It seems that divine Basilides had asked this blissful Dionysius to tell him in writing the exact hour that Christ rose from the dead and when the rejoicing over the Lord’s resurrection ought to begin, and when the breaking of the fast ought to occur. For, as it appears from the present letter, the Christians had some dispute about this amongst themselves; some of them asserting that the rejoicing of the festival and the breaking of the fast ought to start in the evening, and others maintaining that it ought to start with the crowing of the cock, as did those in Rome. So on this account he asked him to state in writing exactly the hour of Christ’s resurrection in order to fix the time for the beginning of the festival and the breaking of the fast by everybody consistently. In reply, therefore, to this question sacred Dionysius says that the exact and precise hour of Christ’s resurrection which he is asking about is a thing that is difficult and precarious to determine. For (he says) as to the fact that the festivity, or rejoicing of the festival, and the breaking of the fast ought to start after the resurrection of Christ is one that is proclaimed and acknowledged by everyone. But at what hour He rose, that is a puzzle, since the sacred Evangelists have disclosed only the fact that various persons came at different times to the tomb, and have said that they found the Lord to have risen, without, however, noting exactly at what hour He rose. Matthew, for instance, says that the women came late on the sabbath day; John says that it was early in the morning while it was still dark; Luke, that it was very early in the morning; and Mark likewise that it was very early. But as for the hour at which the Lord actually rose, not one of them has revealed it. All acknowledge, and there is no dispute about the fact that the persons who came to the tomb after the sabbath toward daybreak of Sunday failed to find the Lord in the grave; or we must not suspect that there is any contrariety in their accounts. Nevertheless, though the question is a little one, touching, that is to say, the agreement of the divine Evangelists in reference to the fact that it was on the same night of Sunday that the Lord, the Light of the world, dawned from the grave, and that they differ only as respects the hour; yet we ourselves, says the saint, would like to correct this little matter — or, in other words, we will find that the divine Evangelists are in agreement as respecting the hour if we take care to reconcile the divine assertions with one another gratefully. For as to that which sacred Matthew says, that it was late on the Sabbath day, most people, in accordance with common usage, will take it to mean Saturday evening, but those who take the wiser view will understand it to mean deep night. For the word "late" in its proper sense (in Greek) denotes lateness and great tardiness; this amounts to saying the interval after Saturday, and on this account the Evangelist goes on to say "about the time of daybreak on the first day of the week." So the word "late" in Matthew, and the expression "while it was still dark" in John, and the phrase "very early in the morning" in Luke and the similar one in Mark, all signify the same thing. For they denote that, after Saturday and all the night of Saturday was past, and when the dawn of Sunday had begun, the women came and brought spices; but before they went it is evident that the Lord had risen. For they had set forth on their journey very early in the morning, as Mark says, but since they had spent their time on it they stayed at the tomb until the sun came up. That is why the same Evangelist adds "after the sun had dawned." These facts being as has been stated, says the saint, to those who inquire about the exact hour of the night, or at what half hour, or at what quarter of an hour they ought to commence rejoicing over the Lord’s resurrection, and ought to break their fast, we vouchsafe the opinion that as for those persons who are in a great hurry and break their fast even before midnight, we upbraid them for being faint-hearted and ravenous, because, in spite of the short time they have to wait yet patiently fasting, they break the course of fasting they have been following, at a time when, as a wise man says, the least thing done in this life is not really little, (for if it is something good, it will beget a great reward, and if it is something evil, it will entail a great penalty in the other life). As for those who, on the contrary, go slow and show patience in fasting till the fourth watch of the night, at which time the Savior appeared in life walking upon the sea and coming to His disciples, which is the same as saying those who patiently wait with fortitude till the dawn of Sunday, we praise them as brave and assiduous. As regards those who have broken their fast somewhere between midnight and dawn, according to their ability to hold out, we are not going to scold them on the pretext that they failed to wait patiently and with fortitude till dawn, since not all persons fast alike throughout the six days of Passion Week, but, on the contrary, some fast only two days, others three, others four, and others do not go without food at all even for one day. Hence those who got weakened and nearly fainted because of their fasting and could not hold out any longer are entitled to a pardon for having broken off their fast earlier than others. But as for those who not only did not remain foodless for a single day during Passion Week, but did not even fast by confining themselves to zerophagy or monophagy (i.e., eating but a single kind of food), instead rather luxuriating during the first four days, and afterwards passing only two days, Great Friday and Great Saturday, without food, and who think that they are doing something great and splendid in the way of achievement if they keep on fasting till the dawn of Sunday — as for these persons, I say, I do not think that they have undergone the same hardship as those who fasted the entire four days. Read also c. LXXXIX of the 6th.

When asked about this too, as to whether women in their menses ought to enter the temple of God, the saint replied that there is no need of asking the question, since if the women themselves have a proper reverence for things divine, they will be inhibited by it from daring ever to approach the Holy Table and to partake of the Lord’s body and blood when they are in such a state of their menstrual affairs. For they can recall that woman who had an issue of blood and who on account of the flux of her blood did not dare, because of her great reverence, to touch the body of Christ, but only the hem of His garment. None of them is forbidden to pray, whatever be her predicament (whether she be at home or in the pronaos of the church), by imploring God and asking Him for help and salvation. One is forbidden, however, to go near the Holies of Holies, which is the same as saying to partake of the sanctified portions (i.e., the Eucharistic species) when he is not clean in soul and body, like women who are taken with their menses.

And when asked about husbands and wives whether they ought to be continent respecting each other, the Saint answers that on this point the parties themselves ought to be sufficient judges, since it is fitting and proper according to blessed Paul for them to engage in no bodily association and intercourse when they are indulging in prayer; and this course ought to be adopted by agreement between both parties — that is to say, by both the husband and the wife agreeing thereto — lest it should come to pass that one of the parties is tempted by the enemy, and the continence of the other become an injury to the one so tempted. For if one party is overcome by desire and is not permitted by the other party to enjoy the satisfaction of it, he is liable to fall with another woman and sin, according to Zonaras.

In the present Canon the Saint is speaking about involuntary emission, or what is more commonly called a wet dream, which occurs during our sleep; and he says that all men who suffer this should make their own conscience the judge. For if the wet dream resulted without any obscene imagination and erotic thought, and furthermore without overeating and overdrinking, and instead nature alone did this of herself, as if it were a natural superfluity in the way of excrement, they are not prevented from coming to communion. But if it resulted from the causes above mentioned — that is to say, from imagination and erotic thought, or from excessive eating and excessive drinking, they ought to be forbidden communion, on the ground that they are not pure, not because of the emission itself of the semen (since this is not unclean, seeing that it is a natural product, precisely as neither the flesh is unclean in itself, of which the semen is an excretion), but because of the wicked contemplation and imagination which polluted the mind. Such men as these, then, are not conscientious, and accordingly they are not outspoken, owing to the wicked contemplation and imagination they give rein to. Hence both as doubters and as being convicted or reproved by their conscience, how can they approach God and the Mysteries? For if they approach while thus doubting, they are rather condemned, and not sanctified, just like one who is condemned for eating the common and unclean animals forbidden to Jews, if he doubts and hesitates about these, as the Apostle says.

Since in the time of this Saint barbarians invaded the land of the Romans, called Goths and Boradi, and after enslaving many Christians, they gave the latter foods to eat that had been sacrificed to idols, or that were forbidden for some other reason and unclean. On this account when asked by the then Pope, this divine Gregory replied in the present Canon that no serious harm and sin result when Christians eat such foods, and especially in view of the fact that it was rumored by all that those barbarians were not wont to sacrifice to idols, and consequently neither were the foods which they gave to the faithful foods sacrificed to idols. He also adduces testimony from the Apostle, who asserts that foods, or, in other words, things that delight the belly, cater to gourmandism, or, conversely, gourmandism caters to man’s delight, but that God sooner or later will abolish both delight in eating and gourmandism, and cause them to lapse into desuetude, so that no one suffer any harm from them. Thereupon the Saint shows that foods eaten for the sake of delight and gourmandism are deprecated, and not those taken because of the need and necessity of nature and those supplied by the barbarians and eaten by their Christian captives. He also adduces testimony from the Gospel which says: "It is not foods that enter through the mouth that make a man unclean, but what goes out from the heart" (as here paraphrased).

Next in regard to enslaved women who were ravished by the barbarians, the present Canon decrees that this forcible ravishment is not a grave sin. (Note of Translator. — Though such is the signification of the words in the Greek original, it ought to be noted again that usage among the ecclesiastical writers of the Greek Church allows a different interpretation that would be natural in English; to wit, the word "ravishment" is to be taken in the passive sense, and the whole sentence is to be understood as meaning that being ravished under such circumstances is not per se a grave sin.) The matter ought, however, to be duly investigated. For if the former life of such women during the time when they were free was one to be described as being whorish, it is plain that a suspicion may be entertained that they may have taken to whorish habits and customs even during the time of their captivity. That is to say, more plainly speaking, there is room for a suspicion that they may not have been forcibly ravished by the barbarians, but that they themselves rather wanted to be ravished. Hence they ought not be easily permitted to pray together with the other women. But if the former life of such women was indeed sober and pure in the extreme, and proof against every suspicion and accusation, but afterwards they were forcibly insulted by the barbarians, God judges these women to be above deadly sin, just as He also decided that that virgin whom a man found alone in the plain and forcibly raped should be above (the suspicion of having committed) a sin deserving death, since she cried out, it says, and no one was found there near the scene to run to her aid.

In agreement herewith St. Basil the Great too, in his c. XLIX, says that forcible rapes entail no responsibility. Canon I of St. Nicephorus, on the other hand, says that if a nun is raped by barbarians or other disorderly men, in case her previous life was untainted and free from accusations she is to be canonized (i.e., penalized) for a period of forty days only, but if she was tainted (already), she is to be penanced as an adulteress.

At the time of the incursion of the above-mentioned barbarians, some Christians who had not been made captives, used to go to dwellings of those who had been enslaved and snatch those things which the barbarians had failed to carry off. So when asked about these persons, the Saint replied that any greed is a very bad thing and is prohibited by the divine Scripture in such a way that it is not possible in only one letter to set forth all the passages in the Bible that not only stigmatize theft as being a fearful and horrible sin, but stigmatize on the whole and generally every greediness and grabbing of what belongs to others and injustice. For every thief and greedy person and unjust person is excommunicated and estranged from the Church of God. And if every greed and grab is such, most certainly those men who during the time of the incursion of barbarians have dared in the midst of so many lamentations and groanings, some persons weeping because they have been made captives themselves, and others because their relatives have been made captives, and others because the barbarians have taken away their property — those men, I say, who have thought such a time of calamity to be a good time for them to reap a profit for themselves, and have dared to steal, and to grab the belongings of their enslaved brethren, are impious men, men hated by God, and not averse from any wickedness. For this reason they ought to be driven away from the Church of God, lest on their account the wrath of God fall upon all the laity, and especially upon the chief functionaries — the bishops, that is to say, who are their rulers — who fail to examine into these matters aright. In addition the Saint adduces evidence concerning this from the Bible, showing that an impious man chastises and destroys together with himself the righteous man too, and that on account of greed the wrath of God falls upon the children of disobedience; and that men who are just and righteous and virtuous ought not to become accomplices and partners of those engaged in the fruitless and dark works of vice and of injustice. He also adds this, that if those who have grabbed the belongings of their enslaved brethren, to which they had no right, were not sobered by this chastisement which God inflicted upon them (I mean, of course, the incursion of the barbarians) on account of the greediness they displayed during the time of peace, but, on the contrary, even in the time of wrath and of the incursion of these barbarians they continue to be greedy, profiting and grabbing everything they can from the blood and destruction of men killed and enslaved: what else ought one to expect henceforth but that they are striving with their insatiable greed and thievery to bring the great wrath of God upon themselves and upon all the laity?

The Saint is citing in the present Canon as an example Achar, the son (i.e., descendant) of Zerah, and who by stealing from the spoils of Jericho things which had been consecrated to God, namely, a highly-embroidered fabric, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold, and hiding them in his tent, provoked the wrath of God upon the Israelites, and they were defeated in the war which they were waging upon the city of Ai, thirty-six of them being slain and three thousand routed and crushed (Josh. 7:4-5). So, just as this man Achar was alone the single one who committed the theft, yet he was not the only one that died, but, on the contrary, there were a lot of others, in like manner those who have stolen the belongings of persons that have been enslaved shall not be the only ones to be destroyed, but, on the contrary, they will entail the destruction of many others, because they themselves too have stolen of the goods that were consecrated to God, as he had then (for property of others left by the barbarians must be regarded as something consecrated to God) of the booty; and they have grabbed the spoils, as he had then. What am I saying "as he had" for? Why, these fellows are worse even than he, because he stole the property of foes, whereas these fellows have stolen the property of their brethren, and of enslaved and pillaged brethren at that. See also his c. III.

In continuation of the preceding Canon, the Saint says thus in the present Canon. Let no one fool himself among such persons by pretending to have found his brother’s property thrown away and not looked after (or, instead of all these words we might say in English "derelict"), and to have taken it on this account or for this reason; for, though one may have found it neglected, he is not permitted to appropriate it and to retain it, since he is obliged to take it and to safeguard it in his custody until its owner seeks it. And the Saint adduces two testimonies in regard to this: one from Deuteronomy saying that if anyone should happen to find a lost calf or lost sheep or lost ass of his brother’s, or a lost garment or any other lost thing, he must give it back to his brother. If, however, he does not know who owns it, he must keep it until his brother asks for it or seeks it, and must then give it back to him. And the other testimony which he cites from Exodus says that if anyone find property not only of his brother’s but even of his enemy’s that has been thrown away (Note of Translator. — By "thrown away" the author means "apparently thrown away"), he must return it to him. But if, as these divine words assert, one is not permitted to retain property of his brother’s or of his enemy’s which in peacetime the owner has carelessly left neglected, much more is it true that he is not permitted to retain anything belonging to his unfortunate brother who is fleeing from enemies and has necessarily abandoned his own property. See also his c. III.

Owing to the fact that some of the above-mentioned graspers used to offer the pretext that they were keeping the property of strangers which they had found in lieu of replacing their own which had been taken by the barbarians, the Saint is replying with reference to this pretext by saying in the present Canon that those who offer such stupid excuses are fooling and deceiving themselves; for what the enemies and foes became to them they in turn are becoming themselves — i.e., enemies and foes — to their other brethren. Just because the barbarians snatched their things, they in turn have snatched the things of their brethren. On account of these facts, he says, we have sent you Euphrosynus, a brother and senior, in order that just as we are doing here you may do there where you are, and this brother will let you know what sort of persons you ought to admit to accusation of others (concerning whom see Ap. c. LXXIV, and c. VI of the 2nd), and what sort of persons you ought to keep out of church so as to prevent them from joining in prayer with the other ones, who are faithful Christians. See also his c. III.

Some persons, as we have learned, says the Saint, have reached such extreme brutality and inhumanity as to hold under forcible arrest in your country those Christians who fled and escaped from the barbarians, who themselves, of course, are impious infidels, and do not even know the name of God at all. So send men everywhere to investigate this, lest fire and bolts of lightning fall from the sky and burn up those who are doing such things.

The present Canon decrees that as regards all persons who were enslaved by the barbarians, but later forgot that they ever were Christians, and grew so barbarized in their manners as to become one with the barbarians and to slay Christians of their own race, and to show their streets or houses to the barbarians who did not know where they lived — these persons, I say, after they repent and return, ought not to be allowed to stand even with "listeners," and listen to the divine Scriptures being read in church, but, on the contrary, ought to be compelled to stand outside, that is to say at the door of the church with the "weepers," until the time comes when the Holy Fathers, meeting together in a common council or synod may determine the proper penalty to be meted out to them, or rather to say, until it is determined by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Holy Fathers. By the word "saints" here the Saint means the Fathers in Ancyra, who, having assembled 52 years later, decreed the proper penance or penalty to be imposed upon such persons and announced it in their c. IX, which you may read for yourself.

After saying in the previous Canons about those who grab the property of enslaved Christians, the Saint now decrees the proper penalties to be inflicted upon such persons by saying that those who intruded into private houses belonging to the enslaved and plundered their effects there, if they be accused of doing so but deny it, and are proved guilty, they do not deserve to stand even with listeners, but only with weepers outside. But if of their own accord they confess and give back the strangers’ property which they stole, they are to be allowed to pray along with the kneelers. Sec also c. III of the same Saint, and the ichnographical representation of a temple.

When barbarians were sacking a country and keeping hold of the things belonging to Christians, if they later found other things better than those, or owing to the weight they were unable to carry off all that they grabbed, they would leave it either outside in the plain or field or inside, wherever they happened to find the better things. So the present Canon decrees that all persons who found such things belonging to their brethren and left by the barbarians in the plain or inside their own houses, in case they kept them and afterwards revealed them, they are to be compelled to join with the kneelers; but if of their own accord reveal the property and give it back, they are to be allowed to stand in church and pray along with the faithful who pray to the end — until, that is to say, after exhibiting due penitence they may be allowed communion. See also c. III of the same Saint, and the ichnographical representation of a temple.

Having moderately canonized in the preceding Canon those confessing that they found something belonging to another person, the Saint now decrees in the present Canon that they ought not to ask for even a reward for finding it from the owner of the property, nor what is commonly called a reward claimed for giving information about it, or any other such rewards that are customary among the multitude; but, on the contrary, they must return it without taking any such a shameful and dishonorable profit. For it really is a shameful profit when anyone seeks it from a person who has lost his property in time of distress, and does not return it to him without a reward. Hence too it may be asserted that the civil laws which provide that a reward be given by the owners to persons who have found their lost property are not to be needed on this point, on the ground that they conflict with the present Canon. And see the Prolegomena respecting Canons in the beginning of this book.

The present Canon contains nothing but the four places where penitents used to stand. Note, however, that although this Canon does not appear to be genuine, both because the matter it contains is taken verbatim from c. LXXV of the great Father St. Basil, who lived in later years, and because the most eminent of exegetes Zonaras does not vouchsafe any interpretation of it or even so much as mention it, and because in some manuscripts it is labeled a scholium. By the advice, however, of the examiner, my learned Mr. Dorotheus it was added to the rest as a Canon, just as it is found in the Pandectae and in other manuscripts. And see concerning these stations the ichnographical representation of a temple at the end of this book.

As for those who only were imprisoned for the sake of Christ heretofore, and who patiently suffered the hardships and stink in prison, but later without being compelled by force of tortures denied Him owing to their great want of power, or, more explicitly speaking, because of their pusillanimity (faintheartedness) and blindness, the present Canon decrees that they shall be canonized yet one year, and not any more, in addition to the three years which they passed while repenting, since they too in one way or another gave themselves up to affliction for the sake of the name of Christ, though as a matter of fact they did receive relief and comfort from the other brethren. (For it appears that Christians who had not been arrested by the persecutors were supplying those held in prison with necessities and comforted them.) They shall have to requite this comfort and aid manyfold to them if after afflicting themselves many times as much they be redeemed from the bitter bondage of the Devil which they suffered as a consequence of their denial, while bearing in mind that passage of the prophet Isaiah, wherein, as the personal representative of the Lord, he says: "The Spirit of the Lord is in me, which has anointed me, and has sent me to bring good tidings to the poor, to proclaim redemption to the enslaved, eyesight to the blind, to send free those who have been suffering woes, and to announce that a year acceptable to the Lord has come and a day of retribution. See also c. IV of Ancyra.

As for those who, without suffering any terrible hardship like the evils previously mentioned, but willfully on their own initiative, went and denied for fear only and cowardice, and are now repenting, therefore the present Canon decrees as follows, to wit, that they ought to keep before the eyes of their mind that fig tree, after coming to which for three years straight and not finding any fruit on it, its owner sought to cut it down at the very root, in order to avoid its rendering the ground vain and idle. But the vinedresser begged him to let it go for another year, making the fourth year; and then if it should bear no fruit, he might cut it down. By meditating this parable, I say, and showing fruit worthy of repentance for four years straight, they shall be thereby benefited. Read also c. XI of the First Ec. C.

The Canons previously set forth concerned Christ-deniers who repented; the present one decrees about Christ-deniers who have not repented and who, being desperate and evil-minded, keep the blackness of their wickedness unchanged, as the Ethiopian his swarthy skin and the leopard his spots. To these men, therefore, shall the curse be uttered which the Lord said of the fruitless fig tree, to wit, "Henceforth let no fruit come out of thee forever; and forthwith the fig tree became withered." And in them is fulfilled that too which Ecclesiastes has said, namely, that a crooked thing cannot be embellished with any other adornment unless it first be straightened; and a defective thing cannot be counted as perfect, without, that is to say, first being supplied with what is wanting to make it perfect. So that when they come to the end of their life, that will happen to them which Isaiah says, namely, that the men shall see the bones of the men who transgressed my words and denied me; and their worm shall not cease eating them up, and the fire which is burning them shall not be extinguished. In addition that other assertion will be fulfilled in them which the same Isaiah made before he said these words. That is, that the unjust will encounter a tempest, and will not find any rest hereafter; because there is no joy for the impious, saith God.

The present Canon decrees that those slaves who have been threatened and imprisoned by their masters and have been forced to sacrifice in their stead, are to be canonized one year, in order to make them understand that, being believers, they are slaves and servants of Christ, and consequently ought to do His will, and fear Him, not human beings, when they are told indeed by St. Paul that whosoever does what is good, whether he be a slave or a freeman, shall receive it back from the Lord in equal measure in the day of retribution.

The preceding Canon canonized slaves who sacrificed for their masters, i.e., instead of their masters, whereas the present Canon canonizes the masters of such slaves to three years penitence (for it is these masters whom the Canon calls "freemen"): for one thing, because they hypocritically pretended and appeared to the infidels to have sacrificed; and for another thing, because they compelled their fellow slaves who were slaves and servants of Christ to sacrifice, thereby disobeying the commandment of Paul the Apostle, who tells masters to abate threatening and anger in regard of their slaves, as both they and their slaves have but one Lord and master, who is in heaven and no respecter of persons, and in Christ there is no difference between Barbarian and Scythian, nor between a slave and a freeman; and because they made it a point to save their soul, but forced their fellow slaves and servants in Christ into idolatry, at a time when the latter might have escaped and been redeemed themselves had their masters allowed them what is right and equal, as the Apostle again says.

Those who were betrayed to the tyrants by others and after being tortured denied because they could not endure the tortures, and likewise those who of their own accord went to martyrdom, but after, being unable to bear up, denied too — as for all these persons, I say, if they went again a second time and confessed the faith, and were cast into prison and tortured, the present Canon decrees that it is but right that they should be received and welcomed with a joyful heart, and be allowed to join in prayers with the other believers, and to partake of the divine Mysteries, and they should be encouraged by words of reason to suffer martyrdom, in order that they may become braver and be deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven and succeed to it when the time comes. But, lest they be supposed to be unwelcome because of their having previously denied, the Saint adduces testimony from Scripture saying that even though a righteous man fall seven times, that is to say, many times or over and over again, he will rise up again; which rise, if all Christ-deniers would but deliver it — that is to say, more plainly speaking, if they would but struggle again to thwart the fall — and confess the Lord again in front of the tyrants, then they would be showing by this most perfect and wholehearted repentance.

Those who have just awoke from sleep, and especially from a nap, have no ability to reason soundly, but, on the contrary, their mind is muddled and upset. So it is to these persons that the Saint has likened those who leap into the contest of martyrdom, or, more plainly speaking, those who do not go in orderly fashion, but on the contrary, rashly and thoughtlessly plunge into it, when it is not manifest, but is contemplated by the persecutors, nor present and already in operation, but is going slow with a view to enticing the contesting Christians into it, and they are dragging themselves into the temptation, on the one hand, and kindling the ire of the persecutors still more against the other Christians with their disorderly movement. Nevertheless, notwithstanding that they are blameworthy, yet, in spite of this fact, since they are jumping thus into martyrdom for the name of Christ, the Saint commands in the present Canon that they be allowed to commune with the other believers, though they are not really following the example of Christ, who even in words taught once that we ought to pray not to enter into temptation, and at another time told His disciples and Apostles that others would deliver them to synagogues and councils, but not that they should surrender themselves deliberately into the hands of persecutors. And again He told them that when the tyrants were driving them away from one city they should flee and go to another city, and not go to the tyrants of their own accord, so as to avoid making them still more cruel and causing them to put more Christians to death. In fact, the Lord not only taught these things in words, but even confirmed them with works and deeds. For even before His passion He many times shied from the anger of the Jews and hid from them. At the time of His passion, too, He did not surrender Himself to the Jews, but awaited them with fortitude to come into the garden and arrest Him, and they turned Him over to Pilate, according to the narrative of the divine Gospels. Hence the Apostles, who were emulators of Christ, pursuantly to the foregoing wards of the Lord and to His example in works and deeds, did so likewise. Thus the first martyr Stephen did not go, but was dragged, to the Council by the Jews and suffered martyrdom by being stoned to death. Thus Jacob the brother of John was seized by Herod and beheaded. Thus Peter when caught was crucified. Thus Paul previously had been passed through the wall of the fortress of Damascus in a wicker basket, and escaped from the ethnarch of King Aretas (2 Cor. 11:32) who was trying to apprehend him, but later in Rome he was arrested and beheaded. And I could tell them a great many other facts likewise if only I had the time.

Since the Saint said hereinabove what should be the rule in regard to those who betake themselves to martyrdom of their own accord, now in the present Canon he is speaking about clerics and clergymen who do such a thing, and he decrees that if any persons in holy orders or clerics have gone to martyrdom of their own accord, but afterwards, being unable to stand the tortures, have denied, and again after the denial have confessed Christ a second time, they must no longer remain in the ministry, but must be deposed from office. And the occasion is, for one thing, that they left their flock and departed, under circumstances in which they might have proved useful in such time, by helping to bolster it up in regard to the religion and piety when it was tottering on account of persecution; and for another thing because they deserted and denied the faith, and thereby incurred a blemish and charge which disqualifies them for the Clericate. As for scorning to teach their laity and preferring their own private interest, that is something which none of the Apostles did. For Apostle Paul, who patiently underwent and bore up against many persecutions and performed many exploits, though knowing well enough that it would have been better and more comfortable for him to die, in order to be with Christ, yet, not wanting his own interest, but the interest of the many Christians, which he thought to be more needful than his own restfulness and repose, said that for him to remain in this life yet longer and to endure hardships, and to be tortured and tormented for the salvation and instruction of the laity, was what the laity most needed. Moreover, he himself not only endured and performed this course, but also he leaves orders that teachers and pastors must keep on the job of teaching their flock, and set the latter a good example. So for all these reasons those who have deserted and afterwards denied while in holy orders are senseless if they want to keep that which they willfully abandoned. For if they had not denied they might have been entitled to pardon for the unreasonable course they took in not only willfully deserting to martyrdom, but much more in having left the Lord’s flock and having failed to bolster it up with dutiful attention to teaching. But since they denied, they must be deposed from holy orders, because it was due to vaunting, or, more plainly speaking, due to their presumptuousness and self-conceitedness with arrogance that they rushed into the contest; so that when they afterwards denied they incurred odium. So let them cease their vainglorious desire to hold office in holy orders, and let them endeavor only to finish the second confession and the fight in behalf of the faith. For it ought to be sufficient for them that they should be allowed to commune with the rest of the believers in prayers, or even in the divine participation in the Mysteries; and this for two reasons. First, in order that they may not be grieved by being excluded from communion, and especially by receiving such a violent end in martyrdom for the faith; second, in order that some who were tortured and denied Christ a second time may not offer the excuse that it was on account of the reprimand of exclusion from communion that they grew fainthearted and pusillanimous in the struggle of the contest, and failed to stand firm, and lest as a result of this they should incur still greater shame and reproach than that which marked the first denial both here and in the future judgment, after the manner of that man who, true enough, did lay a foundation, but, being unable to complete it, was mocked by passers-by, as is told in the sacred Gospel. See also Ap. c. LXII.

Those who paid money to the persecutors and thereby succeeded in ransoming themselves from viciousness, or, in other words, from all ill-treatment and punishment, or from denial, which exceeds every vicious-ness, do not deserve to be blamed on this account, since they sustained a mulct and loss of money in order to avoid being mulcted of and losing their own soul (a thing which others, because of their avarice, did not do), and appeared to their persecutors to be serving God more than serving Mammon, or, more expressly speaking, money, and thus fulfilled the saying of the paroemiographer (i.e., proverb-writer), who says that the ransom of a man’s soul is his own riches. That is how it happens that we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Jason and the rest, who, instead of Paul and Silas, had been before the rulers of the city in Thessalonica by the Jews, paid them sufficient money to ransom themselves. For after they had received sufficient security, it says, from Jason and the rest, they released them.

In this Canon the Saint says that those persons are not at fault who have left everything they owned and have fled in order to save their soul, perhaps being unable to endure martyrdom patiently until the end. But neither are those at fault if, after their fleeing, the persecutors caught other Christians in their stead and ill-treated them; for at Ephesus, too, instead of Paul they caught Gains and Aristarchus the companions of Paul, but Paul was not blamed on this account, notwithstanding the fact that the riot and disturbance occurred because it was he that had persuaded a great multitude to return to knowledge of God. Again, when the Angel rescued Peter from prison, Herod arrested the soldiers who had been guarding him and punished them, or hanged them. But neither the Angel nor Peter was blamed on this account, because the soldiers might have fled when they saw that Peter was not in the prison, yet they did not do so. Moreover, when our Lord Jesus Christ was born, whose name was, according to the prophecy, "rapidly despoil those despoiled by the Devil," which is to say, in other words, that the Wizards too, as having been despoiled by Him figuratively, paid adoration to Him, presenting him with gifts, of gold as a King, and of frankincense as a God, and of myrrh as a dead Man; and without returning to the Assyrian king, or, more expressly speaking, to Herod, but by another route they departed to their country. When, I say, all these things had occurred and the Lord, thanks to the Angel’s admonition, had escaped into Egypt, then bloodthirsty Herod, being angered because he had been hoaxed by the Wizards, put to death all the infants in Bethlehem, from two years old and down; yet the Lord is not blamed on this account. After seeking the forerunner John and not finding him, the same Herod put his father Zacharias to death because his mother Elisabeth had taken him and escaped; yet neither John nor Elisabeth deserve any blame on this account.

Those who used to chastise martyrs, after numerous tortures would forcibly insert in their mouth either wine from libations or meat from animals that had been sacrificed to idols, or putting incense and charcoal in their hands would drag them to the altar of an idol bound hand arid foot, in order that, being unable to endure the pain of burrning, they might throw the incense on the altar and thus appear to have sacrificed. So, regarding these men, the present Canon decrees that if they stood firm in the faith and preferred to have their hands burned rather than to throw incense on the altar of an idol, as did the Martyrs in Libya (and Barlaam the saint and martyr), they may not only keep their holy orders and clericate, but are to be enrolled among the Confessors too. And not only these men, but even those too who have been so deadened because of numerous tortures that they could not speak or offer any resistance to their persecutors, who would put wine or meat sacrificed to idols in their mouth; and they are likewise to be enrolled among the Confessors. The Saint thereafter goes on to speak of the conscience, saying that whoever lives and behaves in accordance with the rules written by Paul to Timothy, and cherishes righteousness, piety, faith, love, patience, and meekness, and fights the good fight of the faith, and holds on to the confession which he made at the time of holy baptizm in front of many witnesses, is also to be numbered among the Confessors. See also c. Ill of Ancyra.

From the same Saint’s Discourse on Easter.

The present Canon decrees that no one shall blame us Orthodox Christians for always fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays every week in accordance with Apostolic tradition. For we fast on every Wednesday because it was on this day that the council was held by the Jews for the purpose of betraying the Lord. We fast on every Friday because it was on this day that the Lord suffered for our sake. But we observe Sunday as a holiday and day of joy, because it was on this day that the Lord rose from the dead; and on this day we have not had any traditional instructions even to bend and bow a knee. Read the 64 Ap. C. and the XX of the First.

As this great Father of ours was asked, it would appear, about the emission which we have from the natural parts during sleep, or what is more commonly called a wet dream, whether it is sinful, he wrote the present letter in reply, wherein he says that all things created by God are clean, and that God created nothing that is unclean or polluted. Yet, since the machinations of the Devil are many and various, with which he is wont to confuse men, and to annoy simple servants of God, meaning the ascetics, and to deter them from their accustomed virtue by sowing unclean thoughts in their imagination, we ought to banish that machinery of the Devil with the help of Christ, and to bolster up the confidence of our innocent brethren, in order to prevent them from being annoyed any longer. With this in mind he commences with the passage of St. Paul which says: "All creatures of God are pure to the pure and virtuous. But to the impure and sinful all things appear to be impure and polluted because of their polluted and unclean conscience. But the Saint is amazed at the wickedness of the Devil upon seeing that although the Devil himself is impure and unclean he nevertheless succeeds in sowing in us thoughts that arc apparently pure and clean, whereas in reality they are attempts and secret machinations and devices of his designed to prevent, as we have said, the brethren from engaging in salutary meditation, and to appear to have defeated them with some maggots, or, in other words, with some paltry noises and fears such as those of insects called bumblebees, in efforts that cause our life nothing but useless quarrels and vain discussions, which divine Paul tells us to hate. Afterwards he asks the Saint what sin or impurity there is in the natural emission which occurs during sleep and which is ejected like an excretion, unless one insists upon blaming the whole human body for ejecting the other emissions and excretions, such as, for instance, as mucus, phlegm, and the like, including even evacuations of the belly, which are manifestly necessary to the human body. For. if we believe (says he) that man is a creature of the hands of God (as he is, according to the Scriptures), how can what God has created be impure or unclean, at a time when all that God created is "very good" (Gen. 1:31)? And if we are His offspring, as the poet Aratus and divine Paul (Acts 17:31) say, it follows that no part of us is impure or unclean; for it is only when we commit the filthy and deplorable sin that we become polluted. But when the natural emission occurs during our sleep and without our volition, then we must put up with it patiently as a necessary concomitance of our nature, like the excretions we spoke of above. But inasmuch as those who insist upon objecting to correct statements, or, we might rather say, to things created by God, by way of controverting us are wont to cite the passage in the Gospel saying that "it is not what goeth into the mouth that defileth a man, but that which cometh out" (Matt. 15:11), we must refute this nonsense of theirs, and not a perplexity. Accordingly, we assert that they themselves, being ignorant, expound the Holy Scriptures in accordance with their likes and dislikes and their lack of knowledge. The real meaning of the Gospel passage is as follows. Inasmuch as some persons used to hesitate (like these men) about the food, fearing timorously lest they be defiled by it in case they should eat it, Christ dispelled the uncertainty and exposed their misconception, by asserting that it is not what goes in that denies, i.e.. pollutes, a man, but what comes out of him, and He immediately says also whence it comes out, to wit, from the heart, in which are to be found the bad treasures of impure thoughts and of other sinful acts. But divine Paul has taught us this more briefly and more pointedly by saying: "Food commendeth us not to God" (I Cor. 8:8). But one might say this same thing in regard to the present matter. A natural emission does not commend us for punishment. Physicians of the body, too, he says, might reply to them concerning this, in order that they should be convinced by authorities outside of the Church. For they too say that certain necessarv passages have been given to man by the Creator in order to permit excrements to be ejected from our members when these are nourished, including, for instance, the hair that falls from the head and various fluids that are excreted through its passages (mucus, that is to say, from the nose, spittle from the mouth, tears from the eyes, and the like), while excretions from the belly are the evacuations. So, then just as these things are necessary, so too is that emission which marks a wet dream an excretion of the spermatic passages. Hence he turns to the Saint and says: Seeing, then, that God created man and wanted his body to have such organizations and passages, what sin has a man on this account? None, I think. But, he says, we must go further and anticipate the objections of the captious and of the wicked. For they may say: Well, then, is it not a fact that neither is the true use of the spermatic organs any sin, since they too have been given by God for such a purpose and use? To this we reply: What purpose and use are you referring to? The lawful one which God permitted by His commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 9:1), which even the Apostle applauds by saying: "Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled" (Heb. 13:4); or the common one which is carried out secretly and unlawfully, which is as much as to say, fornication and adultery? If you mean the former one, it is obvious that it is good; but if you mean the latter one, it is obvious that it is bad. And let us not be astonished (says the Saint) if one and the same thing is at times good and at times evil, since we see many other things too in the present life that are sometimes good and sometimes bad. For instance, killing a man is not allowed except when it is done in the course of a war against enemies of the faith; then indeed it is both allowable and praiseable — and for this reason those who have been victorious in a war receive great honors, and statues are erected to their name proclaiming their victories (concerning these persons see c. XIII of Basil). Well, this same reckoning attaches also to sexual intercourse. Accordingly, the Saint here praises those who utilize the conjugal relation of marriage for the purpose of producing children, with the passage of Jeremiah; but, on the other hand, he intimidates the lascivious with the passage wherein the Apostle says that God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Heb. 13:4). He then points out that God has shown us two roads in the present life: one which is moderate and humble, that of marriage, I mean, and of matrimony, and the other one is one which is angelical and incomparable — that of virginity. Accordingly, whoever chooses marriage has no sin, yet he cannot receive the gracious gifts of virginity, though he does receive the fruit of thirty (by producing children) in accordance with the parable of the sower. But whoever takes a liking to virginity and monastic life (although this too is difficult of achievement in comparison with the first, or, to speak more explicitly, the first road of marriage, that is to say, or in the beginning, owing to one’s not being accustomed to it, and because the body is in a youthful state and prone to coition) acquires nevertheless gracious gifts and virtuous qualities more admirable than marriage; for he produces the perfect fruit, that of a hundredfold. Then he goes on to say that such unclean questions of such persons have their solution in the answers afforded by the Holy Scriptures. After advising him to support with recommendations and admonitions the monks whom he is governing, to be derived from both the holy Gospel, the Apostle, and the Psalms of David, and turning the discourse into a prayer, he concludes the Epistle. See also c. IV of Dionysius and the Footnote thereto.

The present Epistle of the Saint in which he is replying to Bishop Ruffinianus is not concerned with those persons who have denied Christ and have sacrificed to the idols; for as concerns those persons the Council in Ancyra speaks, and St. Peter of Alexandria more extensively. But it is speaking about those persons who have joined in communion with the Arian heretics. For the latter, because of the fact that Emperors happened to be in favor of their heresy, were strengthened and forced many Orthodox Christians to join their heresy, who later repented, and returned to the Orthodox Church. And it is concerning these persons that Ruffinianus is inquiring of Athanasius the Great as to how they ought to be treated. In reply in the present Epistle the Saint points out, in the preface, the ardent affection of fatherly love which he cherishes for him, urging him to write to him continually; while with reference to the question he says: Since you are asking me ecclesiastically about those persons who have communed with the heretics, but who did not persist in their heresy until the end, but repented, I wish you to know that various Councils were held in various regions concerning this question, both in Greece and in Spain and in France (perhaps the expression "was held . . . also with fellow ministers inhabiting Greece" means that through letters of St. Athanasius the decision of the Council held in Alexandria was made known to the bishops in Greece, which is more apt to be true. That is why Dositheus, on p. 181 of his Dodecabiblus, says that Athanasius was joined in this opinion by the bishops of Macedonis and of Achaia, as Basil the Great writes), and that which was decided here by us was decided there to by all of those bishops. We accordingly assert with regard to all those in holy orders who not only joined in communion with the Arians, and confessed that they held all the tenets held by the latter, but also became with them protectors of the heresy in such a way as to incite others to join the heresy of Arianism too, we ought to accept them when they revert to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church, but ought not to leave them in the rank of holy orders, and to regard them henceforth as laymen. As for those again who joined this heresy not as a matter of free and voluntary choice of mind, but as a result of force and coercion, it has appeared reasonable that a pardon be granted to them when they return to the Church and that they be permitted to hold clerical offices. That is to say, in other words, just as they had been priests formerly, so they are again to remain priests. They deserve a pardon not only because they were forced by the heretics to go astray, but also because of the economy which they claim to have effected. For they offer the defense, or apology, that they did not join the heresy in reality, but only in pretense, and that they did this with a view to economy and concession, in order to avoid having themselves completely driven out of the Church, that is to say, and others of the most impious type take their place and be appointed in their stead and corrupt the Orthodox Christians utterly. Hence they deemed it preferable to bear patiently the burden of forced denial and thereby prevent the multitude of the Orthodox from being lost. In maintaining this assertion they cite also the example of Aaron the brother of Moses wherein he submitted to the unreasonable vehemence of the Israelitic laity and gave them permission (on account of the tardiness of Moses) and allowed them the concession of making an image of the calf. He later offered Moses the apology, or defense, that he committed that breach of law in order to prevent the laity from returning to Egypt and be led to perpetrate a still greater impiety. For. of course, if they remained in the wilderness they might be induced to turn away from impiety, but if they returned to Egypt they could by no means be induced to do so, but, on the contrary, would actually exceed the bounds of impiety. They likewise bethought themselves that if they themselves should temporarily join the heresy in appearance, they would remain Christians in Orthodoxy and not be cast upon the rocks of cacodoxy, in that they would not be subject to coercion by anyone, which of course would be their fate if other bishops who were zealous adherents of the heresy should be appointed to the churches. On account of this defense, therefore, and economy, such bishops were allowed to retain their clerical status. Accordingly, as regards those in holy orders who actually went into communion with the Arians, thus much is what the Saint has to say. As touching laymen who were deceived or forced by the Arians to join their heresy, pardon, he says, is to be granted to them when they repent and revert to Orthodoxy, being accepted and "economized," in accordance with the Canons of the Holy Fathers. These things, he says. I have written to your godliness in the conviction that the views which have appeared to me to be reasonable will also appear to you too to be so. Accordingly, it is to be expected that you will not blame this Council of ours for holding a truce — delay, that is to say, and laboring in vain. This amounts to saying that you will not accuse us of having met idly and vainly, and of failing to come to a canonical and reasonable decision in regard to those who have joined the heretics. After saying these things and exhorting Rufinianus to read his Epistle to all the priests, in order to let them know too, the Saint adds also what any persons reverting from communion with the heretics are obliged to do, which is, that is to say, that they ought to anathematize openly the heresy of Euzoius and of Eudoxius, the protectors of the Arian heresy, and to confess the Creed (or Symbol of the Faith) adopted by the God-bearing Fathers in Nicaea, and not give the preference to any other Council but this First Ecum. C. Read also Ap. cc. XLVII and LXI and LXVIII, and c. VII of the 2nd.

In order that the Church may preserve the unity of faith and divine worship in every place, she ordained that the foregoing Masses be celebrated at set times, as follows: The Mass of James the Apostle is celebrated on the day of his feast, on the twenty-third of October, and may be celebrated at other times, as the elder may wish. The Mass of St. Basil is celebrated ten times during the year. As for the Mass of St. John Chrysostom, it is celebrated throughout the year, except on Wednesdays and Fridays of Holy Lent and on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Passion Week. The Mass of St. Gregory is celebrated on the days of Lent and is called the Proegiasmena, or Presanctified Mass, because the gifts or oblations used therein may not be transessentiated (or, in the terminology of the Western Church, "transubstantiated") again, having already been consecrated in a previous Mass. However, the commemoration of the faithful is fulfilled in this Mass, as mentioned in the service.

The first of these Masses, is that of St. James, which had its origin in the first century. Then followed the Mass of St. Basil in the fourth century; then that of St. John Chrysostom in the fifth century, and lastly the Gregorian Mass in the sixth century. There is no difference in the essence of these four rites.

St. James, the brother of God, was ordained Bishop by the three Apostles John, Peter, and James. See footnote 1 of C.I of the Holy and renowned Apostles. So any Mass contrary to original Masses is heretical; the cause of the heretic teachings is the wrong Idea, and the wrong idea is the seed of the Evil Spirit, the inventor of heresies.

The preamble to this epistle is brimming with great humility. For St. Basil the Great commences with the citation of a passage of the Paroemiast (or Proverb-writer) which says that even a simpleton shall be deemed a wise man if he asks wise questions; and adds, conversely, that a wise man’s question makes a simpleton wise. In connection with this citation of Scripture the Saint is alluding to St. Amphilochius as a wise man asking questions while deeming himself a simpleton and one in quest of wisdom. He then points out the way in wrhich he acquires wisdom. For, before being asked something, he says, without having taken care to ask the questions, he became more careful after paying attention to them, recollecting all that he had been told by more aged men, and himself considering everything to be found in those old works that was consistent and consequent.

After setting out a preamble, the Saint commences replying to those questions which Amphilochius was asking him. Being thus impelled to speak about the baptism of the Cathari or Novatians, and that of the heretics known as Pepuzeni (concerning whom see the Footnote to c. VII of the 2nd), or Montantists, he enlarges upon the subject and treats it more generally; accordingly, he mentions that division of the ancient authorities, wherein some persons were called heretics, other schismatics, and others parasynagogists. Parasynagogists were those insubordinate presbyters and bishops who because of their having fallen into mistakes were deposed canonically from the holy orders, but who refused to abide by the Canons and to accept them as authoritative, but tried their own cases and declared themselves innocent of any wrong-doing and proceeded to perform the rites of the episcopace and of holy orders in general on their own authority, i.e., by themselves; and others went along with them, renegading from the catholic Church. Schismatics were those who were at variance with the catholic Church, not on the subject of dogmas of the faith, but on account of certain ecclesiastical easily adjustable questions. Heretics were those, on the other hand, whose difference or quarrel was directly and immediately one concerning the faith in God, or, more explicitly speaking, those who had separated and had become utterly removed from the Orthodox Christians with respect to faith and dogmas. So then parasynagogists might unite again with the Church with the sole proviso of considerable repentance and conversion; and priests and clerics returning from their number might be allowed to retain the same order and degree and rank that they possessed formerly. Heretics, on the other hand, under which term are embraced Manichees, Valentinians, and Marcionists (concerning whom see the Footnotes to c. XCV of the 6th), as well as these Pepuzeni who are under consideration here, and all others who return to Orthodoxy, they are to be baptized like Grecians, since the Fathers of old judged only that baptism to be admissible which does not depart at all from the faith, whereas the baptism performed by heretics they judged to be absolutely inadmissible, on the ground that it is contrary to the principles of the right belief and consequently is to be utterly rejected. For this reason the Pepuzeni too are evidently heretics and hence must be baptized upon their conversion or return to the true faith, because they baptize, not in the names traditionally handed down and taught by authority, or, more expressly speaking, not in the (name of) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but in (the name of) Father, Son, and Montanus and Priscilla, and hence become guilty of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (which blasphemy is unpardonable) by blazoning the name of the Paraclete Himself upon mortal men and deifying human beings. Hence when they return, they must be baptized. If it be objected that Dionysius (of Alexandria, that is to say) asserts that they need not be baptized, the answer is that he nevertheless made a mistake of judgment, and we ought not to follow him in this regard. As touching schismatics there have been two opinions to stand up in the past. For St. Cyprian and his party in two Councils held in Africa (see his Canon), as well as the Council which was held in Iconium by St. Firmilian (whom St. Basil calls his own on the ground that he served as Bishop of Caesarea), with a view to observing the dictates of strictness, commanded that these Cathari, who are under consideration in this connection, the Encratites, and the Apotactites (see Footnote to c. XCV of the 6th), and the Aquarians (see Footnote to c. XXXII of the 6th), and in general all schismatics, upon joining the catholic Church, have to be baptized, since although the first ones of the schismatics had indeed the gracious gift from the Church of ordaining and baptizing, once they split away from the whole body of the Church they lost it and can no longer baptize others or ordain anyone, and in general are unable to impart the grace of which they were deprived as a result of their schism. Hence any persons that are baptized by them are considered to have been baptized by laymen; wherefore they have to be baptized aright. But some bishops in parts of Asia accepted their baptism, for the sake of economy and concession (or condescension), and not as a matter of strictness and rigorousness, on the theory that schismatics are still members of the Church. Hence in accordance with their opinion let them be accepted. But as touching the schismatics called Encratites, they have to be specially baptized upon returning to the Church, in accordance with the strict letter of the Canons. Both because they themselves invented a baptism of their own, by counterfeiting the tradition in reference to baptism, and because no separate and explicit decision has been made that they ought to be accepted and admitted (without a baptism). Notwithstanding they themselves do not rebaptize those who join them from our Orthodox members, this fact ought not to deter us from baptizing them when they join our Church upon returning to the true faith. If, however, it be found that by insisting upon baptizing them when they return we are creating an obstacle to the common concession and economy which the Fathers provided for all schismatics, let us too follow it, lest on account of the stern requirement of this injunction we cause them to neglect to be baptized because perhaps they may be ashamed on the ground that they are being required to get baptized in altogether the same way as are infidels, and consequently we may be preventing their salvation. To be brief, then, it may be said that all persons that have been baptized with their baptism, must, upon returning to Orthodoxy, be anointed at all events by the faithful with the Holy Myron (usually called "chrism" in English, which, however, rightly denotes the act of anointing, and not the oil with which the person is anointed), and then be allowed to participate in communion. And, since we have accepted also the ordination performed and the bishops thus ordained by the Encratites, with this acceptance we have actually thereby made what amounts to a Canon, and have shown that they are not separated from the catholic Church. See also the Interpretation of Ap. c. XLVI, of c. VIII of the 1st, and of c. VII of the 2nd.

The present Canon decrees that any woman who deliberately puts to death the child wherewith she is pregnant, by means of herbs or poisonous draughts, or by lifting weights too heavy for her, or in any other ways, is a murderess. With us there is no difference as there used to be with the Jews. If, say, the child which the woman expels dead is still unformed, like a piece of meat, or is formed as a fetus having the features and members of a human being all entire, since in this manner of abortion not only does the embryo in the womb die, but most times also the woman pregnant with it also dies along with the embryo, so that those who do this are sentenced as murderers for the two murders, whether they be men or women. They are not sentenced, however, to abstain from the Mysteries throughout life, but for humaneness to only ten years, in accordance with the sentence, that is to say, which is imposed upon those who have killed anybody involuntarily (in accordance with c. LVII of the said Basil); nevertheless, the penitence of such persons ought not to be restricted to a number of years, but ought to depend upon the manner of their penitence; so that if they repent more fervidly, the ten-year sentence may be reduced by the confessor, while if they are more negligent, it may be increased proportionately. See also Ap. c. LXVI, c. XLI of the 6th, and c. XII of the 1st.

If perchance a deacon should commit fornication after his ordination, he is to be deposed from the diaconate, according to this Canon, and to be placed on the same footing as laymen; he is not, however, to be denied the right to communion, or, in other words, the right to stand together with the faithful and to participate in prayer, which is the same as saying that he is not to be excommunicated from the temple of the Church, like the catechumens (but not that he may participate in communion in the sense of partaking of the Eucharist), since c. LXXXV of the Apostles (which you may read for yourself) metes out to these persons only the punishment involved in deposition from office, but not that involved in excommunication from the Church. For one thing, because it followed that passage which says: Thou shalt punish anyone twice for one and the same sin. And for another thing, because (as St. Basil asserts of his own accord and on his own part) when laymen sin, though they are indeed excluded from the status of being entitled to stand together with the faithful in church, yet after finishing the years fixed for their penitence, they may recover their former status; whereas a deacon (and in general anyone in holy orders) after once being deposed and losing his diaconate cannot get it back again (see the second Footnote to Ap. c. XXVIII). So he goes on to say that inasmuch as the diaconate cannot be given back to him a second time, therefore the old Canons, or those called Apostolic Canons, confined the punishment to deposition from office alone, by commanding, that is to say, that he be deposed but not excommunicated. Accordingly, this is the penalty which the Canons prescribe for deacons that have committed fornication, to wit, deposition only. A general and complete and exact remedy for them, however, is for them to abstain from sinning and to keep away from pleasures of the flesh, by which they have been woefully enslaved and have lost the grace of holy orders, by means of contrition, by means of continence, and by refraining from every other act leading to enslavement and the suffering of woes. As for the remainder of this Canon, pertaining to custom and strictness, see the Footnote to c. XII of the 1st, and especially the Footnote to c. CII of the 2nd. For it is cited verbatim by that Canon and is there interpreted by us.

The present Canon decrees in reference to trigamy by asserting that the ancient Fathers did not call it a marriage, but polygamy (and perhaps he means here the Fathers in Neocaesarea, who in their c. III call a third marriage too many weddings), or rather to say fornication not extended indiscriminately to every woman, but confined to one woman. Hence women who have contracted a third marriage do not deserve to be called wives by their trigamous husbands any more than do trigamist husbands deserve to be called their husbands by the trigamous wives. For the Lord told the Samaritaness who had had five husbands that even the husband she had now was not her legal husband, and consequently did not deserve to be called her husband. Some authorities, therefore, canonize these trigamists and polygamists analogously with digamists; or, at all events, since some authorities sentence digamists to one year, and others to two years, therefore they canonize trigamists analogously, i.e., in proportion to the years to which digamists are sentenced, to three and four years. Nevertheless, in conformity with the custom of earlier men, and not as a result of any previous Canon, they are sentenced to five years. Yet they ought not to be expelled from the Church entirely like the .weepers outside the portals, but, on the contrary, after two or three years (of penitence) they ought to be permitted to listen to the Scriptures, and thereafter to stand together with the faithful without partaking of communion, and then, after showing fruit of repentance they ought to be permitted to commune. See also the Interpretation of c. III and of c. VII of Neocaesarea, and the plan of a temple at the end of this book.

Since some persons are at a loss to decide whether they ought to accept heretics repenting at the end of their life, the Saint replies in the present Canon that they ought to be accepted, but not in general and casually, but only when wre test them and find out whether they have come to repentance and have abandoned their heretical tenets and are exhibiting fruits of repentance. See c. VII of the 2nd, and c. XII of Neocaesarea.

The present Canon decrees that if perhaps any Canonics, or, more plainly speaking, persons in holy orders and clerics and monks and nuns that are virgins should commit fornication with any man or woman, as the case may be, they are not to be pardoned by the bishop and allowed to marry and live together like other married couples, but, on the contrary, they are to be separated and their unlawful marriage is to be prevented in every possible way, even though they succeed in attaining to marriage. Because this, for them to be separated, is a great advantage to the Church, in order to prevent anyone else from doing the same thing or anything similar with the consequence of entailing upon the holy orders and the monastic profession scorn of their value, and in order to prevent heretics from finding a pretext for blaming us on the allegation that the reason why we let those in holy orders and monks remain together while living in sin, and do not sunder their Illegal marriages, is that we are bent upon attracting the heretics to our faith by means of the permission we give them to sin. See also the Interpretation of Ap. c. XXVI, and of c. XVI of the 4th, and the Footnote to c. VI of the 6th.

The present Canon condemns to the same chastisement and sentence both those who are guilty of the crime of sodomy and those who are guilty of the crime of bestiality (concerning whom see c. XVI of Ancyra), and murderers (see Ap. c. LXVI), and sorcerers (see c. LXI of the 6th), and adulterers (see Ap. c. XLVIII, and c. LXXXVII of the 6th), and idolaters, by which terms are meant, according to Balsamon and Zonaras, magicians, because of their invoking the demons, or, according to others, those who have on some occasion or under some circumstance denied Christ and have sacrificed to idols (and see c. XI of the 1st). All these persons are condemned to the same chastisement, not according to the years of sentence, because some of them are sentenced to more years and others to fewer, as is to be seen in their particular places and Canons; but in respect that all of them are subjected to sentences of many years, according to Zonaras, and in respect that all of them used to be assigned to the four stations of penitence, according to Balsamon. All those, on the other hand, who have been penitent for thirty years on account of the carnal impurity they committed unwittingly (possibly by indulging in sexual intercourse with some female relative without being aware that she was a relative, or something else of the kind), they ought undoubtedly to be admitted to the communion of the Mysteries, because of the tears and the life deserving of mercy which they are exhibiting, and on account of the many years’ sentence they have had to serve out. Because they have given themselves up to Satan for nearly a whole human generation, after being separated from communion with the faithful, like that Corinthian who gave himself up to Satan, in order that they too, like him, might learn not to do such impure acts.

When asked about voluntary and involuntary murders, the Saint replies in the present Canon by distinguishing wrhich ones are wilful and voluntary murders, and which are involuntary murders committed without the concurrence of the will of the person committing them, and which ones are akin to voluntary murder. Accordingly he says that involuntary murders are such as result when anyone throws a stone at a wild beast or at a tree, and hits a human being who happens to be passing by, and kills him; and if in the desire to sober someone, a man hits him lightly with a strap or a rod that is small, and the man hit happens to die. Voluntary and wilful murders, on the other hand, are those in which someone with an axe, whether holding it in his hand, that is to say, or throwing it with his hand, strikes his wife with it, or some other person, in the heat of anger, and she dies; if anyone uses a sword or a rifle, or any other such wreapon, with the object of hitting anyone else. Bandits and men who engage in wars for the purpose of grabbing money are voluntarily committing murder. Both women and men who concoct certain poisonous draughts and administer them to or furnish them to others with the object of attracting them and enticing them into their carnal amour, while they who drink them are befuddled in mind and die. Likewise do those women commit murder voluntarily who give or take poisonous herbs in order to kill the infants in their womb (concerning which see in particular c. XCI of the 6th). Murders which though involuntary border on willful murder are such as result when anyone is engaged in a fight with some other person and hits him in a vital spot a death-dealing blow pitilessly with a stick or with his bare hand, and the person dies as a result of the blow; likewise when anyone uses a heavy club or a big stone that exceeds a man’s power with the object of hitting someone, and it happens that the man hit dies. See also Ap! c. LXVI.

(Ap. c. XLVIII; c. LXXXVII of the 6th; c. XX of Ancyra; c. CXIII of Carthage). c. XXI of Basil; c. XIV of Timothy.).

The Lord’s decision would have it that a husband and a wife are equally under obligation not to separate from each other save on account of the occurrence of fornication or of adultery, either on the part of the one or on the part of the other. Custom, however, dictates that husbands may divorce their wives if the latter commit fornication or adultery with another man, in accordance with the Apostolic passage and that of Jeremiah and that of Paroemiast (or Pro verb-writer), whereas wives are not allowed to divorce their husbands even though the latter are fornicating and committing adultery with other women; so that according to this custom, if a woman gets married to a man whose wife has divorced on grounds of fornication or of adultery, I wonder whether she can be an adulteress, since the sin of separation is not imputed to the husband, but to the wife who has left him, because she has no right to leave her husband; but, on the contrary, even though he beat her or whip her, she must patiently endure it and not separate from him; no matter even though he should spend her dowry, and no matter whether he be committing fornication with other women, she has to put up with it with fortitude. What am I talking about? Why, even though her husband be faithless, she must not divorce him, according to what St. Paul says, but must continue dwelling with him, on the theory that perhaps by setting him an example she may succeed in imbuing him with godly knowledge. So that in fine a woman who has left her husband is an adulteress if she take another man. But if the man who has been left takes himself another woman, he is to be pardoned; and the woman who takes him as his second wife is not to be condemned as an adulteress. If, however, a man leaves his wife, without the ground of fornication, and takes another, he is an adulterer, because he compelled his wife to become an adulteress or to commit adultery by taking another man while her former husband is still alive. But also his second wife is an adulteress because she took a strange man who was the husband of his wife while she was still alive. See also the Footnote to Ap. c. XLVIII, and c. LXXXVII of the 6th, which incorporated a part of this Canon verbatim.

Because of the fact that some persons wanting to be ordained took an oath not to be ordained, therefore the present Canon commands that such persons must not be compelled to become ordained, and in consequence to violate their oath; for although it would appear that they may be allowed to undo the bond according to a certain Canon, when they swore of their own accord and bound themselves to do this or that, or not to do it, yet, in spite of all this, we know by experience that persons who violate their oath do not prosper, nor are they judged to be acceptable and pleasing to God, but are allowed by concession to incur temptation. In such cases, however, one ought to think also about the kind of the oath, or, more explicitly speaking, whether he swore to God or something else, and the words actually uttered by the one taking the oath, and his disposition and mental attitude when he took the oath, or, more explicitly speaking, whether he took it on the spur of the moment or as a result of pusIIIanimity or timidity, and not as one taking an irrevocable and decisive oath in the way of a definitive resolution, as well as the slightest additions he may have added to the words of the oath: so that if it turn out that no circumstance can be found to serve as a consolation or reasonable solace for setting aside the oath taken, he must let such persons keep their oath, and not compel them to commit perjury. As for the matter of Severus, it appears to be like this. A certain man named Longinus owned a latifundium (i.e., a landed estate or what might nowadays be called a large farm), which was named Mindana and was subject to the jurisdiction of the episcopate of Mistheia. A man by the name of Severus, who was the bishop of Massadi, ordained a man named Kyriakus (or Cyriacus, according to a different transliteration) as a presbyter to serve in the church connected with that latifundium, and compelled him to swear that he would stay there and remain subject to the jurisdiction of his episcopate. But when the bishop of Mistheia, who had jurisdiction over the latifundium in question, learned of this, he forbade Kyriakus to perform divine services in his own church, on the ground that he had been ordained by another. On this account Kyriakus went to a different church, while Longinus, the owner of the latifundium, being grieved about this, threatened either to wreck the church or to leave it deserted and without an attendance. So St. Basil the Great was asked about this and replied that the latifundium in question ought to be placed under the jurisdiction and authority of the episcopate of Massadi, even though it were in a different parish, and that Presbyter Kyriakus should be allowed to return and perform divine services there, because in this way he would be keeping the oath he had taken, and Longinus would refrain from desolating the church, and consequently would avoid condemnation of his soul on account of the cessation of divine hymns which he would otherwise cause the church, and "we," he says, shall not be doing anything contrary to the Canons by returning Kyriakus to his church, because in returning there he will not be violating his oath, since, although he did go awray for a short time, yet he had not added to the oath he had taken anything to the effect that he would not go away from the latifundhun of Mindana even for a short while, and accordingly this could not be considered a violation of his oath. As for Severus, on the other hand, in view of the fact that he was offering the excuse that he had forgotten that the latifundium was in the jurisdiction of another bishop’s see and on this account had ordained a presbyter thereto, we (i.e., St. Basil) ought to pardon him, notwithstanding the fact that he committed three evils in contravention of the Canons: to wit, that of making Kyriakus take an oath, which is contrary to the sacred Gospel; that of prompting him to violate his oath with the transposition; and that of lying in making the assertion that he had forgotten. Nevertheless, since we are not fathomers of hearts, says St. Basil, we pardon him and accept him indiscrimately, owing to man’s liability to forgetfulness; we leave it to the Lord to mete out vengeance to him. See also c. XCIV of the 6th.

(Ap. c. LXVI; c. XII of the 6th; cc. XXI, XXII, XXIII of Ancyra; cc. II, XIII, XLIII, LIV, LVI, LVII of Basil; the Epistle of Athanasius to Amun; c. V of Nyssa.).

A man who had slain anyone without intending to do so had to spend eleven years excommunicated in penitence. When asked about this the Saint replied in the present Canon to the effect that the offender’s canon or penance) itself was sufficient punishment and that he ought to be released from it. He adds, however, that in regard to the persons attacked we ought to observe the rules of the Mosaic Law. For Moses says that if anyone is beaten and the beating causes him to be laid up in bed, and if thereafter he gets up again and walks about with the aid of a walking-stick though still feeling the effects of the injury, he shall not be considered to have been murdered if he dies afterwards, and the one who beat him up shall not be considered a murderer. With regard to these rules of Moses the Saint adds that if the injured man did not get back upon his feet after being beaten up, but died, the one who beat him up is a murderer, but yet an involuntary, and not a willful, murderer, in view of the fact that he had no intention of killing the man, but only of beating him up. See also Ap. c. LXVI.

(Ap. c. XVII.).

What the Saint here calls "the Canon" refers to Ap. c. XVII, the Interpretation of which may be read in connection herewith.

(Ap. c. LXVI; c. XCII of the 6th; cc. XXI, XXII, XXIII of Ancyra; cc. XII, XLIII, LIV, LVI, LVII of Basil; the Epistle of Athanasius to Amun; c. V of Nyssa.).

By ‘Our Fathers" here Basil the Great means Athanasius the Great and his followers. For Athanasius says in his Epistle to Amun that for one to slay enemies in war is lawful and praiseworthy. But St. Basil explains also the reason why the more ancient Fathers permitted them to be pardoned, which is that those men who slay men in the course of war are fighting for the faith and for the maintenance of sobriety. For, if once the barbarians and infidels should succeed in gaining the upper hand, neither piety will be left, since they disregard it and seek to establish their own wicked faith and bad belief, nor sobriety and maintenance of honor, seeing that their victory would be followed by many instances of violation and ravishment of young women and of young men. The Saint goes on to add, however, on his own part, not a definitive Canon, but an advisory and indecisive suggestion that although these men who slay others in war were not considered murderers by the more ancient Fathers, yet, since their hands are not unstained by blood, it might perhaps be well for them to abstain from communion for three years solely as regards the Mysteries, but not to be expelled, that is to say, from the Church, like other penitents. See also Ap. c. LXVI.

The present Canon decrees that if perhaps anyone that is a layman has been charging interest for the use of his money, he shall be admitted to holy orders to become a priest if and only if he spends the III-gotten gain — or, more expressly speaking, that interest (note that he calls the interest III-gotten, or unjust, even when taken from laymen) — on poor people, and thereafter ceases to charge interest. So that, by contradistinction, it is to be inferred that one who fails to distribute interest collected on money lent cannot become a priest.

Notwithstanding that it is not clearly indicated what sort of question had been asked, yet from a consideration of the reply given to it one may say that it would appear that Amphilochius had asked Basil why in speaking of man in Psalm 8 David says: "Thou hast subordinated all things under his feet — the fowl of the sky, and the fish of the sea, whatsoever traverseth the paths of the seas" (Ps. 8:6-8); and a) placed fowls of the sky and fishes of the sea together in the same category; and b) did not say "whosoever traverseth the paths of the seas," as would have been in keeping with the sense, according to the art of grammar, but said "whatsoever traverseth the paths of the seas" (Note of Translator. — Apparently this meant to suggest that whosoever might have been used to show that the reference was to living animals only, whereas whatsoever would seem to include ships and seaweeds and the like). So with regard to question a) the Saint replies that the reason why David joined fowls and fishes together is that both these genera of animals were created by the same waters and have one and the same peculiar characteristic; since, just as fishes swim in the water, using their fins like oars, or small wings, and their tail like a rudder, in a similar fashion birds swim, or fly, in the air, using their wings like oars, and their tail like a rudder. To query b) he replies that the expression "whatsoever traverseth the paths of the seas" does not refer to fishes, but to all the other animals that are to be found in the waters, or, at any rate, to the great whales, to the shellfish, such as are the scallops and other animals, to the crustaceans, such as are shrimps, crabs, and to the mollusks, such as are cuttlefishes, octopuses, squids, and other animals, none of which are properly termed, fishes. So David says that three kinds of animals are made subject to man, those begotten of the waters, namely, birds, fishes, and all the other animals that live in the water, but are different from fishes, excluding, that is to say, quadrupeds, which were formed out of the land (or mold of the earth).

The Saint had been asked why the Bible calls Naaman a great man; and he replies that he was not a great man with the Lord, or, more expressly speaking, in relation to God, but merely with his earthly lord, namely, the king of Syria. And this is attested by the holy Bible, which says: "Now Naaman, captain of the host of Syria, was a man great in the eyes of his lord" (II Kings, 5:1).

This reply is not so perspicuous, because the question is not so perspicuous either. It seems that some faithless man by means of threats and intimidations had caused some priests of Antioch to swear an oath that they would no longer perform the duties of the priesthood, among whom one, by the name of Bianor, had removed to Iconium, and it was concerning him that the Bishop of Iconium, Amphilochius, was asking whether this man might officiate; and the Saint replies that he had made a common decree in regard to all persons that had taken an oath at Antioch, whereby they were allowed to perform liturgical services in private, but not publicly in front of everybody, in order to avoid scandalizing them, on seeing that they were violating the oath they had taken. So in accordance with that common decree Bianor too had permission to celebrate liturgy, and especially in view of the fact that he was going to conduct services (for the word "is" used in the Canon is to be taken as the equivalent of "to conduct the services of the priesthood") not at Antioch, where he had taken the oath, but at Iconium, to which he had removed. This man, however, was obliged to repent of having easily and readily sworn an oath on account of the threat of a slight danger. See also c. XCIV of the 6th.

The present Canon decrees that although the more ancient Fathers dealt more leniently with virgins, in the same fashion as with digamists, and canonized those one year only who should consecrate themselves to God and vow to preserve their virginity, but who thereafter commit fornication or marry. But Basil the Great says that since the Church gets stronger with the grace of Christ in virtue than she was to begin with, and the battalion of these virgins keeps on growing more numerous, therefore those virgins who commit fornication must be the more severely chastised, and this is in keeping with the thought of St. Paul the Apostle. For if it be granted that, as he says, any widow who is enrolled among the battalion of widows in the Church (concerning which see Footnote to c. XL of the 6th) and promises (to maintain) a status of sobriety in respect of morals, but has set aside her promise and has married, she incurs a most severe condemnation and damnation; then much more is a virgin to be condemned who has done so and who is a bride of Christ and a vessel consecrated to Him. It is admittedly a fact that widowhood is inferior to virginity, and consequently the sin of widows is less reprehensible than that of virgins; and conversely the sin of virgins is far more reprehensible than that of widows. And if a slave girl who has committed fornication dishonors both her master and all his house, much more does his own bride and wife dishonor him if she be found to be an adulteress. So that the widow above mentioned who breaks her promise is to be canonized like a slave girl who is a whore, or, more expressly speaking, seven years, whereas a virgin that does so is to be penanced like an adulterous bride, or, to be more exact, fourteen years. And in consequence just as we do not admit an adulterer to penitence unless he separates from the strange woman, so and in like manner we do not admit a man who has sinned in regard to a virgin unless he separates from her. Having said these things, the Saint goes on to tell when and how women may be enrolled in the battalion of the virgins, to wit, when they are more than sixteen or seventeen years of age, and have become conscious of themselves and have acquired the ability to reason matters out for themselves, and when they of their own accord and willingly and voluntarily offer themselves to God, and are tested out in this regard for a long time, and found to remain steadfast in their aim and beg fervently to be admitted. For thus and in this manner we number these applicants among the virgins, and ought to regard their vow of virginity as one that is confirmed and reliable, and ought indispensably to punish the setting aside of it with a canonical penance. But as for those maidens who do not prefer virginity voluntarily and of their own accord, but who before arriving at the age above mentioned are offered by their parents and relatives, perhaps because they have no dowry to bestow upon them with the object of enabling them to get married, or on account of some other such worldly end — as for these maidens, I say, we ought not to admit them into the battalion of the virgins too easily, nor to suppose their immature vows to be reliable and safe, until we investigate their mental attitude clearly. Read also c. XL of the 6th, and c. XVI of the 4^th.

This Canon shows that the monks of that period of time did not make vows by word of mouth, as they do now, when they became monks, down to the time of this great St. Basil. For the Saint says that he knows of no other men vowing to remain virgins except only those who have donned the monastic habit, who, in spite of the fact that they do by no means vow in uttered words to remain virgins, nevertheless by their silence and by donning the habit in question virtually vow to do so. Nevertheless, when they join the battalion of the monks, they ought to be asked about this, and their vows by word of mouth ought to be accepted as a pledge. Why? In order that if they ever should disregard their vow and turn to fornication or marriage, they may be canonized as fornicators seven years, any such marriage being indispensably dissolved and the partners thereto being separated from one another. This same rule must be applied also to the case of unmarried Subdeacons and Deacons whenever they are ordained. (See Footnote to c. VI of the 6th). Read also c. XVI of the 4th.

Tne present Canon is consistent with the above c. XVIII. For it decrees that those heretical women who though having vowed to remain virgins have afterwards got married must not be penanced when they come to join Orthodoxy. For according to St. Paul whatever the law says it says it to those persons who are subject to the law, so that in this respect these women, since they were not under the yoke of Christ, because of the heresy, are neither bound to recognize the law of Christ. And so they are acceptable to the Church, and receive a pardon for this sinful action by reason of their Orthodox belief in Christ. But why does not this Canon consistently canonize sins committed in the course of catechumenical life, whereas c. XIV of the 1st does canonize them? As to this question see that c. where a solution is offered to this seeming contrariety. The Saint goes on to add that the Church does not admit heretics without first baptizing them; and that it is a most necessary gift and privilege of regeneration through baptism to have previous sinful deeds pardoned, so that even the failure on the part of these heretics to keep their vow of virginity is pardoned as a result of the baptism they have received when they come to join the ranks of Orthodoxy. See also e. XVI of the 4th, and e. XIV of the 1st.

If a husband sins in conjunction with an unmarried woman, he is considered to be a fornicator. But we have no Canon by which to condemn him as an adulterer. He is more severely and heavily punished, however, than an unmarried man who commits fornication, according to this Canon, since in the case of the latter allowance is made for the necessity of satisfying a natural desire which he cannot otherwise appease, whereas a husband lacks this allowance because he has his lawful wife with whom to appease this desire. Nevertheless, even though such a husband is more severely punished, or canonized, yet his wife cannot divorce him on account of this fornication, whereas the husband can divorce his wife if she commits fornication with anyone. Though such a custom has prevailed in the Church from the Romans, the reason for it is hard to understand. See the Footnote to Ap. c. XLVIII, but in any case of necessity fail not to take note of it.

The present Canon decrees that men who snatch women away, if the latter are betrothed, are not to be admitted to penitence until they have first restored the women in question to their fiancees, in order that, if they want them they may take them as their wives; but if the woman is one wrn is free from any fiancee, but under the authority of her parents when any man has snatched her away, he shall return her to her parents and relatives or to her guardians; and if those persons are willing to give her to the man who snatched her away, provided that the woman too is willing, and agrees to this, the marriage shall stand; but if they are unwilling, they are not to be coerced. Nevertheless, in case that marriage by right of rapine has been actually consummated, the man who snatched away and deflowered the female victim, whether this was done secretly or violently, must necessarily be sentenced as a fornicator. His sentence shall be four years. Accordingly, during the first year he shall continue weeping; during the second year he shall listen to the liturgy; during the third year he shall spend the time in kneeling; and during the fourth year he shall be allowed the privilege of standing in church together with the faithful, and thereafter shall be permitted to participate in communion.

St. Gregory of Nyssa canonizes a fornicator nine years in his c. IV, but this St. Basil seven years in his c. LIX, whereas the Faster in his c. XII canonizes him two years with xerophagy and penances. See also the Interpretation of c. XXVII of the 4th, and the plan of the temple.

The epistle mentioned in the present c. is the one addressed to Bishop Diodorus and which constitutes c. LXXXVII of the same St. Basil. For in that epistle the Saint in no uncertain terms and with the protests based upon the law forbids one and the same man under any circumstances to take the sister of his deceased wife, which is the same as saying, two sisters; and neither will he allow one and the same woman to take the brother of her deceased husband. Anyone who falls into such a lawless marriage shall not be admitted to penitence unless he first divorces her. See also Ap. c. XIX.

In time of old all widows who were really widows and solitary, trusting in God, and spending their leisure time in entreaties and prayers night and day, when they became sixty years of age, they used to be enrolled in the battalion of widows in the Church, and after taking a vow not to get married a second time, but to remain sober, they used to be fed on the rations and accorded the help of the Church, just as St. Paul states these facts (I Tim. 5:5-9; see also Footnote to c. XL of the 6th). On this account the present c. says that if any such widow — any younger one, that is to say — be enrolled in the battalion of (privileged) widows and shall later get married, St. Paul judges that she ought to be disregarded, or, more explicitly speaking, that she ought no longer to be helped by the Church. But if any man becomes a widower, there is no law to prevent him, or to chastise him, if he insists upon marrying a second time, but the sentence provided for digamists is sufficient for him, or, more explicitly speaking, it is enough that he be canonized one or two years, in accordance with c. IV of the same St. Basil. But if a widow be enrolled in the battalion of widows when sixty years old and afterwards gets married, she is to incur the penalty of being refused communion until she desist from this impure coition in old age and this lawless state of matrimony. But if it be before she is sixty years old and after she has been enrolled by us in that battalion that she gets married, she deserves a pardon owing to her youthfulness, and the crime is ours, because we violated the injunction of St. Paul and enrolled her in the widow battalion before she reached the sixtieth year of her age (ibid.).

(Ap. c. LXVI; cc. XXII, XXIII, XXVI of St. Basil.).

The present Canon decrees that if perchance a man ravages a woman not betrothed to any other man, and after the ravagement takes her to wife, he is to be canonized because he ravaged her before the wedding, though he is to be permitted to keep her always as his wife. See also Ap. c. LXVII.

(Ap. c, LXVII; cc. XXII, XXIII, XXV of St. Basil.).

After allowing those who have been raped before the wedding to contract a marriage in his cc. XXII and XXV, the Saint finally in the present Canon decrees this generally and more exactly, to wit: that as for those men who fornicate beforehand, either with a virgin or with a whore, and after the fornication seek to marry, the truer and better course is for them not to marry, but even if they should succeed in marrying, it is better that they be separated, since it is for this reason that marriage is called honorable and the marriage bed undefiled, namely, because it is free and clean from any previous sin and rape, whereas, on the contrary, fornication and rape are neither marriage nor a beginning of marriage. But if the fornicators themselves will on no account consent to being separated, let them be punished as fornicators, with a seven-year sentence, that is to say, but let them remain unseparated, in order to avoid having any more serious thing happen, or, more explicitly speaking, in order that after being separated they may not keep on secretly indulging in fornication, or, in order that while both of them are united with other persons they may not secretly commit adultery with each other, or in order to keep them from committing suicide because of their being unable to put up with excessive love and separation. Read also Ap. c. LXVII and the Footnote thereto.

The present Canon has been borrowed verbatim from c. VI and c. XXVI of the same Council. Accordingly, you will find the Interpretation of it there.

The Saint had been asked whether one might violate a vow he made, namely, a promise he made to God not to eat any pork; and the Saint replies that this vow is ridiculous and deserves to be laughed at. For this reason such persons ought to be taught not to make such unreasonable promises henceforth, and to hold the use of pork, with reference to which they went to the trouble of making a vow, to be a matter of indifference, or, more explicitly speaking, to regard eating and not eating pork as the same thing, since, according to St. Paul, no creature of God must be refused, seeing that it is a creature, when eaten with thanks. See also c. XCIV of the 6th.

As to men who snatch their wives out of hand, or abet others to such snatching, this Saint was the first in the present Canon to condemn them to three years to stand excluded from the prayers said for kneelers, which is the same as to say, to stand in the pronaos, or porch of the temple, together with listeners. For c. XXVII of the 4th decrees in regard to wife’ snatchers, but comes later than the present Canon. If, on the other hand, any woman who is sui juris, and not under the control of her father or of a master (i.e., slave-owner) voluntarily has followed her husband without being forced to do so, the man who has taken is not reprehensible, provided, however, that he did not rape her and did not have any sexual intercourse with her secretly (for this is what is denoted by the words "rape" and "abduction"). So that also if any widow, being sui juris, and being at liberty to follow her lover or not, should perchance be ashamed lest it appear that she is giving herself to her sweetheart of her own accord and be led to pretend, for appearance’s sake, that he snatched her, though in reality she herself followed him — if, I say, this should turn out to be a fact, the man who has taken this woman incurs no responsibility for the affair. For it is not the shame and pretense of wife-snatching that we have in mind, but, on the contrary, the question which interests us is whether the woman actually followed the man. See also c. XXVII of the 4th.

(c. XCIII of the 6th.).

The present Canon has been borrowed verbatim from c. XCIII of the 6th, and see the Interpretation of it there.

(Ap. c. XXV; c.c. IV, XXI of the 6th; c. XXXV of Carthage; cc. III, XVII, XXXII, LI of St. Basil.).

There is a sin unto death, and there is a sin not unto death, says John the Evangelist (in his First Epistle, 5:16-17). So, according to other Fathers, and especially according to Metrophanes the bishop of Smyrna in his interpretation of the General Epistles, a different interpretation is to be given to the sin unto death from that given to the sin not unto death. But according to Zonaras a sin unto death is one that has reached the stage of realization and actualization, being, that is to say, a mortal sin, and even in point of kind, whereas a sin not unto death is one that has not reached the point of realization and actualization, but has stopped at the point of consent, or manifestation of a desire to commit the sin in question (and see c. IV of Neocaesarea). So what the present Canon asserts is that all clerics who commit such a mortal sin are indeed liable to be deposed, but are not to be excluded from the community — or, more explicitly speaking, from the right to pray together with laymen, in accordance with that passage of Scripture which says: "Thou shalt not exact vengeance twice for the same offense." Such clerics, however, are not entitled to communion in the sense of partaking of the divine Mysteries. Read also Ap. c. XXV, and c. III of this same St. Basil.

(Ap. c. LXVI.).

The present Canon decrees that in case a woman who is on the road should happen to give birth and should fail to take care of the infant, and the infant dies, she is to be canonized as a murderess.

Likewise c. LII of this same St. Basil says more extensively that if a woman brings forth a child in the street and is able to suscitate the child but lets it die, either in order to conceal her sin, after conceiving it as a result of harlotry or of adultery, or brutally and inhumanly treats her child with contempt, she is to be condemned as a murderess. Or even if the child does not die, but someone else who has found it takes it and suscitates, again the mother of it shall be condemned as a murderess, according to Zonaras, because she abandoned it out of careless negligence, and so far as she was concerned left it to die. If, however, she had no means of suscitating it owing to want and destitution of the necessaries, and the baby died as a result of this circumstance, its mother is deserving of a pardon, according to the same c. LII of St. Basil. See also Ap. c. LXVI.

If any married woman commits adultery with another man. and either out of reverence or out of fear of the future judgment she confesses the fact that she has committed the sin, or the fact is brought to light by another party, perhaps because she has become pregnant, or because she has given birth to the child, while her husband is far away, the Fathers have ordered that she is not to be given publicity, that is to say, she is not to be placed in the stations of the penitents, of the weepers, in other words, or listeners, or kneelers, lest people see her there when she leaves church with the catechumens, or is standing in the narthex, and discover of course the fact that she has sinned and before all other sins they will impute to her the criminal offense of adultery, and thus that penance will be the cause of her death. For when her husband learns about it, perhaps he will kill her, in accordance with that passage of Solomon’s saying: "Full of jealousy is the anger of her husband" (Prov. 6:34). So for this reason the Fathers ordered such women to stand in church together with the other faithfuls, without, however, partaking of communion, until the time fixed for her term of penitence has expired.

If any woman leaves her husband, an examination must be made to ascertain the cause arid for what reason she left him. The rest of the Canon is verbatim drawn from c. LXXXVIII of the 6th, and see the Interpretation of it there.

This Canon has been borrowed verbatim from c. XCIII of the 6th, and see the Interpretation of it there.

According to this Canon if any man should illegally take the fiance or the wife of any other man, and afterwards this man should take her away from him, and he should thereafter get an unmarried woman as his wife and marry her, as for his sin with the first strange woman, he shall be canonized as an adulterer, but as relates to the second woman he is not responsible.

The present Canon prescribes that all maidens and virgins who are under the control and authority of their father and run after men, or, in other words, willingly and of their own accord have offered themselves to their lovers, are fornicating and cannot be married. But if thereafter the parents of such virgins become reconciled and consent to let the lovers and ravishers of their daughters cohabit with them, it seems that what happened in the beginning of the affair may be remedied, and that their fornication may be changed into marriage and matrimony. Nevertheless, when men and women do such things, they are not to be pardoned at once and forthwith allowed to partake of communion, but are to be canonized three years.

Canons XL, XLI, and XLII of the same St. Basil make it plain that marriages of the daughters and slave girls that have been made without the consent and approval of their fathers and masters, respectively, are to be considered cases of fornication and are to be dissolved. But after their consent has been obtained, they may be validated, and in that event they become true marriages. See also the Footnotes to cc. XXVII and XLII of Carthage.

If any woman who has a husband has committed adultery with another man, and afterwards either leaves her husband while he is alive and follows the one who led her into adultery, or after her husband dies she takes him as her husband and lives with him, she, I say, according to this Canon, even though she has completed the fourteen years’ sentence for adultery, nevertheless is an adulteress all the years that she lives with the adulterer. For in view of the fact that she fails to abstain from the sin, but continues persistently in committing it over and over again, she is not admissible to penitence, nor can she be believed to have repented, and consequently neither can she ever receive a pardon, until she separates from the adulterer. See also the Footnote to c. II of Neocaesarea.

(Ap. c. LXXXII; c. IV of the 4th; c. LXXXV of the 6th; c. III of Gangra; cc. LXXIII, XC of Carthage; cc. XL, XLI, XLII of Basil.).

If a girl who is a slave under control of her master gives herself to a man without the consent and approval of her master, she has thereby become guilty of fornication, since agreements and stipulations given by girls who are under the control of masters are uncertain and void. But if thereafter either the master of the girl permits and allows her to do this, or manumits her altogether, and such a slave girl celebrates her marriage openly and publicly, then she is not to be considered a harlot, but a legally married wife. See also Ap. c. LXXXII and c. XXXVIII of Basil.

(References as cited beneath c. XL.).

If any widow who has control over herself marries a second time, she is not liable to charges of misconduct, seeing that St. Paul says concerning her that if her husband dies she is free to marry a second time, provided she does so in the Lord, that is to say, not with an infidel or a heretic or a relative within the degrees prohibited by law, but with a believer who is an Orthodox Christian and not precluded by law. The expression, on the other hand, saying "if there is no man to disrupt the marriage" denotes that if she is in the control of other persons, as, for instance, her father, her grandfather, or her master, they may dissolve the marriage if they do not care to consent to it. See also the Footnote to Ap. c. LXXXII, and c. XXXVIII of the same St. Basil.

This Canon is a recapitulation of the three Canons above, i.e., cc. XXXVIII, XL, and XLI, and it says that if a daughter under the control of her father, or a slave girl under the control of her master, should marry without the consent and approval of the father or master, respectively, who have control over them, their marriages are to be considered fornications; and not only this, but their marriages are also to be dissolved and they themselves are to be punished penitentially. But if the father and the master, their lords, agree to their marriages, then the marriages receive indissoluble validity, and they themselves are exempt from all punishment. Read also the Footnote to Ap. c. LXXXII, and c. XXXVIII of the same St. Basil.

(Ap. c. LXV1; c. XCI of the 6th; cc. XXI, XXII, XXIII of Ancyra; Epistle of Athansius to Amun. cc. II, VIII, XI, XIII, XXXIII, XLIII, LIT, LIV, LVI, LVII of Basil; c. V. of Nyssa.).

Whoever strikes a person a vital and mortal blow, and the person struck dies from the blow, is a murderer, according to this Canon, whether he himself was the one who struck the first blow, or the other person struck him first, and he returned the blow in order to get revenge. See also Ap. c. LXVI.

(Ap. c. XXV; cc. IV, XXI of the 6th; c. XXXV of Carthage; cc. XXXII, L, LI, LXX of Basil.).

If perchance any deaconess (concerning whom see the Footnote to c. XIX of the 1st) fornicates with a Grecian, she shall, after being duly purified, be admitted to communion, or, more explicitly speaking, she shall be allowed to stand with the believers and to join in the prayers said in church; but to the communion of the Holy Mysteries she shall be admitted only after seven years have passed as the sentence for her fornication, but even then only on condition that she shall abstain from the evil and live in sobriety. But if the Grecian who has fornicated with her comes to believe, and thereafter seeks to take the deaconess in marriage, according to Balsamon and Blastaris, after she has been purified (for he calls this sacrilege), the man has returned like the dog to his own vomit. Hence we will not allow the consecrated body of the deaconess henceforward to be used for carnal intercourse and pleasure; that is to say, we will not allow her to get married. See also Ap. c. XXV.

Whoever believes in Christ and is named a Christian must live in accordance with the commandments of the Christ in whom he has believed, in order that God may be glorified through him, in accordance with the passage saying: "Thus let your light shine before men," etc. (Matt. 5:16). But if anyone though named a Christian transgresses the commandments of Christ, he is insulting Christ Himself by this transgression, and he will receive no benefit whatever from the mere fact that he is named a Christian, according to James the Brother of God, for he says: "What profit has one, my brethren, if he has faith but has no works? can it be said that his faith is able to save him?" (James 2:18). And God-bearing Ignatius says the following in his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians: "Those professing Christ are recognized not from only what they say, but also from what they do. For the fruit is known by the tree. It is better to be silent and be, than it is to speak and not to be. The kingdom of God does not consist in discourse, but in power." See also the Footnote to Ap. c. LXIV, and c. CXIX of Carthage.

This Canon has been borrowed verbatim from c. XCIII of the 6th, and see the Interpretation of it there.

This divine Father in his first Canon decreed economically, according to the Anonymous Expositor of the Canons, that the baptism of Encratites and Novatians (in spite of the fact that even there he prescribed this following the Fathers of the regions of Asia who accept it) ought to be accepted, whereas in the present Canon, in correcting apparently what was prescribed there by way of economy, he says that all Encratites and Saccophori and Apotactites (concerning whom see the Footnotes to c. XCV of the 6th), but also even the Novatians, must be rebaptized, and that, notwithstanding that among the Asians and the Romans such rebaptism has been forbidden, for the sake of economy, yet, he says, that his rule ought to have validity and remain in effect. because their heresy is an offshoot or branch of the Marcionites, who hold marriage and wine to be disgusting and call God a creator of bad things. So that, if this opinion happens to please, a Council of Bishops ought to be held in order to make this opinion, which so far is but an opinion of some, a catholic and inviolable Canon, in order that those who follow by rebaptizing such persons may do so without danger, and so that anyone offering it in reply when asked about the matter may derive credibility from the Canon.

The present Canon decrees that if any woman has been left by her husband without there being any ground based upon fornication, she must not get married to any other man, in accordance with the decision made by the Lord which says that any man who divorces, or, as He says, "releases’" his wife, save on grounds of fornication, is causing her to commit adultery. For, inasmuch as the Lord called her an adulteress, it is obvious that He forbade her to take another husband, since, if her husband is subject to reprehension for having caused her to become an adulteress by taking another husband, it is evident that she too is subject to reprehension for getting married a second time, because she is committing adultery by doing so while her first husband is still alive, in view of the fact that she was called an adulteress by the Lord, as we have said.

(St. Gregory the Miracle-worker in his c. II.).

Deflorations that have been performed forcibly and violently upon women, decrees the present Canon, are not to be accounted a sin, owing to their having been incurred involuntarily, and consequently they are not to be punished with a penance; so that even if a slave girl has been forcibly raped by her master, she is not liable to any penalty; likewise as regards all other women and girls that have been forcibly raped in any such manner. Note also c. II of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker.

The present Canon decrees that there is no ecclesiastical law or rule to allow a third marriage: so that no such marriage is lawful, but, on the contrary, any such marriage is unlawful, and is like a pollution of the Church. Yet, a third marriage is better than the free fornication in which many women indulge, on the ground that even though it is in reality fornication it is confined to one woman. For this reason we do not expressly condemn a third marriage, to the extent of insisting upon its being annulled and on having the parties to it separated from each other, but on the contrary, we are wont to overlook it or disregard it altogether. Note also c. III of Neocaesarea.

(Ap. c. XXV; cc. IV, XXI of the 6th; c. XXXV of Carthage; cc. III, XXXII, XLIV of Basil.).

We have explained this Canon in connection with c. XXXIII of the same St. Basil, and see the Interpretation of it there. For in nothing else does it differ from that one except that that one is succincter while this one is diffuser.

If perchance any woman who is a widow slave, while under control of her master, should pretend that the man about to marry her snatched away and ravished her without her consent, she has not offended greatly by doing so, nor is she to be condemned as a fornicatrix or prostitute or harlot, since her pretended ravishment ought not to be considered, but her actual intention, seeing that she in reality wanted the marriage and gave herself willingly to the one said to have ravished her against her will. Hence such a woman is to be canonized only with the penalty and penance provided for marrying a second time, that is to say, more plainly speaking, a year or two, provided, however, that her master has consented to her marriage; for without his consent what occurred is to be considered fornication. See also c. XXXVIII of the same St. Basil, and the Footnote toe. XXVII of the 4th.

Having spoken about the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter in his c. VIII, and having nothing more to say about it than what he said therein, divine Basil allows the spiritual father fixing the penance for those guilty of involuntary manslaughter either to increase the penalty or to reduce it in accordance with the peculiarity of the circumstances, or, at any rate, in accordance with the manner and cause of the homicide, and in accordance with the disposition and inclination to repent manifested by the offender. Read also Ap. c. LXVI.

The present Canon decrees that men who kill the robbers attacking them shall be doomed to abstain from the Mysteries for three years if they happen to be laymen themselves, on the ground that they cannot be regarded as having clean hands, that is to say, in accordance with the rule obtaining in the case of those who kill men in the course of war, according to the assertions of Balsamon and Zonaras. But those who are in holy orders and clerics are to be deposed, since, according to the Lord’s assertion all who take up the sword shall be put to the sword and die by it. But note that the Saint uses the words sword and death to denote deprivation from communion and deposition, since these consequences, to the mind of prudent and knowledgeable men, are considered to be a truly death-dealing punishment. See also Ap. c. LXVI; see also the Footnote to c. XIII of the same St. Basil.

The present Canon canonizes anyone that voluntarily and wilfully killed a human being twenty years, if he has repented of the deed afterwards. It prescribes that during the first four years he shall continue weeping; during the next five years he shall keep listening, and during five years he shall leave church in the company of the listeners; for seven years he shall spend the time kneeling; for eight years he shall stand together with the faithful; and after all these years he may commence participating in the communion. See also Ap. c. LXVI, and c. XI of tne 1st, and the ichnography of a Christian temple at the end of this volume.

But as regards one who has killed a human being without wishing to do so, the present Canon forbids him the divine Mysteries for ten years. Accordingly, it decrees that he shall weep for two years, listen for three years; kneel for four years; and stand with the faithful and let them comfort him for one year more; and then he may begin partaking of communion. See Ap. c. LXVI, c. XI of the 1st, and the plan of a Christian temple.

(c. XX of Ancyra; c. IV of Nyssa.).

This Canon canonizes an adulterer to abstain from communion for fifteen years. He is to spend the first four years in weeping, the next five years in listening, four years in kneeling, and two years standing together with the faithful, and then shall be allowed to commune. See also c. XX of Ancyra.

(c. XXIX of Basil; c. IV of Nyssa.).

This Canon canonizes a fornicator to abstain, from the Mysteries for seven years. During the first two of these he is to keep weeping; during the next two he is to listen in company with the listeners (or audients); for two years he is to keep kneeling; for one year he is to stand together with the faithful; and in the eighth year he is to be accorded the right to partake of communion. This Canon is St. Basil’s own decree and the penalty it provides is his, which accounts for the latter being more severe. And see his c. XXII, and the Footnote thereto.

This Canon canonizes nuns and monks that fornicate or marry with a sentence of fifteen years, or, in other words, it subjects them to the penalty for adultery. See also c. VI of the 4th, and c. XIX of Ancyra.

The present Canon forbids communion to a thief who has confessed of his own accord and on his own initiative and who has repented, for one year only; but as touching anyone who has been exposed by others or has been caught in the act of stealing, it canonizes him to kneel for a year, Nand then for another year to stand along with the faithful, and thereafter he is to commune. See also c. III of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea.

(c. VII of Basil; c. IV of Nyssa.).

The present Canon canonizes anyone guilty of sodomy, i.e., sexual intercourse between males, like an adulterer, or, more expressly speaking, fifteen years. See also c. VII of the same St. Basil.

(cc. XVI, XVII of Ancyra; c. VII of Basil; c. IV of Nyssa.).

The present Canon canonizes likewise fifteen years anyone guilty of the crime of bestiality.

The present Canon punishes an incantator and a sorcerer in a manner similar to one who has committed involuntary manslaughter. See also c. LXI of the 6th.

The present Canon excludes from communion for ten years anyone that opens a grave in order to steal the jewelry from the buried corpse. But St. Gregory of Nyssa in his c. VII divides grave-robbing into two classes or kinds, namely, pardonable and unpardonable. Pardonable grave-robbing he says is when anyone, without disturbing the dead person, taking the stones that may happen to be found in the grave in order to employ them in building a work of greater benefit to the community; he calls it unpardonable grave-robbing, on the other hand, when anyone opens graves in order to get clothes or any jewelry or other valuables from the dead persons buried there, which offense is punished like fornication, or, more definitely speaking, with a sentence of nine years. But the Faster canonizes grave-robbers one year with xerophagy and penitence in his c. XXIX.

(c. LXXV of Basil.).

In this Canon the Saint canonizes any man that has sexual intercourse with his sister where both parties are children of the same parents, i.e., if she is his sister-german, or full-blooded sister by both father and mother, like an involuntary manslaughterer, or, more expressly, with a sentence of twenty years, according to the Anonymous Expositor of the Canons.

In his c. LXXV he canonizes eleven years any man who has sexual intercourse with his step-sister, or half-sister, that is, a sister by the father alone or by the mother alone, asserting that until he abstains from such illicit practice he is not to be permitted to enter the Church; but after abstaining from it, he is to spend three years weeping, three years listening, three years kneeling, and two years standing together with the faithful but without participating in communion, and then is to be deemed worthy of the communion. The Faster, in his c. XIV, canonizes three years with xerophagy and penances, or penitences, any man who has mingled carnally with his own sister.

Generally speaking this Canon punishes every marriage that is made with a relative and is prohibited by law, with the sentence inflicted upon adulterers, such marriage, that is to say, being first dissolved, and then punished. But it appears that St. Basil here punishes illicit marriages with the lighter sentence attached to adultery by the Fathers before him, or, more expressly, only seven years (concerning which see c. XX of Ancyra, and c. XXII of the same St. Basil), and not with his own heavier sentence, that of fifteen years, that is to say, since in proceeding to his c. LXXVIII he canonizes a man seven years if he takes two sisters.

If any Anagnost (commonly called a lector in English) indulges in sexual intercourse with his fiancee before the complete ceremony of the marriage has been carried out in church, even though it was true that she wanted this done (for the word "this" here denotes the same thing as coition), he is to be canonized one year, according to this Canon, by being suspended from duty; afterwards he is to be allowed to read in church, but cannot be promoted to any higher rank, or, in other words, he cannot become a deacon nor a presbyter, because he showed pusiIIanimity and did not have the fortitude to wait until the marriage had been duly celebrated in church. But if he has carnal knowledge of a woman who was not betrothed to him, who was not his avowed fiancee, he shall be dismissed from service, even though he may have given her a promise before the coition to take her as his lawful wife, and even though after the coition he took her as his lawful wife (for this is what is meant by the expression "clandestine marriage"). This same penalty is incurred by any other servant of the Church that does this thing (concerning which see the Footnote to c. XV of the 6th), whether he be a psalt or a doorkeeper. See also Ap. c. XXVI.

The present Canon decrees that if perchance any deacon becomes tainted in respect of his lips, or, at any rate, allows himself to be so far carried away by passion as even merely to kiss any woman amorously (for this is an attaintment and defilement of the soul; because if mere consent to any sinful act pollutes and taints the soul, much more does a passionate kiss) — if, I say, any Deacon should do this and confess, that is to say, that he sinned only to this extent, or rather to say, to this particular stage, he is to be suspended for a time from the diaconate; but as long as he remains suspended he is to be allowed to participate in communion together with the rest of the deacons, who have not incurred any reprehension, within the Bema. This same penalty is also incurred by any priest that sins in a similar manner only to the point of snatching a passionate kiss. But if he should go so far as to sin more than by snatching a passionate kiss, whether he be a priest or a deacon, as, for instance, by engaging in an indecent tussle or manipulation of the body or even downright coition, and he confesses it, both the one and the other are to be deposed from office.

(c. XXV of Ancyra.).

After speaking of the sins committed by presbyters, deacons, and the rest of ecclesiastics, now in this Canon he says that whoever knows that any of these persons have been sinning, and has failed to confess the fact secretly to the prelate so that the latter may correct them, or if he himself was able to prevent them from committing it by a secret reminder or whispered suggestion, but he covers up the fact and keeps silent, if, I say, it be established thereafter that he knew about it but kept silent and covered up the facts, he too is to be canonized equally with them and to abstain from communion as long a time as the one was canonized who actually committed the sin he knew about. See also c. XXV of Ancyra, and the Footnote to c. III of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker.

(c. LXI of the 6th.).

The present Canon canonizes like voluntary man slaughterers, or, more expressly, twenty years, according to the Anonymous Expositor, those who abandon themselves to the advice of fortune-tellers or other such persons professing to incantators, spellbinders, etc. See also c. LXI of the 6th.

The present Canon canonizes indefinitely any and every Christian who denies (willfully, that is to say) Christ to exclusion from the Church for the rest of his life, though allowing him to weep outside of the portal of the church, and only at the end of his life to partake of the divine Mysteries. See also c. XI of the 1st.

After enumerating the various sentences pertaining to various sins, the Saint lastly in this Canon puts everything up to the prelate and spiritual father, who has authority to bind and to loose, and says that if they see the sinners repenting with fervor and willingness, they incur no censure if they shorten the sentences meted out to them originally, since the divine Bible teaches that God’s mercy quickly reaches those who repent with greater painfulness of the heart, a fact which was proved in regard to Ezekiel and Manasses. See also c. XII of the 1st.

We have interpreted this Canon in connection with c. LXVII of the same St. Basil, and see the Interpretation of it there.

In a manner similar to the treatment accorded to a man having sexual intercourse with his step-sister, the present Canon canonizes anyone who takes his sister-in-law or daughter-in-law (both of whom are called nymphs in Greek) to wife, or, more definitely speaking, eleven years, and with the same apportionment of time, the illicit marriage, that-is to say, having been previously dissolved. But the Faster in his c. XV canonizes such a person two years with xerophagy and penances.

This Canon has been borrowed verbatim from c. LXXXVII of the 6th, and see the Interpretation of it there.

(c. II of Neocaesarea.).

In like fashion with the case of one who abandons his wife and marries another woman, the present Canon canonizes anyone who, after his wife dies, takes her sister, which is the same as saying, one who marries two sisters, fixing his sentence, that is to say, at seven years, which is the sentence imposed for adultery and prescribed by the Fathers.

The present Canon canonizes those who have sexual intercourse with their mother-in-laws with the same canon (i.e., the same canonical penalty) as those who have sexual intercourse with their own sisters: that is to say, if they be of the one and the same father and mother, twenty years, in accordance with Canon LXVII, but if it be with sisters by two different fathers or by two different mothers, eleven years, in accordance with c. LXXV of the same St. Basil.

(c. XIV of the 1st; c. XCIV of the 6th; cc. IV, VI, V of Ancyra; c. III of Peter; c. LXXIII of Basil; c. III of Nyssa.).

The present Canon decrees that all persons who were caught in the incursion of the barbarians and denied the faith in the true God, took Grecian oaths, swore, that is to say, by the gods the Grecians recognized, with the same disposition as that which the Grecians were wont to display, and ate foods that had been offered, to the idols with magical arts and rites, they are to be treated economically in accordance with the Canons of the Fathers (perhaps those of Ancyra). And all those persons who were severely tortured, and, being unable to bear the pain, denied, let them not be admitted for three years, and let them kneel for three years, stand for three years along with the faithful, and then partake of communion. And see also c. XIV of the 1st. and cc. IV and V of Ancvra.

Since in his c. LXIV this Saint canonized the perjurer vaguely ten years, now in this Canon he makes a distinction between perjurers, and canonizes six years those who committed perjury as a result of necessity and violence, but canonizes eleven years those who betrayed their faith without any necessity, or, more explicitly speaking, who committed perjury (since every oath is taken in the name of God, and consequently everyone that transgresses is transgressing his faith in God): Two years are allotted for them to weep, two to listen, five to spend in kneeling, two in co-standing, and then they are allowed to commune. See also c. XCIV of the 6th.

The present Canon is borrowed verbatim from c. XXIV of Ancyra, and see the Interpretation of it there. The only respect in which it differs from that one is tliat that one apportions the five years economically and in a different manner, while this Canon consulters of divination to six years, one year for them to weep, one to listen, three to kneel, one to stand together with the faithful, and they are to partake of communion. Notice that the Saint canonized diviners and sorcerers (including seers and fortune-tellers) as murderers in his c. VII with his own penalty, that is to say; but here he canonized them lightly, on the basis of the penalty set by the Fathers preceding him in time. See also c. LXI of the 6th.

After the Saint had decreed various sentences for various penalties, he adds in the present Canon that the fruits of repentance ought to be tested, since we do not consider the penalties to consist in so many or so many years, but pay more attention to the disposition of the penitents.¹ So that, for instance, if they willingly and gladly repent, the number of years is to be reduced; but if negligently, it is to be increased. If, on the other hand, they continue sinning and refuse to abstain from their sins and pleasures, nor are willing to live in accordance with the Gospel like Christians, but, instead, are contumacious and gainsay, then we, who are prelates and spiritual fathers acting as managers of their souls, ought not to join in their sins, but ought to let them alone. For we are told by divine Scripture: "If you can save anything, save your own soul!" the meaning of which is, "See that you do not torment your own soul in accosting incorrigible sinners."

This Canon is intended to admonish prelates and spiritual fathers, by begging and saying to them: So we managers of souls ought to fear the Lord’s judgment and retribution. Let us not suffer chastisement ourselves with the outlandish sins of such unrepentant and incorrigible sinners, by dealing with them too compromisingly. For if the Christians who dared to commit such sins were abandoned by God because of those sins, and were enslaved by the barbarians, and failed to come to their senses, nor took heed to realize that it was on account of their iniquities that such a great blow and such wrath of God fell upon them; if, I say, so many woes did not suffice to correct them, what communion can we have with such a stiff-necked people? None, of course. Hence it is our bounden duty to teach them and to criticize them every day in the year both publicly and privately, and to beg God to rescue them from the Devil’s snare. But if we cannot compass their liberation, we ought not to wreck ourselves with their cunning tricks, but, instead, we ought rather to make serious efforts to escape everlasting hell.

We have interpreted this Canon almost verbatim in our Interpretation of Ap. c. LI, and see the Interpretation of it there. As to Encratites, or Continents, see the Footnotes to c. XCV of the 6th.

It appears from this preamble and from c. XXIII of the Saint that divine Basil in a letter had prohibited one and the same man from taking the sister of his deceased wife, which is the same as saying, from taking two sisters. But this Diodorus,⁴ when asked by someone whether it is permissible to take them, replied in writing that it was permissible. Hence when the asker of the question received the reply containing this written permission, he went and showed it to St. Basil the Great. For this reason the Saint, in the desire to put Diodorus to shame in the eyes of another person, as Zonaras says, wrote to him that that written permission was not really from Diodorus, but had been forged by someone else who, in order to make it appear credible to his audience signed the name of Diodorus to it (perhaps, too, it may have really been from somebody else, and not that the Saint so pretended in order to rebuke him in an oblique manner). Hence in adding up accounts in connection with that first letter he was compelled to write also this one, in order to overthrow that unlawful marriage with double power in such a manner as to overwhelm all opposition.

After the Saint had prefixed the foregoing preamble, he now sets out to refute that ghostly forged written permission for one and the same man to take two sisters to wife. Accordingly, he says that the first proof that such a marriage is not allowed is the custom which has prevailed in the Church and which has the force of a law, on the ground that it was handed down by saintly men, and which decrees as follows: That, if anyone takes to wife two sisters, such a thing is not even to be regarded as a marriage, nor are they to be allowed to enter the church until they have separated. So that, if we have no other basis for reckoning up accounts in the way of forbidding such a marriage, the custom alone of the Church is enough and sufficient to forbid it. But inasmuch as the man who displayed the false letter from Diodorus cited testimony from the Book of Leviticus in confirmation of the validity of this unlawful marriage, which says, when paraphrased: ‘If you don’t want to make your wife jealous, don’t take to wife her sister while she is still alive,’ and from this passage he infers that if the Law forbids anyone to take a sister of his wife as long as she is still living, then it is permissible to take her after his wife is dead. To that rotten argument, I say, our reply is: First of all, that everything that the old Law says, it says it to the Jews who are in the Law, and not to us Christians. If anyone objects that it is said also for us, why then consistency would require us to accept the painful provisions of the Law, such as keeping the Sabbath and practicing circumcision, and shunning the foods prohibited by the Law, just as we gladly accept and conform to the ordinances of the Law which tend to foster sensual pleasures, and not, on the contrary, to accept whatever is pleasurable and light, as though we were under the Law, but to refuse to accept whatever provisions in it are painful and burdensom, saying in opposition thereto that we are basking in the freedom which Christ has allowed us. We have been asked whether it is written that a man hiay take to wife a sister of his wife, and we have said that it is not, which is true and sure. But for one to infer, on the other hand, from the sequence of the words something that Scripture has apparently passed over in silence, that is not the part of one who wishes to assert what the Law says, but of one who wants to lay down the law himself. For, if he infers that the law prohibited anyone from taking to wife a sister of his wife, not after the latter is dead, but while she is still alive, that since the Law forbade taking a sister who might arouse jealousy in the other, it follows that if she is not jealous he may take her sister even when she is alive, which is the same as saying that a man may take two sisters at the same time. But if anyone says that this is not written, we reply that neither is that written, but just as the one idea is inferred from the sequence of the words, so and in like manner is the other inferred too. But why did not Moses punctuate the sentence so as to forbid a man from taking a sister of his wife after the latter is dead? By way of solving this perplexity, the Saint says that Moses had no intention to include in the foregoing chapter of Leviticus every kind of relation in regard to marriage, insomuch as to justify the expectation that he would include that too, but, on the contrary, he prohibited only those relations which the Egyptians took, from whom the Jews had fled, and whatever the Canaanites were wont to take, to whom they were going. And whence is that plainly evident? From those things which the same chapter mentions back in the commencement of it, by saying, in paraphrase: ‘Do not do as the Egyptians do, among whom you were sojourning, nor do as the Canaanites do, to whose land I am going to take you.’ Hence it is likely that this form of marriage was not in vogue among the Egyptians and the Canaanites, and for this reason Moses did not refer to it, but contented himself with custom which censures such a thing. But why did he explicitly forbid a man to take in addition to his wife the latter’s sister? He saw many flesh-lovers doing this because they saw that the Patriarch Jacob had two living sisters at the same time, Leah and Rachel. Nevertheless, we ought to assert what is written in the Law, and not what we assume to have been omitted in silence. For, as a matter of fact, the Law omitted to state that father and son ought not to use the same slave girl as a whore, whereas the prophet Amos vehemently censures this, by saying, in paraphrase, ‘a father and his son were going into the same slave girl and fornicating with her. And the demons taught men a lot of other kinds of filthiness, but the divine Scripture did not care to pollute its fair face by naming them individually; instead it passed over them in silence, lumping them together in general terms, as St. Paul says, in paraphrase: ‘As for fornication and every other kind of filth, let it not be mentioned among you, as befits saints,’ where by the word "filth" is meant to be included every kind of lewdness rife among men and women. So that there is no permission given to lovers of human flesh to contract such an unlawful marriage tie, simply because the divine Scripture kept silent about it. As for us, however, when we come to examine the matter, we find that the Law did not keep silent about this, but in fact actually prohibited it. For that which it says, namely, in paraphrase, ‘You shall not go into any relative of yours to uncover his nakedness,’ includes every unlawful marriage tie with relatives and intimates, or members of the same family. By consequence, on the other hand, it also includes this. For if a husband and his wife are one flesh, and there is no one else more intimately related to a man than his wife, save his own flesh, that is to say, then, even the sister of his wife through her becomes also a relative of the husband and an intimate of his, that is to say, a sister of his. Accordingly, just as a man cannot take his wife’s mother, nor a daughter of his wife by another man, since he neither can take his own mother nor his own daughter owing to the intimacy (for he stands in a relationship of the first degree both to the one and to the other) so and in like manner neither can he take his wife’s sister, since neither can he take his own sister (for he stands in a relationship of the second degree both to the one and to the other); and, conversely, neither can a woman take a brother of her dead husband, nor any other of the latter’s relatives. The Saint goes on to cite also the following assertions of the Apostle, to wit, in paraphrase: ‘That the shape of this world is changing, and that there is not much time left in which to fool around; and even those who have lawful wives ought to regard them in the same light as though they had none at all.’ But if anyone objects, or counterargues, that God made it a law to increase and multiply, and laid it down in express terms to the protoplasts, and that Adam’s children married one another in spite of the fact that they were brothers and sisters of the same parents, I deride and laugh to scorn the man who says these things and is unable to discern that in those days it was necessary to do this, because there were no other human beings of any other race, whereas nowadays there are many different races, so that this argument does not hold water. Besides, a second marriage is an obstacle and a bar, as well as a bridle, which has the effect of restricting fornication, and is not a pleasure ground for materialists and a happy hunting ground for lechers. Even St. Paul, in writing to those who marry a second time, says that if they cannot remain continent, let them marry; he did not, however, add that after marrying a second time they might indulge in transgressions of the law, as do those who marry two sisters. The Saint thereupon proceeds to prove the absurdity of such a marriage by pointing out the confusion which results with respect to the names. For the children born of such parents, how can those practicing such a matrimonial affair name them? Brothers and sisters begotten by the same father? or nephews and nieces, that is to say, cousins,² on the ground that they were born of the same mother? For both designations are equally applicable to them on account of the confusion of nature, who, according to her physical laws, made brothers and sisters different from each other. And that is not all: there results also another confusion. For when a man takes the sister of his former wife, he makes the aunt of his children by the first marriage a stepmother, and in consequence he makes the woman jealous and envious of them who is taking care of them like a mother. For every stepmother¹ is naturally jealous of her husband’s children born of another marriage. Thus although hatred for other enemies wanes when their enemies die, the hatred of stepmothers flares up when their rivals die. And, to tell the whole story in brief, if anyone is inclined to marry a second time and take a lawful wife, the whole inhabited earth is open to him and of course he will be able to find a woman to make his wife that is not prohibited by law; but if he loves passionately a woman unlawful to him and seeks to marry her, let him be shut off from her all the more on this account and let him not be permitted to take her, in order tp teach him to obtain his vessel, or his body, or his wife, with sanctification, as St. Paul says, and not with an impetuous surge of passion. I should have liked, he says, to write even more things to you, but the length of my letter prevents me, since letters ought not to be unduly prolix. I hope that my letter either defeats and frustrates that unlawful marriage, or, if it fails to defeat it, that it will prevent its becoming a custom in our own province, but, instead, that it remain confined to those regions where it first made its daring appearance.

(cc. VI, V, X of the 3rd; cc. XVIII, XXII of the 7th; c. XLV of Carthage· c. LXXXVIII of Basil.).

This man Gregory having been at fault in the matter of morality on account of his keeping a virgin woman and nun in his home to attend him as a servant. St. Basil the Great wrote to him to chase her away. Gregory, however, with many excuses for his misconduct, tried to defend himself. Hence in the present letter the Saint first reproaches him because though able to defend himself readily enough by actual deeds, as by chasing the woman away, he offers countless excuses and pretexts. Secondly the Saint tells him that it was not St. Basil that made it law for clerics and those in holy orders not to have women as cohabitants, but the First Ecumenical Council in its c. III. Afterwards he adds that virgin men and those in holy orders have this claim to respectability, namely, their being excluded from association with womankind. If perchance any one of them should profess to be a virgin, but should nevertheless cohabit with women, he is merely proving that his love of virginity was confined to words, whereas in point of deeds he was not willing to deny himself the pleasures to be enjoyed with women. So, Gregory, you ought, he tells him, as readily obey us and chase the woman away as you are declaring that you are not concerned about her. For a readiness and quickness to expel the woman would serve to confirm your unconcern for her; because not even I would ever believe that you who are a man in. his seventies would be passionately and pleasurably cohabiting with the woman. But inasmuch as we have been taught by the Apostle not to give offense to others, and since that which others may do without passion and sin such as that, for example, which you are now doing yourself- may be something which may cause others to become passionate and induce them to sin by setting them an example, for all these reasons we have ordered you to chase the woman away from your home, in conformity with c. III of the Nicene Council; and do not accuse either the chorepiscopus of being your enemy as you allege and of having called my attention to the woman, or me on the theory that I am prone to believe in calumnies; but blame yourself for being unwilling to separate from the woman. So cast her out and put her in a monastery; and let her be like a virgin living with virgin women and nuns, while you, as a man, have men serve you, in order to prevent the name of God from being blasphemed by unbelievers on your account when they see you. If, on the other hand, you refuse to chase the woman away, rest assured that in spite of all the myriads of excuses you may offer, you will have to render an account for your suspension from duty as the cause of it, not I. If, again, you dare to continue performing the priestly offices before having corrected yourself, you will be anathematized by all the laity, and any persons that accept you will be chased out of every church. See also c. III of the 1st.

(c. XIII of Ancyra; c. XIV of Neocaesarea; cc. VIII, X of Antioch; e. LVII of Laodicea; c. VI of Sardica.).

In this letter St. Basil the Great is blaming the chorepiscopi for violating the old custom which used to be in vogue in the Church, and which was one requiring all persons who were about to become servants of the Church, subdeacons, that is to say, anagnosts and exorcists (concerning whom see the Footnote to c. XV of the 6th), to be examined first by the presbyters and deacons to make sure that they were not revilers or drunkards, that they were bridling the carnal impulses of youth; and thereupon they themselves were to decide ,about them; but they were to report their decision to the chorepiscopi, and the chorepiscopi in turn to the bishops; and in such a manner as this they were to be free to enroll them among the clergy. Nowadays, however, what happens, he says, is quite the opposite. For neither do presbyters and deacons examine them, but in compliance with requests they make no scruples in deciding in favor of their relatives and friends, nor do the chorepiscopi report them or mention them to the bishops. Wherefore, as a result of such violations and transgressions of the Canon, a large number of subdeacons and anagnosts and exorcists and other clerics are to be found in every village, but there is not one of them that is worthy to become a priest. For this reason the Saint is ordering the chorepiscopi to send him a list of such servants showing by which chorepiscopus each one of them was accorded admission, and what sort of person he is in respect of his manner of living; and to keep a copy of the same list for themselves, so as to be able to prevent anyone from enrolling himself in this manner in the list whenever he should so choose to do. Accordingly, as for all servants (he tells them) that have been elected by the presbyters alone at a later date than the first indiction, they are to be shunted into the ranks of the laymen. But when they are examined by you chorepiscopi afresh, they may be admitted if you so decide. Chasing the unworthy out of the Church hereafter and henceforth, admit only the worthy; but do not enroll them in the clergy without first submitting a report of the matter to us, since, if any of you without our consent and approval admits anyone into the service, the one you admit will be deposed therefrom and will be shunted into the order of laymen. See also the Footnote to c. VIII of the 1st, and c. XXXIX of Carthage, and the Footnote to Ap. c. XVII.

When divine Basil learned that bishops subject to his jurisdiction were taking money from the persons they ordained, he wrote the present letter to them and told them that the assertion pained him greatly the moment it was spoken and was merely suspected, though at first he considered it incredible. Hence, he says, as for what I am writing to you, let anyone who has committed this transgression take it as a medicine for his wickedness; as for anyone, on the other hand, who has not committed it, let him accept !t as a prophylactic; and as for anyone that remains indifferent, or, in others, that perpetrates this evil and does not think it an evil at all (which plight of indifference I hope to God will not be found amongst you), let him take this latter as an order and threat. At any rate, certain persons are saying that you are taking money from the persons you are ordaining, and that you cloak this evil with the name of piety, alleging that you do this as something that is good and pious, which is worse; for anyone that does something bad and afterwards pretends that he was doing something good, actually deserves a double punishment, both because he committed the evil act, and because he employed the good, or, more expressly speaking, the name of the good, as a tool and mask in doing the evil. Hence, if these things are as asserted, let them not be done hereafter, but let them be corrected, since we are under the necessity of telling anyone that wishes to take money as payment for ordination the words which St. Peter told Simon, viz: "Thy money perish with thee." Thus the man who pays the money sins more lightly, because in his lack of knowledge he seeks to buy that which he has not; whereas thou, since thou art selling the grace which thou hast received free of charge, shalt be deprived of it on the ground that thou art a slave sold to the Devil; or, in other words, thou shalt be deposed from office, because thou art introducing into the Church a dirty and dishonourable business (for that is what is meant by the term "trafficking"), where we have been charged to keep the most precious and priceless Mysteries of the body and blood of Christ; which is the same as saying, because you have been traffickingly and dishonorably selling the Mysteries of Christ which are beyond every price. But inasmuch as the Bishops succeeded by artifice in concealing this sin, and thought that it was not any sin to take money after the ordination, the Saint tells that the taking of money at any time by them is taking, whether it be before the ordination, or during the ordination, or after the ordination; and consequently that it is a sin. So I beg you, he orders them, throw away such profit which only leads you to hell, and do not make yourselves unworthy to conduct the divine Mysteries, by having your hands polluted by such unlawful money. For any one of you who after these orders are brought to your attention shall do any such thing, shall be forbidden the right to conduct divine services here in my province, and let him go where he can buy and sell the grace of God, since we and the churches of God have no such custom, as St. Paul says. The fact is, of course, that when you sell the grace of God for money you are doing so out of avarice; but avarice is the root of all evils, and is called idolatry by St. Paul. So do not give idols the preference over Christ; neither imitate Judas by betraying for money, like Judas, a second time the Christ who was crucified but once in our behalf. For, as you well know, the field bought with the thirty pieces of silver for which the Lord was betrayed was named Aceldama, as the Acts of the Apostles inform us (which name denotes a place and price of blood); and thus even the hands of bishops that accept such money, and the dioceses and villages both of those who pay it and of those who take it shall be called a place and price of blood. Read also Ap. c. XXIX.

This Canon too likewise concerns unscriptural and unwritten traditions of the Church. It asserts that if Pneumatomachs will not accept the Doxology of the Father and of the Son "together with" the Spirit, because it is not found written in Scripture, if it be shown that we do not admit any other unwritten and unscriptural usage, let this one not be admitted either. But if there are many unwritten usages to be found in the Church, let there be admitted together with the others also the Doxology of the Spirit together with the Father and the Son. For we have been taught by the Apostle to keep also unwritten traditions, since he says: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you." And again: "Hold on to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether orally or through an epistle of ours." Of which traditions one is the Doxology of the Holy Spirit, which earlier authorities delivered to later ones, and with the passage of a lot of time and long use and custom have rooted deeply in the churches. So that if, let us say, we are judge as regarding the question of doxologizing the Spirit together with the other two persons of the Trinity, and we have no written proofs, but wish to produce many witnesses, ought we not to have the right to do so? since Scripture says: "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (Deut. 19:15). (Cf. Matt. 18:16). But if we should also be able to show the antiquity of time and long priority in this matter will lend us much assistance, might we not do well enough without a judicial trial, but, instead, have our case tried at once, seeing that we have the equipment needed for a victory? For the dogmas that have come down from old exert an awesome effect upon everyone and are convincing evidence, being venerable and worthy of reverence on account of their antiquity. Further below the Saint adds in the same chapter many old-time witnesses, and especially the Saints, who stated this in writing and who used to doxologize in the following words: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit."

Our Father among saints Gregory, who was Bishop of Nyssa, Cappadocia, and a full-blooded brother of St. Basil the Great, after formerly serving as an Anagnost, afterwards left his own rank and gave himself up to the study of the art of oratory, but was recalled to his rank by the reprehensive exhortations of St. Gregory the Theologian. But before becoming a bishop, he married a woman by the name of Theosebia, whose death he endured bravely enough; and in the year he was made Bishop of Nyssa. A little later having been banished from the episcopate or bishopric for his zeal in regard to the faith by order of Valens, he walked about in various regions, being greatly harassed by plots of the Arians. In the year 378, when Valens died, he was recalled to the episcopal throne by Gratian. While attending the Council held in the district of Antioch, he was sent by it into Arabia together with other bishops in order to visit the churches there. After coming to Jerusalem and making a pilgrimage of the holy places, he became disgusted with the vices he saw practiced there; on which account he wrote to his friend the letter giving advice to those going to Jerusalem. When he attended the Second holy and Ecumenical Council held in the year 381, he completed the contents of the Creed adopted by the Council in Nicaea, by adding the theology of the Holy Spirit and the four other articles to the end of it. He also attended the local Council held in Constantinople in regard to Agapius and Bagadius, in the year 394. Besides his other all-wise writings, he wrote also these Canons, which are necessary to the good order and constitution of the Church, and which are confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and c. I of the 7th, and definitely by c. II of the 6th Ecum. C., and by virtue of this confirmation they acquire a force which is in a way ecumenical. They are to be found in the second volume of the Pandects, and on page 349 of the first volume of the Conciliar Records.

At the time of the festival of Easter the Saint appears to have sent this epistle; on which account and owing to the circumstance of the prevailing weather he begins the preamble, or introductory part, by saying: one of the things that lend effect to this festival is that of casting about in our mind to find a plan or means of curing every mental illness of sinners, in a lawful and canonical way. For, inasmuch as this universal festival of Easter is celebrated for the purpose of calling attention to the resurrection of the body of fallen and corrupt Adam, it is well to observe that sin too is a fall of the soul, just as a correction of the sin is a resurrection of the soul; and on account of this similarity it is fitting during this festival not only to offer God men who have been rendered spiritually imperishable by being regenerated through holy baptism (for it was during Easter that catechumens were baptized in those days, and see c. XLV of Laodicea), but also to guide those persons to salvation who through repentance and abstention from the dead works of sin are returning to the living way of virtue, as the Apostle says. Nevertheless, there is no little difficulty in managing with a correct and infallible judgment the reasons and causes of the correction of such sinners. For David says that a righteous man ought to manage his accounts and reckonings with great discernment, in order to ensure that his memory will not be disturbed ever at any time, but to ensure that it will remain forever. For, just as the medical art pertaining to human bodies has but one object, that of curing the patient, yet the treatment and care given him is not one and the same, but of many varieties and different in different cases, being similar, that is to say, to the different and various kinds of illness, so and in like manner the medical art pertaining to souls, employs different treatments of many kinds and in many ways according to the different and many kinds of illnesses affecting the soul in many ways. In order to present our doctrine concerning this in a methodical and orderly manner, let us begin in such a manner as this. The soul has three parts, or faculties, namely, the ratio-cinative faculty (or reason proper), the desiderative, and the affective. Both virtues and vices are practiced by these three faculties. On this account any spiritual physician that wishes to give treatment in an experienced and skillful manner ought first to examine the patient with a view to finding out in which of these three parts each particular sin is committed, and then on this basis to treat the ailing and weak part, and not to be treating a different part than the one which is III, just as we see many inexperienced physicians aggravating the ailment rather than remedying it, because they do not know which part is the one at fault. For example, the illness is often due to an excess of heat, while they give the inflamed patient, not cold and cooling remedies (as the reckoning of the medical art demands), but warm and hot ones which are of benefit only to those suffering from cold, and thereby render the ailment harder to cure. So, just as an acquaintance with the peculiar nature of each of the four elements is considered to be extremely necessary to physicians, the said elements being, to wit, heat, cold, dryness, and moisture, in order to be able by means of this knowledge to correct their unnatural motion and disorder, so and in like manner a general and elementary knowledge of the said three faculties, or parts, of the soul is necessary to spiritual physicians, in order that they may be able to treat the diseases of the soul properly. Let us therefore proceed at once to state that the virtues of the ratiocinative faculty, to begin with, are respect for and faith in God, discernment of what is good and what is bad, a distinct and unconfused knowledge and conception of the nature of beings, which is well advised as to which beings ought to be loved, and which ought to be hated and shunned. Its vices, on the opposite of the picture, are disrespect for and disbelief in God, lack of discernment and erroneous knowledge of what is truly good and of what is truly bad, which mentation deems light to be darkness, and darkness to be light, or, in other words, virtue to be vice, and vice to be virtue, which sort of mentation is deplored by Isaiah. The virtue of the desiderative faculty, again, is that of elevating the yearning to that which is fine and truly desirable, and to spend all its power of loving on that object, in the conviction that there is no other thing that is naturally desirable save virtue and the cause of all virtue, who is none other than God. Its vices, on the other hand, are when it transfers desire to ambition, to beauty of body, to avarice, to love of pleasure, and to other similar things. The virtues, again, of the affective faculty are hatred of sin, war upon the passions, bravery of soul, which is not afraid of what causes others to tremble with fear, but, on the contrary, it resists sin even to the point of incurring bloodshed, that of scorning all tortures and pains when it is fighting in behalf of faith and virtue. Its chief vices are envy, hatred of one’s neighbor, quarreling, quarrels, insults, grudges, malice, the revengeful disposition which has pulled many men down into murder and bloodshed. Thus instinctive affection which was given to man by God as auxiliary arm becomes a destructive arm in the hands of a man who misuses it.

Having said in the preceding Canon what vices pertain to each part of the soul, the Saint now in the present Canon is dealing with the penalties fixed for the same vices. Accordingly, he says: That the Fathers deemed the sins of the ratiocinative faculty worse than those of the other parts of the soul, and consequently to deserve greater and more painful repentance and expiation. For example: If anyone has denied Christ and has become a Jew, or an idolater, or a Manichee, or anything else of this kind, and if he has done so of his own accord without being under any necessity or constrained by force to do so, that person, after returning again to piety (i.e., to the Orthodox religion), incurs a canon of repentance throughout the rest of his life, and shall never be able to pray together with the faithful in church, but only shall be allowed to pray outside the church along with catechumens, nor shall he be deemed worthy to partake of the divine Mysteries, save only at the end of his life; if, however, after being in peril of death he commune and thereafter regain his health, he will again come under the same canon (i.e., sentence) of being denied the right to commune to the end of his life. As for those, on the other hand, who have denied Christ as a result of torture and punishment, they have been canonized (i.e., sentenced) the same as fornicators by the Fathers, or, more expressly speaking, to be excluded from communion for nine years. For the Fathers treated them kindly because they did not deny as a matter of choice and of their own free will, but only as a result of the weakness of flesh, which could not endure the tortures. See c. XI of the 1st.

The Saint canonizes in the Canon sorcery and divination, both of which offenses are sins of the ratiocinative faculty, by saying: Any persons that go to sorcerers and soothsayers, or to those who promise to purify them with the help and through the operation of demons from diseases or misfortunes or predicaments such as the evil eye, or any other evils they happen to be suffering, they ought to be asked, and if they insist that they believe in Christ, but that on account of some necessity arising from illness or from some great injury or loss they became faint-hearted and did this, thinking that they would thereby be relieved from these afflictions by means of divination or other magical means, they shall be canonized like those who denied Christ as a result of tortures, or, more expressly speaking, nine years. But if, on the other hand, they appear to have disregarded the belief in Christ and to have scorned God’s help as coming from the God adored by Christians, and to have resorted to the demons’ help, they are to be canonized like those who have willfully and voluntarily denied Christ. See also c. LXI of the 6th.

The Saint is decreeing in this Canon respecting penalties pertaining to the desiderative faculty in connection with sinful deeds, and first of all as respecting fornication, by stating that the more accurate and more discerning authorities say that fornication is considered to be regarded as adultery, and offer some such proof as the following. For, if adultery is a sin committed with a strange woman, by the same token fornication is to be regarded as a sin committed with a strange woman too and therefore is to be considered adultery. For there can be but one lawful conjugal relationship and coition of a woman with a man, and of a man with a woman, which takes place with his own body. Every other kind of sexual intercourse, besides this, is unlawful, and consequently is not had with one’s own body, but with a strange body, since in the beginning God gave man only one wife, and woman only one husband. And so, if one has a vessel of his own (as St. Paul says), or, in more express terms, a wife, he is allowed to have sexual intercourse with her; but if he has sexual intercourse with any other besides his own, then, of course, he is guilty of coition with a strange body, even though the latter has no definite and manifest owner. But it is apparent, however, that all these acts follow the course of fornication; so, according to this proof, is not far from being adultery, and indeed this agrees with what Solomon says: "Be not too intimate with a strange woman"; or, in other words, do not commit any breach of propriety with a strange woman, i.e., with a whore. Nevertheless, in spite of all these facts, the Fathers indulgently call the sin committed with any woman fornication, provided no other man has any right to exact revenge for the deed: this amounts to saying that when a man commits the sin with any unmarried woman it is fornication. Hence they canonized it more leniently than adultery, to nine years; that signifies that fornicators are sentenced to weep outside the narthex for three years, to listen for three years, and to kneel for three years, and thereafter to partake of communion (see also c. XXII of St. Basil). It is competent, however, to the spiritual physician to reduce the number of years of listening for those fornicators who repent more eagerly, as well as to reduce the number of years of kneeling, and to allow them to participate in the Mysteries sooner than they would be allowed to do without a commutation of their sentence, in accordance with his opinion of the disposition of the penitent. For, just as it is absurd for one to throw pearls, the holy mysteries, that is to say, to swine, to the impure, that is to say, who are not genuinely repentant, so and in like manner it is also absurd for one to deny the most precious Pearl, or, more expressly speaking, the body of Christ, to a man who has been purified through the process of repentance and abstention from the evil, and who has become reconverted from a swine into a human being. So much for fornication. As for adultery, sodomy, and bestiality, the Fathers canonized these sins doubly more than fornication, or, more expressly, each of them eighteen years, because the sin involved in them is also double. For, that is to say, adultery, besides the unlawful pleasure it affords, also inflicts an injustice upon the husband of the woman with whom the guilty man has committed the adultery, because he appropriated unjustly that husband’s own property, his wife, that is to say. As for sodomy, on the other hand, and bestiality (or sexual intercourse with beasts), in these too besides the unlawful pleasure they afford, there is an actual injustice done to what is strange or unnatural, or, more explicitly speaking, they violate the laws of nature, in that they are sins contrary to nature. The number of years for each of these sinful deeds has likewise been economically fixed like those for fornication, but doubly as many: that is to say, in other words, adulterers are to spend six years in weeping outside the church, and so are those guilty of sodomy and of bestiality; they are to listen for six years, and to kneel for six years more, and then they are to commune. Nevertheless, the disposition of such persons has to be observed by the spiritual father, as is also that of fornicators, so that, if they repent more willingly and more eagerly, he may allow them the sooner to partake of communion; but if they revert more negligently, he may not allow to them the right to commune even later than the eighteen years. The general medical treatment both of fornicators and of adulterers and of sodomists and of bestialists is to have them abstain entirely from such pleasures as these and to repent. But there is also a difference in the manner of the confession made by such sinners as these. For the one who of his own accord goes and confesses is canonized more philanthropically and more lightly, owing to the fact he himself has seen fit to accuse himself, and to show a sign of change for the better; whereas the one who formerly denied his guilt, but was later convicted of sinning, whether as a result of a suspicion, or as a result of accusations lodged against him by others, he is canonized more heavily and sentenced to a much longer time, to a greater number of years. See also cc. XVI and XX of Ancyra, and c. VII of St. Basil, and c. XII of the 1st, which provides that leniency shall be adjusted to correspond with the repentance shown by the sinner.

The present Canon decrees with regard to the penalties for sinful deeds of the third, or affective, faculty of the soul, by saying that as for other sins stemming from the affective faculty, the Fathers did not deem it reasonable to go into details, and consequently they took no pains to affix penalties to so many different sins of this faculty (even in spite of the fact that the Bible prohibits not only a mere blow, but also every vituperation and blasphemy, and whatever else of this kind is begotten of the instinct of anger), but it penalized only murder. Murder is divided into two kinds: one is that which is willful and voluntary; the other is that which is involuntary and against the will. Voluntary murder is that which is committed when anyone kills a human being after premeditation and preparation; it is also a case of voluntary murder when anyone fighting with another person, and hitting and being hit, deals a mortal blow in a vulnerable and dangerous spot. For that man who has once been overcome by anger, no longer can reflect and consider what part is dangerous and what part is safe. Hence a murder resulting from such a fight as this is voluntary and willful, and not involuntary. The signs of involuntary murder are, for instance, when one intent upon doing something else, happens, without so wishing, to commit a murder; as, for instance, while one is throwing a stone at a tree in order to knock off fruit, a man happens to be passing by, and it kills him. So one who has committed voluntary murder is canonized to thrice nine, or twenty-seven, years; of these the first nine years are to be spent among the weepers while standing outside the door of the narthex; the next nine among the penitents listening to the divine Scriptures; and the last nine among the kneelers; and then he may commune. Nevertheless, the spiritual physician according to the eager repentance of the murderer ought to take care to reduce the number of years of the sentence he has incurred, so that the nine years allotted to each rank, that of weeping, that is to say, and that of listening, and that of kneeling, are commuted to eight, or seven, or six, or five only, if the murderer, that is to say, with the magnitude of his repentance defeats the long length of time involved in the sentences, and being canonized to a smaller number of years, produces fruits of repentance more than those produced by persons canonized to longer terms. Such a person, however, forfeits his connection with the priesthood (or, in other words, anyone who murders a man, even though involuntarily and against his own will, and who is a layman withal, cannot become a priest; or if he is a priest, he is deposed from office) and is canonized nine years after the manner of a fornicator. But if the repentance of this man is genuine and eager, the spiritual father will canonize him to a smaller number of years, and will sooner allow him to commune. Note, however, that if anyone among the penitents is in danger of dying, before he has completed the years of his canon, he is allowed by the philanthropy of the Fathers to commune, in order to avoid leaving him destitute of the viaticum of the Mysteries, which greatly conduces to that long journey through death. But if he recovers, he is to be kept excluded from communion and doing the years of his sentence from the point where he left off before communing. See Ap. c. LXVI, cc. XII and XIII of the 1st, and the plan of the Temple.

After stating the penalties attached to the sinful deeds of each particular faculty of the soul separately, the Saint now speaks also about greediness, which is called "idolatry" by St. Paul and which can be found in all three of the soul’s faculties. It is found in the ratiocinative faculty, because reason, failing to discern what thing is truly beautiful or fine, and not looking at immaterial beauty, thinks that the matter composing gold and silver is what is really beautiful and fine. It is found in the de-siderative faculty, because desire is fixed upon earthly profits, and leaves aside that which is really desirable, God, that is to say. It is also found in the effective faculty, because many fits of anger and fights are caused by greediness. In a word, the Apostle by defining greediness as the root of all evils provided a definition of it that is consonant with and suited to the thing itself. I do not know, however, why such a great vice remained unnoticed and unpenalized by the Fathers. On that account it is rampant among ecclesiastics, and none of the men about to be ordained is examined as to whether he has been polluted with this kind of idolatry. But inasmuch as greed, as we have said, has been left unpenalized by the Fathers, therefore we too content ourselves with purification from this ailment with the sermons preached in Church, like so many plethoric diseases (the word plethora is a medical term to denote the condition of the body when there is an excessive abundance of the four humors of the body, namely, yellow gall, phlegm, blood, and black gall; consequently the ailments resulting from such an overabundance are called plethoric diseases); and we penalize only theft, the opening of graves, and sacrilege, because the Fathers too penalized only these offenses; in spite of the fact that greed, or, more explicitly speaking, the practice of taking more of any species, except money and interest on money, than what one gives, and the practice of grabbing despotically the property of others, even though one employs this form of plunder under the pretext of business, — these things, I say, are all prohibited by the Holy Bible. We would, indeed, have penalized them with a Canon if only we had the authority to promulgate a Canon (for this is the office of the Council, and see the Prolegomena in general concerning Canons); hence we only state the canonical penalty provided by the Fathers for the said three sins. So, then, let it be said that theft is divided into robbery, or open theft, and that which is done on the sly. Both of these forms of theft have one and the same aim, to take the property of a stranger. They differ, however, in the respect that robbers are generally ready to commit murders, and they make off with many persons with the aid of arms and of other men, and waylay persons in narrow and dangerous places. Wherefore they are also canonized as murderers when they repent. But the secret thief, if he confesses the theft by himself, will be canonized to give his property to the poor, if he has any, and then be treated medically. But if he possesses no property, he must labor with his toil and give to those who are in want, as St. Paul says. Let the thief steal no more, but rather let him labor, in order to have something to give to one who is in want. See also c. III of Neocaesarea.

Grave-robbing, or the opening of graves, is divided into two kinds too, like theft, according to the present Canon, to wit, into pardonable and into unpardonable grave-robbing. For if the fellow opening the grave does not denude the dead person’s body, thus refraining from dishonoring (for that is what is meant by the expression "sparing devoutness") the dead, but only takes the stones found in the grave, in order to use them in the building of any other work that is preferable and more beneficial to the community, though this too is by no means anything to be praised, yet custom has made it pardonable. But if the fellow stirs up and disarranges the soil and the bones of the corpse in order to get possession of any ornament or raiment, or of anything made of gold or silver, that was buried together with the corpse, he is to be canonized as a fornicator, or, more expressly, nine years. But the spiritual physician has permission, in accordance with the life and repentance of the one who committed this sin, to reduce the number of years specified in the sentence indicated. See also c. LXVI of St. Basil.

The present Canon decrees that sacrilege, or, more explicitly speaking, the act of stealing things dedicated to God, was punished in the Old Testament on a parity with murder, because both the murderer and the sacrilegist (as may be seen from the history of the man named Achar (according to the Septuagint spelling; but in English spelled "Achan"), who stole part of the booty taken from Jericho and dedicated to God (Joshua 7:1), and who for this reason was stoned to death along with all his family (Joshua, ch. 7; see also the Interpretation of the 4th c. of Gregory the Miracle-worker): both of them were stoned to death alike. But the custom of the Church to be lenient has canonized such sin more lightly than adultery, just as the tradition of the Fathers has prescribed. Having made these assertions, the Saint goes on to add that in regard to every kind of sinful deed the spiritual physician ought to bethink himself and reflect as to what sort of disposition the penitent has; and not to think that the length of time alone is sufficient for a cure and that the long sentence (since what sort of cure can be expected to result merely from the length of sentences, if the sentenced sinner continues to live negligently and carelessly during that space of time, and refuses to be corrected?): but, on the contrary, let him consider that what really causes a cure is the free will and eagerness of the sinner who is treating himself remedially by the process of repentance. Having finished this epistle, the Saint tells Latoius to pray for him to the Lord, as his spiritual son, and to accept the epistle as a friendly, not as a worldly, gift, i.e., not such a one as people were wont to send on the occasion of Easter, but a divine one and one befitting priests. See also Ap. c. LXXII.

"Be not disposed to treat books with the mind of thief,

For there are many pieces of viciousness interpolated therein.

"Accept this number, my friend, from me as the approved list:

Of historical books there are but twelve all told;

"They are the products of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom.

The first one is Genesis, then comes Exodus, then Leviticus,

"Followed by Numbers, next by Deuteronomy, or the Second Law,

After which come Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth, which is the eighth;

"The ninth and tenth books are the Acts of the Kings;

Then come the two Chronicles, and lastly thou hast Ezra.

"The poetical books are five, of which the first is Job,

The next is David, followed by the three books of Solomon,

"Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Proverbs.

And five likewise are of a prophetic spirit.

"One book in Scripture is formed of twelve as follows:

Hosea, and Amos, and Micah, which is the third one;

"Afterwards come Joel, then Jonah, and then Obadiah;

"The last three of them are Haggai, and Zechariah, and Malachi.

These forming one book, the second book is Isaiah.

"Afterwards comes the one called Jeremiah in his infancy,

Next thereafter Ezekiel, and the grace of Daniel.

"Of the ancient Scripture 1 have listed twenty-two books;

These writings of the Hebrews are opposed by twenty-two others.

"Now let us count those of the New Mystery:

Matthew wrote the miracles of Christ to the Hebrews.

"Mark wrote them to Italy, Luke to Achaias,

And to all men John the great preacher who visited heaven.

"Afterwards come the Acts of the wise Apostles,

Ten books are Paul’s, and so are four Epistles.

"There are seven Epistles Catholic, of which that of James is one,

Two are those of Peter, and three are those of John again.

"The seventh is that of Jude, and thou hast them all.

If any be found outside of these, they are not genuine."

"Nevertheless, there is another thing thou oughtest to learn

"More than anything else. That not every book is safe,

"Though possessing the venerable name of Scripture.

"For there are, there are indeed at times books

"With a false title, some of them being middle ground and,

"So to speak, neighbors bordering upon the word of truth.

"Others again are spurious and exceeding misleading,

"Like decorations hung on the breast and counterfeit coins

"Which bear the inscription of the Emperor, true enough,

"But which are proved to be counterfeit by their materials.

"Since thou hast the grace to ask which books are God-inspired,

"Thus shalt thou learn clearly each book in order.

"I will tell thee those of the Old Testament:

"The Pentateuch, comprising Genesis, or Creation, then Exodus,

"And containing the Book of Leviticus in the middle;

"After which come Numbers, and then The Second Book of Laws.

"Add to these Joshua and the Judges.

"Afterwards Ruth and the four books of the Kings.

"Following these come at least the two books of Chronicles.

"Next thereafter the first and the second of Ezra.

‘ ‘Next I will tell thee five poetical books.

"That of Job, who was crowned with achievements, suffering much,

"The Book of Psalms, full of songs to benefit souls;

"Three books of Solomon the Wise, comprising Proverbs,

"Ecclesiastes, and another the Song of Songs.

"Right now to these Prophets add the twelve I name:

"Hosea first, then Amos second,

"Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and the type

"Of the three days’ passion called Jonah;

“ Νahum, and after him Habakkuk; then the ninth

"Zephaniah; and nextly Haggai and Zechariah;

"And finally the angel of two names Malachi.

"After whom thou shall learn the four great Prophets,

"Namely, Isaiah the great speaker who speaks out boldly,

"Jeremiah, who is sympathetic and mystical,

"Ezekiel; and last of all of them Daniel,

"The same who is wisest in deeds and words.

"In addition to these some approve of Esther.

"Of the New Testament now let me tell thee the books.

"Accept only four Evangelists, and none other ones;

"Namely: Matthew, then Mark, and third after these Luke,

"Count close, take time, and add to these three

"As the fourth one John, but first in sublimity of dogmas;

"For I naturally and fitly call him a son of thunder,

" Who in speech has sounded loudest and greatest to God.

"But accept also the second book of Luke, namely,

"That of the catholic Acts of the Apostles.

"Thereupon add the ‘ chosen vessel,’

"The preacher and Apostle to the heathen nations,

"Paul, who wrote wisely to the Churches

"Twice seven Epistles, and to the Romans one.

"To the latter one must conjoin two to the Corinthians,

"That to the Galatians, and that to the Ephesians;

"After which that to the Philippians, that written

"To the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians,

"And one each to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;

"Besides which the one wrongly called spurious

"To the Hebrews, for the grace of it is genuine.

"Well. What about the Epistles Catholic?

"Some say there are seven of them, and some only three.

"We must accept that of James as one;

"That of Peter as one, of those of John one,

"Though some say the three of them, and in addition thereto

"They accept the two of Peter, and that of Jude as the seventh.

"As for the Book of Revelation of John again,

"Some approve it, but at least a majority call it spurious.

"This should be a most truthful canon of the God-inspired Scriptures."

Neither do these verses need any interpretation, since they are nothing but an enumeration of the genuine and true books of the Old and of the New Testament. In the beginning, though, he adduces an example to show that just as there are many pieces of money bearing the imperial seal that are not pure, but counterfeit and alloyed with a large portion of copper, so and in like manner there are many books called Scripture, true enough, but in reality spurious and heretical. Note that these verses too in many places are not correct in point of meter; but we have inserted them just as we found them. See also Ap. c. LXXXV. As regards the fact that there are two books called the Revelation of John, one of them genuine and the other spurious, see Ap. c. LX.

Timothy of Alexandria flourished in the reign of Emperor Valens, about A.D. 372. Having become the successor of his brother Peter, who had been exiled by Valens on account of the Nicene creed, he was made Archbishop of Alexandria, becoming the twenty-fourth in the line of bishops of Alexandria. He became an extreme defender of the dogma of co-essentially. At the Second Ecumenical Council, which was convoked in the year 381, the blissful man was present and proclaimed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Seven years after the holding of the Second Ecumenical Council he went to sleep in the Lord, leaving Theophilus as successor of Alexandria. He wrote the life history of many wonderful ascetics, especially the life of Abbot Apollo, but most importantly also the present Canons in the form of questions and answers, which are confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 7th, but definitely by c. II of the 6th Ecumenical Council; and by virtue of this confirmation they acquire what in a way amounts to ecumenical force. They are to be found in the second volume of the Pandects, and in volume I of the Conciliar Records, p. 352.

Having been asked, in case a child or even an adult, while still a catechumen, should happen at an opportune time, when a liturgy is being held in any church, to commune, not out of contempt, but not knowing that catechumens ought not to commune before they are baptized, when asked, I say, about this, the divine Father answers that such a person ought to be baptized (the word "enlightened" being generally used in this sense in Greek), since he has been called to this by God. For it appears to be a call from God that neither the Christians present there nor the priest himself who administered communion to him should deny communion to such person: it might be too that they failed to note at the time that he was a catechumen, notwithstanding that they knew him before. See also Footnote 1 to c. II of the 1st.

Though every unbaptized catechumen is unclean, because he has in him the uncleanness of the original sin, and has an evil spirit which burrows in his heart, and, acting hiddenly in the depth of his soul, prompts him to sin, yet in a pre-eminent way that unbaptized catechumen is considered unclean who is also manifestly energized by a demon. For it would appear that on account of willful sins he gave leave or occasion to the demon to energize him thus openly and manifestly and to harass him. For this reason when this Saint was asked whether a person manifestly possessed of demons in such a manner might be baptized, he answered that he may not until he has been duly cleansed, or, more explicitly speaking, until he has been freed from the manifest influence of the demon: for one thing, because he himself through his willful sins caused the demon to energize him in that fashion; and for another thing, in order to preclude his coming under the power of the demon while he is being baptized, in which, being deprived of his wits, he would not know how to answer the questions put to him at baptism, and in consequence he would fail to grasp and comprehend the grace and power of the Mystery. If, however, such a person is in danger of dying, says the Saint, he may be baptized, lest life depart from him without his having the seal of divine baptism and he be deprived on this account of the kingdom of heaven. Read also Ap. c. LXXIX.

Having been asked whether a person possessed of a demon ought to partake of the divine Mysteries, the Saint answers in the present Canon that he may partake of communion, to be sure, though not every day in the week, but only on the Lord’s day, according to Aristenus and Armeno-poulos (Section 5, heading 2, of the Epitome of the Canons), or (according to others) at those times when he is not being controlled by the demon, and provided that when he is in his senses and sober he does not blaspheme the divine Mysteries, nor repudiate them, or, more explicitly speaking, does not, for instance, assert that they are nothing but common bread and wine, because he does not believe that they are really and truly Body and Blood of Christ; so that the Saint is speaking here of a person who though possessed of a demon is not energized by the latter continuously, but only now and then, or on and off, at intervals of time, according to Balsamon and Zonaras, in their interpretation of Ap. c. LXXIX, which you may read for yourself.

The Saint has been asked whether a catechumen ought to be baptized who has become so ill that as a result of his illness he has gone out of his mind (as happens in most cases to those who are suffering from the plague), and he himself cannot answer by himself the usual questions asked at baptism, while his relatives, seeing him in that condition, beg to have him baptized, because, though even then, on account of his illness, he cannot confess the faith and ask for baptism, yet by reason of his having been in time to become a catechumen he has thereby shown that he wishes and would like to accept the Christian faith and baptism of his own free will and by his own choice, and especially when before the illness he had been asking for baptism, yet for certain reasons had postponed it, as Zonaras says in his interpretation of c. LII of Carthage. Nevertheless, if perchance it was while he was being energized by a demon that he went out of his mind, he must not be baptized until he has been cleansed, as we said previously. Read also Ap. c. LXXIX and c. XII of Neocaesarea.

To one who had asked whether a married couple ought to partake of the divine Mysteries, when a liturgy is held in the morning, and they have had sexual intercourse with each other during the night immediately preceding, the Saint replied in the present Canon that they ought not to commune; and in witness thereof he cites the words of the Apostle, who orders married couples not to deprive one party the other of sexual intercourse, save by agreement of both the parties; and only then not to have sexual intercourse when a sacred liturgy is being celebrated, on Saturday and Sunday, and in general on all feast days, so that they may partake of communion (for it is thus that the passage saying "that ye may give yourselves leisure to pray" is interpreted in c. XIII of this same Saint as well as in the third Canon of St. Dionysius, both of which Canons you may read for yourself), and again to mingle carnally, and to do this on account of their irrestrainable desire, to prevent Satan from tempting them by inciting them to commit fornication or to commit adultery with wives of other men or husbands of other women, as the case may be.

Catechumens, whether men or women, who were about to be baptized, used to be entered by name some days in advance in a list for convenience by the supervisors of the churches, and were then called by way of distinction photizomenoi or photizomenai, according as they were men or women, respectively, which terms mean in Greek "persons who are in process of being enlightened, i.e., of being baptized," and also eclectoi or eclectai, respectively, meaning "elect," i.e., chosen for members of the Christian society and of the (future) kingdom of Christ (and see c. XIV of the 1st). And so from then on they used to get ready for holy baptism with greater yearning and effort than they had been wont to put forth previously when they were catechumens. These facts having been thus stated or premised, the Saint replies in the present Canon that if any woman enter her name in this manner and gets ready for baptism, but on that day on which she expected to be baptized she has the usual trouble of women that is peculiar to her sex, then that woman ought not to be baptized on that day, but instead ought to defer, or postpone the date, until she has been purified from her trouble. See also c. II of Dionysius.

Likewise as in the above Canon, the present Canon decrees that a woman must not partake of the divine Mysteries on the days on which she is troubled by the plight pertaining to her sex, but only to partake thereof when she has been purified from it. See also c. II of Dionysius.

Upon being asked whether a woman ought to be allowed to break her fast and to drink wine when she bears a child during the Great Lent preceding Easter, according to Balsamon and Blastaris, this Father replies that she must be allowed to do so, since fasting is done for the purpose of humbling and bridling the body, but if perchance the body is already humbled and weak, the person may eat as much food and consume as much drink as will support him in his illness and enable him to recover. See also Ap. c. LXIX.

This Father had been asked whether a priest ought to perform the offering of the bloodless sacrifice when Arians and heretics in general are present, and he replied that at the time of the divine rite the deacon calls out that all persons who are catechumens should step outside of the temple, by saying to them: "All ye who are catechumens step out" (for that is what is meant by the words "Those of ye who are not in communion, Take a walk."). So if no catechumen are allowed to stand in the church at the time when the divine liturgy is being celebrated, much less are heretics, unless they promise to repent and to leave the heresy. Nevertheless, even then again they ought not to be allowed to stay within the temple proper, but ought to be compelled to stand outside with the catechumens. But if they will not make any such promise, they ought not to be allowed to stand even with the catechumens, but, on the contrary, they ought to be chased away, according to Balsamon.

When this divine Father was asked whether anyone very III and excessively withered as a result of long illness ought in the midst of the Lent of Easter to be compelled necessarily to fast, by abstaining from wine and olive oil, like the healthy, or whether he might be allowed to eat olive oil and to drink wine on account of his severe illness, he replied that such a person ought to be allowed sufficient food and drink to enable him to bear up under his illness, just as any God-fearing physician would prescribe, because it is only right that a person utterly withered by illness ought to be allowed to eat olive oil. See also Ap. c. LXIX.

When the Saint was asked whether a certain priest who has been summoned to bless a wedding and afterwards learns that this marriage is unlawful (perhaps because the man is about to take to wife his aunt (i.e., his sister-in-law, or the sister of his dead wife, which is the same as saying that he wishes to take two sisters to wife, or some other relative), whether that priest ought to bless them, or to conduct a liturgy — having been asked these questions, I say, the Saint replies in the present Canon that if a priest learns that a marriage is unlawful, he ought neither to bless the couple nor to conduct divine services, and consequently he himself ought not have anything to do with sins of others, that is, with their unlawful wedding, and with the penalties incurred by a priest who has celebrated such a marriage.

Having been asked whether a layman who has had a wet dream ought to partake of communion on the day after he had the wet dream, this Father replies in the present Canon that if the man suffered this predicament as a result of a desire or conation to enjoy a woman, the man ought not to partake of communion, because this impassioned conation, or instinctive impulse, to which the emission was due, has polluted his intellect. But if no such desire and conation took place, but, instead, Satan merely tempted him out of envy in order to prevent him from receiving the sanctification conferred by the divine Mysteries, he ought to partake of communion, because if he fail to partake of them, Satan will not cease to tempt him and to keep on thus preventing him from doing so whenever he is preparing to come to communion. Read also c. IV of Dionysius.

The Saint has been asked on what days of the week married couples ought not to have sexual intercourse by mingling together carnally, and he has replied in the present Canon, by citing in evidence the words of St. Paul addressed to married couples, to the effect that neither of the parties ought to deprive the other of carnal intercourse, unless both of them abstain from coition by agreement for a time, in order to engage in prayer, and that they ought again to mingle with each other soon enough to prevent Satan from tempting them on account of their failing to mix themselves together as wine is mixed with water. In explaining at what time and what prayer Paul means for married couples to refrain from coition, the Saint states that it is Saturday and Sunday (and in general every feast day), on which days they are obliged to refrain from sexual intercourse because of the fact that for the most part it was on those particular days that the spiritual sacrifice used to be performed, or, in other words, the sacred liturgy used to be celebrated, and they had to prepare themselves and get ready to partake of the divine Mysteries. See also c. III of Dionysius.

This divine Father has been asked whether liturgical and memorial services ought to be held for a man who has killed himself, by hurling himself down from a height, or by drowning himself, or by hanging himself, or by putting himself to death in any other manner, when he is not of sound mind, whether it be as a result of a demon or of an ailment of some sort; and the Father replies in the present Canon by stating that if any priest or any other clergyman be invited to celebrate memorial services for him, he ought to investigate well and with due accuracy whether such a man was in truth and reality out of his wits when he put himself to death. For it often happens that relatives and intimates of such a man, wishing to have him be given a memorial service and to be chanted over by the priests, and to have a liturgy held for the remission of his sins, tell lies and assert falsely that he was out of his wits, and that it was on this account that he put himself to death. Sometimes, though, one puts oneself to death either as a result of some injury or annoyance which he has received from other men, or as a result of faint-heartedness and excessive grief, or some other cause, voluntarily and while in his right mind; and for such a man no liturgical or memorial services ought to be held, since he murdered himself deliberately.

When asked whether if some man’s wife is possessed of demons to such an extent that they have to fetter and shackle her with irons and chains (perhaps in order to prevent her from running away or from killing herself or someone else), while her husband, being unable to stay (morally) sober and to practice continence by abstaining from sexual intercourse right along, since he cannot practice with his wife when she is in such a condition), is seeking to take another woman to wife, he ought to take another or not — when asked this question, I say, the Saint replies in the present Canon that concerning this question he has no answer to offer nor can find any by cudgeling his brains, since, if that man take another woman to wife, adultery will ensure upon his taking her; for he has put away his first wife without any ground of fornication, contrary to the words of the Lord, who said: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, save on grounds of fornication, maketh her commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32) See also Ap. cc. XLVIII and LXXIX. But even the Ecloge of Laws of Leo and Constantine the Emperors (Title XIII, page 107 of the second volume of Jus Graeco-Romanum) commands that they be not separated. Saying thus: "But if it happen that one of them is taken possession of and mastered by a demon during matrimony, they shall not be separated as a result of such a cause." Hence Leo here is repealing or countermanding His Novel below. See also the Footnote to the Chapter concerning Pledges of Marriage.

When asked whether anyone ought to partake of communion that has been fasting and preparing to commune, but has accidentally swallowed some water against his will, either at the time he was washing out his mouth, or at a time when he was taking a bath, the Saint replies in the present Canon that he ought to partake of communion, since, if he is prevented from doing so, the Devil will cause him to swallow water frequently under his influence in order to prevent him from participating in the divine Mysteries.

When asked whether perchance we are condemned because we often merely listen to God’s word, but do not actually do the things that we are told by Him to do, the Saint replies that we ought to listen to it even though we do not actually do it. For, even though we fail to do the things required by God, yet we cannot possibly fail to blame ourselves for our failure to do so and acknowledging that we are disobeying Him and not doing as He tells us to do. But to blame ourselves is nevertheless a part of our salvation too, seeing that it engenders humility in our soul, whereby God is made propitious in regard to our sins, and He will justify us, just as He did the humble though sinful Publican, in preference to the virtuous but proud Pharisee.

When asked about this too, at what age of life does a human being begin being judged by God for his sins, this Father replies that it depends upon the knowledge and prudence commanded by each human being, in accordance with which his sins are to be judged. For, those children which are of an acute nature and naturally smart, are the ones that soonest and most easily discern what is good and what is bad; and for this reason they are judged by God for their sins from the age of ten and on. Those, on the other hand, which on the contrary are of a sluggish nature and have a sleepy head and are possessed of a dull mind come more slowly and with greater difficulty to discernment of what is good and what is bad; hence they are judged by God for their sins only when they are older. See also the Footnote to c. XL of the 6th.

Theophilus, who served as Archbishop of Alexandria in A.D. 380, being wise and brave in sentiment, had previously freed Alexandria from the delusion of idolatry. For he not only showed the deluded Grecians the secret contrivances which their priests had and by means of which they would go into the empty and inanimate idols and say whatever they wanted by speaking from that coign of vantage, but he even smashed to pieces the sculptured image of Sarapis (which was rumored to be of such an enormous size and weight that if it were to be shaken, the whole earth would be shaken) and showed it to the Grecians looking on to be a habitation of rats: and he also made floats of the murderous mysteries of Mythreion, and melted down the statues of the false gods and cast them in the shape of kettles and other vessels of use to the Church. Later, however, having incited a battle against divine Chrysostom on account of the monks about Ammonion who were called "long" monks, as he ought not to have done, he became for this reason hated by all. He increased the hatred against him also because of the fact that he occupied himself with the study of the books of Origen, which he had previously denounced. He attended the Council held in Constantinople during the patriarchate of Nectarius after the Second Ecumenical Council in the year 394 regarding Agapius and Bagadius who were laying claim to the bishopric of Bostra (concerning which see the part relating to Sardica). Expiring in penitence, he left these canonical letters which are necessary for the organization of the Church, and which are confirmed indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and c. I of the 7th, but definitely by c. II of the 6th EC. C.; and by virtue of this confirmation they acquire a force which in a way is ecumenical. They are to be found in the second volume of the Pandects, and in the first volume of the Conciliar Records, page 353.

Since the fasting day, or, more expressly speaking, the eve of Theophany, happened to fall on a feasting day, Sunday, on this account the present Canon decrees that we ought to make an "economical" arrangement with prudence and discretion in regard to these two contraries, by eating a few dates (or even figs and currants or raisins), and at the end of this fasting to honor the resurrection and feasting day of the Lord, commonly called Sunday in English, and avoid the heresies that do not honor the Lord’s day by going without any food at all as they do on that day (and see c. XVIII of Gangra). For both propriety and the ancient custom and tradition of the Church make it obligatory upon us Orthodox Christians to honor every Sunday and to celebrate on that day, rejoicing on account of the resurrection from the dead which the Lord has graciously bestowed upon us on that day, seeing that that day is called in the divine Scriptures also "the first day," because it is the commencement of our life, and "the eighth day," because it has surpassed (Note of Translator. — This word is used here by the authors as a definition of the word "superseded," for which it is a very poor substitute). the seventh day, the Sabbath, that is to say, of the Jews, as being numbered after the seventh (and see c. XCI of Basil). But we are to honor, on the other hand, also the fasting day of the eve with the very process of breaking the fast, by omitting to break it, or by eating no richer or greasier foods while awaiting the hour of Vespers, which, with God’s help, are to held after nine o’clock. See also Ap. c. LXIV.

From the Commonitory which Ammon received in regard to Lycopolis.

The present Canon decrees that those bishops who have joined the Arians and have held possession of the Orthodox churches down to the present time be ousted therefrom, but be allowed to join the Orthodox after being treated with that economy which the Orthodox bishops in Thebai’s decreed to be accorded also to the other cities where such Arians are to be found returning to Orthodoxy. They, I say, are to be ousted from the churches in question, and other Orthodox bishops are to be appointed thereto. As for those Orthodox bishops whom the bishop Apollo-had appointed, if it be shown that they joined the Arians of their own accord, they are to be disciplined; but if it was with the advice and approval of the said bishop that they did so, they are to enjoy communion with the other bishops because, wishing to remain obedient to their bishop, they could not determine what was reasonable for them to do, or, in other words, the fact that they had better not enter into communion with those men. And if the whole multitude of the people turn away from such men, on the ground that these men became partisans of the Arians, let other Orthodox Christians be ordained in their stead; but if they are content with them as well as with the Arians with whom they have entered into communion, let them be admitted in accordance with the custom which the said bishops in Thebai’s adopted in regard to those reverting from the communion of the Arians. Note that neither in c. I nor in the present Canon has any interpretation of Balsamon’s been found preserved. See also Ap. c. LXVIII.

This Bistus was rumored to have raped and taken a married woman who had separated from her husband while he was still alive. Afterwards he was ordained a presbyter by Apollo in the city of Erebe, Egypt, who did not know that he had taken such a wife. So the present Canon says that the case ought to be investigated, and if it be as represented, the one ordained a presbyter ought to be deposed from office and no longer be a priest, at a time when not even as a layman ought such a person to stand together with the faithful in church, since the Church separates such offenders from the synaxis of the faithful. But this does not entail upon the ordinator Apollo any detriment and deposition from his prelacy, since he ordained him as a result of ignorance. For the Holy Council, or, more expressly speaking, the First in its c. IX, has commanded that these persons who have been ordained undeservingly and unworthily, and have been exposed after ordination, shall be expelled from the priesthood. See this same c. IX of the 1st.

This man Sur was a cleric of Bishop Apollo who had been dismissed, or in other words had been expelled from the clergy (as Balsamon interprets the Canon) and had been chased away from the Church, as Apollo himself affirmed. So this Canon says that since this has occurred, let it be as the Bishop has decreed. Nevertheless, if Sur finds fault with the Bishop’s decision against him, let him present his pleas, if he wishes, to the Synod of which Apollo too was a member.

This man Panuph, before he was baptized, was rumored to have taken his niece to wife, and thereafter he was appointed a deacon. Hence the present Canon decrees that the case should be examined into; and if this man, after being baptized, did not use her as his wife, since she had died, let him remain a deacon; for the use of the woman before baptism had been purged by Holy Baptism; but if he used her afterwards, let him be deposed from office. Such an ordination, however, does not entail any detriment upon Apollo, who appointed and ordained him, since he did so in ignorance and without knowing that he had his niece as a wife when he ordained him. See also Ap. c. XIX and c. IX of the 1st.

This Jacob was rumored to have been a lector, or anagnost; and since he was charged with having committed fornication, he had been chased away from the clergy by the priests; afterwards, however, he had been ordained to a higher rank. On this account the present Canon says for a strict examination to be made first in regard to this matter, and if he be found responsible on the charge of fornication, let him be expelled from the clergy; but if he be found innocent of the charge, let him remain in the clergy. I said that a strict examination should be made regarding this matter because no one ought to be deposed from office on the basis of mere charges and accusations resulting from suspicion, nor ought anyone to pay attention to idle and unproved calumniations. See also c. IX of the 1st.

The present Canon is a Canon and form for those who are about to be ordained, as touching what sort of persons may be ordained and how they ought to be ordained. For it decrees that the whole priesthood ought first to agree, and to elect the one who is to be ordained; and thereupon the bishop ought to give his approval, and with the priesthood agreeing and in the presence of the laity, he ought to ask the laity if they too deem the man worthy, and then he ought to ordain him outspokenly and forthright in the midst of the Church. No ordination ought to be performed in secret. For, after the Church has been freed from heretics and is in peace, or is no longer disturbed by heathen, for fear of whom she was compelled to perform ordinations secretly, all ordinations ought to be celebrated openly in church, when holy men, or, more expressly speaking, Christians are present. But if in the parish of any church there are some believers who unwillingly joined by way of compromise in the opinions of those who had entered into communion with heretics, such persons, I say, are not to be ordained in any other manner in that parish, unless they have first been approved by Orthodox clergymen as holding Orthodox views, with the bishop present and asking again the laity whether they are worthy; and this is to be done in order to avoid the ensual of any rapine or deception and the ordination of anyone holding heretical views. See also Ap. c. II.

The present Canon decrees that of what is offered by the laity for the liturgy whatever offerings are left over and above those needed for the Holy Mysteries are to be distributed to the clerics, and are to be eaten and drunk by them and the faithful laymen. No catechumen or other un-baptized person is to eat or drink of them; for, since they have been offered to the holy sacrificial altar, and portions of them have been employed in the divine Gifts, called Dora in Greek, therefore and on this account whatever has been left over from them has been sanctified and hallowed: hence none of it ought to be eaten or drunk by the unbaptized and the uninitiated. See also Ap. c. III.

This man Hierax was accusing some cleric of having committed fornication, and saying that on this account he ought not to be permitted to remain in the clergy, but ought to be deposed from office. But Bishop Apollo, who had ordained the cleric in question, affirmed that at that time (perhaps of his ordination) no accuser had appeared to bring any such accusation against him. Hence the present Canon decrees that the case of the maligned cleric ought to be investigated, and if a trustworthy accuser be found to accuse him (and see Ap. c. LXXIV and c. VI of the 2nd), and his guilt in connection with the charges be proved by means of trustworthy witnesses (see also Ap. c. LXXV), let him be expelled from the Church; but if he be proved through witnesses to be sober and sensible and worthy of the clergy, let him remain in it.

The present Canon decrees that with the consent and approval of the entire priesthood another Economus should be appointed to the bishopric, in order that he may manage the financial affairs rightly and well and expend the income of the Church for the right purposes, or, more explicitly speaking, for the needs and wants of widows and of poor people. Bishop Apollo gave his consent and approval to this decree for the appointment of an Economus, and it appears that this Economus was to be appointed to his bishopric. See also Ap. cc. XXXVIII and XLI, and c. XXVI of the 4th and the Footnote thereto.

The present Canon is an explanation of the one above. For inasmuch as that Canon decreed that the property of the Church should be expended through the Economus for the right purposes, this Canon states which these right purposes are: to wit, that widows and poor persons and foreign brethren who happen to come to the bishopric ought to enjoy every comfort that the income of the Church can afford; and that no bishop or economus ought to appropriate it to himself and to spend it on himself alone. See also Ap. XXXVIII and especially Ap. c. XLI.

Of the same Saint, to Bishop Aphyngius (or Aphryngius in other manuscripts), concerning the so-called Cathari.

Of the same Saint, to Bishop Agatho

This man Maximus, not knowing the laws of the Church, stubbornly took a woman to wife in an unlawful marriage, on account of which he was excommunicated too from the Church and the congregation of the faithful. But inasmuch as he was very sorry because he was without any congregation, or synaxis, or more particularly speaking, was separated from the faithful by virtue of the excommunication, he asserted that he would withdraw from that unlawful marriage, which he had contracted as a result of his ignorance, the woman also being willing and agreeable on this point. Hence Theophilus is writing to this man Agatho and telling him that if he tests them and sees that they are in truth separated from that marriage by mutual agreement, and that they are not going to deceive the Church, because of their reflecting that on account of their transgression of the law they are excommunicated for ten years2 — if, I say, he should reflect and see fit to let them join the catechumens in the church for the present, and to leave again with them, he may do so. But if he should reflect and think that they are deceiving or are going to deceive him, and need further chastisement, he should do whatever God may enlighten him to do in regard to them, being guided in every case and in regard to every matter towards what tends to self-restraint, or suspension of judgment, or, more explicitly speaking in accordance with the reflection he may arrive at concerning it with restraint and caution. For being situated in the region where the affairs are going on, he is in a better position than Theophilus to know the state of mind of people there, and consequently what is the most expeditious way to correct them.

Of the same Saint, to Bishop Menas

The present canonical letter says that the presbyters in the village of Geminum have excommunicated from the Church and the synaxis of the faithful a woman named Cyrradius, because she has been treating others unjustly and grabbing things that belong to others, and that she refuses to refrain from injustice, according to the letter stating this and carried thence by a woman named Eustathia; and it says that this excommunication imposed upon her is lawful and canonical. So in regard to this same letter Theophilus tells Bishop Menas that inasmuch as this unjust woman has consented and promised to remedy the evil she has done and to redress the injustice she has committed, and thus secure her release from the excommunication, and admission to the Church, take diligent care to persuade her to do away with the injustice first, or, more explicitly speaking, to return the things which she has grabbed to their rightful owners, and to repent to God. in order to have this sin of hers pardoned. And after she has done these things, if you feel that she is resorting to the Church with due regard for the divine law, or, in other words, with a good conscience and for God’s sake, and not merely to escape the opprobrium of men, and that she craves to congregate with the rest of the Christians in church, allow her to come to church. See also c. III of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker.

In beginning the present Epistle the Saint avers that every ecclesiastical affair, when done in accordance with the discipline of the sacred Canons, not only causes us men in holy orders no disturbance and disparagement, but indeed even elicits praises from the prudent and discriminative. For who will not praise a impartial and just decision? or how can it be said that a correct and legitimate judgment is not exempt from every reprehension and accusation and replete with every commendation and praise? Having premised thus much, he takes up his subject and says to Domnus: I am writing these things to you because in the letters you sent to me as well as in those you sent to our colleague Proclus of Constantinople, though you call most reverent Peter a bishop, he, on the other hand, coming to us, weeps and wails, asserting that he has unjustly and unreasonably been ousted from the episcopate given him. It would be better either for him to have "both the title and the office of bishop, or, more expressly speaking, the episcopate, or, if he is not worthy to have the episcopate and the prelacy, then he ought neither to be honored with the title of bishop, as, that is to say, you call him. For a bishop is and is said to be the bishop of an episcopate, and not simply and merely a bishop, since these two designations of bishop and of episcopate are interconnected and correlative. But if perhaps what I am saying should seem to you cruel and unbrotherly — not letting him be called a bishop, that is to say, unless he has an episcopate — yet in point of fact it is not cruel. For we consider (note that the Saint is «peaking now in the plural, including his own person in order to render the discourse less irksome and more acceptable) that we have had mercy on this old man Peter by allowing him to retain the bare title of bishop; yet we should be treating him more mercifully if we looked at the matter in a different light. In what light? Why, in the light of the fact that we ought to afford him an opportunity to explain his side of the matter, and that we ought to listen to his pleas, just as the divine Canons enjoin, since he himself says that if these rights were given him and he were judged before a council, he could prove himself innocent and blameless in regard to those things of which he is accused. And of course if this were done and a written yerdict were issued in regard to his case, assuming that he were at fault, it would reprove him in such a fashion that he would no longer have any right to assert that he was wronged or treated unjustly; or, again, assuming "that he is innocent, it would give him back his episcopate. But inasmuch as no such conciliar trial and verdict in regard to him has occurred, he yells and asserts that he has received unbearably unjust treatment and has been illegally ousted from his episcopate; and in addition he claims that they grabbed all the money he had. Having said these things, the Saint now turns to Domnus and says to him: So, for one thing because your devoutness (i.e., your reverence) knows well enough what the divine Canons decree (to wit, that no one is to be condemned before he has had a conciliar trial and decision; and see Ap. c. LXXIV, and the Concord following it), and what befits the Church and the ministers of the Church (which is justice in conformity with the Canons); and for another thing, since you have been solemnly impressed with my letters, let your reverence stay the old man’s tears. And if he himself wishes to be tried face to face with his accusers, let him be tried before your reverence, in the presence also of the bishops subject to him; unless he should suspect some of them to be enemies of his, and for this reason should not want to have them present. For, though we ourselves do not believe that any bishop is an enemy of another brother bishop of his, yet, in order to avoid having the presence of those suspected by him become an occasion for the frustration of his trial, and in view of the fact that he thinks that he has been unjustly treated by them, let the suspects stay away from this district council when it tries his case.2

The present Canon is in sequence with the one above. For it asserts that it is but just for the money to be given back to the said Bishop Peter which he had been unjustly deprived of (see c. III of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker), for two reasons: 1) because it was a piece of injustice for them to grab it away from him to begin with; and 2) because it sorely grieves and greatly disconcerts the bishops of every province to be obliged to give an account of all the expenses they incur in their provinces, which they have to secure either from the prebend that any persons may provide for them, or from the profits afforded by the lands and other real estate belonging to the bishopric; since every one of the bishops will be obliged to give an account to God for all the expenses he has incurred throughout the duration of his episcopate. For sacred jewelry and immovable property of cathedrals and churches must be preserved for them intact and inalienable, while the finances required for the expenses incident thereto must be entrusted to the Metropolitans and Prelates from time to time holding office. In order to avoid any suspicion, however, they ought also to have Oeconomi, who with the advice and approval of the Bishops, are to manage all the revenues and expenses of the church. And see Ap. cc. XXXVIII and XLI.

The aforesaid Bishop Peter appears to have handed in a written resignation in evidence that he was relinquishing his province. It is concerning this, then, that the present Canon says that he did not hand in such a resignation voluntarily and of his own free will, as he acknowledges, but under the compulsion due to fear and threats of certain individuals who were threatening to injure him. Besides, even if perchance he did so voluntarily, the fact remains that it is not in keeping with the Canons of the Church — which is the same as saying, it is contrary to the Canons and an incongruity — for any bishops to be handing in written resignations to the effect that they are giving up their episcopates and provinces; for if those bishops merit the prelacy, let them stay in it and not resign their office: if, on the contrary, they are unworthy, let them not leave their provinces on the pretense that they are resigning, but rather like persons standing condemned for improprieties they have committed, which would be severely censured by anyone else as departing entirely from the sequence of the sacred Canons, or, more explicitly speaking, as being altogether illegal and uncanonical (but if anyone should censure these things, it is obvious that he would do so on the ground that they have been done openly, and it would be on the ground that they are known to him, and attested by others, that he would be censuring them; for no one censures things that are unknown and secret). But if such is the case, it follows by contrast that a bishop may resign from office without being condemned openly: when, that is to say, either before the prelacy or after the prelacy has been attained by him he should secretly commit any sin that would suffice to exclude and depose him from the prelacy; after confessing the sin to the spiritual father and being reproved by his conscience, he might resign the episcopate and together therewith the sacred office of the prelacy. And see c. IX of the 1st, and the Epistle of the 3rd, and c. XVI of the lst-&-2nd.