The teaching of these words is as follows: Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what thanks is there if you love those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But you, love those who hate you, and you shall have no enemy.

Abstain from fleshly and worldly desires. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone compels you to go one mile, go with him two. If someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic also. If someone takes what is yours, do not demand it back, for you are not able.

Give to everyone who asks of you, and do not demand it back, for the Father desires that gifts be given from His bounty. Blessed is the one who gives according to the commandment, for he is blameless. Woe to the one who receives; for if one receives having need, he is blameless, but if one receives without need, he shall give an account of why he took and for what purpose. Being put in prison, he shall be examined concerning what he has done, and he shall not escape until he repays the last penny.

Yet it has also been said concerning this: Let thine alms sweat in thine hands, until thou knowest to whom thou shouldest give.

Chapter 2

The second commandment of the teaching is this:

Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not corrupt children, do not fornicate, do not steal, do not practice sorcery, do not use poisons, do not kill a child in the womb or one that is born, and do not covet your neighbor’s possessions.

Do not swear falsely, do not bear false witness, do not speak evil, do not hold grudges.

Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for double-tonguedness is a snare of death.

Let your word be neither false nor empty, but fulfilled by action.

Do not be greedy, nor a thief, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant. Do not devise evil plans against your neighbor.

Do not hate any person, but reprove some, pray for others, and love some more than your own soul.

Chapter 3

My child, flee from all evil and everything like it.

Do not be prone to anger, for anger leads to murder, nor be jealous, nor contentious, nor hot-tempered, for from all these things murders arise.

My child, do not be lustful, for lust leads to fornication, nor be foul-mouthed, nor bold-eyed, for from all these things adulteries arise.

My child, do not be a diviner by omens, since it leads to idolatry, nor an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a magician, nor desire to look upon such things, for from all these things idolatry arises.

My child, do not be a liar, since lying leads to theft, nor love money, nor be vain, for from all these things thefts arise.

My child, do not be a grumbler, since grumbling leads to blasphemy, nor be self-willed, nor evil-minded, for from all these things blasphemies arise.
But be meek, for the meek shall inherit the earth.

Be patient, merciful, harmless, humble, and good, and always trembling at the words you have heard.

Do not exalt yourself or allow boldness in your soul. Let not your soul cleave to the proud, but associate with the righteous and humble.

Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that nothing occurs apart from God.

Chapter 4

My child, remember day and night the one who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as the Lord, for where His lordship is proclaimed, there the Lord is.

Seek daily the company of the saints, that you may find rest in their words.

Do not cause division, but reconcile those who quarrel. Judge justly, and do not show partiality when reproving transgressions.

Do not be double-minded, wondering whether a thing should be or not.

Do not stretch out your hands to receive but close them when giving.

If you have something through the work of your hands, give it as a ransom for your sins.

Do not hesitate to give, nor grumble when giving, for you shall know who is the good Rewarder.

Do not turn away from the needy, but share all things with your brother and do not say they are your own, for if you are sharers in what is imperishable, how much more in what is perishable?

Do not withhold your hand from your son or daughter, but from their youth teach them the fear of God.

In your anger, do not give commands to your slave or maidservant who hope in the same God, lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both. For He comes to call, not according to outward appearance, but those whom the Spirit has prepared.

And you, slaves, submit to your masters as to the image of God, with reverence and fear.

Hate all hypocrisy and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord.

Do not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but keep what you have received, neither adding nor taking away.

In the congregation, confess your transgressions, and do not approach your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the path of life.

Chapter 5

The path of death is this: First of all, it is evil and full of cursing. On it are murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, sorceries, poisonings, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisies, double-mindedness, deceit, pride, malice, self-will, greed, foul speech, envy, boldness, arrogance, and vanity.

On this path are those who persecute the good, hate the truth, love lies, do not know the reward of righteousness, do not cling to what is good nor to just judgment, who watch not for good but for evil, from whom meekness and patience are far removed, who love vain things, pursue reward, show no mercy to the poor, do not labor for the oppressed, do not know their Creator, murder children, destroy God’s creation, turn away from the needy, oppress the afflicted, defend the rich, unjustly judge the poor, and are sinners in every way. Flee, children, from all such people.

Chapter 6

See that no one leads you astray from this path of teaching, for such a one teaches you apart from God.

If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can.

Concerning food, bear what you are able, but strictly abstain from what is offered to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods.

Chapter 7

Concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all the foregoing, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

If you have no living water, baptize in other water; if you cannot in cold, then in warm.

If you have neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Before baptism, let the baptizer and the one to be baptized fast, and, if possible, others as well. Command the one to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days.

Chapter 8

Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But you, fast on the fourth and sixth days.

Do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, pray thus: Our Father in heaven, hallowed may Thy name be; may Thy kingdom come; may Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth; give us this day our needful bread; and forgive us our debt, even as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory forever.

Pray this three times a day.

Chapter 9

Concerning the Eucharist, perform it thus:

First, regarding the cup: We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. To Thee be glory forever!

And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. To Thee be glory forever.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and, being gathered together, became one, so let Thy Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.

Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord has said: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.

Chapter 10

After you are filled, give thanks thus: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. To Thee be glory forever!

Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou hast granted spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.

Above all, we thank Thee because Thou art mighty. To Thee be glory forever!

Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in Thy love, and gather it, sanctified, from the four winds into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it, for Thine is the power and the glory forever.

Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If any is holy, let him come; if any is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
But permit the prophets to offer the Eucharist according to their discretion.

Chapter 11

Whoever comes and teaches you all that has been said before, receive him.

But if the teacher himself, having turned aside, teaches another doctrine to destroy this, do not listen to him. But if he teaches to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.

Concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel.

Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.

But he shall not remain more than one day, or if necessary, a second day; but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet.

When the apostle departs, let him take nothing except bread sufficient until he reaches his lodging; but if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

Do not test or judge any prophet speaking in the Spirit, for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

Yet not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only he who walks in the ways of the Lord. Thus, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known by their ways.

No prophet who, in the Spirit, appoints a table shall eat from it, unless he is a false prophet.

Every prophet teaching the truth, if he does not practice what he teaches, is a false prophet.

But every prophet proven true, who acts for the worldly mystery of the Church but does not teach others to do as he does, shall not be judged by you, for he has his judgment with God; for so did the ancient prophets.

If anyone says in the Spirit, “Give me money or anything else,” do not listen to him. But if he bids you give for others who are in need, let no one judge him.

Chapter 12

Let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be received, and then, having tested him, you shall know what to do, for you will have discernment of what is true and false.

If the one who comes is a traveler, help him as much as you can, but he shall not stay with you more than two or three days, even if necessary.

If he wishes to settle among you and is a craftsman, let him work and eat.

But if he has no trade, provide for him according to your discretion, but so that no Christian lives among you idle.

If he is unwilling to act thus, he is a Christ-monger. Beware of such people!

Chapter 13

Every true prophet who wishes to settle among you is worthy of his food.

Likewise, a true teacher is worthy, like the laborer, of his food.

Therefore, take the firstfruits of the produce of the winepress and threshing floor, of oxen and sheep, and give these firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests.

If you have no prophet, give them to the poor.

If you prepare food, take the firstfruits and give them according to the commandment.

Likewise, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take the firstfruits and give them to the prophets.

And of money, clothing, and every possession, take the firstfruits as seems good to you and give according to the commandment.

Chapter 14

On the Lord’s day, gather together, break bread, and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.

Let no one who has a dispute with his friend join you until they are reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled.

For this is what the Lord has said: In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations.

Chapter 15

Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, truthful, and tested, for they also perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.

Therefore, do not despise them, for they are your honored ones alongside the prophets and apostles.

Correct one another not in anger but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel, and let no one speak with or listen to anyone who acts offensively toward another until he repents.

Perform your prayers, almsgiving, and all your deeds as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Chapter 16

Watch over your life; let your lamps not be quenched, and let your loins not be ungirded, but be ready, for you know not the hour in which your Lord comes.

You must gather together often, seeking what is fitting for your souls, for the whole time of your faith will not profit you unless you are made perfect in the last hour.

For in the last days, false prophets and corrupters will increase, and the sheep will turn into wolves, and love will turn into hatred.

For as lawlessness increases, men will hate and persecute one another, and then the world-deceiver will appear as if he were the Son of God, performing signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit lawless acts such as have never been done since the beginning.

Then humanity will come into the fire of testing, and many will stumble and perish, but those who endure in their faith will be saved from his curse.

And then the sign of truth will appear: first, the sign of an opening in heaven; then, the sign of the trumpet’s sound; and third, the resurrection of the dead.
Yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come, and all His saints with Him.

Then the world will see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.

About the Council

The holy and ecumenical third council was held under Emperor Theodosius the Younger, when two hundred fathers gathered in Ephesus against Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, who called Christ a mere man and taught that the Son of God was united with him by favor toward him. Therefore, he did not allow the Holy Virgin to be called God-bearer, but called her Christ-bearer. The holy fathers subjected him to deposition and anathema.

Slavic Kormchaya. The third ecumenical holy council was held in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, with two hundred holy fathers gathered in Ephesus against the accursed Nestorius, who spoke of Christ our God as a mere man, preaching that the Son of God was united to him by love: therefore, he did not wish to call the Holy Virgin God-bearer, but Christ-bearer. The holy fathers deposed him and cursed him. At that same council, they also set forth nine rules.

The writing of the holy fathers of this council to all the faithful. The holy ecumenical great council gathered in Ephesus, by the command of the pious emperor Theodosius, to all those in all regions and cities, and to bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and all the people: when we had gathered, according to the pious writing, that is, according to the command of our pious emperor, in the metropolis of Ephesus, some withdrew from us, numbering thirty and a few more, who have no authority in church communion, as they lack lordship in the priesthood, being able to do some harm or benefit, since some of them had been deposed: thus, bearing in themselves all the thinking of Nestorius and Celestine, and not having repented openly of this, since they did not wish with us to condemn and curse Nestorius. By the common command of the holy council, it made them aliens to all church communion, and took away from them all action, that is, priestly authority, by which they could harm or benefit anyone.

Canon 1. Since it was necessary that those not present at the holy council, and remaining in their own place or city, for some reason, either ecclesiastical or bodily, should not remain without knowledge of what was decreed at it: we inform your holiness and charity that if any provincial metropolitan, having withdrawn from the holy and ecumenical council, has joined the apostate assembly, or hereafter joins it, or has accepted or accepts Celestine’s thinking, such a one can in no way do anything against the bishops of his province, as he is henceforth already rejected by the council from all church communion and rendered inactive. But he will also be subject to examination by those very bishops of the province and the surrounding metropolitans who think orthodoxly, for his complete deposition from the episcopal rank.

Zonara. When the sacred fathers gathered in Ephesus, after the investigations conducted concerning the impious doctrines introduced by Nestorius, under the presidency at the council of the orthodox fathers of Saint Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who also held the place of Celestine, pope of Old Rome, with the assistance to Saint Cyril of Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, Nestorius, patriarch of New Rome and the imperial city, was condemned and deposed by the definition of the sacred fathers. But three days later, John the patriarch of Antioch and many bishops who arrived with him, whose leaders were Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, and Ibas bishop of Edessa, being grieved that the fathers of the council had not awaited their arrival, expressed censure regarding the deposition of Nestorius, and subjected Saint Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus to deposition. At the same time, Theodoret also issued another twelve chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of Nestorius’s impiety and for the confirmation of the orthodox faith, for the destruction and refutation of those. In like manner, Ibas also composed an epistle. As a result, great discord arose among them, so that the fathers of the council subjected these hierarchs to deposition, as agreeing with opinions similar to those of Nestorius. Therefore, on account of these circumstances, the present rule was set forth, by which the bishops of the dioceses who were not present at the council are informed of the conciliar condemnation of the patriarch of Antioch and the others, and that those possessing hierarchical rights who thought or will think in accordance with Nestorius should do nothing against bishops or laymen.

Aristen. If a metropolitan who was not present at the council holds or will hold to Celestine’s teaching, he is deposed.

Valsamon. After the deposition of Nestorius, John the patriarch of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, and Ibas bishop of Edessa, and others. And since the deposition had taken place in their absence, they expressed censure of what had occurred, and without foundation deposed Saint Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who presided at the council and who also held the place of Celestine, pope of Rome, and together with him Memnon bishop of Ephesus. Meanwhile, Theodoret composed another twelve chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of Nestorius’s impiety, for the destruction and refutation of those. In like manner, Ibas also composed an epistle. But all this the Fourth Council rejected as impious. And the fathers of the Third Council themselves, learning of what had been done by John the patriarch of Antioch and the others against Saint Cyril and those of like mind with him—these latter, as unjustly deposed, they restored; but John and the thirty bishops of like mind with him they declared deprived of all church communion, as having accepted the impious teaching of Nestorius and Celestius. Therefore, the rule determines that, since it was necessary for some of the bishops, absent for valid reasons, not to remain in ignorance of what had occurred, all should know that if any bishop has joined or joins the apostate assembly, that is, the side of John of Antioch and Celestius, such a one will be deposed, and nowhere should he perform anything priestly; but all the surrounding metropolitans and bishops will consider him rejected, as already deprived of the episcopal degree. Such is the content of this rule. And you, if you find in some copies a scribe’s error concerning Celestius (for instead of Celestius, Celestine is mentioned), do not accept what is written in that way as correct; for Celestine pope of Rome was orthodox, as said above, but Celestius was of like mind with Nestorius, that is, a heretic.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any metropolitan or bishop, having left and not come to the council, wishes to think in Celestine’s manner or does think so, let him be rejected and cast out from the church.

Canon 2. But if any diocesan bishops were not present at the holy council, and have taken part in the apostasy or attempt to take part; or, having signed the deposition of Nestorius, have gone over to the apostate assembly: such ones, according to the will of the holy council, are to be completely alien to the priesthood and deposed from their degree.

Zonara. When John of Antioch, and Theodoret and Ibas, as said, opposed the teaching accepted by the assembly of fathers, some other bishops also joined them—some from those not present at the council, others from those who were present and confirmed with their own signatures the definition concerning the deposition of Nestorius. Therefore, the present rule discusses these and decrees that they are deprived of the priesthood. This should be understood properly of bishops; but the expression “deposed from their degree” should be referred to clerics, for they are on degrees, and priests have a greater degree or dignity, deacons a lesser, and the others in order.

Aristen. And a bishop who agrees and is of like mind with Nestorius is excommunicated from the church.

Valsamon. The content of the present second rule is explained in the first rule, for that speaks of one and the same thing with this. But this rule adds that those who signed under the deposition of Nestorius but afterward joined the side of John of Antioch are also considered deposed. And as for the rule mentioning at the end alienation from the priesthood and deposition from the degree, say that alienation from the priesthood refers to bishops, but deposition from the degree to clerics, to whom degrees properly belong, so that clerics who have joined the side of the apostates in any way are subject to deposition. Nevertheless, the first rule, speaking at the end about bishops, also calls the episcopate a degree.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop thinks in the same way as Nestorius and is of one mind with him, let him be rejected.

Canon 3. If any of those belonging to the clergy in each city or village have been forbidden the priesthood by Nestorius and his accomplices for orthodox thinking: we have given such ones the right to receive back their degree. In general, we command that members of the clergy who are of one mind with the orthodox and ecumenical council in no way be subject to bishops who have apostatized or are apostatizing from orthodoxy.

Zonara. Nestorius, being, as said, patriarch of Constantinople, excommunicated some clerics who thought not in agreement with him; the bishops of like mind with him did the same in other cities. Therefore, those who were forbidden the priesthood for disagreement with the impiety of Nestorius and his like-minded ones, the holy council by the present rule has restored to their degrees, and has determined that orthodox clerics in no way be subject to bishops of like mind with Nestorius, neither as clerics nor as those simply being ordained and thus subject to bishops, or obliged to give them a fixed tribute.

Aristen. Whoever was forbidden the priesthood by Nestorius must necessarily perform priestly functions, but whoever was received by him is not consecrated.

Valsamon. Without doubt, some orthodox clerics did not think as Nestorius or the bishops of like mind with him thought, and for this were excommunicated. Therefore, this rule restores such ones to their degrees and adds that not only they preserve their ranks, but all clerics of such bishops in no way submit to them as apostates.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop or presbyter or deacon was deprived of the priesthood by Nestorius, he is most holy. But whomever he received, that one is not consecrated.

Canon 4. If any of the clergy apostatize and dare, either privately or publicly, to hold to the thinking of Nestorius or Celestine: the holy council has judged it righteous for these also to be deposed from the sacred order.

Zonara. This rule also discusses clerics of like mind with the heretics and says that in any case—whether they hold incorrect opinions personally and only for themselves, or publicly teach all and preach—the holy council has judged it righteous (instead of: judged it just and decreed) that they be deposed. And Celestine was of like mind with Nestorius.

Aristen. If some of the clerics were of like mind with Celestine or Nestorius, they should be deposed.

Valsamon. This rule is similar to those preceding it; for it says that clerics who thought in accordance with Nestorius or Celestius—whether they preached their teaching to others or not—are deposed. And the expression “has judged it righteous” is set down instead of: decreed it just.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any clerics think the commands of Celestine’s and Nestorius’s heresy, let them be deposed.

Canon 5. If certain ones have been condemned by the holy council, or by their own bishops, for unseemly deeds; and Nestorius, and those of like mind with him, contrary to the rules, according to his entirely arbitrary action in all things, has attempted or attempts to restore to them communion with the church, or the degree of the priesthood: we have judged it righteous that this be of no benefit to them, and that they remain nonetheless deposed from the sacred order.

Zonara. Some clerics, convicted of crimes for which they are subject to deposition and deprivation of their own degrees, were deposed and excommunicated. But Nestorius, as patriarch, contrary to the rules, received such ones arbitrarily, that is, without discernment, making no distinction between the forbidden and the not forbidden, and gave them communion or degree. Therefore, the fathers decreed that such ones receive no benefit, that is, that the action contrary to the rules brings them no advantage, and judged it righteous, that is, considered it just, that they nonetheless remain deposed, or judged it righteous, that is, imposed the penalty that they be deposed. For the expression “judged it righteous” is taken instead of “punished.” Hence we also say “those justifications there,” that is, the future punishments.

Aristen. To one condemned by a bishop and received by Nestorius, there is no benefit from this. Some metropolitans separated from those gathered at the council in Ephesus and accepted the teaching of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople—this worshipper of man and impious one, of like mind with the Jews—and of Celestius, bishop of Rome; and others left the council and did not wish to vote against these unhallowed and impious bishops, but rather adhered to them and defended them. Therefore, for this reason the holy council determined that those who adhere to Nestorius and Celestius and hold that heresy and think thus should be excluded from the Christian society and excommunicated from the church, and that bishops and presbyters whom Nestorius or Celestius had deprived of the priesthood, because they thought and believed rightly, should again receive their rank; likewise, on the contrary, those who were deposed by their own bishops for certain evil deeds, and were received and justified by Nestorius or Celestius, were unholy and again to be deposed.

Valsamon. You know that metropolitans and bishops can judge their clerics and sometimes subject them to excommunication or even deposition. Therefore, since Nestorius and those of like mind with him, contrary to the rules, received some such ones (that is, excommunicated) into communion, or even restored them to their former degrees, in order to draw them to themselves in this way; the present rule says that clerics receive no benefit for themselves from this, but remain deposed or even excommunicated. The expression “judged it righteous” is here set down instead of: “the council decreed it just.”

Slavic Kormchaya. If any cleric, having been condemned by his own bishop and received by Nestorius, even that one is again not received and unfit.

Interpretation of the five previously mentioned rules. When the holy fathers gathered at the council in Ephesus, and certain metropolitans separated from the orthodox and held heretical commands of the impious Nestorius, bishop of the city of Constantine—this one who believed in a man and thought like the Jews—and of Celestine, bishop of Rome. Certain bishops also remained away and did not come to the council and did not wish to condemn or curse these unhallowed and impious bishops, but rather championed and aided them. For this reason, therefore, the holy council commanded that those aiding Nestorius and Celestine, and holding that heresy and thinking thus, be cast out from the rank and expelled from the church; but bishops and presbyters whom Nestorius and Celestine had deposed from the priesthood, because they thought rightly and believed, should again receive their rank. Likewise again, those who had been deposed by their own bishops for certain evil deeds, and were received and justified by Nestorius and Celestine, are again not holy: and immediately let them be deposed.

Canon 6. Likewise, if certain ones should wish, in any way whatsoever, to disturb what has been done concerning each of them by the holy council in Ephesus, the holy council has determined that such ones, if they are bishops or belong to the clergy, be completely deprived of their degree; but if laymen: be excommunicated from church communion.

Zonara. The preceding rules gave decrees particularly concerning those who were of like mind with the apostates and opposed the council and accepted Nestorius’s false teaching. But this present rule condemns in general all those who attempt to pervert anything in what was accepted at the holy council, and subjects the consecrated to deposition, and imposes excommunication on laymen. This was in Ephesus. But when the hierarchs began to act against one another, and division occurred among them, then the emperor summoned all to the imperial city, reconciled and made peace. And Theodoret confessed that the chapters written by him he had composed in a spirit of enmity, rejected them, accepted the conciliar definitions, and agreed to the deposition of Nestorius, both he himself and the others. This rule was enacted by the council after the impious symbol set forth by Nestorius had been brought to the council and read, as well as the symbol of the three hundred eighteen fathers who were at the first council.

Aristen. A layman opposing the council is deprived of communion, and a cleric is also excommunicated from the church. Whoever again subjects to discussion, or entirely disturbs what was done by the council held in Ephesus, that one, if a bishop or cleric, must be completely deprived of his degree; but if a layman, must be excommunicated from church communion.

Valsamon. This rule is clear, for it determines that those who disturb what was done at the council held in Ephesus, if clerics, are deposed, but if laymen, are excommunicated from church communion. But the seventh rule says that laymen thinking contrary to the dogma (of Ephesus) are subject to anathema. Do not think there is contradiction here; for there is a great difference between contradicting and doubting something about any matter. Therefore, one doubting concerning what has already been established on good grounds must be excommunicated; but one opposing it, as thinking contrary, must be subjected to anathema.

Slavic Kormchaya. A worldly man is without communion who opposes the council. But if a cleric, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. What the holy fathers at the council in Ephesus commanded and ordered, if anyone attempts to pervert this or entirely add to it: if he is a bishop or cleric, let him utterly fall from his degree: but if he is a worldly man, let him be excommunicated.

Canon 7. After the reading of this, the holy council determined: that it be permitted to no one to pronounce, or write, or compose a different faith, other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled in the city of Nicaea with the Holy Ghost. But those who dare to compose a different faith, or to present, or to offer it to those wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth, whether from heathenism, or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: such ones, if they are bishops or belong to the clergy, shall be aliens—bishops from the episcopate, and clerics from the clergy; but if laymen: shall be given over to anathema. In like manner: if bishops, or clerics, or laymen are found either thinking or teaching what is contained in the exposition presented by the presbyter Charisius concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten Son of God, or the abominable and perverted dogmas of Nestorius, which are also appended hereto: they shall be subject to the judgment of this holy and ecumenical council, that is, a bishop shall be alien to the episcopate and shall be deposed; a cleric likewise shall be deposed from the clergy; but if a layman: shall be given over to anathema, as has been said.

Zonara. The impious Nestorius not only taught others his godless opinions and openly preached them, but, to greater boldness, set forth also a symbol containing in clear expressions all his evil thoughts and blasphemies concerning the incarnation of the Son and Word of God. This symbol, presented to the council by the presbyter Charisius, and read, was condemned as full of impiety. And the divine fathers determined that the symbol composed at the first council should retain force, and all that is set forth in it; but that no one compose or devise another faith. But if anyone should dare, to those coming to the knowledge of the truth from the Greeks, or from the Jews, or from heretics, to offer another faith, that is, to teach and instruct in opinions perverted and alien to the teaching of the holy fathers, such ones, if bishops or clerics, the divine fathers command to deprive of the episcopate or service in the clergy, that is, to depose, but if laymen, to give over to anathema. In like manner also those who think in accordance with Nestorius, and accept or even teach the blasphemous opinions contained in the symbol composed by Nestorius—which says that the Son and Word of God did not take flesh from the Holy Virgin, but that Christ is a mere man, and that the Son of God and Word was united with him by favor; which divides Christ and God into two Sons and into two hypostases, and calls the Holy Virgin not God-bearer but Christ-bearer—the sacred council determined to subject to the same penalties, whether they be bishops, or clerics, or laymen, that is, to depose the consecrated, and to give laymen over to anathema.

Aristen. A bishop preaching a different faith besides the Nicene is deprived of the episcopate, and a layman is even expelled from the church. Whoever, besides the faith composed by the holy fathers assembled in Nicaea—that is, I believe in one God—adds some other impious composition for the corruption and destruction of those turning to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism, or Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: if a layman, must be given over to anathema; but if a bishop or cleric, must be deprived of the episcopate and service in the clergy.

Valsamon. After the definition enacted concerning the dogma confirmed by the holy council held in Ephesus had been read before all, and likewise the holy symbol set forth at the first council had been read, this rule was pronounced, and it was determined that no one compose another faith; but if anyone dares, to those coming to the knowledge of the truth from the Greeks, or Jews, or from other heretics, to offer another faith; then, when these are bishops and clerics, they must be deposed, but when laymen, must be given over to anathema. The same must be with those who accept Nestorius’s opinions and teach them to others. And since one presbyter named Charisius, having accepted the impious opinions of Nestorius, brought some exposition of Nestorius’s writings, and this exposition was condemned as impious, the rule determines that those who think in accordance with the content of this exposition or teach it are subject to the same penalties.

Slavic Kormchaya. Whoever adds another to the Nicene faith, a bishop is indeed alien to the episcopate: but a worldly man is rejected.

Interpretation. Whoever beyond the faith which the holy fathers of Nicaea, having assembled, set forth—that is, I believe in one God—if anyone adds some other impious composition for the corruption and destruction of those turning from the Greeks, or from the Jews, or from another heresy to the knowledge of the truth: if he is a bishop or cleric, let him be expelled from the episcopate and deposed from the rank. Book of Rules. Before this at the council, the Nicene Symbol was read, and the corrupted exposition of the Symbol presented to the council by the presbyter Charisius of Philadelphia.

Canon 8. The matter, contrary to the ecclesiastical decrees and the rules of the holy Apostles, being newly introduced and encroaching upon the freedom of all, was announced by the most God-loving fellow bishop Rheginus, and the most reverent bishops of the province of Cyprus who are with him, Zeno and Evagrius. Therefore, since common maladies require stronger remedy, as bringing greater harm, and especially if there was no ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Antioch should perform ordinations in Cyprus, as the most reverent men who came to the holy council have informed us both in writing and orally; let those who preside over the holy churches of Cyprus have the freedom, without claim upon them and without constraint upon them, according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to the ancient custom, to perform the ordinations of the most reverent bishops by themselves. The same is to be observed also in the other provinces and everywhere in the dioceses: so that none of the most God-loving bishops extend authority over another diocese which from the beginning and at first was not under his hand or that of his predecessors: but if anyone has extended it and has forcibly subjected some diocese to himself, let him restore it: lest the rules of the fathers be transgressed, lest under the pretext of sacred ministry the arrogance of worldly power creep in; and lest we lose little by little, imperceptibly, that freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, granted us by His own blood. And thus it seems good to the holy and ecumenical council that every diocese preserve purely and without constraint the rights belonging to it from the beginning, according to the custom established from ancient times. Each metropolitan, for his own assurance, may freely take a copy of this decree. But if anyone produces a decree contrary to what is now determined: it seems good to the whole holy and ecumenical council that it be invalid.

Zonara. The hierarch of the church of Antioch was drawing to himself the ordinations of the Cypriot bishops, perhaps because in ancient times the island of Cyprus was under the authority of the governor of Antioch; for from the governor of Antioch a military commander was sent there. Therefore, some of the Cypriot bishops came to this council and explained orally, and at the same time presented a written complaint, that the bishop of Antioch, according to ancient custom, had no right to ordain Cypriot bishops. Therefore, the council, taking into account the coming or arrival of these bishops, determined that the Cypriot bishops, without claim upon them and without constraint upon them, should have the former right according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to the ancient custom. For the thirty-fifth rule of the holy Apostles and the third of the council of Antioch command that bishops not dare to perform ordinations in dioceses not subject to them; otherwise, what they have done is invalid, and they themselves are deposed. And the sixth and seventh rules of the first ecumenical council prescribe that hierarchs preserve ancient customs. Following these rules, the venerable fathers of this council also determined that the Cypriot bishops themselves perform the ordination of bishops on this island, and that the same be everywhere, and that no bishop appropriate to himself a diocese which formerly, or from ancient times and from the beginning, was not under the authority of him and his predecessors. But if anyone, they say, has appropriated to himself a diocese not belonging to him, he must restore it to the one who suffered violence and from whom it was taken, lest the rules be transgressed, and lest hierarchs, having sacred ministry as pretext and covering themselves with it as with some veil, be carried away by the vainglory of worldly power that enters into them, and lest we, being in slavish dependence on what has no right, be deprived of the freedom which the Lord granted us, having shed His blood for the freedom of men. Therefore, the holy council determined that, according to ancient custom, the rights belonging to each diocese be preserved, and gave permission to metropolitans to take copies of this definition; but if, it says, a decree or some writing is produced that enacts and determines something else, and not what is now determined—such is to be invalid.

Aristen. Let the rights belonging to each diocese be preserved purely and without constraint. But whoever introduces a decree contrary to them, such a decree is void. Those bishops who have subjected to their authority another diocese which from the beginning and at first was not subject to them, or have seized some privilege of another episcopal see, will acquire for themselves through this no lawful right; but they must again be returned to those bishops who have right over them. Because the rights of each diocese must belong to it purely and without constraint, and the arrogance of worldly power must not creep in under the pretext of sacred ministry. But the one who introduces another decree, not in agreement and contrary to what is here determined, will gain no benefit for himself from it.

Valsamon. Before the separation of great Antioch from the Roman empire, the emperor sent a governor to it, and he sent a military commander to the island of Cyprus, as subject to Antioch. But the bishops were governed and ordained by themselves. Therefore, when the then bishop of Antioch attempted, as it appears, to perform ordinations in the Cypriot churches under the pretext that the governor of Antioch sends a military commander to the island, the Cypriot bishops reported this to the council of Ephesus. And the council, taking into account their coming or arrival, determined that the Cypriot bishops, according to the rules and ancient custom, be ordained by themselves, as this, it says, must be also in the other provinces and dioceses; for no bishop can appropriate to himself another diocese not subject to him from ancient times, but on the contrary, even those who do something such and who forcibly and arbitrarily retain a foreign province must restore it, lest the rules be transgressed, and under the pretext of sacred ministry, the arrogance of worldly power or vainglory be manifested in hierarchs. The council also determined that each metropolitan take a copy of this rule for his own security, and that no other written decree or imperial command contrary to this rule have force, if anyone produces such. Read also the second rule of the Second council, the twenty-eighth of the Fourth council, the thirty-ninth of the Sixth council, and what is written in them; and you will learn how the churches located in the Roman empire were subjected to the throne of Constantinople, with the exception of some.

Slavic Kormchaya. In each province, for the bishop who is there, and those under it, let the rights be preserved purely and immovably. But if anyone introduces contrary to this statute, he labors in vain.

Interpretation. Whatever a bishop from another province has taken away and taken under his own hands, which was not under them from the beginning, whether a village, or vineyard, or land, or anything else which they have seized from another episcopal see, let them make nothing of it their own, nor retain it, but let them restore it soon to the episcopal see under which it was before: for it is fitting to keep purely and immovably what belongs to each province under it: lest the arrogance of worldly power enter into them with the pretext of hierarchal office. But if anyone introduces another statute, speaking against and opposing what is commanded at this council, he will accomplish nothing, but labors in vain.

The Epistle of the Same Holy and Ecumenical Third Council to the Sacred Synod of Pamphylia Concerning Eustathius, Formerly Their Metropolitan

Since the divinely inspired Scripture saith: Do all things with counsel; it is especially fitting for those who have received the lot of sacred ministry to examine with all precision everything that ought to be done. For with those who desire to conduct their life in this manner, it follows that they are found in a secure position, and are borne along as by a favorable wind in the direction of their desires. This saying is most plausible. Yet sometimes it happens that bitter and intolerable grief, weighing upon the mind, greatly disturbs it, turns it aside from striving toward what is due, and disposes it, as though toward something beneficial, to look upon what is in its essence unfavorable. Something of this kind we have observed to have befallen the most reverent and most pious bishop Eustathius. He was ordained, as has been attested, according to the ecclesiastical rules. But having been disturbed by certain matters, as he relates, and having fallen into unexpected circumstances, afterward, through excessive inactivity, wearied by the struggle with the cares that burdened him, and unable to repel the accusations of his opponents, in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation of his diocese. For to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it fast with spiritual fortitude, as it were to arm himself for labors, and willingly to endure the sweat that promises recompense. But since he once showed himself remiss—though this occurred in him more through inactivity than through negligence and sloth—your piety of necessity ordained the most reverent and most pious brother and fellow bishop of ours, Theodore, for the governance of the church: for it was not fitting that it should be widowed, and that the flock of the Saviour should be without a leader. And since he came with tears, not contesting the city or the church against the aforementioned most pious bishop Theodore, but seeking only the honor and title of bishop: we all felt deep compassion for this elder, and counting his tears as common to us all, hastened to inquire whether he had undergone lawful deposition, or had only been accused by certain persons in some improper actions, who had obscured his good repute. And we learned that nothing of the kind had been done by him, but especially that the renunciation of his diocese was charged against him as fault. Therefore, we do not blame your piety for duly installing in his place the aforementioned most reverent bishop Theodore. But since it is not fitting to reproach greatly the inactivity of this man, but rather it was needful to show mercy to the elder who had dwelt for so long a time outside the city in which he was born and outside his paternal home; we have judged it righteous and determined: that without any contradiction he have the name, and the honor of bishop, and communion; with this alone, that he neither ordain, nor occupy a church, nor perform sacred ministry on his own authority, but only when either the brother and fellow bishop invites him to do so with himself, or, if it should happen, permits him, out of good disposition and love in Christ. But if a more favorable counsel concerning him be resolved, now or hereafter: this also will be pleasing to the holy council.

Zonara. Eustathius, of whom this epistle speaks, was bishop of Pamphylia. And Pamphylia is the diocese of Attalia. Therefore, the named man, having fallen into misfortunes, and through faintheartedness and inactivity having renounced the governance of his episcopal see, presented also a written abdication from the episcopate. Although another was ordained in his place there, yet Eustathius came with tears to this sacred council, and did not demand for himself the restoration of the city or the church, nor did he dispute about them with the one ordained after him, but sought the name and honor of bishop, that is, he wished to be called bishop and to have honor in the thrones and other such things that belong to a bishop. Therefore, the sacred council says: we felt deep compassion for the elder, counted his tears as common to us, and conducted an inquiry to learn whether this man had been deposed according to the rules, perhaps as a result of accusations by someone in some improper actions. But when we learned that nothing of the kind had occurred with him, but that he had renounced the episcopate, and therefore ought to lose it for inactivity, we judged that the inactivity of this man should not be reproached, that is, his incapacity for affairs, but considered that it was better to show mercy to the elder who had long been deprived of his homeland and paternal home. Therefore, we determined and judged it righteous that he have the name of the episcopate, and honor, and communion—that is, the right to enter within the altar and to communicate; but that he himself neither perform sacred ministry nor ordain, unless invited by another bishop to concelebrate with him or to joint ordination, or unless he receive commission from the bishop of that province to perform something of the kind. And we, says the council, have granted him this; but if you resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel, either now or hereafter—that is, grant him some greater rights or privileges—this also will be pleasing to us. From this conciliar condescension, some think to draw the conclusion that bishops are given the right to renounce their churches while retaining the hierarchate. But I think that from this rather the opposite follows, namely, that in antiquity those renouncing the episcopate were deprived of everything they had until then, and after renunciation had no hierarchical right whatever, and were not called bishops. For if it was the custom that one who renounced preserved hierarchical rights, then why precisely did Eustathius come with tears to the sacred council and ask to be called bishop and to have the honor of bishop, and why did the council write about this to the synod of Pamphylia? Therefore, from this epistle it is revealed that complete renunciation by hierarchs from the episcopate was subject to condemnation and did not exist at that time, for in the epistle it is said that “wearied by cares through excessive inactivity, in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation. For to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it fast with spiritual fortitude, as it were to arm himself for labors, and willingly to endure the sweat that promises recompense.” Therefore, that there was no custom then to present renunciations from churches—this is evident from what the council wrote: “in a manner we know not how, he presented a written renunciation.” For it is characteristic only of those to whom the matter appears strange and who are perplexed to say: we know not how this or that happened; but if the matter were customary, there would be no perplexity. The addition: “for to him, having once taken upon himself the hierarchical care, it was fitting to hold it” and so forth makes clear that renunciation from hierarchical cares is not permitted, but rather forbidden and condemned. For if even those only at first called to pastoral service for the people, in case of disobedience to those electing them, are subject to excommunication according to the thirty-sixth rule of the holy Apostles until they accept the service, and according to the seventeenth rule of the council of Antioch; then how can those ordained and having accepted leadership over the people be received without peril when they refuse and renounce the service entrusted to them by divine grace? How will such ones not be subject to penalties, but have the distinction of being called bishops and receiving hierarchical honor? This the council of Antioch granted as a privilege to one ordained for some place but not accepted by the people there, not through his own fault but through the disorder and malice of the people, as is said in the eighteenth rule of that council. And the letter of the said epistle shows that all this was condescension to the faintheartedness of Eustathius and his excessive grief. For in the epistle it is said that when he came and with tears asked for this and that, we all felt deep compassion for the elder and counted his tears as common to us all; and a little further: “but since it is not fitting to reproach greatly the inactivity of this man, but rather it was needful to show mercy to the elder” and so forth. Therefore, from this it is evident that the fathers of the council, moved by the tears and deep old age of this man, and fearing lest from excessive sorrow something happen to him, showed the condescension that they showed, but did not set this as a law nor prescribe that it be so in the future. For they certainly knew the rules and would not have determined anything contrary to the apostolic rules and the decrees of the holy fathers before them, nor would they have allowed those wishing both to renounce and to enjoy hierarchical privileges after renunciation. For how could those do this who think that one having once taken upon himself hierarchical care must hold it with spiritual fortitude, and what follows therefrom? But that they did all this, being moved by the tears of that elder—this is revealed both from many other expressions in the epistle and from the following written words: “but if you resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel, this also will be pleasing to the holy council”; they so pitied this man, being moved by his tears and misfortune, that they even encouraged others to mercy toward him and called them to compassion. But if this conciliar epistle is taken as a rule and not as condescension shown to this Eustathius; then why, to those who have renounced their churches and the hierarchate itself, in the case that they again come and weep, are not given both the name of the episcopate and hierarchical rights and honor? Because such a one appears to have once renounced everything and to be deprived of everything, as is evident from the words of the fathers of the council: “we conducted an inquiry to learn whether he had undergone lawful deposition, or had only been accused in some improper actions. And we learned that nothing of the kind had been done by him, but especially that the renunciation was charged against Eustathius as fault.” Therefore, just as if he had been convicted in some improper action, exactly so through renunciation he appears deprived of all episcopal rights, so that he even seems to the council deposed. Nevertheless, the council, inclined by his tears, determined what is contained in the epistle. Therefore, to those who take the epistle as a rule and decree, it will not seem strange at all that those intending to renounce the governance of affairs and the hierarchate itself (which, in their opinion, are separated one from the other) again accept both and appropriate to themselves the title of bishop, and sacred ministry, and honor. Consequently, those who make use of this epistle as a rule and think that it gives bishops the right to renounce their churches while retaining the hierarchate for themselves reason not in accordance with the mind of these venerable fathers. Those concluding thus also contradict another rule. For the council of the six hundred thirty holy fathers held in Chalcedon, in its sixth rule, decreed: “absolutely no one is to be ordained either presbyter or deacon, nor into any degree of the ecclesiastical order, otherwise than with appointment of the one ordained precisely to an urban church, or rural, or to a martyr’s shrine, or to a monastery; but those ordained without precise appointment (the council determined) their ordination is to be accounted invalid, and nowhere to allow them to serve, to the shame of the one who ordained them.” Therefore, if those having a lesser degree without precise appointment are not admitted to ordination, but even if ordained remain inactive, and such a matter seemed so improper that even the ordainer is accounted worthy of shame; then how can one having a greater, or rather the highest of all ranks, become a bishop without appointment and without name, and be called bishop, and be honored with hierarchical rights? For every hierarch at ordination is appointed to some city and is named bishop of it. Therefore, one who has left the city to which he was appointed, and renounced performing sacred ministry in it and watching over the flock of the Great Shepherd therein, how will he henceforth be called bishop, and over whom will he watch? For the name of bishop designates his work and activity; and he who has ceased the activity has thereby lost the name. But he who cannot be called bishop, can he take part in any right of the priesthood, can he enjoy hierarchical privilege and honor? How will he even be named among hierarchs who has no clergy under his authority and does not rule over the consecrated? But to whom the name of hierarchy does not truly belong, to him neither does the activity belong; for one not participating in the name much less ought to participate in the work. Therefore, in conclusion, no one ought to be allowed to renounce the episcopal service laid upon him, except one who declares himself unworthy of the priesthood. But if anyone gives proof that the one renouncing did not receive the episcopate in a fully canonical manner; then the one renouncing, together with presenting the renunciation, ought to be deprived of all priestly rank and every right pertaining to the hierarchate. That renunciation ought not to be allowed is clearly evident also from the third chapter of the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus, where it is said: “but besides this, it is not in accord with ecclesiastical decrees that certain sacred ministers present a written renunciation” and so forth. Seek also what is written in the tenth rule of the holy hieromartyr Peter, archbishop of Alexandria.

Aristen. Eustathius, who ought to have borne the labors of the episcopate with fortitude (for thus every bishop must do), turned his back and faintheartedly renounced it. In his stead Theodore was ordained; but he, with tears and shame, asks for the honor of the episcopate. The one ordained in his stead is guiltless, precisely because instead of accusation he has Eustathius’s renunciation. This bishop Eustathius, through inactivity and being unable to govern the affairs of the church, and to struggle with the cares coming upon him and to withstand them, renounced the governance of affairs, and another was ordained in his stead. Afterward he came to the council held in Ephesus and did not ask for the restoration of the episcopate to himself (for if he had asked this, he would not even have been heard, since he had once renounced it, and another had been ordained in his place); but he sought episcopal honor and communion. And he was acknowledged in this without any contradiction, so that it was permitted him both to be called bishop, and to have honor and throne, and to perform sacred ministry only not on his own authority, but when he receives permission from the brother and fellow bishop out of good disposition and love in Christ. Out of compassion, the fathers of this council proposed to the synod of Pamphylia, to which Eustathius also belonged, to resolve concerning him some more favorable counsel either now or hereafter. This meant—either to receive him into a vacant church, or otherwise to deal with him in some way.

Valsamon. Pamphylia is the diocese of Attalia. And when one Eustathius, who was bishop in it, renounced the episcopate in writing because of certain disturbances and administrative circumstances, but afterward again asked with tears to have only the honor and title of bishop, the holy council was moved by this and, through the present epistle sent to the synod of Pamphylia, determined that the elder be deemed worthy of mercy, and that Theodore, installed as bishop in Pamphylia, remain bishop again, but Eustathius, as not deposed but having renounced through inactivity, have, by condescension, what he sought—that is, the name and honor of bishop, and communion, that is, the right to communicate within the altar; but that he perform nothing episcopal unless there be permission for this from the local bishop. For the council did not consider it just to reproach the inactivity of this man, that is, his incapacity for affairs. On the basis of such content of the epistle, some say that by this epistle hierarchs are given the right to renounce the thrones of churches but to preserve the hierarchate; for, they say, if this were not possible, the council would not have allowed Eustathius to have the name and honor of bishop and, with the consent of the local bishop, to perform sacred ministry. But this, as I think, is unjust. For what was determined by the fathers was determined by condescension; and what is determined by condescension for some useful purpose ought not to be brought forward as an example and retained for the future as a rule. Otherwise, when the epistle itself does not say that Eustathius renounced the performance of episcopal service and retained the priesthood (for he would not have asked to receive what he had); but speaks only of his having renounced the episcopate, and when the fathers did not determine that what was allowed out of compassion in relation to Eustathius has force also for subsequent time—then on what basis do they divide the indivisible and elevate to law what is not contained in the epistle? And I think that this condescension was allowed not without prudence. For when the rules and the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus determine that no one of the priests present written renunciations (because if, they say, they are worthy of service, they must remain in it, but if unworthy, they must not depart through renunciation, but when they are condemned according to the matters); then how can anyone say that the council of Ephesus, and especially the great Cyril who presided over it, made a determination contrary to himself and the other fathers? But as the renunciation of Eustathius, as it seems, was not firm but wavered in some parts; therefore the holy council, by condescension, inclined to such a determination. And that the renunciation of Eustathius was such is revealed also from the epistle itself, in which it is said: “in a manner we know not how Eustathius presented a written renunciation” and as though the acceptance of this renunciation is presented as strange. For if it were unshakable in all things, Eustathius would not have been given the right either to be called bishop or to perform sacred ministry, so that the condescension given in the present epistle is not universal. This is revealed also from what the fathers wrote, that it would be pleasing to the council if from the side of the local bishops there were also some other more favorable counsel concerning this elder. Say further: since the council of Chalcedon determines that absolutely no one be ordained without appointment; then a bishop retaining only the priesthood, as some say, hierarch of what priests will be called, or whom will he teach? Over whom will he exercise episcopate? Absolutely over no one. Therefore, that priesthood alone cannot be retained and preserve force. Seek also the ninth rule of Saint Peter, archbishop of Alexandria.

Slavic Kormchaya. From the epistle of the same council to the bishops in Pamphylia. This is the ninth rule. It is fitting for Eustathius to endure in the episcopate firmly. For this is due to every bishop, but he, turning his shoulders, renounced it harmfully: but Theodore was installed in his place, and he, weeping and beseeching, asking for honor, is guiltless. But the one installed in his place, having clearly his renunciation, is without sin.

Interpretation. This Eustathius, bishop of Pamphylia—and Pamphylia is the province of Italy—being weak and unable to govern ecclesiastical matters, and to manage and direct the cares coming upon him, renounced the governance of ecclesiastical matters, that is, to abandon the episcopate by writing, and another was installed in his place, by name Theodore. And afterward he came to the council of Ephesus, beseeching and bowing, not wishing to receive the episcopate again. For if he had asked for the episcopate again, they would not have listened to him, having once renounced it, and another already installed in his place in it, but asking to have episcopal honor and communion: and he was justified in it by the holy council without any contradiction, so that he might both be called bishop, and have hierarchal honor and seat, and serve and ordain presbyters and deacons, not by his own lordship nor by his own will when he wishes, but when some brother bishop commands him to serve in his church or to ordain someone, out of good disposition and for the sake of love in Christ. But by the mercy of the fathers of this holy council, they added this word to the synod in Pamphylia, saying: but if you accomplish something better concerning him, either now or hereafter: this is, either to introduce him into a vacant church not having a bishop, or in some other way to grant aid to him by gift.

source

On the Council

Zonara and Valsamon. The holy and ecumenical Second Council was held under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, in Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers assembled against the Spirit-fighters, and they set forth the following rules.

Slavic Kormchaya. The holy ecumenical Second Council was held under the Tsar Theodosius the Great, in the city of Constantinople, when one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered from various places against Macedonius the Spirit-fighter. And they set forth rules, eight in number. The proclamation of that holy council to the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great, to which they appended the rules set forth by them.

To the God-loving and pious Tsar Theodosius, the holy council of bishops who have assembled in the city of Constantinople from various provinces: The beginning of our writing to thy piety is thanksgiving to God, who hath shewn the kingdom of thy piety for the common peace of the churches and the establishment of the sound faith. Rendering therefore due thanksgiving unto God with diligence, we send also in writing to thy piety the things done at the Holy Council. For having assembled in the city of Constantinople according to the letter of thy piety, first we renewed our mutual union, and then we briefly set forth rules. And we confirmed the faith of the holy fathers which was at Nicaea, and we anathematized the heresies that had arisen against it. To these also we ordained clear rules concerning the good order of the holy churches, which we have appended to this our letter. We now pray thy meekness to confirm by a letter of thy piety the judgment of the holy [council]. For as by the letters summoning us thou hast honoured the church, so also seal thou the end of the things done at the council. And may the Lord stablish thy kingdom in peace and righteousness, and add unto thee the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom to thy earthly dominion. May God grant thee health and shining in all good things to the whole world, by the prayers of the saints, as a king truly pious and God-loving.

These rules were set forth in the city of Constantinople, by the grace of God, by the bishops assembled, one hundred and fifty, from various provinces, by the command of the pious Tsar Theodosius the Great.

Canon 1. The Holy Fathers assembled in Constantinople decreed: Let the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers who were at the Council in Nicaea in Bithynia not be abrogated, but let it remain inviolate; and let every heresy be anathematized, and specifically the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomoeans, Arians or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Spirit-fighters, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians.

Zonara. The Second Council was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son; the present rule also calls them Semi-Arians, for they held half of the Arian heresy. The latter taught that the Son and the Spirit are of another essence than the Father and are creatures; but the Spirit-fighters thought soundly about the Son, while they taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, that He is created and does not have the divine nature. Those also were called Semi-Arians who regarded both the Son and the Spirit as creatures, but added: “We think that they came into being not in the same way as the other creatures, but in some other manner; and we say this so that it may not be thought that through generation the Father was subject to suffering”; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial but like in essence to the Father. This Second Council, by the present rule, confirmed the orthodox faith proclaimed by the Holy Fathers who were at Nicaea, and decreed that every heresy be anathematized, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus; but he thought the same as Arius, and even worse and more evil things; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servile, and in no way like the Father. He also re-baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head downward while turning their feet upward, and at baptism performing a single immersion. And concerning future punishment and hell he spoke absurdly, that this is not true, but was said as a threat for intimidation. They were also called Eudoxians after a certain Eudoxius who shared in the Eunomian heresy, who, having been bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness whatsoever to the Father in essence. The Council decrees that the Sabellians also be anathematized, who received their name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, and who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged the three hypostases of the one essence and Godhead into one person, and honoured in the Trinity one person with three names, saying that one and the same sometimes appeared as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit, transforming Himself and at different times assuming different forms. In like manner the Council anathematizes the heresy of the Marcellians, which received its name from the heresiarch Marcellus, who came from Ancyra in Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Sabellius. Likewise it anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only Spirit; and concerning the Word he thought that it is some divine command uttered by the mouth, serving God for the accomplishment of all things, like some mechanical instrument; and concerning Christ he preached that He is a mere man who received the Word of God, not as having essence, but as proceeding from the mouth—and taught that He received the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata said many other great absurdities, whom the Antiochian council deposed. Together with the others the Council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was bishop in Laodicea of Syria, and taught blasphemously concerning the dispensation of salvation; for he said that the Son of God, although He assumed from the Holy Theotokos an animate body, did so without a mind, since the Godhead took the place of the mind, and he thought that the soul of the Lord does not have reason; and thus he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Saviour has one nature.

Aristen. The Nicene faith must be firmly preserved, and heresies must be subject to anathema.

Valsamon. The present holy Second Council was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God, and not consubstantial with the Father and the Son; the present rule also calls them Semi-Arians, for they held half of the Arian heresy. The latter taught that the Son and the Spirit are creatures and of another essence than the Father; but the Spirit-fighters thought soundly about the Son, while they taught blasphemously about the Holy Spirit, that He is created and does not have the divine nature. Those also were called Semi-Arians who regarded both the Son and the Spirit as creatures, but added: “We think that they came into being not in the same way as the other creatures, but in some other manner; and we say this so that it may not be thought that through generation the Father was subject to suffering”; and those who taught that the Word and the Spirit are not consubstantial but like in essence to the Father. This Second Council, by the present rule, confirmed the orthodox faith proclaimed by the fathers who were at Nicaea, and decreed that every heresy be anathematized, and especially the heresy of the Eunomians. Eunomius, a Galatian, was bishop of Cyzicus, but he thought the same as Arius, and even worse and more evil things; for he taught that the Son is changeable and servile, and in no way like the Father. He also re-baptized those who joined his opinion, immersing them head downward while turning their feet upward, and at baptism performing a single immersion. And concerning future punishment and hell he spoke absurdly, that this is not true, but was said as a threat for intimidation. They were also called Eudoxians after a certain Eudoxius who shared in the Eunomian heresy, who, having been bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. They were called Anomoeans because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness whatsoever to the Father in essence. The Council decrees that the Sabellians also be anathematized, who received their name from Sabellius the Libyan, who was bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, and who preached confusion and fusion, for he united and merged the three hypostases of the one essence and Godhead into one person, and honoured in the Holy Trinity one person with three names, saying that one and the same sometimes appeared as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit, transforming Himself and at different times assuming different forms. In like manner the Council anathematizes the heresy of the Marcellians, which received its name from the heresiarch Marcellus, who came from Ancyra in Galatia and was its bishop, and taught the same as Sabellius. Likewise it anathematizes the heresy of the Photinians. These heretics received their name from Photinus, who came from Sirmium and was bishop there, and thought the same as Paul of Samosata, namely: he did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, and called God, the Creator of all, only Spirit; and concerning the Word he thought that it is some divine command uttered by the mouth, serving God for the accomplishment of all things, like some mechanical instrument; and concerning Christ he preached that He is a mere man who received the Word of God, not as having essence, but as proceeding from the mouth—and taught that He received the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata said many other great absurdities, whom the Antiochian council deposed. Together with the others the Council anathematizes the heresy of Apollinaris. And this Apollinaris was bishop in Laodicea of Syria, and taught blasphemously concerning the dispensation of salvation; for he said that the Son of God, although He assumed from the Holy Theotokos an animate body, did so without a mind, since the Godhead took the place of the mind, and he thought that the soul of the Lord does not have reason; and thus he did not regard Him as a perfect man, and taught that the Saviour has one nature.

Slavic Kormchaya. The faith of the holy fathers at Nicaea must be firmly held and remain. But the things spoken and written against it by heretics, and the heretics, shall be accursed. This rule is clear.

Canon 2. The bishops of the dioceses must not extend their authority over the churches beyond the limits of their own diocese, and must not confound the churches; but, according to the rules, the bishop of Alexandria must manage only the churches of Egypt; the bishops of the East must govern only in the East, while preserving the privileges of the Church of Antioch recognized by the Nicene rules; likewise the bishops of the Asian diocese must govern only in Asia; the bishops of Pontus must have in their charge only the affairs of the Pontic diocese; the Thracians only Thrace. Without being invited, bishops must not go beyond the limits of their own diocese for ordination or any other ecclesiastical administration. While preserving the above-described rule concerning ecclesiastical dioceses, it is clear that the affairs of each diocese will be ordered by the council of the same diocese, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian nations must be administered according to the custom of the fathers that has prevailed until now.

Zonara. Both the holy Apostles and afterwards the divine fathers took much care that there might be good order and peace in the churches. For the Apostles in their fourteenth rule laid down that it is not permitted for a bishop to cross into the diocese of another, leaving his own. And the fathers assembled at the First Council in Nicaea, in their sixth and seventh rules, ordained that the ancient customs be preserved—and that each throne manage the dioceses belonging to it. This same thing the present rule also determines, and commands that a bishop not extend his authority beyond his own diocese, that is, beyond the eparchy belonging to him, over churches outside his diocese, that is, those situated beyond the limits assigned to each (designating by the expression “extend authority” such things as a predatory and disorderly invasion), and not enter the diocese of another. The expression “beyond the limits of their own diocese” means that a bishop cannot perform any hierarchical administration without being invited; but he may if he is invited and receives commission for this from many bishops, according to the indicated Apostolic rule. The rule ordains that the affairs of ecclesiastical administration in each eparchy—such as elections, ordinations, and the resolution of questions concerning excommunications, penances, and the like—be managed by the council of each diocese. And since even among the barbarian nations there then existed churches of the faithful, where perhaps there were few bishops so that there were not enough of them to form a council, or it was necessary for someone distinguished by eloquence to visit frequently the dioceses of other bishops in order to instruct those turning to the faith and establish them in it; therefore the holy council permitted that in the future also they act in accordance with the custom that had been established among them up to that time.

Aristen. No bishop of another diocese must confound the churches by performing ordinations and elevations to thrones in foreign churches. But in the churches that are among the pagans, the custom of the fathers must be preserved.

In many rules it is said that a bishop must not intrude into a foreign episcopate; but each must remain within his own limits, not cross beyond his boundary into another’s, and not confound the churches. But in the churches among the pagans, in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, according to the sixth rule of the Nicene Council, the ancient customs must be preserved.

Valsamon. The sixth and seventh rules of the First Council established which dioceses must be subject to the pope of Rome, the bishop of Alexandria, the Antiochian, and the Jerusalemite. And the present rule determines that the bishops of Asia, the Pontic diocese, Thrace, and others manage affairs within their own limits, and that none of them has authority to act outside his limit and confound the rights of the churches. But if necessity requires that some bishop from his own diocese cross into another for ordination or for some other blessed reason, then he must not intrude into it disorderly and, so to speak, predatorily, but with the permission of the local bishop. And inasmuch as even then among the barbarian nations there existed churches of the faithful, where perhaps they did not ordain many bishops so that there were enough of them to form a council, or perhaps it was necessary for those distinguished by eloquence to visit frequently such eparchies of other bishops in order to establish those turning to the faith: therefore the holy council permitted that in the future also they be guided by such a custom, in view of the necessity of this matter, although it is not according to the rules. Thus, note from the present rule that in antiquity all the metropolitans of the eparchies were independent (autocephalous) and were ordained by their own councils. But this was changed by the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council, which ordained that the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, and also certain others indicated in that rule, be ordained by the patriarch of Constantinople and subject to him. But if you find other independent (autocephalous) churches, such as the Bulgarian, Cypriot, and Iberian, do not be surprised at this. The archbishop of the Bulgarians was honoured by the Emperor Justinian: read his 131st novella, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, Title 3, Chapter 1, placed in the commentary on Chapter 5, Title 1 of the present collection. The archbishop of Cyprus was honoured by the Third Council: read the eighth rule of that council and the thirty-ninth rule of the Sixth Council. And the archbishop of the Iberians was honoured by a decree of the Antiochian Council. They say that in the days of Lord Peter, the most holy patriarch of Theoupolis, that is, great Antioch, there was a conciliar decree that the Iberian church, which was then subject to the patriarch of Antioch, be free and independent (autocephalous). And Sicily, which not many years ago was subject to the throne of Constantinople, is now torn away from it by the hands of tyrants. And I pray that it also be restored to its former rights, through the intercession of our God-guided sovereign, as a certain captive daughter to her free mother. To attach, for the sake of better administration, to some churches other churches that are in the power of pagans is, as is fitting, permitted by the present rule. And recently the Constantinopolitan synod gave the church of Ancyra to the metropolitan of Nazianzus, and to various other hierarchs other churches were given. And to some was granted even the right to sit on the episcopal throne in the holy altar of the attached church.

Slavic Kormchaya. For the sake of limits, let no one confound the church, nor ordain a presbyter or bishop; but the churches of God that are among the nations must hold the custom of the holy fathers.

Interpretation. In many rules it is said that it is not fitting for a bishop to intrude upon a foreign episcopate, but each must remain within his own limits and ordain within his own limits. A bishop, therefore, presbyters and deacons. Likewise also a metropolitan his bishops in his own diocese; let them not leap beyond their own limits and confound the churches. But the churches of God that are among foreign-speaking peoples, which are in Egypt, and Libya, and in Pentapolis, must hold the ancient fatherly custom, as the sixth rule of the First Ecumenical Council which was in Nicaea ordains.

Canon 3. The bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome.

Zonara. After in the preceding rule prescriptions were given concerning the other patriarchal thrones, this rule mentioned also the throne of Constantinople and ordained that it have the prerogatives of honour, that is, primacy or superiority, as New Rome and the city of the emperor, after the bishop of Rome. Some thought that the preposition “after” signifies not a diminution of honour but a comparatively later appearance of this establishment. For although Byzantium was an ancient city and had independent government; yet under Severus, the Roman emperor, it was besieged by the Romans and for three years withstood war, and finally was taken due to lack of necessities for those enclosed in it. Its walls were destroyed, civil rights taken away, and it was subjected to the Perinthians. Perinthus is Heraclea: therefore the ordination of the patriarch was granted to the bishop of Heraclea, since he ordained the bishop of Byzantium. Afterwards the great city was built by Constantine the Great, named after him, and called New Rome. Therefore some said that the preposition “after” signifies time, and not diminution of honour before old Rome. To confirm their opinion they make use of the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council, in which mention is made of the present rule and it is added: “the same also we decree concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of Constantinople, New Rome. For to the throne of old Rome the Fathers fittingly gave prerogatives because that was the imperial city. Following the same consideration, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops granted equal prerogatives to the most holy throne of New Rome, rightly judging that the city which received the honour of being the city of the emperor and the senate, and having equal prerogatives with old imperial Rome, should be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs like that one, and be second after it.” Thus, they say, if they grant it equal honours, how can one think that the preposition “after” signifies subordination? But the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, Title 3, gives grounds to understand these rules otherwise, as they were also understood by this emperor. In it it is said: “We decree, in accordance with the definitions of the holy councils, that the most holy pope of old Rome be the first of all priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, occupy the second rank after the Apostolic throne of old Rome, and have prerogative of honour before all others.” Thus, from this it is clearly seen that the preposition “after” signifies diminution and lessening. For otherwise it would be impossible to preserve the precedence of honour in relation to both thrones. For it is necessary that, when the names of their primates are proclaimed, one occupy the first place and the other the second, and in the cathedrae when they come together, and in subscriptions when there is need. Thus, that explanation of the preposition “after” according to which this preposition indicates only time and not diminution is forced and does not proceed from a right and good thought. And the thirty-sixth rule of the Trullan Council clearly shows that the preposition “after” designates diminution, when it says that the throne of Constantinople is reckoned second after the throne of old Rome, and then adds: “and after it let the throne of Alexandria be reckoned, then the Antiochian, and after this the throne of Jerusalem.”

Aristen. The bishop of Constantinople has been honoured with honour after the bishop of Rome.

Equal prerogatives and equal honour with the bishop of Rome must the bishop of Constantinople also have, as also in the twenty-eighth rule of the Chalcedonian Council this rule was understood, because this city is New Rome and received honour to be the city of the emperor and the senate. For the preposition “after” here designates not honour but time, just as if someone said: after much time the bishop of Constantinople also received equal honour with the bishop of Rome.

Valsamon. The city of Byzantium did not have the honour of an archbishopric, but its bishop in antiquity was ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea. History relates that the city of Byzantium, although it had independent government, was besieged by the Roman emperor Severus and subjected to the Perinthians; and Perinthus is Heraclea. But when Constantine the Great transferred to this city the scepters of the Roman empire, it was renamed Constantinople and New Rome and queen of all cities. Therefore the Holy Fathers of the Second Council ordained that its bishop have prerogatives of honour after the bishop of old Rome, because this is New Rome. When this was ordained in this way, some understood the preposition “after” not in the sense of diminution of honour but accepted it only in the meaning of later time, making use, to confirm their opinion, also of the twenty-eighth rule of the Fourth Council, in which it is said: equal prerogatives with the most holy throne of old Rome to have the throne of Constantinople, which is second after it. But do thou read the 131st novella of Justinian, which is in Book 5 of the Basilics, in Title 3, and placed in the scholion on Chapter 5, Title 1 of the present collection, and the thirty-sixth rule of the Trullan Council, in which it is said that the Constantinopolitan throne is second. Seek also the first chapter of Title 8 of the present collection: there we have placed various laws concerning the prerogatives of old and New Rome and the written decree of the holy great Constantine given to holy Sylvester, the then pope of Rome, concerning the prerogatives granted to the church of old Rome. And that now the most holy patriarch of Constantinople is ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea—this derives its beginning from nothing else than that the city of Byzantium, as said above, was subjected to the Perinthians, that is, the Heracleans. Note also by what it is proved that the bishop of Heraclea has the right to ordain the patriarch of Constantinople. In the chronicle of Scylitzes it is said that the patriarch Stephen the Syncellus, brother of the emperor Leo the Wise, was ordained by the bishop of Caesarea, because before that time the bishop of Heraclea had died. We know that also in the reign of Isaac Angelus a certain Leontius, monk from the mountain of holy Auxentius, for the same reason was ordained patriarch of Constantinople by Demetrius, bishop of Caesarea. Note that the throne of Constantinople was honoured with honour by the Second Council—and read Chapter 7 of Title 1 of the present collection and what is written in it.

Slavic Kormchaya. The bishop of the city of Constantine is honoured after the Roman.

Interpretation. Of the same primacy and of the same honour which the bishop of Rome has, the bishop of the city of Constantine also partakes and is likewise honoured, as the twenty-eighth rule of the Council in Chalcedon likewise ordains for this rule. Inasmuch as the city of Constantine is New Rome and was honoured for the sake of the empire and the boyars, for the emperor and the boyars moved there from Rome; and what the rule said, he is honoured after the Roman, does not speak of this as though the Roman were to have greater honour and after him the city of Constantine to be honoured, but this is said concerning the indication of time. Just as if someone had said that after many years the bishop of the city of Constantine will be made worthy of equal honour with the bishop of Rome.

Canon 4. Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder he caused in Constantinople: Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, nor are those ordained by him to any degree of the clergy; and what was done for him and what was done by him—all is void.

Zonara. This Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called Cynics because of their insolence, audacity, and shamelessness. Having come to the great father Gregory the Theologian and been catechized, he was baptized. Afterwards he was enrolled in the clergy and brought completely close to this holy father, so that he even shared meals with him. But desiring the episcopal throne in Constantinople, he sent money to Alexandria and summoned bishops from there who were to ordain him as bishop of Constantinople, with the assistance of one of those closest to the Theologian. When they were already in the church, however, before the completion of the ordination, the faithful learned of it and drove them out. But even after being expelled they did not desist, but withdrawing to the house of a certain musician, there they ordained Maximus, although he gained no benefit from this wickedness, for he was unable to accomplish anything. Thus, by the present rule he was excluded from the church by the holy fathers assembled at the Second Council, who decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not clerics. And finally, when it became known that he held Apollinarian opinions, he was anathematized. The Theologian mentions him in one of his discourses that are not read in the churches.

Aristen. Maximus the Cynic is not a bishop, and everyone ordained by him into the clergy has no priesthood.

For he caused division in the church and filled it with disturbance and disorder, appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and in everything without dispute showing indulgence to those in error, provided only that they held wrong dogmas, according to the word of the great Gregory in theology. Thus, Maximus himself must be deprived of the episcopate, and those ordained by him to any degree of the clergy are deprived of priesthood.

Valsamon. The content of this fourth rule concerns a particular case and does not require interpretation. From history it is known that this Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. These philosophers were called Cynics because of their insolence, audacity, and shamelessness. Having come to the great father Gregory the Theologian and been catechized, he was baptized, enrolled in the clergy, and brought close to him. But desiring the patriarchal throne in Constantinople, he made efforts to obtain ordination through money which he sent to the Alexandrian bishops. When these bishops came to Constantinople and attempted to do as Maximus wished, the faithful drove them from the church. But after this they withdrew to the house of a certain musician and there ordained Maximus contrary to the rules. Thus, this holy council excluded him from the church and decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not clerics of any degree. This Maximus, when afterwards it became known that he held Apollinarian opinions, was anathematized. It is written about him in the life of saint Gregory the Theologian, composed by his disciple Gregory; the Theologian also mentions him in one of his discourses that are not read in the churches.

Slavic Kormchaya. Maximus, called the Cynic, is alien from the bishops, and in every way not sacred is whoever was received by him into the clergy.

Interpretation. This Maximus the Cynic is said to be senseless; he tore the church of God and filled it with much tumult and clamour. Appearing as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and ready to forgive all sins to those sinning, for the sole reason that they impiously transgress the commandments. As the great theologian Gregory says, this Maximus must be alien from the episcopate, and all ordained by him—presbyters and deacons and the other clergy—alien from consecration.

Canon 5. Concerning the tome of the Westerners: we accept also those in Antioch who confess the single Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Zonara. The Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having fallen into Arianism, sought to overthrow the First Council. The pope of old Rome informed Constans, the brother of Constantius, about this. Constans in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not cease disturbing the right faith. As a result of this, both emperors agreed that a council be convened and that it judge concerning the Nicene definitions. Thus, in Sardica three hundred and forty-one bishops assembled, who also set forth a definition affirming the holy creed of the Nicene fathers and excluding those who thought otherwise. This very definition the Second Council calls the “tome of the Westerners,” and accepts those who accepted this tome in Antioch. The council calls the bishops assembled in Sardica Westerners. Sardica is called Triaditza. The council called the definition the “tome of the Westerners” because Western bishops alone set it forth: for seventy Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council if the holy Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great did not depart from the assembly. And when the Westerners did not permit this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the council. Therefore the Westerners alone confirmed the Nicene definition, anathematized the heresy of the Anomoeans, and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note from what is related here that the Sardican Council was before the Second Council.

Aristen. The tome of the Westerners, which affirms the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, must be accepted. It is clear.

Valsamon. This rule also is particular. From history it is known that the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having fallen into Arianism, sought to overthrow the First Council. Constans, his brother, who ruled the western parts of the empire, learning of this, in a letter threatened his brother with war if he did not cease disturbing the right faith. As a result of this the emperors agreed that in Sardica, or Triaditza, bishops assemble and judge concerning the dogmas set forth in Nicaea. Upon the assembly of three hundred and forty-one bishops, the holy creed of the Nicene fathers was confirmed, and those who did not think thus were anathematized. This definition, accepted also by the Antiochenes, the Second Council calls the “tome of the Westerners”; and it called it the “tome of the Westerners” because Western bishops alone set it forth: for seventy Eastern bishops said that they would not take part in the council if the holy Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great did not depart from the assembly. And when the Westerners did not permit this to be done, the Eastern bishops immediately left the council. Therefore the Westerners alone confirmed the Nicene definition, anathematized the heresy of the Anomoeans, and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note from what is related here that the Sardican Council was before the Second Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. The decree of the Western bishops, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial and confess one Godhead. For having set this forth they wrote it on a tome, and let it be acceptable to all.

Book of Rules. Here is meant the tome of the Western Bishops, containing the decree of the Sardican Council, by which the Nicene Creed was recognized and confirmed.

Canon 6. Since many, desiring to bring confusion and to overthrow ecclesiastical good order, inimically and slanderously invent certain charges against orthodox bishops who govern the churches, with no other intent than to tarnish the good reputation of the priests and to produce disturbance among the peaceful people; for this reason the holy Council of bishops assembled in Constantinople deemed it good: not to admit accusers without investigation, nor to allow everyone to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, but also not to forbid all. But if someone brings against a bishop a certain personal, that is, private complaint, such as in a claim concerning property, or in some other injustice suffered from him: in such accusations, neither the person of the accuser nor his faith is to be taken into consideration. It is fitting in every way that the conscience of the bishop be free, and that he who declares himself wronged obtain justice, whatever faith he may be of. But if the charge brought against the bishop be ecclesiastical: then it is fitting to examine the person of the accuser. And first, not to allow heretics to bring accusations against orthodox bishops concerning ecclesiastical matters. And we call heretics both those who have long ago been declared alien to the Church, and those who afterwards were anathematized by us; besides these also those who although they pretend as if they confess our faith soundly, but who have separated and gather assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops. Further, if certain ones belonging to the Church, for certain offences, have previously been condemned and cast out or excommunicated, either from the clergy or from the rank of the laity: these also are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they clear themselves of the charge to which they themselves have fallen subject. Likewise also accusations against a bishop or against others of the clergy from those who themselves have previously been subject to denunciation may be accepted not before they indisputably show their innocence against the accusations brought against them. But if certain ones are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from the communion of the Church, nor condemned, nor previously accused of any crimes, say that they have something to denounce against a bishop concerning ecclesiastical matters: such the holy Council commands first to present their accusations to all the bishops of the diocese, and before them to prove with evidence their denunciations against the bishop who has come under charge. But if the bishops of the united eparchies, beyond expectation, are not able to restore order concerning the accusations brought against the bishop: then the accusers are to approach a greater council of the bishops of the great diocese convened for this reason; but they may not insist on their accusation before they have in writing placed themselves under the risk of the same punishment as the accused, if, in the course of the proceedings, they are found to be slandering the accused bishop. But if someone, despising the decision made after preliminary inquiry, dares either to trouble the ears of the emperor, or the courts of secular rulers, or to disturb an ecumenical council, to the insult of the honour of all the bishops of the diocese: such a one is by no means to be received with his complaint, as having insulted the canons and violated ecclesiastical good order.

Zonara. Here the divine Fathers lay down whom one must accept as accusers of a bishop or clerics, and who must not be accepted, and they say that if someone presents against a bishop a private matter, accusing him, for example, of injustice, that is, of taking immovable or movable property, or of offence, or something of that kind; then the accuser must be accepted—whoever he may be, even if he be unbelieving, or a heretic, or excommunicated, or even completely cut off from the catholic church. For all who declare themselves wronged, of whatever confession or condition they may be, must be admitted and must obtain justice. The fathers spoke of a private matter in distinction from matters of crimes or public matters. Private are called matters concerning monetary loss; and matters of crimes (criminal) are those which cause harm to the rights of the state of the accused; therefore the holy fathers added: but if the charge brought against the bishop be ecclesiastical, that is, such as, for example, would subject him to deprivation of priesthood, such as sacrilege, or ordination for money, or performing some episcopal action in another’s diocese without the knowledge of the local bishop, and the like; in such a case a careful examination must be made of the person of the accuser, and if he is a heretic, he is not to be accepted. It calls heretics all who think not in accordance with the orthodox faith, whether long ago or recently they were excluded from the church, whether they hold ancient or new heresies. And not only those erring concerning the sound faith does the rule not admit to accusation of a bishop in a crime, but also those separated from their bishops and gathering assemblies against them, although they appeared orthodox. Schismatics, according to the rule of Basil the Great, are those who have divided in opinions concerning certain ecclesiastical subjects and questions admitting of healing. In like manner the rule does not admit those who for certain offences have been cast out from the church or deprived of communion. By those cast out one must understand those completely cut off from the church; and those temporarily excommunicated the divine Fathers designated by the word: excommunicated, whether such be clerics or laity: and such cannot be admitted to accusation of bishops or clerics until they remove the charge against themselves and place themselves beyond accusation. The rule commands not to admit to accusation of bishops or clerics such persons who themselves are under some accusation concerning the rights of their state, if they do not prove their innocence in the crimes alleged against them. But if the accuser is hindered by none of the aforesaid causes, but they prove blameless in all respects; then, if the accused is a bishop, the bishops of that eparchy, assembling, must hear the accusation, and either decide the matter, or, if they cannot decide, must refer to a greater council, and by greater council the rule calls the bishops of the whole diocese. By eparchy, for example, one must understand Adrianople or Philippopolis and the bishops in the vicinity of these cities, and by diocese the whole of Thrace or Macedonia. Thus, when the bishops of the eparchy are not able to correct the accused, then the rule ordains that the bishops of the diocese assemble and resolve the accusations against the bishop. But if the accused be a cleric, the accuser must present the accusation to the bishop to whom he is subject, and if the matter is not decided by him, then further proceed as said above. Herein the sacred fathers, following civil law, ordained that the one initiating the case not present the accusation before the accuser in writing certifies that he, in case he does not prove the accusation, himself is subject to the same punishment which the accused would suffer if the accusation against him were proved. Having ordained this, the divine fathers added that he who does not observe this conciliar rule, but either appeals to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical council, must not be admitted to accusation at all, as having dishonoured the bishops of the diocese, insulted the canons, and violated the good order of the church.

Aristen. Even one of evil faith may accuse a bishop in a monetary matter. But if the accusation be ecclesiastical, he cannot present it. Nor can anyone else present an accusation if previously he himself has fallen under condemnation: neither can one deprived of communion, cast out, accused of something, until they clear themselves. But one orthodox, in communion, not condemned and not under accusation, may accuse. The accusation must be presented to the diocesan bishops; and if they are not able to resolve it, the accusers must appeal to a greater council, and may be heard only when they give a written undertaking to suffer the same punishment to which the accused is liable. Whoever without observing this appeals to the emperor and troubles him is subject to excommunication.

Concerning persons who accuse bishops or clerics, an examination must be made: whether this is a heretic, or condemned, or excommunicated, or deprived of communion, or accused by others of crimes and not yet proved clear of the accusation; and if the accusers prove to be such, they are not to be admitted to accusation. But if one bringing an ecclesiastical complaint against a bishop is orthodox and of blameless life and in communion; then he must be accepted and must present his offence before all the bishops in authority. And if they perhaps are not able to render a decision concerning the offences alleged against the bishop, then the accuser must appeal to a greater council, having first given a written undertaking that he must subject himself to the same punishment if convicted of slander, and only then present the accusation. Whoever acts not in accordance with this, and in accusing a bishop troubles the emperor or appeals with accusation to the courts of secular authorities, from such the accusation must not be accepted. But a heretic, if he suffers wrong from a bishop, may without hindrance present accusation against him.

Valsamon. Note the present rule for those initiating judicial proceedings concerning crimes (criminal) against bishops and other sacred ministers. Read also the 129th (143–145) rule of the Carthaginian Council and the laws placed in the commentary on this rule; and you will learn from the present rule and from them to whom it is forbidden to initiate proceedings concerning crimes against sacred persons.

Our enemy Satan has never ceased to defile with slander the intentions of good men, and especially of bishops. Therefore the fathers ordained that every person, honest or dishonest, faithful or unfaithful, having against a bishop a private matter, that is, monetary, is admitted to present a complaint and obtains justice in the competent court. But in a matter of crime or in some ecclesiastical question subjecting the bishop to deposition or penance, he is brought to trial only when the person of the accuser is first subjected to examination. For to heretics the right to accuse a bishop is not given at all. And those excommunicated or previously subject to some accusation cannot initiate accusation against a bishop or cleric until they themselves clear themselves of the accusation. But even when the accuser is such, the rule wishes that a bishop or cleric be brought to trial not simply and haphazardly, but with all lawful precaution and with a written undertaking or agreement to suffer the same punishment if he does not prove the accusation alleged by him. The accusation of a bishop or cleric is presented first to the metropolitan; but if the local council cannot decide the matter, then, according to the rule, a greater council must hear the matter. Whoever acts not in accordance with it, but appeals either to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical council, is not admitted to accusation, as an insulter of the canons and violator of ecclesiastical good order. The rule called private matters monetary matters in distinction from matters of crimes, which are called public because they are initiated by anyone from the people, which does not happen in monetary complaints, since such are initiated only by him who has a claim. And when you hear that the present rule calls heretics also those who pretend as if they confess our faith soundly but who have separated and gather assemblies against our rightly appointed bishops, do not think that you contradict the second rule of Basil the Great, which does not call schismatics heretics, but say that the present rule calls heretics such schismatics who think completely contrary but by pretence appear orthodox, in reality being heretics; while the rule of saint Basil speaks of other schismatics who in reality are orthodox but under pretext of some ecclesiastical misunderstanding have separated, through self-conceit, from the wholeness of the brotherhood. Read the said rule of the holy father. From the last words of the present rule, in which it is said that one acting not in accordance with the rule must not be accepted with accusation, as an insulter of the canons, some strove to conclude that such a one is also subject to deprivation of honour. But it seems to me that from this it does not follow that one acting thus contrary to order is subject to condemnation for insult and consequently to deprivation of honour and after this to deposition, on the basis of the rule which says: “what is clearly said harms, what is implied does not harm”; otherwise how would he be subject to punishment at the discretion of the judge? When one bishop was brought on a criminal matter to the holy Constantinopolitan synod and appealed against the judgment of his metropolitan and his council, by force of the present rule; then some said that if the metropolitan present at the council wishes his bishop to be judged at a great council, let him be judged before him; while others objected that the judgment over him is not in the power of the metropolitan but belongs to the council consisting with him, and that for a bishop it is far more advantageous to be judged by his own council and not to be brought to another council—and for this there is no need even of the metropolitan’s permission. Still others said that the rule speaks of an ecumenical council, while the great Constantinopolitan synod or council is not ecumenical, and therefore the content of the rule has no place in the present matter. But it seems to me that although the synod in Constantinople is not an ecumenical council, since the other patriarchs are not present at it, yet it is greater than all synods, and its archbishop is called ecumenical patriarch—and the advantage belongs not to the metropolitan but to the bishop or cleric brought to his trial. Therefore none of them will suffer harm from the metropolitan permission by force of the law which says: what is done by some serves neither to the benefit nor to the harm of others.

Slavic Kormchaya. Even one of evil faith, if wronged, may speak against a bishop. But if it be concerning an ecclesiastical offence, he may not speak. Nor may anyone else speak who previously has been found in defamations. Nor may one cast out from communion or accused of anything speak, until he lays aside his own. But one of right faith, and in communion, and unknown in defamations, and not accused, may speak, and must show the offence to those in authority. But if they cannot correct it, let him go to a greater council. And without a writing saying, I will suffer this if I speak falsely, let it not be heard. One coming to the church beyond these and making clamour is cast out.

Interpretation. It is fitting to examine the persons and lives of those slandering and speaking against a bishop or cleric, that such be not a heretic, or known in some defamation, or cast out from the church, or from communion, or accused by others of sins and not yet having justified himself of his fault. And if such be the slanderers, do not accept them to accusation of a bishop. But if he be of right faith and of blameless life and a communicant of the catholic church, who brings an ecclesiastical charge against a bishop, let him be accepted and let him declare his offence before all the bishops in authority. But if they cannot correct the offences alleged against the bishop, let him who speaks slanders against the bishop approach a greater council, and let him give to the first council a document, having written on it that if I am convicted of lying in slandering the bishop, I will suffer this or that punishment, and thus it will be established, and he will be assured concerning his declaration. But if he does not do thus, but coming to the emperor and making clamour speaking against a bishop, or comes concerning this to the tribunals of secular boyars, such a one is not accepted to slander a bishop. But a heretic if wronged by a bishop, it is not forbidden him to speak against him and to obtain justice.

Canon 7. Those joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved from among the heretics we accept according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians and Novatians, who call themselves pure and better, the Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, when they give written statements and anathematize every heresy that does not think as the holy God’s Catholic and Apostolic Church thinks, we accept by sealing, that is, by anointing with holy chrism first the forehead, then the eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and in sealing them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. But Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, called Phrygians here, and Sabellians, who hold the opinion of son-fatherhood and do other intolerable things, and all other heretics (for there are many such here, especially those coming out of the country of Galatia), all who from among them wish to be joined to Orthodoxy we accept as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second catechumens, then on the third we exorcise them with threefold blowing upon the face and upon the ears: and thus we catechize them and cause them to sojourn in the church and to hear the Scriptures, and then we baptize them.

Zonara. The present rule teaches how those coming from heresies to the right faith must be received. Certain of such it prescribes not to rebaptize, but to require from them written statements, that is, written testimonies in which their opinions are anathematized, their impiety condemned, and anathema pronounced upon every heresy. To such belong: the Arians, and Macedonians, and Novatians, who call themselves Pure, whose heresies we have defined earlier; and the Sabbatians, whose leader was a certain Sabbatius, who himself was a presbyter in the heresy of Novatus, but had something more than he, and surpassed the teacher of the heresy in malice, and celebrated together with the Jews; and the Fourteen-day observers, who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day it happens to become full; and they celebrate it then in fasting and vigil; and the Apollinarians. These heretics are not rebaptized, because concerning holy baptism they differ in nothing from us, but are baptized in the same way as the orthodox. Thus, each of them, anathematizing his own heresy in particular and every heresy in general, is anointed with holy chrism, and performs the rest according to the rule. But those subject to rebaptism are the Eunomians and Sabellians, whose heresies we have already explained, and the Montanists, who received their name from a certain Montanus, and were called also Phrygians either because the leader of their heresy was a Phrygian, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia, and there many were seduced into it. This Montanus called himself the Comforter, and the two women accompanying him, Priscilla and Maximilla, he called prophetesses. The Montanists were also called Pepuzians, because they considered Pepuza, a village in Phrygia, a divine place, and named it Jerusalem. They commanded marriages to be dissolved, taught abstinence from food, perverted Pascha, united and merged the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixing the blood of a pierced infant with flour and making bread from this—they offered it and communed from it. Thus, these and all other heretics the sacred fathers ordained to baptize: for they either did not receive divine baptism, or, having received it wrongly, received it not according to the ordinance of the orthodox church; therefore the holy fathers regard them as if unbaptized from the beginning. For this is what the expression means: “we accept them as pagans.” Then the rule enumerates the actions performed over them, and that they are first catechized and taught our divine mysteries, then baptized.

Aristen. Rule 7. Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites, Arian, Novatian, Macedonian, Sabbatian, and Apollinarian must be received with written statements, after anointing with chrism all the organs of sense.

They, having given written statements and anathematizing every heresy, are received through anointing only with holy chrism the eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth, and forehead. And in sealing them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rule 8. Eunomians baptized with one immersion, Sabellians, and Phrygians must be received as pagans.

They are both baptized and anointed with chrism, because they are received as pagans, and for a sufficient time before baptism they remain in the state of catechumens and hear the divine scriptures.

Valsamon. This rule divides heretics coming to the church into two classes: and certain it commands to anoint with chrism, with the condition that they first anathematize every heresy and promise to believe as the holy church of God thinks; and others it ordains to baptize properly. And to the first, who must be only anointed with chrism, the rule assigns the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, and Novatians, called also Pure, whose heresies we explained in the first rule of this Second Council. The Novatians were called also Sabbatians after a certain presbyter Sabbatius, who observed the sabbath according to the Jewish custom; they are also called left-handed, because they abhor the left hand and do not allow themselves to receive anything with this hand. Fourteen-day observers or Tetradites are called those who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day this happens, which is characteristic of the Jewish religion. They are also called Tetradites because, celebrating Pascha, they do not break the fast but fast, as we do on Wednesdays; and this they do according to the Jewish custom. For these, after celebrating Pascha, fast the whole seven days, eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread, according to the prescription of the old law. And those subject to rebaptism, according to the rule, are the Eunomians, baptized with one immersion, and the Montanists, so called after a certain Montanus, who named himself the Comforter and through two evil women, Priscilla and Maximilla, uttered false prophecies. To them are assigned the Sabellians, so called after a certain Sabellius, who, among certain other absurdities, said also that one and the same is Father, one and the same Son, one and the same Holy Spirit, so that in one hypostasis three names, as in a man body, soul, and spirit, or in the sun three actions: sphericity, light, and heat. The Montanists are called Phrygians either after some heresiarch Phrygian, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia. Besides this they are called Pepuzians after the village of Pepuza, honoured by them as Jerusalem. They dissolve marriages as abominable, fast a strange fast, pervert Pascha; unite and merge the Holy Trinity into one person, and mixing with flour the blood of a pierced infant and preparing bread from this, make an offering from it. And this is so. But if some orthodox becomes a Montanist or Sabellian and receives the baptism of heretics or does not receive it, must such a one be anointed with chrism or rebaptized, like the other Montanists? Seek concerning this the nineteenth rule of the First Council and the forty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles. And from the present rule note that all who are baptized with one immersion are rebaptized.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 7. Fourteen-day observers, who are also called Wednesday-observers, and Arians, and Novatians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Apollinarians, having given a writing, are acceptable, anointing only all the senses.

Interpretation. All these are heretics: and when they approach the catholic church and having written their heresy and read it before all and cursed it, and with it all heresies, let them be accepted: only anointing with holy chrism the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth; and when we sign them with chrism, saying thus: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. And they are called Wednesday-observers because on Wednesday they eat meat, and on Saturday they fast. These are named Fourteen-day observers because on the fourteenth day of the moon they celebrate Pascha.

Rule 8. (Of the Holy Apostles 50). Baptism not in three immersions is not baptism. Those baptized with one immersion, Eunomians, and Sabellians, and Phrygians, shall be accepted as Hellenes.

Interpretation. And these are heretics who are baptized with one immersion and not three, as the orthodox: these if they approach the catholic church shall be accepted as pagans, and before baptism for a sufficient time are instructed, and let them listen to the divine scriptures, and afterwards are fully baptized and anointed; thus we accept them as Hellenes. On the first day indeed we make them Christians. On the second we make them catechumens, that they be instructed in the faith. On the third day we perform exorcism and blowing thrice upon the face and ears. And thus we instruct them and command them to spend sufficient time in the church and listen to the divine scriptures, and then we baptize them. But before all this let them curse their heresy with a writing, and all others as also the previously named heretics.

source

On the Council

Zonara. The holy and first Ecumenical Council was held during the reign of Constantine the Great, when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. He uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and said that He is not of one essence with God the Father, but is a creature—and that there was a time when He was not. This Arius the holy Council deposed and anathematized, together with those who shared his opinions, and it established the dogma that the Son is of one essence with the Father and is true God and Master, and Lord, and Creator of all that has been created, and not a creature nor a creation. This Nicene Council is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although various local councils had taken place before it, since it is the first of the ecumenical councils, it is placed before the others that occurred earlier, that is, the Antiochian one against Paul of Samosata, which assembled under the emperor Aurelian; the one at Ancyra, at which there was an investigation concerning those who had denied the faith during the times of persecution and afterwards repented—as to how they should be received; and the one at Neocaesarea, at which rules were established concerning church order.

Valsamon. This holy and first Ecumenical Council was held during the reign of Constantine the Great (in the tenth year of his reign), when three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. He uttered blasphemy against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and said that He is not of one essence with God the Father, but is a creature, and that there was a time when He was not. This Arius the holy Council deposed and anathematized, together with those who shared his opinions, and it established the dogma that the Son is of one essence with the Father and is true God and Master, and Lord, and Creator of all that has been created, and not a creature nor a creation. This Nicene Council is called the first among the ecumenical ones. Although various local councils had taken place before it, since it is the first of the ecumenical councils, it is placed before the others that occurred earlier, that is, the Antiochian one against Paul of Samosata, and those at Ancyra and Neocaesarea.

Slavic Kormchaya. The Holy Ecumenical First Council that was in Nicaea took place during the reign of Constantine the Great. Three hundred Fathers assembled against the impious Arius, who blasphemed the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; him the holy Fathers anathematized. And they set forth the rules established here. The rules of the First Council are twenty.

Canon 1. If any, in sickness, have had their members removed by physicians, or have been castrated by barbarians: let such a one remain in the clergy. But if any, being in health, have castrated themselves: such a one, even if he has been enrolled in the clergy, ought to be excluded, and from now on none such ought to be promoted. But just as it is clear that this is said concerning those who act with intent and dare to castrate themselves, so on the other hand, if any have been castrated by barbarians or by their masters, but are otherwise found worthy: the canon admits such persons to the clergy.

Zonara. Various rules of the Holy Apostles and civil laws prescribe the same as this present canon. But even after these rules, this matter was often treated with neglect—some who had castrated themselves were promoted to the clergy, while others who had been forcibly castrated by others were not promoted. Therefore the Fathers of this Council set forth the present canon, prescribing the same as the Apostolic Rules and the laws: that is, not to accept into the clergy or advance to the priesthood those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to castration or have made themselves eunuchs with their own hands; and if they had previously been enrolled in the clergy, to depose them from it. But for those who have been injured by others and deprived of their generative members, if they are found worthy of the priesthood, not to forbid their promotion on this account. And one who has castrated himself is understood not only as he who has cut off this member with his own hands, but also he who voluntarily and without compulsion submits himself to castration. This is explained more fully in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Apostolic Rules.

Aristen. Eunuchs may be received into the clergy, but those who have castrated themselves may not be received. It is said also in the Apostolic Rules, namely the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, that one worthy of the priesthood is not forbidden to enter the clergy if he has been castrated involuntarily; but one who has voluntarily castrated himself, as being a murderer of himself, ought not to be received into the clergy at all, and if he is a cleric, he ought to be deposed. Such is also the meaning of this present canon.

Valsamon. The divine Apostolic Rules, the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th, have sufficiently taught us how we ought to deal with those who have cut off their own generative organs. In agreement with them, this present canon prescribes not to accept into the clergy or advance to the priesthood those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to castration or have made themselves eunuchs with their own hands, and if they had previously been enrolled in the clergy, to depose them from it; but for those who have been injured by others and deprived of their generative members, if they are found worthy, not to forbid the priesthood on this account. Add also the 8th rule of the council that was held in the church of the Holy Apostles and is called the First-and-Second. When explaining the Apostolic Rules, we wrote that one who castrates himself after ordination due to illness is subject to punishment. But since this present canon says: “If any, in sickness, have had their members removed by physicians: let such a one remain in the clergy,” and then: “But if any, being in health, have castrated themselves: such a one, even if he has been enrolled in the clergy, ought to be excluded,” some have said that one who is castrated due to illness after entering the clergy is not subject to punishment. We reply that this canon is considering those who were castrated not after receiving the priesthood, but before receiving the priesthood, though doubt about them arose only after they had received the priesthood. And if anyone should still object and wish that indulgence be shown to one castrated due to illness after receiving the priesthood, let him hear how the 142nd Novel of Justinian shuts his mouth; it is placed in book 60, title 51, last chapter, and is also included in chapter 14 of title one of the present collection. We say this in the case where someone is castrated after receiving the priesthood without the knowledge of the church; for if someone is castrated with the church’s permission after entering the clergy, he will not, in my opinion, be subject to condemnation—although I have not known any of the ordained to be permitted to be castrated because of illness, even though many have requested this of the Synod, both at the time when I held the office of chartophylax and afterwards, during the patriarchate, out of fear that the performance of this treatment is connected with danger.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let eunuchs be received into the clerical order. But those who cut off their own generative members are not to be received.

Interpretation. Concerning this, it is said in the Apostolic Rules, the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th: to a eunuch worthy of the priesthood, it is not forbidden to enter the clerical order, if he was castrated not by his own will. But if anyone by his own will cuts off his own generative member, such a one is not to be received into the clerical order at all, as having become a murderer of himself. But if he, being a cleric, does such a thing, they command that he be deposed. This canon, therefore, has the same meaning.

Canon 2. Since, due to necessity or other human motives, many things have occurred contrary to the church rule—so that persons who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith, and have been catechumens for only a short time, are soon brought to the spiritual bath; and immediately after baptism they are advanced to the episcopate or presbyterate—it has therefore been deemed good that henceforth nothing of this kind should take place. For a catechumen needs time, and after baptism further testing. For the Apostolic writing is clear, which saith: Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the judgment and the snare of the devil. But if, as time goes on, some psychic sin should be found in a person, and he is convicted by two or three witnesses: let such a one be excluded from the clergy. And he who acts contrary to this, as one daring to resist the great Council, puts himself in danger of exclusion from the clergy.

Zonara. The eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles also determines that one who has come from a pagan life, or has turned from a vicious way of life, should not immediately be made a bishop. And the great Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, prescribing what sort of person should be advanced to the episcopate, says that he should not be a novice (1 Tim. 3:6). Therefore these Fathers also determine that, just as one coming to the faith should not be baptized immediately if he has not been sufficiently instructed in the faith, so one who has been baptized should not immediately be enrolled in the clergy, because he has not yet given proof of what he is like in faith and in life. But if he is enrolled in the clergy and, after testing, appears blameless, yet as time passes he is convicted of some psychic sin, the Fathers prescribe that such a one be excluded from the clergy. A difficulty arises—what is meant by psychic sin, and why only psychic sins are mentioned, but not bodily ones, especially when bodily sins more often lead to the deposition of those who fall into them, while psychic sins do so less frequently. Some say that the Holy Fathers who set forth this rule called every sin that harms the soul a psychic sin. Others call psychic sins those that arise from psychic passions, such as pride, arrogance, and disobedience; for these sins too, if not healed, lead to deposition. This is clear from the example of the so-called Novatians; for they did not err in dogma, but out of pride, calling themselves pure, they did not receive those who had fallen during persecutions, even if they repented, and they had no communion with the digamists; therefore they were cut off from communion with the faithful for their pride and hatred of brethren. So if they were cut off from the church for these sins, how will one remain undeposed who out of pride does not obey his bishop and remains uncorrected? And the fifth rule of the Holy Apostles commands that those who put away their wives under the pretext of piety be excommunicated, and if they remain unyielding, deposed. And the thirty-sixth Apostolic rule prescribes that those called by the election of bishops to the primacy but not accepting this service be excommunicated until they accept it—so that if they do not accept, they remain excommunicated for life, and those excommunicated for life differ in nothing from the deposed. I think it better to say that every sin can justly be called psychic, since it has its beginning in the corruption of the psychic powers. For if what is observed in the soul is divided into three powers—the power of the mind, the power of desire, and the power of irritation—then from each power virtues and vices usually arise: the former when we use these powers rightly and as they were implanted in us by the Creator, the latter when we misuse them. Thus, the virtue and perfection of the power of the mind is piety, thoughts befitting the divine, infallible distinction between good and evil, and what one should choose and what avoid; deviation from this is evil and sin. The virtue of the power of desire consists in loving what is truly worthy of love—I mean the divine nature—and loving deeds that can draw us near to Him. Deviation from this and turning to earthly things is sin arising from the power of desire. Similarly, the virtue of the power of irritation consists in resisting evil and being hostile to it, opposing fleshly lusts, striving against sin even unto blood, and fighting for right doctrine and virtue, according to the word of David: I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved (Ps. 118:158). And the vice arising from this power consists in anger against one’s neighbor, hatred, inclination to quarrels, and grudges. Thus, if, as has been said, sins arise from the psychic powers, the Holy Fathers rightly called sins psychic, following also the great Paul, who saith: There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44), and calls natural the body that is governed by the soul and subject to it, that serves its natural powers, that gives itself to anger and lust, that cleaves to earthly things, and thinks of nothing beyond the earthly.

Aristen. Those coming from a pagan life should not soon be advanced to presbyters, for a novice, not tested over a certain time, turns out bad. And if after ordination it is discovered that someone has sinned, whether before or after the ordination, such a one should also be excluded from the clergy. This rule says the same as the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles, namely, that a recent convert should not immediately be made a bishop or presbyter, lest as a novice he fall into the snare of the devil and incur judgment. According to the eleventh (tenth) rule of the Sardican council, such a one should remain in each degree—that is, the degree of reader, subdeacon, and so on—for at least one year, and thus, if found worthy of divine priesthood, he may be honored with the highest honor. But on the other hand, if anyone after ordination is found to have sinned, he loses his rank.

Valsamon. From the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles we have learned that neither one coming to the church from a pagan life nor one turning from a vicious way of life is immediately made a bishop. Read what is written there. And this present rule adds that such a one is not immediately made a presbyter either, and that no unbeliever is admitted to baptism before sufficient instruction in the faith, because time is needed for testing in this. The rule commands that one who acts otherwise be deposed. And since the rule punishes psychic sins that are discovered after baptism, some have asked what psychic sins are and why the rule mentioned psychic sins but not bodily ones. Some said that psychic sins are those born from psychic passions, such as pride, disobedience, and the like; for these too lead to deposition, as for example the heresy of the Novatians and improper abstinence from marriage and eating meat according to the fifth rule of the Holy Apostles and other rules. But I say that every sin harming the soul is called psychic, even if it begins from bodily or psychic impulse. For this reason the church calls all sins psychic falls, and the rule mentioned only psychic sins because bodily ones are included in them. And concerning the fact that one baptized and enrolled in the clergy is not punished for fornication or murder committed before baptism, read the twentieth rule of Saint Basil and the commentaries on it, and the seventeenth rule of the Holy Apostles.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 2 (Nikon 63). One coming from a pagan life should not soon be made a presbyter. For if not tested over time, a newly planted one is bad. And if anyone after presbyteral ordination is convicted of former sins, let him cease from service.

Interpretation. Like the eightieth rule of the Holy Apostles, this rule also says that it is not fitting to make a novice soon a bishop or presbyter, lest as newly planted he fall blindly into transgression and into the snare of the devil. Therefore such a one, according to the tenth rule of the council in Sardica, must first pass through all the degrees—that is, be made reader, then subdeacon, and deacon, and presbyter, and remain in such for the time of one year. And thus if he appears worthy of the episcopate, let him enjoy greater honor—that is, let him be bishop. And likewise if before ordination he sins in any of the said sins, and concealing it is ordained, and after ordination is convicted in that sin, let him be deprived of his rank.

Canon 3. The great Council has absolutely laid down that neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon, nor anyone at all in the clergy, should be permitted to have a woman living with him in the house, except mother, or sister, or aunt, or only those persons who are beyond all suspicion.

Zonara. This rule desires that the ordained be blameless and that no one have even a pretext for suspicion against them. Therefore it forbids all the ordained to live together with women except the persons mentioned. And this is forbidden not only to the aforesaid (that is, ordained) persons, but to all in the clergy. And Basil the Great, in his epistle to Gregory the presbyter, mentions this rule and commands him to remove from himself the woman living with him. “But if,” he says, “without correcting yourself, you dare to touch the sacred ministry, you will be anathema before all the people.” And the fifth rule of the ecumenical Trullan council establishes the same, adding the following: “Let the same be observed also by eunuchs, guarding themselves from reproach. And those who transgress the rule, if they are clergy, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated.” The same as these sacred canons is enacted by the novel placed in the third book of the Basilics. And the eighteenth chapter of the seventh council does not allow a bishop or abbot to enter even country houses where women serve, unless the women are removed from there while the bishop or abbot is present. And the nineteenth rule of the Ancyran council says at the end: “To virgins who join in dwelling with certain men as with brothers, we have forbidden this.”

Aristen. No one should have a woman living with him, except mother, sister, and persons who remove all suspicion. Except for persons who cannot give any suspicion of unchastity—that is, mother, sister, aunt, and the like—this present rule does not allow any other person to live together with any of the ordained, nor do the fifth rule of the sixth Trullan council, the eighteenth and twenty-second rules of the second Nicene council, and Basil the Great allow this; the latter prescribed to the presbyter Gregory to separate from the woman living with him, even though he was seventy years old and it could not be thought that he lived with her passionately.

Valsamon. Concerning subintroduced women, read chapter 14 of title 8 of the present collection, and what is contained in it, and from the 123rd novel of Justinian cited there you will learn that clerics, after admonition, who do not separate from women living with them—of whatever kind they may be except the persons indicated in this present rule—are subject to deposition; and bishops, if found at any time living with any woman whatever, are deposed for this. And note this. Concerning subintroduced women there have been many discussions at different times; some said that an introduced or subintroduced woman is one brought in place of a lawful wife and living with someone in fornication; others said that a subintroduced woman is any woman living with someone who is completely unrelated, even if free from suspicion; and this seems much more correct. For this reason, they say, Basil the Great, in his epistle to the presbyter Gregory, urges this priest to remove the woman living with him and does not determine that he should be deposed for this, as one undeniably and manifestly sinning.

Slavic Kormchaya. For priests and deacons and other church clerics, let no other women be kept in their houses, except mother and sister and aunt (Nikon 33). The great council has utterly forbidden that it is not fitting for bishop, presbyter, deacon, nor any cleric to keep any other woman in his house: but only mother, or sister, or aunt; for these three persons are beyond all reproach.

Interpretation. The rule commands that priests be sinless and have no occasion for sinful reproach. And since some think that this is not said to them, therefore it has been forbidden to all the ordained not to live in their house with other women except the aforesaid persons—that is, mother, and sister, and aunt; for these three persons alone escape all reproach. And not only to the ordained—that is, bishops, or presbyters, or deacons—but to other clerics this has been forbidden. And the great Basil, sending to Gregory the presbyter, mentioned this rule, commanding him to separate—that is, to expel from the house—the wife living with him. But if, he says, without correcting yourself, you dare to serve, be thou accursed by all people. And the fifth rule of the Trullan palace, of the sixth ecumenical council, commands likewise, adding this: Let eunuchs also observe this, taking care to live blamelessly. But those who transgress the rule, if they are clerics, let them be deposed; if laymen, let them be excommunicated. And in the third books of the imperial laws lies a new command that likewise enjoins the same as the sacred rules. And the eighteenth rule of the seventh council does not at all allow a bishop or abbot to come to any court where women are serving, unless the women utterly depart from there beforehand and remain outside until the bishop or abbot departs from them. And the nineteenth rule of the council in Ancyra says at the end: To virgins coming together with certain men as with brothers, we have forbidden this.

Book of Rules. Since the aim of this rule is to guard sacred persons from suspicion, the prohibition laid down in it should apply to those presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons who have no wives; for the presence of a wife with her husband removes suspicion from another female person living with a married man.

Canon 4. It is most fitting that a bishop be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is inconvenient, either due to pressing necessity or because of the length of the journey: at least three should assemble in one place, and those absent should signify their consent by letters; and then the ordination should be performed. But to confirm such actions in each province belongs to the metropolitan.

Zonara. This present canon appears to contradict the first rule of the Holy Apostles; for that one prescribes that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops, while this one requires three, with the consent and agreement of the absent expressed through letters. But they do not contradict each other. For the rule of the Holy Apostles calls ordination the consecration and laying on of hands, while the rule of this Council calls appointment and ordination the election, and determines that the election of a hierarch should not take place otherwise than if three hierarchs come together, having the consent of the absent expressed in letters, in which they testify that they too will follow the election to be performed by the three bishops assembled together. And after the election, the confirmation of it—that is, the final decision, laying on of hands, and consecration—the canon assigns to the metropolitan of the province, so that he confirms the election. And he confirms it when, of the elected, he ordains one whom he himself chooses, together with the other two or three bishops, according to the Apostolic rule.

Aristen. A bishop is ordained by all the bishops of the province. But if not, at least by three, with the consent of the others to the election expressed through letters, and the metropolitan should have the authority to confirm. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops according to the first rule of the Holy Apostles, but he is elected by at least three, if perhaps all the bishops of the province cannot be present due to pressing need or length of journey. However, even the absent ones must express their agreement with the present bishops who are performing the election through letters. And the metropolitan has authority after the election to choose one of the three elected, whomever he wishes.

Valsamon. Here it speaks of how to appoint—that is, elect—a bishop. In ancient times, elections of hierarchs were performed in assemblies of citizens. But this was not pleasing to the divine Fathers, lest the life of those being ordained be subjected to the judgments of worldly people; and therefore they determined that a bishop should be elected by the provincial bishops of each province. And if this is difficult for some well-founded reason or because of the length of journey, the election should not take place otherwise than if three provincial bishops assemble together, having the consent of the absent expressed in written opinions. The ordination of him—that is, the consecration—the Holy Fathers assigned as an honor to the first, that is, the metropolitan, and not only the ordination but also the confirmation of the election. For therefore the one who is to perform the cheirotonia, of the three elected, points out one whom he himself wants, and it is not necessarily the one placed first who is indicated, and then the others. Such is the essence of the canon. Some metropolitans who performed the election of their bishops in the imperial city with three foreign bishops or even their own, without turning to the other bishops of their province, when asked why they do so, used for their aid the thirteenth rule of the Carthaginian council. Read what is written in that canon, and the nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council. This happens when the metropolitan has many bishops in his province. But if, as with many metropolitans, there is one provincial bishop or two, then of necessity the election must be with the actual provincial ones present and with foreign bishops.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop is ordained by all the bishops in the province. But if not, nevertheless by three. And the others having agreed by writing, the metropolitan should have authority.

Interpretation. A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops, according to the first rule of the Holy Apostles; however, he is ordained by three if all the bishops in the province cannot come, either because of pressing need or because of the length of the journey; however, they must. And even if they do not come, they must agree by letter to the election with the bishops who have come and are judging and electing, with two or three elected. And then the metropolitan has authority to ordain one of the three elected as bishop, whomever he wishes.

Canon 5. Concerning those whom the bishops in each diocese have removed from church communion—whether they belong to the clergy or to the rank of laity—the rule should be observed in judgment, by which it is established that those excommunicated by some should not be received by others. However, let it be investigated whether they have fallen under excommunication due to pettiness, or contention, or some similar displeasure of the bishop. And so, in order that proper investigation of this may take place, it has been deemed good that in each province there should be councils twice a year: so that all the bishops of the province, assembling together, may investigate such disputes; and thus those who are verifiably shown to have acted unjustly against the bishop may justly be deemed by all unworthy of communion, until the assembly of bishops sees fit to pronounce a more lenient decision concerning them. And the councils should be held, one before the forty days (Great Lent), so that, with all displeasure set aside, a pure gift may be offered to God; and the other around the autumn season.

Zonara. Various rules of the Holy Apostles also prescribe that no one should receive those excommunicated by their own bishops. But since it happens that some are excommunicated unjustly—perhaps out of anger and pettiness on the part of the one excommunicating, or out of some bias, which it also calls displeasure—therefore the sacred Fathers set forth this present canon, commanding that excommunications be subjected to investigation, of course when the excommunicated complain against those who excommunicated them, claiming they were excommunicated unjustly; and the investigation to be by the bishops of the province—either all or the greater part of them, in case some cannot appear at the council with the others, perhaps due to illness, or necessary absence, or some other unavoidable reason. And the Holy Fathers determined that councils be held in each province twice a year, as also laid down by the rules of the Holy Apostles. But the Holy Apostles commanded one of the councils to be in the fourth week of Pentecost, and the other in the month of Hyperberetaeus—that is, October. But the holy Fathers of this Council changed the time, determining instead of the fourth week of Pentecost that the council be before the forty days (Great Lent), and they gave this reason: so that, they say, all displeasure may cease. For one who considers himself wrongly excommunicated will of course complain against the one who excommunicated him; and the one who excommunicated, hearing that the excommunicated does not accept the penance meekly but murmurs against him, will not relate to him impartially. And when they are thus disposed toward each other, how can a gift be offered purely to God? Therefore one council was arranged to be before the forty days, and the other in autumn; and October is an autumn month. At these councils the holy Fathers established to investigate complaints of this kind. And those verifiably and indubitably shown to be unjust (for it is characteristic of one subjected to penance to deny the sin in which the bishop accuses him) will justly—that is, rightly—be deprived of communion by all, until the assembly of bishops sees fit to pronounce something more philanthropic concerning them. But perhaps someone will say: why does the canon assign the decision about the excommunicated not to the one who excommunicated, but to the assembly of bishops? I think this is said for the case when the one who excommunicated persists and does not wish in time to release the person from the penance, or if the one who excommunicated perhaps dies without releasing the one subjected to penance. For then it should be permitted to the council, if it sees that the time of penance is sufficient and the repentance of the one subjected to penance corresponds to the sin, to pronounce a decision about him and release the person from the penance, even if his bishop has not softened and remains unyielding, even if he has already ended his life. The thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles and this present one command councils to be twice a year, while the eighth rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council, renewing this enactment, determines that in each province there be a council once a year from Pascha until the end of October, in the place that the hierarch of the metropolis shall appoint. And for bishops who do not come to the council, though they are in health and in their cities and have no other reasonable and unavoidable occupation, to express censure brotherly or subject them to light penance. Nowadays the matter of these councils is entirely neglected, so that they never take place. Concerning the penance for those not appearing at councils, read the seventy-sixth (eighty-seventh) rule of the Carthaginian council.

Aristen. Those excommunicated by some should not be received by others, unless the excommunication was due to pettiness, or contention, or something similar. Therefore it has been deemed good that councils be held twice a year in each province, one before the forty days (Great Lent), the other around autumn. According to the parable, he who inflicted the wound should also provide the healing. Therefore one excommunicated by his own bishop should not be received by others in such a way—without investigation and without examination—but the reason for the excommunication should be examined, whether the excommunication was pronounced justly, or not due to pettiness—that is, out of anger of the bishop—or contention, or some other displeasure of the bishop. And so, lest the excommunicated be excommunicated arbitrarily, nor the bishops excommunicating them be disregarded if other bishops receive the excommunicated without investigation, this holy Council deemed it good that in each province there be a council twice a year, so that by the common opinion of all the bishops of the same province every church question and every dispute may be resolved, as also the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles prescribes. However, as we wrote there also, the eighth rule of the sixth Trullan council and the sixth of the second Nicene, taking into account the difficulties of the assembling bishops and the lack of necessities for travel, established that a council be held in each province once a year, where the bishop of the metropolis shall decide, between the feast of holy Pascha and the month of October.

Valsamon. It was determined that those excommunicated by some bishops and not absolved should not be received by others. But since it is characteristic of the excommunicated to say that he was excommunicated unjustly, or it may happen that the one who excommunicated dies, this canon commands (as other canons also determined) that all bishops assemble twice a year to the first among them, at which time doubts about those deprived of communion and other church questions are resolved. Displeasure is here called bias. However, what is contained in this present canon about annual councils we do not expound here in detail, because it is no longer in force, and because by the eighth rule of the Trullan council, as well as by the novel of Justinian—that is, chapters 20 and 21 of title 1 of book 3 of the Basilics—it is determined that bishops assemble once. Add these chapters. Seek also the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles and the fourteenth rule of the Sardican council. Read also chapter 8 of title 8 of the present collection.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 5 (Nikon 63). One bound by his own bishop should not be received by another without cause. Those excommunicated by their own bishops should not be received by others. However, unless the excommunication was due to pettiness, or some contention, or something similar of that kind. For this reason it was commanded that a council be held twice a year in each province. The first before the forty days of the holy and great fast, the second around the fruit season.

Interpretation. It is fitting, according to the parabolic word, that he who wounded a person should also heal him. Likewise, one who has received the command of excommunication from his own bishop should not fittingly be received by another without testing and without seeking the cause; but the cause of the excommunication should be examined, lest perhaps the excommunication was not justly imposed on him, but out of pettiness—that is, out of episcopal anger—or out of some contention, or for another such cause done by the passionate will of the bishop; and passionate will is to say: you did not do this for me, therefore be excommunicated. But so that neither the excommunicated are excommunicated without fitting cause, nor the bishops excommunicating them are offended when other bishops receive such without testing: for this reason the Holy Council commanded that a council be held twice a year in each province, so that by the common will of all the bishops of that province every question, and church examination, and every contradiction may be resolved; and the thirty-seventh rule of the Holy Apostles commands. However, as we wrote there, the eighth rule of the sixth council in the Trullan palace, and the sixth rule of the seventh council which assembled the second time in Nicaea, because of the scarcity of necessities that the assembling bishops wish to have for travel, commanded a council once a year, where the metropolitan shall choose. And the time of the council is between the feast of holy Pascha and the month of October. For that is the month around the fruit season.

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs be maintained, those accepted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these. Since this is also customary for the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch, and in other provinces, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved. In general, let this be clearly known: If anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Council has determined that such a one should not be a bishop. But if the common election of all is reasonable and in accordance with church rule, yet two or three oppose it out of contentiousness: let the opinion of the greater number of electors prevail.

Zonara. The canon desires that the ancient customs retain their force, as later canons and civil laws also determine. Thus, the canon establishes that the Alexandrian bishop should have primacy over the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Antiochian over the bishops of the provinces subject to him—that is, Syria and Coelesyria, both Cilicias, and Mesopotamia; and that other bishops should have authority over the regions subject to them, just as custom has granted authority to the presiding bishop of the Roman church over the western regions. And the canon desires that these bishops in their provinces have such great privileges that it issues a general enactment: nothing pertaining to church administration should be done without them, the greatest and most important of which is the ordination of bishops. Thus, the canon says: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, such a one should not be a bishop. For although in ancient times the assembly of city citizens elected the bishop, even then after the election they reported about him to the metropolitan, and it was confirmed by him; and the one whom he approved was deemed worthy of ordination. Then the canon adds that if, in an election conducted according to the rules, the greater part is in agreement and of one mind, but two or three oppose out of contentiousness and not for a well-founded reason, and resist the others, the election of the greater number of electors should have force. The same is prescribed by civil laws in monetary matters. The nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council prescribes the same concerning the opposition of bishops.

Aristen. The Alexandrian bishop should have authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Roman over the provinces subject to Rome; and the Antiochian and the others over their own. If anyone is advanced to bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, let him not be a bishop. But if three oppose the election of the greater number, which is conducted according to rule, their opinion should not have force. Each patriarch should be content with his own privileges, and none of them should seize another province that was not from the beginning and originally under his authority, for this is the arrogance of worldly power. But the bishops of each province should recognize their first—that is, the bishop presiding in the metropolis—and not elect a bishop without his consent; and if they elect someone without his consent, such a one should not be a bishop. But if the bishops, assembled with the metropolitan’s consent to perform the election, do not all come to the same mind, but some out of contentiousness begin to speak against it, then the judgment and election of the majority should prevail. And the opinion of those who oppose should not be heeded. Seek also the eighth rule of the Ephesian council, the thirty-fourth Apostolic rule, the second and third rules of the Antiochian council, and the third rule of the Sardican council.

Valsamon. This sixth canon and the seventh determine that, according to ancient customs, four patriarchs should be honored with distinction—that is, the Roman, Alexandrian, Antiochian, and Jerusalem (concerning the Constantinopolitan will be explained in other canons)—and that the Alexandrian should have primacy over the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; similarly the Antiochian over the provinces of Syria, Coelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both Cilicias; and the Jerusalem over the provinces in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia—because, it says, the Roman bishop also has primacy over the western provinces. Thus the canons desire that patriarchs have primacy over the metropolises subject to them, and metropolitans in turn over the bishops subject to them, so that the bishops subject to them do nothing exceeding their authority without them. For therefore the canons also command that one advanced to bishop without the consent of the first should not be a bishop, adding that when an election has been conducted according to the rules but some oppose, the opinion of the greater number of electors should prevail, according to the laws. When this is so determined, someone asked: this canon determines that in all matters the opinion of the greater number should prevail, but the new enactment of our sovereign and holy emperor, lord Manuel Comnenus, issued in the month of July, fourteenth indiction, year 6674, among other things literally determines the following: if not all agree, but some dissent from the majority, or the votes are equally divided, in such a case the opinion of those with whom the presiding judge agrees should have the advantage. Which should be followed? Some said that in church matters one should not follow the novel, and therefore the ancient enactments and canons set forth in agreement with them should have force in these matters; but others on the contrary asserted that the novel was issued for the whole world and for every matter, and is a general enactment. But it seems to me that the rules of this novel have no place in relation to church elections and church matters, lest canonical election be overturned through it. Seek also the nineteenth rule of the Antiochian council. The Jerusalem patriarch is called bishop of Aelia because the city of Jerusalem was once called Salim and Jebus, and after King Solomon built in it the famous divine temple and sanctuary, it was called Jerusalem. Then the Jerusalem people were taken captive by the Babylonians and the city destroyed to the ground. When the Roman emperor Aelius Hadrian rebuilt it, it was called Aelia after his name. By the common name, the city of Jerusalem itself and the whole region subject to it is called Palestine. Some asked: what does the word of the canon mean: “let him have the consequence of honor, with preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis”? And they received in answer that the metropolis in Palestine was Caesarea, and the Jerusalem church was once its episcopal see. Thus the canon desires that the rights of the metropolis be preserved for it, although Aelia has been separated from it and its bishop has received honor because of the saving sufferings of Christ. Seek also from the acts of the fourth council, act 8, and learn that, by agreement of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, it was deemed good that the Antiochian have the two Phoenicias and Arabia, and the Jerusalem the three Palestines; and then it was so determined, but now a change of circumstances has, by custom, altered this also.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let the Alexandrian bishop have authority over Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. And let the Roman bishop have authority over those under Rome. And the Antiochian and the others over their own. But if any bishop is ordained apart from the will of the metropolitan, let him not be bishop, since the canons command that many judges be for the election of a bishop. But if certain three speak against, let them not be heeded.

Interpretation. Each patriarch should have authority over his own boundaries. And let none of them seize another province that was not from above and from the beginning under his hand, for this is the pride of worldly power. It is fitting for the bishops of each province to know and honor their elder—that is, the bishop in the metropolis—and not to elect a bishop without his will. But if they elect someone without his will, such a one should not be bishop. But if, having assembled according to the metropolitan’s will to make judgment and election, they do not come to one will, but some, having fallen into contention, begin to speak against, let the judgment and election of the greater number prevail. And let the opinion of those who oppose not be heeded. And for this seek also the eighth rule of the third council in Ephesus, the thirty-fourth rule of the Holy Apostles, the ninth rule of the council in Antioch, the third rule of the second ecumenical council in Constantinople, and the third rule of the council in Sardica.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop residing in Jerusalem should be honored: let him have the consequence of honor, with preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolis.

Zonara. Just as the preceding canon granted privileges in their provinces to the Alexandrian and Antiochian bishops, so this present canon awarded the bishop of Aelia honor in his own province, and determined that for the city of Jerusalem, which is called Aelia, its own dignity be preserved, as presiding over the cities of Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia. For both in ancient times and now this whole region was called and is called Palestine. And the city in the most ancient time was called Salim and Jebus, and afterwards was named Jerusalem. After it was taken by the Romans and destroyed to the ground, the Roman emperor Hadrian, restoring the city, named it Aelia after his own name; for he was called Aelius Hadrian; thus he named it. Some say that the canon called the metropolis Caesarea, namely Caesarea of Palestine, which in ancient times was called Strato’s Tower.

Aristen. Let the bishop of Aelia have honor, with preservation of the dignity of the metropolis. The one hundred twenty-third novel, found in title one of book one, names the bishop of Jerusalem, who is called Aelia, patriarch. Thus, according to this canon, honor as patriarch should be rendered to the bishop of Aelia. But since Caesarea is the first metropolis of Palestine and the holy city, this patriarch should have his honor, and for Caesarea the metropolis (to which he was formerly subject) its own dignity should be preserved. Seek also the twelfth rule of the Chalcedonian council.

Valsamon. This present canon has been explained in the commentary on the preceding sixth canon.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let the bishop of Aelia be honored, with the rank of the Palestinian metropolis remaining intact.

Interpretation. The one hundred and twenty-third new command, lying in the first section of the first imperial books, names the bishop of Jerusalem (for Aelia is called Jerusalem) patriarch. It is fitting, therefore, according to this canon, that the bishop of Aelia—that is, Jerusalem—be honored with patriarchal distinction: since Caesarea, said to be Strato’s, is the first metropolis of Palestine, and under it is the holy city. It is fitting, therefore, for the patriarch of Aelia to have his honor, and for the rank of the Caesarean metropolis to remain intact and preserved, and to have its own dignity, under which the holy city was. And for this seek the twelfth rule of the fourth council in Chalcedon. And why the canon called the holy city Aelia: from ancient times it was called Salim, and afterwards was called Jebus; later it was named Jerusalem. But when the Romans came and plundered and razed it, and afterwards the Roman emperor Hadrian, called Aelius, built the city, he did not name it Jerusalem again, but after his own name called it Aelia.

Canon 8. Concerning those who once called themselves Cathari, but who join the Catholic and Apostolic Church: it has pleased the holy and great Council that, after the laying on of hands upon them, they remain in the clergy. But before all else, it is necessary that they make a written profession that they will join and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church—that is, that they will be in church communion both with digamists and with those who lapsed during the persecution, for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed. It is necessary that they follow in all things the decrees of the Catholic Church. Thus, wherever—whether in villages or in cities—all those found in the clergy prove to have been ordained from among them alone: let them remain in the same rank. But if, where there is a bishop of the Catholic Church, some of them come to the Church: it is clear that the bishop of the orthodox Church will hold the episcopal dignity; while the one called bishop among the so-called Cathari will have the honor of a presbyter—unless the local bishop should see fit that he also share in the honor of the episcopal title. But if this is not pleasing to him: then, to provide an apparent enrollment of such a one in the clergy, he shall devise for him a place either as chorepiscopus or as presbyter, so that there may not be two bishops in the city.

Zonara. The Cathari are the Novatians; and Novatian was a presbyter of the Roman church who did not receive the repentant among those who had lapsed during the persecution and did not enter into communion with digamists. Therefore, although he did not err in matters of faith, for his lack of mercy and hatred of brethren he was excommunicated and anathematized by the council held in Rome under Cornelius, pope of Rome, during the reign of Decius, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. Thus, this canon determines that adherents of his heresy, when they convert to the church, should be received with a written profession that they will observe the dogmas of the catholic church and will receive those who denied Christ under compulsion, and will arrange for them according to the times appointed for the penance of the lapsed (for this is the meaning of the words: “for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed”), and that they will be in communion with digamists. If they have been ordained as bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, those joining the church from among them remain in the clergy, in their ranks, if in the churches where they were ordained there are no others. Since they erred not by deviation from the faith, but by hatred of brethren and refusal to allow penance for the lapsed who converted, therefore the Council accepted their ordinations and determined that they should remain in their ranks, provided there is no bishop in the catholic church of that city. But if they are in such a church where there is a bishop or presbyter, this bishop should hold the dignity and name of the episcopate, while the one named bishop among the Cathari should have the honor either of presbyter or even of chorepiscopus, so that he may be counted together in the list of the clergy and not excluded from it—unless the bishop of the catholic church, out of indulgence, wishes him to have the name and honor of bishop; but even then he should not act as a bishop, so that there may not be two bishops in one and the same city.

Aristen. The so-called Cathari who join the church must first profess that they will obey the ordinances of the church, and will have communion with digamists, and will show indulgence to the lapsed. And thus those found to have been ordained should remain in their rank—that is, the true (that is, orthodox) bishop should be bishop, and the bishop among the Cathari should be either chorepiscopus or enjoy the honor either of presbyter or of bishop, for there should not be two bishops in one church. Of those coming to the holy, divine, catholic, and Apostolic Church, some are baptized, others are anointed with chrism, and others only anathematize their own and every other heresy. Those deceived by Novatian and named by him Cathari, since they do not accept the penance of those who have sinned and forbid second marriage, if they come to the church and profess that they will receive digamists and show indulgence to those who sinned but repented, and in general follow all the church dogmas and anathematize their heresy and others—they should be received and anointed with the one holy chrism. And if some of them are bishops or chorepiscopi, they again remain in the same dignity, provided that in the same city there is no other bishop of the catholic church ordained before their conversion. For the one who was from the beginning rightly bishop should have the preeminent honor, and he alone should occupy the episcopal throne; because there should not be two bishops in one city; while the one called bishop among the Cathari should have presbyteral honor, or, if it pleases the bishop, let him have even the name of bishop, but he should not exercise any episcopal right.

Valsamon. This Novatian was a presbyter of the Roman church, as Eusebius Pamphilus relates. When there was a persecution and many lapsed out of fear of death but afterwards repented, he, puffed up by the demon, did not wish to receive them and had no communion with digamists, as if zealous for chastity. Those who thought in agreement with him are called Novatians, and in mockery Cathari. At the council held in Rome under Cornelius, pope of the Roman church, during the reign of Decius, Novatian was anathematized, as well as those holding his heresy. Therefore the canon says that if any of them with pure repentance leave their former evil and bind themselves to preserve the dogmas of the catholic church, such a one should be received. And if they are clerics, they should necessarily retain their ranks, for they err not in matters of faith but are condemned for hatred of brethren. If they hold episcopal dignity, and in the region where they were cut off there are other (orthodox) bishops, they should not exercise anything episcopal, but it will lie with the (orthodox) bishop whether they have the mere name of bishop or are called by another name; and when there are no local bishops, they should perform episcopal duties also. The expression: “for whom a time of penance has been established and a term of absolution appointed” is used concerning those who lapsed during the persecution and concerning digamists. And clerics, after reception into the church, may be enrolled in the clergy to which they were previously ordained, but only when no other clerics have been appointed in their place; and if such are present somewhere, the same should be done with them as is written above concerning bishops. Perhaps someone will ask: if some of them wish to be advanced to a higher rank, will this present canon hinder this, which at the beginning says: “it has pleased the holy Council that after the laying on of hands upon them they remain in the clergy,” or may they freely receive higher ranks? Resolution. In the eightieth Apostolic rule and in the second rule of this present Council it is established that even complete unbelievers receive ranks of the priesthood. Thus, why should Novatians, called also Cathari, who as has been said have no errors in relation to the faith but are condemned for lack of compassion, not be able to receive higher ranks? And that they remain in the clergy, I think this is determined especially concerning them. For probably some said that they should be received, but only as simple laymen and not exercise the rights belonging to their former ranks. This was not accepted by the Council, but it was laid down to restore them to their ranks. With the name of restoration is connected also the rule of advancement to higher ranks.

Slavic Kormchaya. Heretics called Cathari who come to the catholic church must first profess that they obey the church laws, and have communion with digamists, and forgive those who sin. And if in some city there is a true bishop of that city, and also from these so-called Cathari another bishop or presbyter has been ordained, let him remain in his rank. But nevertheless the one ordained bishop from the Cathari should have honor as presbyter; or if the bishop of that city wishes, let him give him a bishopric somewhere in a village; for it is not possible for two bishops to be in one city.

Interpretation. Of heretics coming to the holy divine catholic Apostolic Church, some are fully baptized; others are only anointed with chrism; and others only curse their own and all other heresies. These called Cathari were deceived into such a heresy by Novatian, presbyter of the Roman church; from him they were also named Cathari, for this reason: because they do not accept the penance of those converting from sins. And they utterly forbid marrying a second time. And digamists they do not at all receive into communion. And such, if they come to the holy catholic Apostolic Church and profess to receive digamists into communion and not to revile second marriage, and to forgive sins to those who sin and repent; and simply to say, following all church commands, having cursed their heresy and all others—let them be received, and only anointed with the holy chrism. But if some of them are bishops, let them again remain in their rank, only if in that city no bishop of the catholic church is found: for such a one will be honored who was from the beginning the true bishop, and he alone sits on the episcopal throne. The one called bishop from the Cathari should be honored as presbyter: since it is not fitting for two bishops to be in one city. But if it pleases the bishop of that city, as we said, let him command him to be called bishop: but let him not touch any episcopal matter. But if he wishes, let him appoint him bishop somewhere in a village.

Book of Rules. The heretics who called themselves Cathari were followers of Novatian, presbyter of the Roman church, who taught that the lapsed during the persecution should not be received in penance, and digamists never received into church communion, and in these proud and unphilanthropic judgments placed the purity of their society.

Canon 9. If any have been advanced to presbyters without examination, or though upon examination they confessed their sins, yet contrary to the rule men proceeded and laid hands upon them: the canon does not admit such to holy ministry. For the Catholic Church unfailingly requires blamelessness.

Zonara. The canon desires that those advanced to the priesthood be blameless and pure from faults that hinder ordination, and that their life and conduct be examined. But if some perhaps are advanced to the rank of priesthood without examination, or when they confessed their shortcomings but the ordainers contrary to the rule ordain them—of such the canon establishes that they should not be admitted, and that there is no benefit for them from the unlawful ordination; for they should be subject to deposition.

Aristen. Those ordained without examination, if afterwards they are convicted of having truly sinned, should be removed from sacred ministry. If anyone having sinned concealed the sin and without examination was advanced to the rank of bishop or presbyter, and if after ordination he is convicted of having sinned, such a one should be removed from the priesthood.

Valsamon. The impediments to receiving the priesthood are various; among them is fornication. Thus, if anyone is condemned as having fallen into the sin of fornication, whether before ordination or after, such a one is deposed. Therefore, the canon says, for one ordained without examination or though having confessed his sin before ordination yet ordained contrary to the rules, there is no benefit from the ordination; but upon inquiry he is deposed. For some said that just as baptism makes a baptized person new, so priesthood blots out sins committed before the priesthood; but this is not accepted in the canons.

Slavic Kormchaya (Nikon 13). Those ordained without examination and after ordination convicted of former sins should cease.

Interpretation. If anyone having sinned and not confessed such sins to a spiritual father—sins that forbid him from the priesthood—and concealing it, and without examination is advanced to the presbyteral or episcopal rank. But if after ordination he is convicted of having committed such a sin, let him be deprived of the priesthood.

source

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

The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles

Chapter 1

There are two paths: one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two paths.

The path of life is this: First, you shall love God who created you; second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, and whatever you do not wish to be done to you, do not do to another.

The teaching of these words is as follows: Bless them that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what thanks is there if you love those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But you, love those who hate you, and you shall have no enemy.

Abstain from fleshly and worldly desires. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone compels you to go one mile, go with him two. If someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic also. If someone takes what is yours, do not demand it back, for you are not able.

Give to everyone who asks of you, and do not demand it back, for the Father desires that gifts be given from His bounty. Blessed is the one who gives according to the commandment, for he is blameless. Woe to the one who receives; for if one receives having need, he is blameless, but if one receives without need, he shall give an account of why he took and for what purpose. Being put in prison, he shall be examined concerning what he has done, and he shall not escape until he repays the last penny.

Yet it has also been said concerning this: Let thine alms sweat in thine hands, until thou knowest to whom thou shouldest give.

Chapter 2

The second commandment of the teaching is this:

Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not corrupt children, do not fornicate, do not steal, do not practice sorcery, do not use poisons, do not kill a child in the womb or one that is born, and do not covet your neighbor’s possessions.

Do not swear falsely, do not bear false witness, do not speak evil, do not hold grudges.

Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for double-tonguedness is a snare of death.

Let your word be neither false nor empty, but fulfilled by action.

Do not be greedy, nor a thief, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant. Do not devise evil plans against your neighbor.

Do not hate any person, but reprove some, pray for others, and love some more than your own soul.

Chapter 3

My child, flee from all evil and everything like it.

Do not be prone to anger, for anger leads to murder, nor be jealous, nor contentious, nor hot-tempered, for from all these things murders arise.

My child, do not be lustful, for lust leads to fornication, nor be foul-mouthed, nor bold-eyed, for from all these things adulteries arise.

My child, do not be a diviner by omens, since it leads to idolatry, nor an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a magician, nor desire to look upon such things, for from all these things idolatry arises.

My child, do not be a liar, since lying leads to theft, nor love money, nor be vain, for from all these things thefts arise.

My child, do not be a grumbler, since grumbling leads to blasphemy, nor be self-willed, nor evil-minded, for from all these things blasphemies arise.
But be meek, for the meek shall inherit the earth.

Be patient, merciful, harmless, humble, and good, and always trembling at the words you have heard.

Do not exalt yourself or allow boldness in your soul. Let not your soul cleave to the proud, but associate with the righteous and humble.

Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that nothing occurs apart from God.

Chapter 4

My child, remember day and night the one who speaks the word of God to you, and honor him as the Lord, for where His lordship is proclaimed, there the Lord is.

Seek daily the company of the saints, that you may find rest in their words.

Do not cause division, but reconcile those who quarrel. Judge justly, and do not show partiality when reproving transgressions.

Do not be double-minded, wondering whether a thing should be or not.

Do not stretch out your hands to receive but close them when giving.

If you have something through the work of your hands, give it as a ransom for your sins.

Do not hesitate to give, nor grumble when giving, for you shall know who is the good Rewarder.

Do not turn away from the needy, but share all things with your brother and do not say they are your own, for if you are sharers in what is imperishable, how much more in what is perishable?

Do not withhold your hand from your son or daughter, but from their youth teach them the fear of God.

In your anger, do not give commands to your slave or maidservant who hope in the same God, lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both. For He comes to call, not according to outward appearance, but those whom the Spirit has prepared.

And you, slaves, submit to your masters as to the image of God, with reverence and fear.

Hate all hypocrisy and everything that is not pleasing to the Lord.

Do not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but keep what you have received, neither adding nor taking away.

In the congregation, confess your transgressions, and do not approach your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the path of life.

Chapter 5

The path of death is this: First of all, it is evil and full of cursing. On it are murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, sorceries, poisonings, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisies, double-mindedness, deceit, pride, malice, self-will, greed, foul speech, envy, boldness, arrogance, and vanity.

On this path are those who persecute the good, hate the truth, love lies, do not know the reward of righteousness, do not cling to what is good nor to just judgment, who watch not for good but for evil, from whom meekness and patience are far removed, who love vain things, pursue reward, show no mercy to the poor, do not labor for the oppressed, do not know their Creator, murder children, destroy God’s creation, turn away from the needy, oppress the afflicted, defend the rich, unjustly judge the poor, and are sinners in every way. Flee, children, from all such people.

Chapter 6

See that no one leads you astray from this path of teaching, for such a one teaches you apart from God.

If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can.

Concerning food, bear what you are able, but strictly abstain from what is offered to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods.

Chapter 7

Concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all the foregoing, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

If you have no living water, baptize in other water; if you cannot in cold, then in warm.

If you have neither, pour water three times on the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Before baptism, let the baptizer and the one to be baptized fast, and, if possible, others as well. Command the one to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days.

Chapter 8

Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But you, fast on the fourth and sixth days.

Do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, pray thus: Our Father in heaven, hallowed may Thy name be; may Thy kingdom come; may Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth; give us this day our needful bread; and forgive us our debt, even as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for Thine is the power and the glory forever.

Pray this three times a day.

Chapter 9

Concerning the Eucharist, perform it thus:

First, regarding the cup: We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. To Thee be glory forever!

And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. To Thee be glory forever.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the hills and, being gathered together, became one, so let Thy Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.

Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord has said: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.

Chapter 10

After you are filled, give thanks thus: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. To Thee be glory forever!

Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou hast granted spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.

Above all, we thank Thee because Thou art mighty. To Thee be glory forever!

Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in Thy love, and gather it, sanctified, from the four winds into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it, for Thine is the power and the glory forever.

Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If any is holy, let him come; if any is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
But permit the prophets to offer the Eucharist according to their discretion.

Chapter 11

Whoever comes and teaches you all that has been said before, receive him.

But if the teacher himself, having turned aside, teaches another doctrine to destroy this, do not listen to him. But if he teaches to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.

Concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel.

Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord.

But he shall not remain more than one day, or if necessary, a second day; but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet.

When the apostle departs, let him take nothing except bread sufficient until he reaches his lodging; but if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

Do not test or judge any prophet speaking in the Spirit, for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

Yet not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only he who walks in the ways of the Lord. Thus, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known by their ways.

No prophet who, in the Spirit, appoints a table shall eat from it, unless he is a false prophet.

Every prophet teaching the truth, if he does not practice what he teaches, is a false prophet.

But every prophet proven true, who acts for the worldly mystery of the Church but does not teach others to do as he does, shall not be judged by you, for he has his judgment with God; for so did the ancient prophets.

If anyone says in the Spirit, “Give me money or anything else,” do not listen to him. But if he bids you give for others who are in need, let no one judge him.

Chapter 12

Let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be received, and then, having tested him, you shall know what to do, for you will have discernment of what is true and false.

If the one who comes is a traveler, help him as much as you can, but he shall not stay with you more than two or three days, even if necessary.

If he wishes to settle among you and is a craftsman, let him work and eat.

But if he has no trade, provide for him according to your discretion, but so that no Christian lives among you idle.

If he is unwilling to act thus, he is a Christ-monger. Beware of such people!

Chapter 13

Every true prophet who wishes to settle among you is worthy of his food.

Likewise, a true teacher is worthy, like the laborer, of his food.

Therefore, take the firstfruits of the produce of the winepress and threshing floor, of oxen and sheep, and give these firstfruits to the prophets, for they are your high priests.

If you have no prophet, give them to the poor.

If you prepare food, take the firstfruits and give them according to the commandment.

Likewise, when you open a jar of wine or oil, take the firstfruits and give them to the prophets.

And of money, clothing, and every possession, take the firstfruits as seems good to you and give according to the commandment.

Chapter 14

On the Lord’s day, gather together, break bread, and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.

Let no one who has a dispute with his friend join you until they are reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled.

For this is what the Lord has said: In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations.

Chapter 15

Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek, not lovers of money, truthful, and tested, for they also perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.

Therefore, do not despise them, for they are your honored ones alongside the prophets and apostles.

Correct one another not in anger but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel, and let no one speak with or listen to anyone who acts offensively toward another until he repents.

Perform your prayers, almsgiving, and all your deeds as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Chapter 16

Watch over your life; let your lamps not be quenched, and let your loins not be ungirded, but be ready, for you know not the hour in which your Lord comes.

You must gather together often, seeking what is fitting for your souls, for the whole time of your faith will not profit you unless you are made perfect in the last hour.

For in the last days, false prophets and corrupters will increase, and the sheep will turn into wolves, and love will turn into hatred.

For as lawlessness increases, men will hate and persecute one another, and then the world-deceiver will appear as if he were the Son of God, performing signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit lawless acts such as have never been done since the beginning.

Then humanity will come into the fire of testing, and many will stumble and perish, but those who endure in their faith will be saved from his curse.

And then the sign of truth will appear: first, the sign of an opening in heaven; then, the sign of the trumpet’s sound; and third, the resurrection of the dead.
Yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come, and all His saints with Him.

Then the world will see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.