This Council is given this title by Zonaras, Balsamon, Blastaris, and others. The great and holy First-and-Second Council, which was held in Constantinople in the all-venerable temple of the holy Apostles, was assembled in the time of Emperor Michael, the son of Theophilus, and of Bardas Caesar, his uncle on his mother’s side, in A.D. 861. It was attended by three hundred and eighteen Fathers, among whom the most distinguished were: Most holy Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, who had been elevated anew to the throne of Constantinople at that time after divine Ignatius had been exiled to Mitylene, by force and power of Caesar Bardas; and the legates, or deputies, of Pope Nicholas, namely, Rodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagnoea, who were then in Constantinople on a mission against the iconomachists. The reason why it is called the First-and-Second Council is, according to Zonaras, Balsamon, Blastaris, and Milias (p. 920 of the second volume of the Conciliar Records) as follows. There was held a first convention of this Council, and after the Orthodox participants engaged in a discussion with the heterodox participants (perhaps these were the remnants that had remained from the iconomachists, as we have said), and the Orthodox members won and the heterodox were defeated, it was decided to keep a written record of everything that had been asserted in the Council, in order that it might remain certain and sure. But the heretics, being discomfited averse to having these records preserved, lest they be seen to have been defeated, and lest in consequence they be expelled from the Church and the congregation of the faithful, made such a disturbance and fight, even drawing knives and engaging in murderous assaults, that the first convention was dissolved without any definition and result being committed to writing. After some time had passed, a second convention of the same Council, and again there was a discussion of the Orthodox participants with the heretics concerning the same subjects; and at this meeting the dogmas asserted concerning belief were written up. Hence, this Council having on this account been properly and truly but one, it was styled the First-and-Second because of the circumstance of its having held a first and a second convention. At its second convention the present seventeen Canons were promulgated, which are essential to the decorum and regulation of the Church, being corroborated and confirmed by the Nomocanon of Photius, by the interpreters of the Canons, and by the whole Church. Note, however, that in some manuscript codices there are thirty Canons bearing an inscription in the name of the present Council: but we have interpreted only those recognized by the Church and interpreted by the exegetes; as for the others, we have left them out on the ground that the Church does not recognize them. The present Council has been assigned by all commentators a place preceding the other local Councils held previously to this one, either because of its having been a large one and one more numerously attended than were those, or rather because it followed immediately in the wake of Seventh Ecum. Council both in respect of the date and in that it was convoked against the same iconomachists as those against whom that one was convoked, and, in a way, this Council was, in that respect, a continuation or successor of that one.

(cc. IV, XXIV of the 4th; c. XLIX of the 6th; cc. XII, XIII, XVII, XIX of the 7th; c. II of Cyril.)

In view of the fact that some persons who built monasteries and consecrated their goods to them, again after the consecration not only exercised ownership over them, but even sold them and made others their owners, on this account the present Canon decrees that every monastery shall be built with permission and approval of the local bishop, who is to execute the usual prayer when its foundations are being laid. It is to be recorded, moreover, in a breve, or, more plainly speaking, in a small and brief codex, what goes to make up both the newly built monastery itself and all the chattels and real estate that have been dedicated to it either by the one who has built it or by other Christians. And that codex is to be securely kept in the bishopric or metropolis, in order that the one who has dedicated it may not thereafter remove anything therefrom and take it away. In fact, the founder and dedicator of a monastery is to be so estranged therefrom that neither he himself can become the abbot of it, without the approval of the bishop, nor can he appoint anyone else abbot of it, on the alleged ground that it belongs to him, since if what one gives away to another human being can no longer be reclaimed and taken back, how can one who has dedicated those things once to God take control of them again? For such a person would be considered a sacrilegist and would be liable to stand trial as such and receive the sentence of Ananias and Sapphira.

Some persons, wishing to have the world pay them reverence (or actuated by some ailment or sorrow), become monks hypocritically, but after becoming such, go back and again stay in their homes in the world, without observing any monachal formality and canon. So by way of preventing the occurrence of this impropriety the present Canon decrees that no priest or even chief priest shall tonsure a monk without a senior and spiritual sponsor being present who is to undertake the care of his soul’s salvation, a man, that is to say, who is beloved of God and at the head of a monastery, and fitted to guide newly-trained and beginning monks to salvation. If nevertheless anyone should do so, let him be deposed as a transgressor of the canons and of monachal decorum, and let the one tonsured without a sponsor be placed in subordination to another monastery, to any other, that is to say, that the bishop may see fit, since faulty and illogically performed tonsures of monks not only have disgraced the most honorable habit of monks, but lead infidels to blaspheme the name of Christ, when they see the monks living so irregularly and indifferently. Note, however, that even one who succeeds in becoming a monk without a sponsor and a senior can no longer take off the habit, but, still wearing it, he is merely turned over to another monastery. See also the Footnote to c. XXI of the 7th.

(c. IV of the 4th; cc. XIII, XIX, XXI of the 7th; c. LXXXVIII of Carthage.)

The present Canon prohibits monks from fleeing from their own monasteries and going to other monasteries, or wandering about here and there. If some irregular monks do this, it subjects the abbot of the monastery to the penalty of excommunication if he fail to endeavor with great diligence to find the runaways, or, in other words, those monks of his who have fled; and if after finding them he fails to make every effort to bring them back, and to cure them each according to the psychical ailment affecting him. For if a tender of irrational animals is punished for neglecting to watch them, how much more one shall be chastised who is tending the sheep of Christ and through his own negligence sells away their salvation which Christ has bought with His blood! But if the monk being sought and begged to come back proves disobedient, let him be excommunicated by the bishop. Read also c. XXI of the 7th.

(c. IV of the 4th; cc. XIX, XXI of the 7th, c. LXXXVIII of Carthage.).

Since in the time of iconomachy monks were being driven away by the iconomachists and iconomachs, and were leaving their monasteries, and were either going to other monasteries (see c. XIII of the 7th) or were taking refuge in worldly resorts, and, having grown accustomed from that time continued doing so even in the time of Orthodoxy, leaving their monasteries and like an unrestrainable river streaming from monastery to monastery and from place to place, they not only deprived monasteries of their ornaments (for the ornament of a monastery is the condition of having monks stay in permanently in quietude and not keep going away), but also caused many irregularities and corrupt manners and various undesirable changes in them with a splurge of pleasure (for this is what is denoted by the word "riotous"). So, in order to prevent such an evil as this, the Council in the present Canon excommunicates both monks fleeing from their monasteries and any persons who may offer them shelter, whether these persons be monks belonging to another monastery, or worldlings, until such time as the former return to their own monasteries. If, however, the local bishop or chief priest should desire to transfer reverent and virtuous monks to any other monastery for the improvement of the latter and its regularization, or to a worldly habitation for the salvation of those dwelling therein, or to any other place, then and in that case neither the monks going there nor the persons admitting them are liable to excommunication. Read also c. XXI of the 7th.

Since some men, without first making a test, but on the spur of the moment, or rather to say rashly and irregularly become monks, and afterwards, being unable to bear the toil and moil of monkish ways, they return again to their former flesh-loving and worldly life, for this reason the present Canon decrees that no one shall become a monk unless he is first tried out for three years without fail, except only that the period of three years may be shortened whenever anyone incurs a grave disease or illness, and except only if someone be so reverent even when he is living in the world that he actually lives a monkish life, for as regards him even six months only are enough for a test of his worthiness. As for any abbot, on the other hand, who tonsures a monk before the expiration of those three years, he himself shall forfeit his abbotship, and shall be made an obedientiary by way of punishment for his disorderliness; while the newly-tonsured monk shall be given to another monastery which observes monkish austerity. Note that not if one does succeed in becoming a monk without undergoing the three years’ trial, he cannot thereafter divest himself of the habit, but can only be turned over to another monastery. See the Footnote to c. XXI of the 7th, and c. XXI itself.

The present Canon decrees that monks, as being dead to the world, ought not to have any private property, but, on the contrary, ought to dedicate all their real and personal property to the monastery where they have been tonsured, in order that in them may be fulfilled that which the Evangelist Luke says in the Acts of the Apostles concerning those Christians who in the commencement of the preaching of the Gospel believed in Christ and foreshadowed the communistic way of life of the monks; since not one of them ever said that anything was his own, but, on the contrary, everyone’s things belonged communistically to all of them. Therefore all persons who wish to become monks or nuns, before actually doing so, have a right to distribute their property among any persons not prohibited by the civil laws from receiving it (this exception excludes, for instance, heretics, according to cc. XXX and LXXXIX of Carthage, as well as natural-born sons. Nevertheless, they may give their sons a twelfth part of their property, according to Zonaras, provided they were born in lawful wedlock). But after they have become monks or nuns, they no longer have permission to care for or to distribute their property, but, instead, all of it is owned by the monastery. If, however, anyone should be caught after becoming a monastic and be detected and found guilty of having withheld anything for himself and it be proved that he failed to dedicate it to the monastery or convent or coenobium, that chattel, whatever it may be, is to be taken by the abbot or by the local bishop, and selling in front of many persons to avoid suspicion, he is to distribute the proceeds among the poor. But as for any monk that has committed sacrilege after the manner of Ananias, he is to be brought back to his senses and sobered up with the right penalty. These rules, however, which we have laid down with regard to monks ought to be similarly observed also with regard to nuns.

(Ap. c. XXXVIII; c. XXVI of the 4th; cc. XI, XII of the 7th; cc. XXIV, XXV of Antioch; c. XV of Ancyra; c. 7th of Gangra; cc. XXXIV, XLI of Carthage; c. X of Theophilus; c. II of Cyril.)

The present Canon prohibits bishops from leaving their bishopric in danger of going to wrack and ruin, and building monasteries of their own at the expense of the funds of the bishoprics. For, just as it is not right for monasteries to be deprived of their funds, so and in like manner may the same be said of bishoprics, and especially when they are in danger. If any bishop dares to build a monastery, he shall suffer the proper penalty; and the newly-built monastery shall not receive any right of a monastery as such, or, in other words, it shall not be administered independently on its own basis, but shall become property dedicated to the bishopric and be owned by the latter, on the ground that it has been built with funds of the bishopric, since what is done illegally cannot injure or upset what is done legally and canonically. Balsamon, on the other hand, says that if the bishopric is not imperiled, or injured, the bishop may, at his own expense (perhaps derived from surplus funds of the bishopric) build from the ground up and rebuild ruined monasteries, just as Patriarch Photius built the monastery of Manuel from the ground up; and Patriarch Alexius, that of Alexius; Patriarch Theophylact, the notorious Monastery of the Rufians; and other patriarchs and prelates likewise. See Ap. c. XXXVIII.

(Ap. cc. XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV; c. I of the First.)

Just as Apostolic Canon XXII forbids anyone who castrates himself to be made a cleric, and Ap. c. XXIII deposes them if they have already become clerics in case they castrate themselves, as being murderers of themselves, so does the present Canon depose from office those clerics who, either with their own hands or by giving orders to someone else, castrate anyone; and it excommunicates laymen who do this. But if anyone should fall a victim to an affliction requiring him to be castrated, then and in that case neither those priests who order his castration are to be deposed from office, nor are laymen who with their own hands castrate such a person to be excommunicated, since castration of such persons aims at curing the disease, and not at killing the man, or at offering any insult to nature. Read also Ap. c. XXI.

(Ap. c. XVII; c. V of Antioch; cc. LVII, LXII, LXXVI, LXXXIII, XCIX, CVI, CVII of Carthage.)

Since some men in holy orders, misunderstanding Ap. c. XXVII, which deposes those in holy orders when they strike a believer or an unbeliever, say that that Canon deposes only those who strike anyone with their own hand, and not those who by giving orders to others have someone else strike a person, because they are trying by means of this misunderstanding to satisfy their own irrational anger. It is absurd, says the present Canon, to suppose that the divine Apostles commanded indeed that anyone in holy orders be deposed if he strike someone three or four times, say, with his hand, but failed to provide any punishment at all for one who has others beat a person most cruelly and to death. Hence, inasmuch as the Apostolic Canon says generally and indefinitely that anyone who strikes another person is to be deposed from office, whether he struck him with his own hands or had others strike him, we too agree with it in decreeing similarly. For priests of God ought to chastise the disorderly with admonitions and words of advice, though sometimes with ecclesiastical disciplines too, excommunications, that is to say, and anathematizations, when they will not be persuaded with words of advice; but they ought not to assault men with cudgels. But if some persons will not return to sobriety even with the administration of ecclesiastical censures, it is permissible to turn them over to the civil authorities and let the latter chastise them: in the same way as c. V of Antioch decrees that disturbers of the Church shall be brought to their senses by appealing to the hand of the civil authorities. Read the said Ap. c. XXVII.

(Ap. c. LXXII, LXXIII; c. VIII of Nyssa.)

With reference to the seventy-third Canon of the Apostles which excommunicates those who use for common and unsacred service any sacred vessel or vestment some persons misunderstanding it have been saying that those persons do not deserve to be deposed from office who convert to their own use or pollute by unsacred use the cloth covering the Holy Table, or a shirt or some other garment, by making it their own, or the holy Chalice, and the venerable paten, and the other most divine vessels which are in the Bema, since Apostles excommunicate only those who do these things, and do not depose them from office. So the present Canon decrees that those who make these assertions are distorting the Apostolic Canon, and are garbling or misinterpreting it to suit their passions. Wherefore if the Canon excommunicates those who do not purloin but only use for common service only the sanctified vessels that are outside of the Bema with their dedication to the temple, how can it be said that they are not responsible and subject, not only to deposition from office, but even to the worst kind of ungodliness, who both purloin and with common and impure uses pollute the very Holies of Holies outright, Chalices, I mean, and divine patens, and other things of a like nature, by means whereof the awful and horrible Mysteries are performed? So if anyone in holy orders purloin the holy vessels and vestments to be found in the holy sacrificial altar, or uses them in an unsacred service, let him be completely deposed from office, since this depredation (to speak of it thus) is nothing short of sanctilege (a crime which is much more serious than mere sacrilege). This unsacred service, on the other hand, is a profanation and pollution of the holies. As for those who employ in common service for their own use the vessels or vestments found outside of the holy Bema, or who give them to others to be so used, both the Canon of the Apostles and we ourselves excommunicate them. But as for those who snatch them away altogether, or steal them completely, we make them liable to condemnation as sacrilegists. Read also the same Ap. c. LXXIII.

(Ap. cc. VI, LXXXI, LXXXIII; cc. III, VII of the 4th; c. X of the 7th; c. XVIII of Carthage.)

The present Canon prohibits not only those within the Bema in holy orders, as the rest of the Canons decree, but also all the clerics outside of the Bema, from accepting secular offices and curatories, or, more plainly speaking, superintending and taking care of the internal affairs of the households of civil magistrates, as well as their farm lands, or latifundia. If any one among them should do this, let him be driven out of his Clergy, since according to the Lord’s words, "no one can serve two masters." See also Ap. c. VI.

(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; c. LIX of the 6th; cc. XII, XIII, XIV, XV of the lst-and-2nd; c. VI of Gangra; cc. X, LXII of Carthage; c. V of Antioch; c. LVIII of Laodicea.)

The present Canon agrees with c. XXXI of the 6th C., which we have interpreted; see the interpretation given there. All that the fathers of the present Council add is this, that those who are about to officiate in prayer-houses which have not been dedicated and which are inside private houses must be appointed and allotted to this function by the local bishop. If, nevertheless, others who are in holy orders should dare to officiate in those prayer-houses without being appointed to this function by the bishop, they themselves are to be deposed from office, while the laymen who have participated with them in this function are to be excommunicated. See also Ap. c. XXXI.

(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XII, XIV, XV of the lst-and-2nd; c. V of Antioch; c. VI of Gangra; cc. X, XI, LX of Carthage.)

Both by means of the heretics and by means of the schismatics the devil endeavors to divide the body of Christ, or what is otherwise called His Church. On this account and for this reason the present Canon decrees that if any presbyter or deacon separates from communion of his bishop, and does not mention the name of the latter in accordance with custom, before the Council or Synod has examined into the charges laid against him, and has condemned him, the presbyter or deacon guilty of doing this shall be deposed from office, since he is not worthy to have the dignity and name of presbyter or deacon, as the case may be, when, condemning his own bishop, who is his spiritual father, he anticipates the Metropolitan’s judgment. For it is Metropolitans, and not clerics, that are entitled to pass judgment upon bishops. Those, on the other hand, who keep in line with such apostates, or seceders, i.e., such presbyters and deacons, shall, in case they be in holy orders, be promptly deposed from office; but in case they be monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated not merely from the divine Mysteries, but even from the Church herself, until they come to hate the erring presbyters and deacons, and decide to unite themselves with their own bishop. See also Ap. c. XXXI.

(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XII, XIII, XV of the lst-and-2nd; c. V of Antioch; c. VI of Gangra; cc. X, XI, LXII of Carthage.)

In a similar vein as in the above Canon, the present Canon deposes from office those bishops who separate themselves from the joint communion of their Metropolitan, and refuse to mention his name in accordance with established custom; because neither ought any presbyter to scorn his bishop, nor ought any bishop to scorn his Metropolitan. See also Ap. c. XXXI.

(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XII, XIII, XIV of the lst-and-2nd; c. V of Antioch; c. VI of Gangra; cc. X, XI, LXII of Carthage.)

The same rules as were prescribed in the above Canons with regard to bishops and Metropolitans, are prescribed, and so much the more so, by the present Canon with regard to Patriarchs. For it says that if any presbyter or bishop or Metropolitan should separate himself from the joint communion of his own Patriarch, and does not mention his name in accordance with custom (this applies, that is to say, to only the Metropolitan; for a presbyter mentions only the name of his bishop, and the bishop mentions only the name of his Metropolitan), before revealing the charges against their Patriarch to the Council, and before learning that he has been condemned by the Council — they, I say, shall all be completely deposed from office; the bishops and Metropolitans from every prelatic activity; the presbyters from every priestly activity. But these provisions are of effect if presbyters separate from their bishops, or bishops separate from their Metropolitans, or Metropolitans separate from their Patriarchs, on account of certain criminal charges, of fornication, say, of sacrilege, and of other serious crimes. If, however, the said presidents are heretics, and are preaching their heresy openly, and on this account those subject to them separate themselves, and even though it be before there has been any conciliar or synodal trial concerning the heresy, but are even deemed to deserve fitting honor as Orthodox Christians, since not only have they caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism and heresy of their pseudo-bishops. See also Ap. c. XXXI.

(Ap. c. LVIII; cc. XIX, LXXX of the 6th; c. XI of Sardica; cc. LXXIX, LXXXII, LXXXVI, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXXXIII of Carthage; c. X of Peter; c. XVI of Nyssa; c. I of Cyril.)

The present Canon decrees that no bishop shall be ordained in a province whose bishop is still living and is still invested with the episcopal office or dignity. For this causes scandals and disturbances in the Church. Except only in case the bishop voluntarily resigns from his bishopric (on account of some secret reason, that is to say, which prevents his keeping it; concerning which see the Letter of the Third Ecumenical Council). But if any bishop merits being ousted from his bishopric on account of crimes he has committed, and merits being deposed from office on account thereof, thereafter let some other bishop take his place. If, on the other hand, it should happen that any bishop neither cares to resign nor to pastor his laity, but, instead of doing so, stays for more than six months outside of his province, without being compelled to do so either by an Imperial rescript or by the necessity of rendering service to his Patriarch, nor by any severe illness that incapacitates him; when such a bishop is summoned and fails to return, but, on the contrary, neglects the flock entrusted to him, let him be utterly deposed from the prelatic dignity, and let some other man be ordained bishop in his stead. Note, however, that after saying further above "unless he himself shall voluntarily resign" from his bishopric, further below it says, as if correcting that proviso, that a bishop ought to be ousted from his province for crimes, and not simply when he voluntarily resigns on account of indolence and disinclination to take care of his affairs, unless it be, as we said, on account of some hidden .and secret reason that prevents him from attending to his duties.

In agreement with the present Canon c. XCVI of Carthage decrees that the bishopric of a bishop ought not to be taken away from him before the judicial trial of his case has resulted in a verdict. But c. IV of Sardica forbids the appointing of another bishop to the bishopric of a deposed bishop until a decision concerning this has been pronounced by the bishop of Rome, lest there be two bishops in the same city; which is unlawful and is forbidden by c. VIII of the 1st and by c. XII of the 4th. See also Ap. c. LVIII and c. LXXX of the 6th.

(Ap. c. LXXX: c. II of the 1st: c. III of Laodicea; c. X of Sardica; c. XII of Neocaesarea; c. IV of Cyril).

The present Canon forbids anyone to be elevated to the height of the prelacy, that is to say, to be ordained a prelate, from the ranks of laymen or monks, directly this has been voted; but, on the contrary, he must first be ordained in due order to every degree of the holy orders in succession, to wit: Lector, Subdeacon, Deacon, and Presbyter. Secondly, he must remain a sufficient length of time in each degree of rank, and thereafter, if he be found to be worthy, he may be ordained also a bishop. For, although it is true that some persons heretofore in time of need have been made bishops directly from laymen and monks (that is to say, without first passing the usual and appointed length of time in each rank of holy orders), and they indeed proved worthy and shone with virtues, and glorified their provinces, yet it must be borne in mind that what is particular and rare, and is done in time of necessity, cannot be made a general law to the Church (which very fact is stated also by St. Gregory the Theologian, and by the second Act of the Council held in Holy Wisdom, which says: "Rare good things cannot be a law to the majority of human beings"). Hence this must not be done from now on and in the future. Read also Ap. c. LXXX.

(Ap. cc. XII, XIII, XXXII; c. VI of Antioch; c. XIV of Sardica; cc. XI, XXXVII, CXLI.).

In order to bring about a peaceful end to the many scandals and dissensions which had arisen at that time in the Eastern and the Western Church, as between Popes Nicholas and Adrian of Rome and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, the primary cause of which had been the province of Bulgaria, as we have said, the present Canon of this Council decrees that all the clerics and laymen and bishops that were excommunicated or deposed or anathematized by John the Pope of Rome, whether they be located in Europe or in Asia or in Africa, they are to be excommunicated and deposed and anathematized also by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople. And conversely, all such persons as have been excommunicated or deposed or anathematized in any region of the earth by the Patriarch of Constantinople, are to be excommunicated, deposed, and anathematized also by the Pope of Rome, without the privileges of the Church of the Romans, and of the Pope therein, being adversely affected, either now or in the future, this meaning, that is to say, that the Pope is to be first in the order of honor with respect to the other four Patriarchs. Nevertheless, these things were done at that time when the Church of the Romans had neither slipped from the faith nor had any quarrel with us Greeks. But now we have no union or communion with her, on account of the heretical dogmas to which she became attached. See also Ap. c. XXXII.

The present Canon prohibits bishops and pastors from descending from the height of prelatical dignity and office to the lowness of the habit of monks (just as they are likewise forbidden to resign from their province, except only on account of canonical crimes they have to their discredit, preventing them from being in holy orders, and confessed by them to their spiritual father. For by resigning beforehand, they would have been enabled to descend to the rank of monks). But if anyone should dare to do so, after making this decision, let him no longer be able in any way whatsoever to retain the high office of the prelacy, or to perform any prelatical function; for first of all the agreement which monks enter into in connection with the habit are agreements of social subordination, or pupilship (or discipleship), and of repentance (or penitance), but not of authority and of teacherhood and of a life grounded in irreprehensibility, which are the merits of the office of bishop. These things, being contrary to one another, cannot be found united together in the same season. Secondly, the fact that the monks themselves have deprived themselves of the rank of the prelacy, and so it is not possible for them to recover again that which they forfeited by deeds or actual works. Notwithstanding that hitherto some bishops have been committing this impropriety, from now on, however, and henceforth let it not be done.

The world has never been free from evils. Accordingly, the opinion of that sage is true which says that most men are evil. For here, behold, you can see for yourselves proof of this in the fact that in older times bishops were beaten and imprisoned by laymen. What an outrage! That is why the present Canon commands that a layman be anathematized if after receiving authority and power, or after becoming the cause of his own mental (or psychical) death (for the Greek word, says the author, which is here translated into English as "a man of authority," also signifies "self-murderer," or one who is ordinarily called a suicide in English) he should show contempt for imperial orders and commands, at the same time laugh to scorn both the unwritten traditions and the written laws of the Church, and dare (for it is truly a piece of enormous daring and audacity for anyone to strike any bishop) to strike a bishop (or, more explicitly, not only the bishop, with the definite article, that is to say, the noted and official personage, but even the humblest, and poorest, and casual bishop), or to put him in prison, either without cause or on a false charge which he himself has trumped up. But what is an anathema? See the Prolegomena of the Council held in Gangra. Read also Ap. c. LV.

There were three regional councils that were held in Carthage, a city in Africa, with regard to rebaptism, in the time of St. Cyprian the martyr. One was in the year 255 A.C. and in the fourth year of the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, at which council it was decreed that no one could be baptized outside of the Church, since the Church recognizes only one baptism; hence heretics who join the catholic Church have to be rebaptized. But persons that have been canonically baptized previously by the Orthodox and have later become heretics, must be accepted upon returning to Orthodoxy, not by baptism, as Novatius was asserting, but solely by prayer and imposition of hands (concerning which see also c. VIII of the 1st), as is plainly evident from the letter addressed to Quintus by Cyprian and numbered 71. A second council was held in the year 258 (or 256 according to Milias in the first volume of the Councils). It was attended by 71 bishops from Numidia and other parts of Africa, whom St. Cyprian had assembled in order that they might affirm with greater force and effect and confirm the decree concerning rebaptism which had been set forth at the preceding council. They first decreed that all those who were in the church, i.e., were clerics, and left the faith, were to be accepted upon their return only as laymen; and secondly, that the baptism performed by persons who were heretics was so invalid that when converted they would have to be baptized in the Orthodox manner, but were not to be deemed to be baptized a second time, but to be considered as receiving baptism for the first time in their life, on the ground that they never had had any true baptism at all. But a third council was also held in Carthage in the same year by the same St. Cyprian, and was attended by 84 bishops. It sent the present conciliar canonical letter, which is the same as saying the present Canon, to Bishop Jovian and his fellow bishops, as Zonaras asserts (and as the letter itself plainly indicates), because this bishop had asked divine Cyprian whether the schismatic Novatians ought to be baptized upon joining the catholic Church. But as very learned Dositheus (p. 55 of the Dodecabiblus) says, it was because a letter had been sent by the above-mentioned second council to Pope Stephen of Rome revealing what it had decided and decreed concerning rebaptism; Stephen, convoking a council in Rome, invalidated the letter by decreeing that the baptism of heretics who baptize as the Church does ought not to be in effect doubled, i.e., repeated, as Cyprian states in his letter to Pompeius Sabratensio, a bishop in Africa. Hence for the purpose of affording complete confirmation of the necessity of rebaptism and of the baptism performed once and twice as determined by conciliar decision, and with a view to the rejection of what had been decreed by Pope Stephen, this third Council was assembled by St. Cyprian, and it issued the present Canon. Note that although this Council ought to have been placed in front of all the Ecumenical Councils and other regional councils because of the fact that it preceded all of them in point of time, it has been placed after them in sequence here and the Ecumenical Councils have been introduced ahead of it, on the ground that the present Council, being a regional one, is of less importance and has less claim to a front seat. (See Dositheus concerning these councils on pp. 53 and 975 of the Dodecabiblus; and see p. 98 of the first volume of the conciliar records.) This same rule has been observed also with respect to the other regional councils which preceded the Ecumenical Councils, that of being placed, that is to say, after the Ecumenical Councils on account of their authoritativeness. As for St. Cyprian, who assembled these three Councils, he suffered martyrdom in the reign of Emperor Decius. The wonderful encomium which the theological tongue of St. Gregory bestowed upon his holiness suffices for his praise.

(Ap. cc. XLVI, XLVII, LXVIII; c. VII of the 2nd; c. XCV of the 6th.)

The present Canon proves, by means of many arguments, that baptism administered by heretics and schismatics is unacceptable, and they ought to be baptized when they return to the Orthodoxy of the catholic Church. 1st) Because there is but one baptism, and because this is to be found only in the catholic Church. Heretics and schismatics, on the other hand, being outside of the catholic Church, have, in consequence, not even the one baptism. 2nd) The water used in baptism must first be purified and be sanctified by means of prayers of the priests, and by the grace of the Holy Spirit; afterwards it can purify and sanctify the person being baptized therein. But heretics and schismatics are neither priests, being in fact rather sacrilegists; neither clean and pure, being in fact impure and unclean; neither holy, as not having any Holy Spirit. So neither have they any baptism. 3rd) Through baptism in the catholic Church there is given a remission of sins. But through the baptism administered by heretics and schismatics, inasmuch as it is outside of the Church, how can any remission of sins be given? 4th) The person being baptized must, after he is baptized, be anointed with the myron prepared from olive oil and various spices, which has been sanctified by visitation of the Holy Spirit. But how can a heretic sanctify any such myron when as a matter of fact he has no Holy Spirit because of his being separated therefrom on account of heresy and schism? 5th) The priest must pray to God for the salvation of the one being baptized. But how can a heretic or a schismatic be listened to by God when, as we have said, he is a sacrilegist and a sinner (not so much on account of his works, but rather on account of the heresy or schism, these being the greatest sin of all sins), at a time when the Bible says that God does not listen to sinners. 6th) Because the baptism administered by heretics and schismatics cannot be acceptable to God as baptism, since they are enemies and foes with God (i.e., mutually), and are called antichrists by John. For all these reasons, then, and others the present Canon, with an eye to accuracy and strictness, insists that all heretics and schismatics be baptized, adding also the remark that this opinion — that any baptism, that is to say, administered by heretics or schismatics is unacceptable — is not a new one of the Fathers of this Council, but, on the contrary, is an old one, tried and tested by their predecessors (who nearly reached to the very successors of the Apostles) with great diligence and accuracy; and it is consistent in all respects with Ap. cc. XLVI, XLVII, and LXVIII. Not only did the present Canon reject baptism administered by heretics and schismatics by common agreement, but also in private and individually each one of the eighty-four Fathers attending the present Council, with a separate argument — which is the same as saying, with eighty-four distinct arguments — rejected it. That is why the Second Ecumenical Council in its c. VII reserved the present Canon apart (but if it did not reserve it for all, it did this by way of "economy" and concession, and not with full regard for accuracy, as we have said in the Footnote to Ap. c. XLVI), and the Sixth Ec. C. in its c. II sanctioned and ratified it (even though it may be said that it applied only to those regions of Africa, yet once it actually sanctioned and ratified it, it confirmed it still further, and did not abrogate or annul it). St. Basil the Great, too, accepts it in his c. I. See also the Footnote to the said Ap. c. XLVI. Another. The Ecumenical Council accepted and ratified the statements of the more particular Councils, and indeed by name the Canons of St. Basil the Great, as we saw in c. II of the 6th. Hence it is to be logically inferred that they accepted and confirmed along therewith everything that the regional Councils and Basil the Great had previously decreed; and thus it is correctly and confidently and surely concluded that all heretics must beyond a doubt be baptized. As for the "economy" which certain Fathers employed for a time it cannot be deemed either a law or an example, but if one were to investigate the matter aright, one would finally discover that these heretics whom the Second Ecumenical Council accepted "economically" were mostly persons in holy orders who had been already duly baptized but had succumbed to some heresy, and on this account it employed this "economy." The truth, however, of the divine Scripture, and right reason prove incontestably that all heretics ought to be baptized.

The holy regional Council held in Ancyra, the archdiocese of Galatia, took place, according to those who have written discourses about it, in the year 315 A.C., but Milias in the second volume of the conciliar records says that it was assembled in the year 314. The number of Fathers who attended it was eighteen, of whom the exarchs were: Vitellius, patriarch of Antioch, Syria; Agricola, metropolitan of Caesarea, Cappadocia; Marcellus, archbishop of the same Ancyra; and the martyr St. Basileus, bishop of Amaseia. They issued the present 25 Canons regarding those who denied Christ during the reign of Maximus the tyrant, and who sacrificed to idols, but thereafter joined the Church. These Canons are definitely confirmed by c. II of the 6th Ec. C., and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th and c. I of the 7th; and by virtue of the latter’s confirmation they acquire an ecumenical force in a way. Concerning this Council Gregory of Neocaesarea made predictions even 53 years before it in his c. VIII. (See Dositheus, p. 976 of the Dodecabiblus, concerning it.)

Of those Christians who used to deny Christ and sacrifice to idols in time of persecutions, some, when tortured and unable to endure the severity of the tortures, would deny the name of Christ, while others even before suffering any tortures would betray the religion. The latter, however, in order to avoid appearing to deny it voluntarily, would persuade the torturers, either by means of money or by entreaties, to pretend that they were putting them to tortures, without really doing so, but merely in appearance. These facts having become known to have been so, the present Canon decrees that those presbyters who when really put to tortures, without any trickery or hypocritical acting, and unable to endure them, sacrificed at first to idols, but later again, having regretted this, confessed the faith and reaped a victory, are to have the outward honor and the right to sit with the presbyters (to be honored, that is to say, like priests, and to sit together with the priests — concerning which see c. I of Antioch and the Footnote to c. XXVI of the 6th), yet not to have permission to conduct divine services, nor to teach, nor to perform any other priestly office. See also Ap. c. LXII, and c. I of the 1st.

The same things that the above Canon decreed with reference to presbyters is decreed by the present Canon with reference to deacons. That, in other words, if in consequence of the severity of the tortures they were overcome and sacrificed to idols, but thereafter again confessed the religion (here called, in Greek, the "piety"), they are to enjoy whatever other honor is due to deacons, but are to cease from every kind of sacred service that pertains to deacons, and from holding the holy bread and the holy cup (see the Footnote to c. XXIII of the 6th), and from preaching. If, however, any local bishops should become convinced that they are showing toil or moil in their repentance for the denial, and have been contritely humbled on account of the sin, and that they treat with meekness those who reproach them on this account, and not with audacity, it lies in their power to allow them anything more than the mere outward honor of deacons on account of the fervency of their repentance. If, on the contrary, they are convinced that they are little concerned and lukewarm in their repentance, again they have the power to deprive them even of that outward honor of deacons. See Ap. c. LXII, and c. XI of the lst-&-2nd.

Since, according to St. Gregory the Theologian, the law of martyrdom is that one ought not to run of his own accord and voluntarily into martyrdom, with provision for both the weakness and the possible faint-hearted-ness which he may exhibit, and on account of the perdition and punishment in hell which those persons are bound to sustain who put him to martyrdom, nor again if he should happen to get caught in the net of martyrdom, ought he to flee and lose faith. For this reason the Christians of that time, being conscious of the weakness of their nature, were wont to flee from persecutions and hide themselves, in accordance with that passage in the Gospel which says: "when they persecute you in this city and drive you thence, flee ye into another" (Matt. 10:23). So, with reference to these fleeing Christians, the present Canon says in its decree that if these persons in fleeing were caught, or were delivered up by their own relatives who were Greeks (i.e., heathen), or were deprived of their property, or underwent tortures, and were cast into prison, or had their clothes torn off and were stripped naked, or the tyrants forcibly thrust into their hands incense, or some sacrificial object, or into their mouth thrust food which had been offered sacrificially to idols, and while suffering all these things cried out nevertheless that they were Christians, without any utter denial, they, I say, if they mourn over that occurrence which has befallen them, and display their mournfulness outwardly both by a show of humility and depression and plainness of clothes, and a face revealing their life, they are not to be prevented from partaking of divine communion, since they too are considered as not having sinned in any respect. But if some persons have excluded them from divine communion, either because of too great strictness, or on account of their indiscreetness, they must forthwith be admitted thereto, whether those who have suffered such an embarrassment were clerics or laymen. In fact, such persons are so far removed from any such sinfulness that even though one person among them should be a layman, he may become a priest, provided his previous life is unimpeachable and worthy of holy orders. See also Ap. c. LXII, and c. I of Gregory the Miracle-worker.

The present Canon decrees that as regards those who have been forced to sacrifice to idols, or to eat food that was offered to idols, they must first be examined as to their disposition when doing that, and according to the disposition shown they are to have their penances meted out to them. For if when dragged off to be compelled to sacrifice, or to eat things offered to idols, they displayed a joyous attitude, and adorned themselves in valuable garments, and ate it in a nonchalant manner, that is to say, without being troubled in their heart, and grieved on this account, they are to do a year in the station of listeners, three years in that of kneelers, two years in that of co-standers (or consistentes) and after all these years they are to partake of the divine Mysteries.

As for all those who patiently suffered unendurable tortures at first, but later on account of the weakness of the flesh were overcome and caused to deny, they are canonized three years and forty days according to c. I of Peter. But as for those who merely underwent imprisonment, and the stench connected therewith, but without other tortures were induced to deny, they are canonized four years, according to c. II of the same man. As for those, on the other hand, who when being tortured wore mourning while eating things that had been offered to idols, they are canonized three years and beyond, according to c. V of the present Council. But if they merely ate foods of their own at a heathenish festival in a temple of an idol, they are to spend two years in kneeling, according to c. VII of the present Council. As for those who sacrificed two or three times under duress, they are canonized seven years according to c. VIII of this same Council. See also c. XIV of the 1st Ec. C. and the drawing of a temple.

The present Canon does not harmonize with the one above. For it says that all those who were forced to sacrifice and went with humble and mournful garments and ate things sacrificed to idols, weeping throughout the interval of their meal, shall, after doing three years in company with kneelers, stand with the faithful, though they are not to partake. But if they have not eaten anything at all that has been sacrificed to an idol, let them do two years as kneelers, and in the third year let them stand with the faithful, but without partaking, and after four years let them commune. These are the penalties provided by the Council. Bishops, however, have it in their power to consider the way in which they are repenting. Accordingly, if they are genuinely and fervently repentant, they are to lessen the number of years decreed as penalties. But if, on the contrary, they are unconcerned and nonchalant in repenting, they are to increase the number of years decreed as penalties. Moreover, bishops are obliged to investigate their life both before they ate the abominable things and after they ate things abominable. Then, if that life was and is virtuous, they are to reduce the penalties; but if it was and is blameworthy and wicked, they are to augment them. See also cc. XI and XII of the 1st, and c. IV of the present.

Any Christians that were overcome by the mere threats which the tyrants terrified them with when threatening to torture them, and to take away their property, or to exile them, and they sacrificed to the idols, and thereafter failed to repent until now at the present time of this Council they have barely arrived at a notion of repentance and of return, as for these persons, I say, the present Canon decrees that they are to be canonized, and that they shall remain in the station of listeners from the time of the Council, or, in other words, from the fourth week after Easter (see Ap. c. XXXVII) until the coming great day of Easter — which is the same as saying, a year and a month. Thereafter they are to kneel for three years, to stand with the faithful for two more years, and after the six years have ended they are to partake of communion. But as for any such persons as were admitted to repentance before this Council met, the six years of their canon are to start from that time. Nevertheless, if it should happen that there should ensue to them any danger of death from any illness or other circumstance, then they are to partake because of the necessity of the case, but conditionally — that is to say, in other words, under such a proviso that if they do not die, but remain alive, they are to refrain from communing again until the six years have elapsed, just as is decreed to the very same effect by c. XIII of the 1st. Read also Ap. c. LXII, and c. XI of the 1st. See also the drawing of a temple at the end of this book.

The present Canon decrees that all Christians who took their food with them and went to a fixed spot appointed for the Hellenians to carry out their ceremonies and ate with them are to spend two years in kneeling and then be admitted. The bishop, however, by examining their earlier and later life, shall judge whether it is reasonable for these persons to be admitted only to prayer with the faithful or also to partake with them of the divine Mysteries. See c. XII of the 1st, and the ichnograph of a temple at the end of this book, and c. IV of the present Council.

Having already expressed themselves as regarding those who have sacrificed once, these fathers now in the present Canon are expressing themselves as regarding those who have sacrificed two or three times, by saying that those who have done this under compulsion must spend four years in kneeling, and stand together with the faithful for two years, communing with them only in prayers; but in the seventh year they may partake of the divine Mysteries. See the ichnograph of a temple at the end of this book, and c. IV of the present Council.

As for all those who were so afraid of tortures that they not only denied the faith of Christ, but even rose up against the rest of the faithful, and either themselves compelled them to sacrifice and to deny, or cause others among the persecutors to compel them to do so, because, it may have been, they revealed Christians who were hiding somewhere or who had fled or who were unknown — as for such persons, I say, the present Canon commands them to listen to the Scriptures for three years, to kneel for six, and to stand with the faithful for one year; and when the ten years have been finished, then they are to be permitted to partake of the divine Mysteries. During the interval of these ten years the rest of their life must be examined into by their bishop or their spiritual father; and if they have been living negligently and badly, the years of their sentence are to be augmented.

Canon VIII of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker (or Thaumaturgus) in regard to those who were taken captive by barbarians and later engaged with them in killing Christians or revealed to them hidden Christians, decrees that they ought not to be put even among listeners, but ought to weep outside the gate, until such time as a common Council is held concerning them — the present one, that is to say, and the present Canon concerning them. See also the ichnograph of a temple at the end of this book.

The present Canon decrees that if any deacons about to be ordained have openly confessed in evidence that they must marry after ordination, because of their inability to continue in a state of virginity, they are not to be deposed thereafter if they take a wife, but are to retain their deaconship, since they appeared to have been allowed to do this by the prelate who ordained them. For after hearing their declaration beforehand, the prelate did not reject them, but actually ordained them. But as for those deacons, again, who kept silent when about to be ordained and made no such statement, if they marry after ordination, they are to be dismissed from the deaconry. For the silence they maintained shows that they consented and agreed to remain virgins throughout their diaconate. See also c. VI of the 6th and the Footnote thereto.

In olden times many persons accepted Christianity and believed in Christ, but were late in receiving holy baptism. On this account St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil the Great wrote their discourses urging to baptism. So it is in regard to these persons that the present Canon states that if as Christians they were caught by persecutors and sacrificed, provided they were baptized after the sacrifice, they may ascend even to the rank of the clergy and of holy orders, because we believe that holy baptism purified them from all former sins, no matter of what sort these might have been, whether pardonable or mortal. See also Ap. c. II.

The present Canon decrees that without the written permission of their bishop auxiliary bishops cannot ordain any presbyters or deacons in any territory outside of their own. For if they cannot ordain such persons even in their own territory, except only for subdeacons, lectors, and exorcists, according to c. X of Antioch, much less can they do so in any other. But neither must they ordain even city presbyters where the bishop proper resides, without his written permission. The Canon insists that written permission be given, in order to prevent any doubt from supervening. See also the Footnote to c. VIII of the 1st.

Since it was possible some persons actually did abhor or loathe meat in very truth, but, to cover up the fact, said that they abstained from it for the sake of exercise and temperance, in order to remove any such suspicion, the present Canon decrees that presbyters and deacons who refrain from eating meat with a view to temperance, must taste a little of it. But as for those who are so stoutly set against meat that they will not even eat vegetable cooked with meat, they must be dismissed from holy orders. For they thereby provoke the suspicion that they find meat disgusting, a view held by the Manichees and other heretics. Read also Ap. cc. LI and LIII.

In case presbyters and other members of the clergy (for the present Canon by beginning with a higher rank shows that it includes the lower ranks too) on account of any need have sold things of the church of the bishopric without the permission and consent of the bishop, or when he was not present, or had died, the church, or rather the bishop, shall recover them and take them back from the buyers. It is left to the discretion of the bishop whether to pay back to the buyers the price for which the things were sold, or not to pay it back; for many times owing to the fact that the things afford a profit or income the buyers may receive more from them than they paid for them when they bought them; and for this reason it is not right for them to receive the price of the things twice. See also Ap. c. XXXVIII. As for why the church is called a Lord’s house, we have said all there is to say in the Footnote to c. LXXIV of the 6th.

Those who have fallen or are falling into the sin committed with irrational animals, otherwise known as bestiality, are not all to be treated alike, says the present Canon, but, on the contrary, those who sinned with them only a few times, before becoming twenty years old, and without possessing wives, are to do only fifteen years in the station of kneelers, and to stand for five years together with the faithful in the church praying along with them, and thereafter are to be allowed to partake of the Eucharist. But their life during penitence ought to be examined, and if they are fervidly repentant, they ought to be canonized more leniently; but if they have been living negligently, they ought not to receive any leniency whatever. But if these persons have fallen into this irrational sin of bestiality a great many times and to excess, let them do a long time among the kneelers. And accordingly they are thus to be canonized leniently both because of their youthfulness, during which the flame of desire is kindled, and because of their foolishness. But as for those who are more than twenty years old and have wives, if they have fallen into this vile sin, let them kneel for twenty-five years, and let them pray along with the faithful for five years, and then after those thirty years let them partake of the Eucharist. But as for those who are more than fifty years old and have wives, if they have fallen into bestiality, let them partake of the Eucharist at their death, and not at any other time. For they have no excuse whatever to offer like the ones above mentioned, neither youthfulness nor instability of character.

Canon IV of Nyssa canonizes those guilty of violating the chastity of (lower) animals nineteen years, and calls this crime "adultery against nature," "because the injustice is done to a strange being and contrary to nature." St. Basil the Great, on the other hand, in his c. VII imposes on violators of the chastity of animals the same sentence as that meted out to violators of the chastity of male children and to murderers and to adulterers, while in his c. LXIII he makes it that inflicted upon adulterers only, or, more plainly speaking, he fixes it at fifteen years. According to c. XVII of the same Council, those guilty of bestiality ought to pray in company with the weather-bitten (or hiemantes), called in Greek cheimazomenoi. God, however, commands that men and women who fall into sin with (lower) animals be put to death, and that along with them the animals too be put to death. "And if any man lie with a quadruped, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the quadruped. And if a woman approach any beast, and lie down thereto, ye shall kill the woman and the beast" (Lev. 20:15-16). Book LX of the Basilica, Title 37, commands that "of those guilty of irrationalization, or, more explicitly speaking, of bestiality, let the verpa be cut off."

Just as Moses calls lepers unclean, in like manner the present Canon calls those guilty of bestiality and of violating the chastity of animals lepers, or, more explicitly speaking, unclean and leprous, meaning, in other words, that they have infected even those animals. It decrees that they pray together with the weather-bitten, or, more explicitly speaking, the persons possessed by demons. See also the above c. XVI of this same Council.

The present Canon decrees that in case any bishops, after being ordained, failed to be accepted by their province, but go to other provinces, and coerce those ordained there, and cause disturbances, they are to be excommunicated, and to be deprived of the honor due to a bishop; but if they wish, let them have only the seat and honor of presbyters. Otherwise, if they will not keep the peace, but cause scandals and fights with the bishops there, let them forfeit even this honor of presbyters, and be ousted from the church altogether. Read also Ap. cc. XXXV and XXXVI.

Those who interpret the present Canon, including both Balsamon and Blastaris, assert that those men who promise to maintain their virginity, or, in other words, to live exclusively for God, before their being tonsured and clothed in monastic garments, can lawfully take a wife, by fulfilling the Canon of digamists; because, they say, monasticism is not affirmed by words, but is constituted and confirmed by the tonsure and the monastic garments. St. Basil the Great in his c. XVIII, which cites the present Canon, asserts that such persons do not marry, but practice fornication, and he commands that they be not admitted to communion until they get divorced from that marriage which according to commentators is legal but according to Basil the Great is a greater sin than fornication. Because he says in his c. VI: "fornications of monks are not considered to be marriage." Canon XVI of the 4th says that those who have consecrated themselves to God cannot marry. But if they allege that a promise consisting of words does not afford so much binding force and weight to those making a vow, let them listen to Athanasius the Great, who says with reference to the Lord’s passion: "Whatever we vow to God is no longer ours, but God’s; accordingly, if we take it, we are not taking what is ours, but what is God’s, and are sacrilegists." For a promise does not depend only on money, but also on words and on choice. Thus, too, monastic life does not depend on the tonsure and on the garments, but also on the word and on the promise to God. So all those who promise anything good to God are obliged to pay it. As who should say, a virgin man owes virginity; a temperate man owes temperance; and a married man owes sobriety — if they want to escape being chastised like Ananias and Sapphira. And they owe not only that vow which they made before men, but also that which they made in private by themselves. For divine Basil says (in his discourse on greed): "You are talking secretly with yourself, but your words are heard in heaven; and the God in heaven who can see into hearts is a better witness than men who can see only what is outside." So in order to reconcile the present Canon with the Canon of the saint, it is better and more accurate to understand it thus: that all who have promised to maintain virginity, or a solitary life, and have married before becoming monks, are canonized as digamists, or, in other words, to go without communion for a year, according to c. XVIII of Basil, after they have been freed from this unlawful marriage and fornication according to cc. VI and XVIII of Basil. In addition, the Canon prohibits women who have promised to remain virgins from cohabiting with any men, even though calling themselves sisters of the men, or calling them their "brothers, on the theory that by means of such a claim and the use of such words they might avoid any untoward suspicion against them, concerning which see c. III of the 1st.

The present Canon excludes an adulteress and an adulterer from the communion of the Mysteries for seven years. These years are to be counted and passed in accordance with the aforesaid classes of penitents, or, in other words, just as St. Basil the Great prescribes: for one year they are to continue weeping; for two years they are to remain listeners; for three years they are to be kneelers; and during the seventh year they are to stand with the faithful; and then may they partake of the divine Mysteries, provided they repent with tears in their eyes.

Canon IV of Nyssa sentences the adulterer to eighteen years, while St. Basil in his c. LVIII sentences him to fifteen, the Faster to three only but with a further satisfaction consisting in xerophagy and genuflections in his c. XIII. See c. LXXXVII of the 6th, and Ap. c. XLVIII, and the ichnograph of a temple.

Regarding all women who commit fornication with men secretly and conceive, but kill the embryos within their belly, or lift weights exceeding their strength, or drink certain drugs abortive of embryos, such women, I say, had already been denied communion until their death by another Canon preceding the present one; but the present Canon, which the fathers of the present Council have decreed in a spirit of greater leniency, prohibits them from communing for only ten years, which is the sentence specified also by c. II of Basil. These years are to be served thus, according to Zonaras and the anonymous expositor: For two years they are to be weepers; for three they are to be listeners; for four they are to be kneelers; for one year they are to stand together with the faithful, and then they are to partake of communion. Read also c. XCI of the 6th, Ap. c. LXVI, and the ichnograph of a temple.

The present Canon sentences those who murder persons wilfully to kneel throughout their life, and to commune only at the end of their life.

Canon LVI of St. Basil the Great sentences them to twenty years, and read what Ap. c. LXVI has to say.

Those who h