APPENDIX

THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS

ABOUT the year 500 A.D., Dionysius the Less, who was an abbot in a monastery at Rome, translated a collection of canons from Greek into Latin, for Bishop Stephen of Salona, at the head of which he placed fifty canons, which, according to him, proceeded from the apostles, and had been arranged and collected by their disciple Clement of Rome. Dionysius placed after them the canons of Nicæa, of Ancyra, of Constantinople, of Chalcedon, etc. We are still in possession not only of this collection, but even of its Præfatio, which was addressed to Bishop Stephen: it is to be found in every good collection of the Councils. The words of this preface, Canones, qui dicuntur apostolorum, show that Dionysius had some doubt as to the apostolic origin of these canons, which is made more evident when he adds; quibus plurimi consensum non præbucre facilem. Dr. von Drey, who is the author of the best work upon these apostolic canons, and also upon the Apostolic Constitutions, thinks that by plurimi we must here understand only the Greeks, for the translation by Dionysius is the first Latin translation of these canons. This last statement is true; but we must not conclude from it that the Greek text of these canons was not known in the West, and especially in Italy, where at this period so many spoke Greek. We must not conclude, however, that this sentence of Dionysius, Quamvis postea quædam constituta pontificum ex ipsis canonibus assumpta esse videantur, referred to the Popes: the word pontifices rather signifies the bishops, and especially the Greek bishops, who made use of the so-called apostolic canons in their Synod, in the arrangement of their own canons.

About fifty years after Dionysius the Less, Joannes Scholasticus of Antioch, who was made Patriarch of Constantinople in 565, published a Greek collection of canons, σύνταγμα κανὸνων, which also contained the apostolic canons; but instead of numbering fifty, they here amounted to eighty-five. This collection is still in existence, and was printed in the second volume in folio of the Bibliotheca juris canonici, by Voellus and Justellus (Paris 1661). The arrangement of the apostolic canons is here also attributed to Clement of Rome, and Joannes Scholasticus implies that the most ancient Greek collections of canons also contain the eighty-five apostolic canons.

It is undeniable that the Greek copy which Dionysius had before him belonged to a different family of collections of Councils from that used by Joannes Scholasticus, for they differ frequently, if not essentially, both in text and in the way of numbering the canons; and hence it is explained how Dionysius the Less knew only of fifty apostolic canons. It is supposed that at first there were indeed only fifty in circulation, and that the thirty-five others were added subsequently. However that may be, it is quite certain that, if Dionysius the Less did omit these thirty-five canons, it was not out of consideration for Rome, as was suggested by De Marca; for none of these canons was so much calculated to shock the Roman Church as was the forty-sixth of the first series, which, in contradiction of the Roman practice, declared all baptism by heretics to be invalid.

When Joannes Scholasticus became Patriarch of Constantinople, he brought his collection, and consequently also the eighty-five apostolic canons contained in it, into ecclesiastical use; and in 792, in its second canon, the Trullan Synod declared not only that the eighty-five apostolic canons had the force of laws, but besides this, that they must be considered as of apostolic origin, whilst they rejected the Apostolic Constitutions. It is quite true, it says, that the apostolic canons recommend the observance of the Constitutions; but as the latter were soon falsified, the Synod could not accept them. It did not, however, doubt their apostolic origin.

The Synod in Trullo being, as is well known, regarded as œcumenical by the Greek Church, the authenticity of the eighty-five canons was decided in the East for all future time. It was otherwise in the West. At the same period that Dionysius the Less translated the collection in question for Bishop Stephen, Pope Gelasius promulgated his celebrated decree, de libris non recipiendis. Drey mentions it, but in a way which requires correction. Following in this the usual opinion, he says that the Synod at Rome in which Gelasius published this decree was held in 494; but we shall see hereafter that this Synod was held in 496. Also Drey considers himself obliged to adopt another erroneous opinion, according to which Gelasius declared in the same decree the apostolic canons to be apocryphal. This opinion is to be maintained only so long as the usual text of this decree is consulted, as the original text as it is given in the ancient manuscripts does not contain the passage which mentions the apostolic canons. This passage was certainly added subsequently, with many others, probably by Pope Hormisdas (514–543), when he made a new edition of the decree of Gelasius. As Dionysius the Less published his collection in all probability subsequently to the publication of the decree of Gelasius, properly so called, in 496, we can understand why this decree did not mention the apostolical canons. Dionysius the Less did not go to Rome while Gelasius was living, and did not know him personally, as he himself says plainly in the Præfatio of his collection of the papal decrees. It is hence also plain how it was that in another collection of canons subsequently made by Dionysius, of which the preface still remains to us, he does not insert the apostolic canons, but has simply this remark: Quos non admisit universalitas, ego quoque in hoc opere prætermisi. Dionysius the Less, in fact, compiled this new collection at a time when Pope Hormisdas had already explicitly declared the apostolic canons to be apocryphal. Notwithstanding this, these canons, and particularly the fifty mentioned by Dionysius the Less, did not entirely fall into discredit in the West; but rather they came to be received, because the first collection of Dionysius was considered of great authority. They also passed into other collections, and particularly into that of the pseudo-Isidore; and in 1054, Humbert, legate of Pope Leo IX., made the following declaration: Clementis liber, id est itincrarium Petri apostoli et canones apostolorum numerantur inter apocrypha, EXCEPTIS CAPITULIS QUINQUAGINTA, quæ decreverunt regulis orthodoxis adjungenda. Gratian also, in his decree, borrowed from the fifty apostolic canons, and they gradually obtained the force of laws. But many writers, especially Hincmar of Rheims, like Dionysius the Less, raised doubts upon the apostolical origin of these canons. From the sixteenth century the opinion has been universal that these documents are not authentic; with the exception, however, of the French Jesuit Turrianus, who endeavoured to defend their genuineness, as well as the authenticity of the pseudo-Isidorian decrees. According to the Centuriators of Magdeburg, it was especially Gabriel d’Aubespine Bishop of Orleans, the celebrated Archbishop Peter de Marca, and the Anglican Beveridge, who proved that they were not really compiled by the apostles, but were made partly in the second and chiefly in the third century. Beveridge considered this collection to be a repertory of ancient canons given by Synods in the second and third centuries. In opposition to them, the Calvinist Dallæus (Daillé) regarded it as the work of a forger who lived in the fifth and sixth centuries; but Beveridge refuted him so convincingly, that from that time his opinion, with some few modifications, has been that of all the learned. Beveridge begins with the principle, that the Church in the very earliest times must have had a collection of canons; and he demonstrates that from the commencement of the fourth century, bishops, synods, and other authorities often quote, as documents in common use, the κανὼν ἀποστολικὸς, or ἐκκλησιαστικὸς, or ἀρχαῖος; as was done, for instance, at the Council of Nicæa, by Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and by the Emperor Constantine, etc. According to Beveridge, these quotations make allusion to the apostolic canons, and prove that they were already in use before the fourth century.

Dr. v. Drey’s work, undertaken with equal learning and critical acuteness, has produced new results. He has proved, 1st, that in the primitive Church there was no special codex canonum in use; 2d, that the expression κανὼν ἀποστολικὸς does not at all prove the existence of our apostolic canons, but rather refers to such commands of the apostles as are to be found in Holy Scripture (for instance, to what they say about the rights and duties of bishops), or else it simply signifies this: “Upon this point there is a rule and a practice which can be traced back to apostolic times;” but not exactly a written law. As a summary of Drey’s conclusions, the following points may be noted:—Several of the pretended apostolic canons are in reality very ancient, and may be assigned to apostolic times; but they have been arranged at a much more recent period, and there are only a few which, having been borrowed from the Apostolic Constitutions, are really more ancient than the Council of Nicæa. Most of them were composed in the fourth or even in the fifth century, and are hardly more than repetitions and variations of the decrees of the Synods of that period, particularly of the Synod of Antioch in 341. Some few are even more recent than the fourth Œcumenical Council held at Chalcedon, from the canons of which they have been derived. Two collections of the apostolic canons have been made: the first after the middle of the fifth century; the second, containing thirty-five more than the other, at the commencement of the sixth century. From these conclusions Drey draws up the following table:—

The apostolic canons are taken,—

1. C. 1, 2, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 27, 34, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 60, 64, and 65, from the six first books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which originated in the East, and particularly in Syria, in the second half of the third century.

2. C. 79, from the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, considerably more recent than the six first, but which, together with the seventh, was united to the six first books before 325.

3. C. 21–24 and 80, from the Council of Nicæa.

4. C. 9–16 inclusive, c. 29, 32–41 inclusive, and 76, from the Council of Antioch held in 341.

5. C. 45, 64, 70, and 71, from the Synod of Laodicea.

6. C. 75, from the sixth canon of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381.

7. C. 28, from the Synod of Constantinople, held in 394.

8. C. 30, 67, 74, 81, 83, from the fourth Œcumenical Council.

9. C. 19 is an imitation of the second canon of Neocæsarea.

10. C. 25 and 26 are from Basil the Great.

11. C. 69 and 70 from the pretended letter of S. Ignatius to the Philippians.

12. Rather less than a third of the apostolic canons are of unknown origin.

Bickell, in his History of Ecclesiastical Law, while he adopts for the most part Drey’s conclusions, has shown that he brought down the origin of our canons to a period somewhat too recent. When, for instance, Drey supposes that the thirtieth apostolic canon is taken from the second canon of the fourth Œcumenical Council held at Chalcedon, that the eighty-first apostolic canon is taken from the third canon, and the eighty-third apostolic canon from the seventh canon of the same Council, Bickell remarks that the three canons of Chalcedon, of which we are speaking, certainly bear some analogy to the apostolic canons; but this analogy, he says, is far from being striking, and certainly does not prove that the composer of these canons extracted them from those of the Council. Besides, it must not be forgotten, that in giving directions as to what is to be done when a bishop is formally disobedient (that he should be cited three times), the Council of Chalcedon, nay, even that of Ephesus (431) and that of Constantinople (448), quote canons which they call ecclesiastical and divine. Now these canons are nothing else but the seventy-fourth apostolic canon, which alone gives directions as to what is to be done in such a case. Bickell further quotes a passage from the acts of the seventh session of the Synod of Ephesus held in 431, in which Rheginus Archbishop of Cyprus, in a memorandum of which we have now only the Latin translation, appeals to the canones apostolici, and to the definitiones Nicænœ Synodi, to prove his Church to be independent of that of Antioch. If, as we doubt not, Rheginus intends here to speak of the apostolic canons, and especially of the thirty-sixth (according to Dionysius), it is evident that these canons were then in use. This may be further proved from the Synod of Constantinople held in 394, which, in the words καθὼς οἱ ἀποστολικοὶ κανόνες διωρίσαντο, seems to allude to the apostolic canons.

It is true that Drey endeavours to explain κανόνες ἀποστολικοὶ in the sense pointed out above; but it is probable that we must here think of canons formulated and written, and not only of an ancient ecclesiastical practice. In fact, (α) there is no ancient ecclesiastical custom which ordains that a disobedient bishop should be summoned three times. (β) At such a recent period, when there were already collections of canons, it was more natural to quote these canons than a simple ecclesiastical tradition, (γ) The definitiones Nicænæ Synodi and the canones apostolici would not have been placed on an equal footing if these canones had not been positively reduced to form. (δ) Since these ancient Synods themselves quoted canons which they called apostolic, and which, as we have seen, were then in use, it must be concluded that it was not the apostolic canons which were framed according to the canons of these Councils, but that the contrary was the case. Drey, as we have already remarked, supposes that a great number of the apostolic canons were taken from those of the Council of Antioch held in 341, and Bickell agrees with him on this point. It cannot be denied that Drey’s opinion has much to be said for it: it does not, however, appear to us quite unassailable; and perhaps it may still be possible to prove that the canons of this Council of Antioch were rather taken from the apostolic canons. It may also be the same with the Synod of Nicæa, which, in its first, second, fifth, and fifteenth canons, alludes to ancient canons in use in the Church. Perhaps the Council placed the canons referred to among the apostolic canons which may have circulated in the Church before being inserted in our present collection. This hypothesis is in a certain way confirmed by a document to which Galland has drawn attention, but which Drey and Bickell have overlooked. We have mentioned in the present volume, that in 1738 Scipio Maffei published three ancient documents, the first of which was a Latin translation of a letter written on the subject of Meletius by the Egyptian bishops Hesychius, Phileas, etc. This letter was written during the persecution of Diocletian, that is, between 303 and 305: it is addressed to Meletius himself, and especially accuses him of having ordained priests in other dioceses. This conduct, they tell him, is contrary to all ecclesiastical rule (aliena a more divino et REGULA ECCLESIASTICA), and Meletius himself knows very well that it is a lex patrum et propatrum … in alienis parœciis non licere alicui episcoporum ordinationes celebrare. Maffei himself supposes that the Egyptian bishops were here referring to the thirty-fifth canon (the thirty-sixth according to the enumeration of Dionysius), and this opinion can hardly be controverted.

The Greek text of the apostolic canons exists in many ancient manuscripts, as well in those which contain the Apostolic Constitutions (and then they are placed at the end in a chapter by themselves), as in the manuscripts of ancient collections of canons. In the ancient collections they generally number eighty-five, corresponding to the number found in the copies employed by Dionysius the Less and Joannes Scholasticus. On the other hand, when they are collected in the manuscripts of the Apostolic Constitutions, they are divided into seventy-six canons. For it must not be forgotten that in ancient times the number of canons, and the way in which they were divided, varied greatly.

The fifty apostolic canons in the translation by Dionysius the Less appeared for the first time in the collection of the Councils by Merlin, published in 1523, and they are found in the more recent collections of Hardouin and Mansi. The Greek text was edited for the first time by Gregory Haloander in 1531. In 1561, Gentianus Hervetus published a superior edition of them. These two latter authors divide the canons into eighty-four, and Hervetus’ division has been adopted by Hardouin, Mansi, and Bruns. In our edition we also have adopted the number of eighty-five, at the same time accepting for the fifty-first the division established by Dionysius the Less. For the sake of perspicuity, we have besides placed the two methods of enumeration side by side: first that of Dionysius the Less, then that of Hervetus, Hardouin, Mansi, and Bruns; so much the more, as all our quotations up to this time have been made according to the second enumeration. We shall also borrow their Greek text from those authors, which here and there differs from the text placed at the end of the Constitutions. The Latin translation of the first fifty canons is by Dionysius the Less; that of the last thirty-five is by Cotelerius.

ΚΑΝΟΝΕΣ

ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΝΣΕΠΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΑΩΝ

Regulæ ecclesiasticæ sanctorum apostolorum prolatæ per Clementem Ecclesiæ Romanæ pontificem

CAN. 1

Ἐπίσκοπος χειροτονείσθω ὑπὸ ἐπισκύπων δύο ἢ τριῶν.

Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordinetur.

According to Drey, this canon is among those whose apostolic origin cannot indeed be proved, but which dates back to a very remote antiquity, that is, to the first three centuries of the Christian era. Its sources are certainly the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 2

Πρεσβύτερος ὑφʼ ἑνὸς ἐπισκόπου χειροτονείσθω, καὶ διάκονος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοί.

Presbyter ab uno episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus et reliqui clerici.

The same remarks are applicable as to the first canon.

CAN. 3

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος παρὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διάταξιν, τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ, προσενέγκῃ ἕτερά τινα ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, ἢ μέλι ἢ γάλα ἢ ἀντὶ οἴνου σίκερα ἢ ἐπιτηδευτὰ ἢ ὄρνεις ἢ ζῶά τινα ἢ ὄσπρια, ὡς παρὰ τὴν διάταξιν Κυρίου ποιῶν, καθαιρείσθω, πλὴν νέων χίδρων ἢ σταφυλῆς, τῷ καιρῷ τῷ δέοντι.

Si quis episcopus et presbyter præter ordinationem Domini alia quædam in sacrificio offerat super altare, id est aut mel, aut lac, aut pro vino siceram, aut confecta quædam, aut volatilia, aut animalia aliqua, aut legumina, contra constitutionem Domini faciens, congruo tempore, deponatur.

The Latin text by Dionysius the Less, and the Greek text as it is to be found in the collections of the Councils, here present variations on several points. Thus, (a) the Greek text unites into one single canon what Dionysius divides into Nos. 3 and 4; so that in the collections of the Councils the numbers of the Greek text no longer coincide with those of the translation by Dionysius. We have preserved the enumeration of Dionysius, and have accordingly divided the Greek canon into two. (b) We have not, however, thus produced complete harmony between the two texts; for, according to the Greek text, the words præter novas spicas et uvas belong to the third canon, whilst according to Dionysius they form part of the fourth. These words are evidently a translation of the Greek phrase, πλὴν νέων χίδρων ἢ σταφυλῆς. (c) Bearing in mind these transpositions, the words congruo tempore in the third canon may be explained as follows: “Except fresh ears of corn and grapes when it is the right time for them.” (d) If the words præter novas spicas et uvas are not placed in the third canon, but in the fourth, we must also place the words congruo tempore in the fourth, and then the meaning is the same as before. As to the antiquity of canons 3–5, we will make the following remarks:—All three speak of what ought or ought not to be offered upon the altar. The substance of these rules is ancient: one might even perhaps say that it is partly ordained by our Lord Himself; and it is to this that the first words of the third canon refer. The details contained in this same third canon seem to have been inserted in order to combat the customs of the ancient heretics. The fourth and fifth canons are hardly more than explanations and commentaries on the third, and thus betray a more recent origin.

CAN. 4 (3)

Μὴ ἐξὸν δὲ ἔστω προσάγεσθαί τι ἕτερον εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, ἢ ἔλαιον εἰς τὴν λυχνίαν καὶ θυμίαμα τῷ καιρῷ τῆς ἁγίας προσφορᾶς.

Offerri non licet aliquid ad altare præter novas spicas et uvas, et oleum ad luminaria, et thymiama id est incensum, tempore quo sancta celebratur oblatio.

CAN. 5 (4)

Ἡ ἄλλη πᾶσα ὀπώρα εἰς οἶκον ἀποστελλέσθω, ἀπαρχὴ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον• δῆλον δὲ, ὡς ὁ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἐπιμερίζουσι τοῖς διακόνοις καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς κληρικοῖς.

Reliqua poma omnia ad domum, primitiæ episcopo et presbyteris, dirigantur, nec offerantur in altari. Certum est autem, quod episcopus et presbyteri dividant et diaconis et reliquis clericis.

For these two, see the remarks on the third canon.

CAN. 6 (5)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα μὴ ἐκβαλλέτω προφάσει εὐλαβείας• ἐὰν δὲ ἐκβάλλῃ, ἀφοριζέσθω• ἐπιμένων δὲ, καθαιρείσθω.

Episcopus aut presbyter uxorem propriam sub obtentu religionis nequaquam abjiciat; si vero ejecerit, excommunicetur; et si perseveraverit, dejiciatur.

Drey supposes that Eustathius of Sebaste gave occasion for this canon towards the middle of the fourth century. Compare canons 1 and 4 of the Synod of Gangra. According to the Greek text, it would be necessary to place the words et diaconus after the word presbyter in the Latin translation.

CAN. 7 (6)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κοσμικάς φροντίδας μὴ ἀναλαμβανέτω• εἰ δὲ μὴ, καθαιρείσθω.

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus nequaquam seculares curas assumat; sin aliter, dejiciatur.

This belongs to the most ancient canons, which contain rules perhaps proceeding from the apostles and their disciples; but it must have been arranged more recently (in the third century). The Apostolic Constitutions contain a similar rule.

CAN. 8 (7)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ Πάσχα ἡμέραν πρὸ τῆς ἐαρινῆς ἰσημερίας μετὰ. Ἰουδαίων ἐπιτελέσει, καθαιρείσθω.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus sanctum Paschæ diem ante vernale æquinoctium cum Judæis celebraverit, abjiciatur.

We have seen in the present volume that a fresh difficulty arose during the third century, added to those already existing, for determining the time for celebrating the Easter festival. After having discussed whether it ought to be fixed according to the day of the week or the day of the month, and after having inquired at what time the fast should end, it was besides questioned, during the third century, whether Easter ought always to be celebrated after the vernal equinox. The Council of Nicæa answered this question in the affirmative—if not expressly, at least implicitly. The Synod of Antioch, held in 341, gave a similar decision, and Bickell considers that this canon was taken from the first canon of Antioch. Drey, on the contrary, believes that the canon of Antioch was derived from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 9 (8)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ἐκ τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ προσφορᾶς γενομένης μὴ μεταλάβοι, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπάτω• καὶ ἐὰν εὔλογος ᾖ, συγγνώμης τυγχανέτε• εἰ δὲ μὴ λέγει, ἀφοριζέσθε, ὡς αἴτιος βλάβης γενόμενος τῷ λαῷ καὶ ὑπόνοιαν ποιήσας κατὰ τοῦ προσενέγκαντος.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus vel quilibet ex sacerdotali catalogo facta oblatione non communicaverit, aut causam dicat, ut si rationabilis fuerit, veniam consequatur, aut si non dixerit, communione privetur, tanquam qui populo causa læsionis extiterit, dans suspicionem de eo, qui sacrificavit, quod recte non obtulerit.

The Latin text of Dionysius the Less seems to imply that these words ought to have been added at the end of the Greek text, ὡς μὴ ὑγιῶο ἀνενεγκόντος (as if he had not regularly offered); and these words are to be found in some Greek manuscripts. As to the antiquity of this canon, see the note on the one following.

CAN. 10 (9)

Πάντας τοὺς εἰσιόντας πιστούς καὶ τῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντας, μὴ παραμένοντας δὲ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεταλήψει, ὡς ἀταξίαν ἐμποιοῦντας τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀφορίζεσθαι χρή.

Omnes fideles, qui ingrediuntur ecclesiam et scripturas audiunt, non autem perseverant in oratione, nec sanctam communionem percipiunt, velut inquietudines ecclesiæ commoventes, convenit communione privare.

This tenth canon is evidently connected with the ninth. Drey believed that in substance they were both very ancient, and arose from those times of persecution, during which some Christians abstained from receiving the holy communion from remorse of conscience. Drey is evidently in the wrong when he maintains that this tenth apostolic canon was copied word for word from the second canon of the Council of Antioch held in 341. The reverse of this is more probable. See our introductory remarks on these canons.

CAN. 11 (10)

Εἴ τις ἀκοινωνήτῳ κἂν ἐν οἴκῳ συνεύξηται, οὗτος ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis cum excommunicato, etiam domi, simul oraverit, et ipse communione privetur.

This canon must be considered, as to its contents, as among the most ancient of the apostolic canons, which stretch back to apostolic times. As to its present form, Drey supposes that it was taken from the second canon of the Council of Antioch; but see what is said at the end of the note on the preceding canon.

CAN. 12 (11)

Εἴ τις καθηρημένῳ κληρικὸς ὢν ὡς κληρικῷ συνεύξηται, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτός.

Si quis cum damnato clerico, veluti cum clerico, simul oraverit, et ipse damnetur.

On the antiquity of this canon the same observations may be offered as those upon the tenth and eleventh. According to Drey, this canon must have been formed from the second canon of the Council of Antioch.

CAN. 13 (12)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἢ λαικὸς ἀφωρισμένος ἤτοι ἄδεκτος, ἀπελθὼν ἐν ἑτέρᾳ πόλει, δεχθῇ ἄνευ γραμμάτων συστατικῶν, ἀφοριζέσθω καὶ ὁ δεξάμενος καὶ ὁ δεχθείς• εἰ δὲ ἀφωρισμένος εἴη, ἐπιτεινέσθω αὐτῷ ὁ ἀφορισμὸς, ὡς ψευσαμένῳ καὶ ἀπατήσαντι τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Si quis clericus aut laicus a communione suspensus vel communicans, ad aliam properet civitatem, et suscipiatur præter commendaticias literas, et qui susceperunt et qui susceptus est, communione priventur. Excommunicato vero proteletur ipsa correptio, tanquam qui mentitus sit et Ecclesiam Dei seduxerit.

The Greek text has ἤτοι ἄδεκτος, that is, sive excommunicatus. It is supposed that we should rather read ἤτοι δεκτὸς, because in the latter part of the canon two sorts of penalties are appointed: (α) When one who is not excommunicated is elsewhere received, without having letters of recommendation from his bishop, he is to be excommunicated, and also he who received them; (β) If one who is excommunicated succeeds in being received elsewhere, the period of his excommunication shall be prolonged. The contents of this canon are certainly ante-Nicene. Drey supposes the form to be derived from the sixth canon of the Council of Antioch. See the note on the tenth canon.

CAN. 14 (13)

Ἐπίσκοπον μὴ ἐξεῖναι καταλείψαντα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν ἑτέρᾳ ἐπιπηδᾷν, κἂν ὑπὸ πλειὸνων ἀναγκάζηται, εἰ μή τις εὒλογος αἰτία ᾗ τοῦτο βιαζομένη αὐτὸν ποιεῖν, ὡς πλέον τι κέρδος φυναμένου αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἐκεῖσε λόγῳ εὐσεβείας συμβάλλεσθαι• καὶ τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλὰ κρίσει πολλῶν ἐπισκόπων καὶ παρακλήσει μεγίστῃ.

Episcopo non licere alienam parochiam, propria relicta, pervadere, licet cogatur a plurimis, nisi forte quia eum rationabilis causa compellat, tanquam qui possit ibidem constitutis plus lucri conferre, et in causa religionis aliquid profectus prospicere; et hoc non a semetipso pertentet, sed multorum episcoporum judicio et maxima supplicatione perficiat.

The prohibition to leave one church for another is very ancient. It had been before set forth by the Council of Arles in 314, and by the Council of Nicæa in its fifteenth canon, as well as by the Synod of Antioch in 341, and it was renewed by that of Sardica. This fifteenth canon is therefore, as to its substance, very ancient; but its present form, Drey supposes, is post-Nicene, as may be inferred, he thinks, from the lightening of the penalty, which could not have been decreed by the ancient canons. Drey therefore concludes that this canon was framed after the eighteenth and twenty-first canons of Antioch. But see the note on the tenth canon.

CAN. 15 (14)

Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν κληρικῶν ἀπολείψας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν εἰς ἑτεραν ἀπέλθῃ, καί παντελῶς μεταστὰς διατρίβῃ ἐν ἄλλῃ παροικίᾳ παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου• τοῦτον κελεύομεν μηκέτι λειτουργεῖν, τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου• τοῦτον κελεύομεν μηκέτι λειτουργεῖν, μάλιστα εἰ προσκαλουμένου αὐτὸν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου αὐτοῦ ἐπάνελθεῖν οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν ἐπιμένων τῇ ἀταξίᾳ• ὡς λαϊκὸς μέντοι ἐκεῖσε κοινωνείτω.

Si quis presbyter aut diaconus aut quilibet de numero clericorum relinquens propriam parochiam pergat ad alienam, et omnino demigrans præter episcopi sui conscientiam in aliena parochia commoretur, hunc alterius ministrare non patimur, præcipue si vocatus ab episcopo redire contempserit, in sua inquietudine perseverans; verum tamen tanquam laicus ibi communicet.

The same remark is applicable as to the fourteenth canon. According to Drey, this fifteenth, as well as the following canon, must have been formed from the third canon of the Council of Antioch, held in 341. See the note on the tenth canon.

CAN. 16 (15)

Εἰ δὲ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, παρʼ ᾧ τυγχάνουσι, παρʼ οὐδὲν λογισάμενος τὴν κατʼ αὐτῶν ὁρισθεῖσαν ἀργίαν, δέξεται αὐτοὺς ὡς κληρικοὺς, ἀφοριζέσθω ὡς διδάσκαλος ἀταξίας.

Episcopus vero, apud quem moratos esse constiterit, si contra eos decretam cessationem pro nihilo reputans, tanquam clericos forte susceperit, velut magister inquietudinis communione privetur.

The same remark is applicable as to the fourteenth canon.

CAN. 17 (16)

Ὁ δυσὶ γάμοις συμπλακεὶς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ἢ παλλακὴν κτησάμενος οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.

Si quis post baptisma secundis fuerit nuptiis copulatus aut concubinam habuerit, non potest esse episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, aut prorsus ex numero eorum, qui ministerio sacro deserviunt.

It is certain that this canon in its substance is an apostolic ordinance. The form, however, is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions, consequently about the third century.

CAN. 18 (17)

Ὁ χήραν λαβὼν ἤ ἐκβεβλημένην ἤ ἑταίραν ἤ οἰκέτλν ἤ τῶν ἐπὶ σκηνῆς οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος ἤ πρεσβύτερος ἤ διάκονος ἤ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.

Si quis viduam aut ejectam acceperit, aut meretricem aut ancillam, vel aliquam de his qui publicis spectaculis mancipantur, non potest esse episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus aut ex eorum numero qui ministerio sacro deserviunt.

A similar remark applies to this as to the seventeenth canon. See Lev. 21:14, where we have a similar ordinance for the Jewish priests.

CAN. 19 (18)

Ὁ δύο ἀδελφὰς ἀγαγόμενος ἢ ἀδελφιδῆν οὐ δύναται εἶναι κληρικός.

Qui duas in conjugium sorores acceperit, vel filiam fratris, clericus esse non poterit.

This canon, like the preceding, renews a command contained in the Old Testament. The Synods of Elvira and of Neocæsarea enforced it also. This nineteenth canon may therefore be considered to be contemporary with those synods, especially to be an imitation of the second canon of Neocæsarea.

CAN. 20 (19)

Κληρικὸς ἐγγύας διδοὺς καθαιρείσθω.

Clericus fidejussionibus inserviens abjiciatur.

We have seen in sec. 4, that from the third century it was decidedly forbidden that priests should be tutors or guardians; in a word, that they should meddle with the settlement of worldly business. A similar prohibition is given in the present canon, which in the main is very ancient, and was taken from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 21 (20)

Εὐνοῦχος εἰ μὲν ἐξ ἐπηρείας ἀνθρώπων ἔγενετό τις, ἢ ἐν διωγμῷ ἀφῃρέθη τὰ ἀνδρῶν, ἢ οὕτως ἔφυ, καί ἐστιν ἂξιος, γινέσθω.

Eunuchus si per insidias hominum factus est, vel si in persecutione ejus sunt amputata virilia, vel si ita natus est, et est dignus, efficiatur episcopus.

The Œcumenical Synod of Nicæa, in its first canon, gave a similar command to that contained in this and the two following canons. In enforcing it, the Synod professed to be conforming to ancient canons, by which it intended the twenty-first, also the twenty-second and twenty-third apostolic canons. Drey, on the contrary, considers that this apostolic canon was framed from those of Nicæa; perhaps it may have been the Valesians who gave occasion for these rules.

CAN. 22 (21)

Ὁ ἀκρωτηριάσας ἑαυτὸν μὴ γινέσθω κληρικός• αὐτοφονευτὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δημιουργίας ἐχθρός.

Si quis absciderit semetipsum, id est, si quis sibi amputavit virilia, non fiat clericus, quia suus homicida est, et Dei conditionibus inimicus.

See the note on the preceding canon.

CAN. 23 (22)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ὢν ἑαυτὸν ἀκρωτηριάσει, καθαιρείσθω, φονευτὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἑσυτοῦ.

Si quis, cum clericus fuerit, absciderit semetipsum, omnino damnetur, quia suus est homicida.

The same remark as on the twenty-first canon.

CAN. 24 (23)

Λαϊκὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀκρωτηριάσας ἀφοριζέσθω ἔτη τρία• ἐπίβουλος γάρ ἐστι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς.

Laicus semetipsum abscindens annis tribus communione privetur, quia suæ vitæ insidiator exstitit.

The first canon of Nicæa, which is also on the subject of voluntary mutilation, has reference only to the clergy, and does not appoint any penalty for the laity who mutilate themselves. This might incline us to the opinion that the present canon was given to complete those of the Council of Nicæa, and consequently that it is more recent than that Council. But there is no doubt that the Council of Nicæa had this canon before it, and spoke of self-mutilation only as an impedimentum ordinis. Athanasius, in his Historia Arianorum ad monachos, shows that voluntary mutilation was also severely punished in the laity, and that they were excluded from communio laicalis. Drey is of opinion that these canons are more recent than those of Nicæa, and that they were formed from the latter.

CAN. 25 (24)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ ἢ ἐπιορκίᾳ ἢ κλοπῇ ἁλοὺς καθαιρείσθω, καί μὴ ἀφορίζεσθω• λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή• Οὐκ ἐκδικήσεις δὶς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό• ὁμοίως δὲ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοὶ τῇ αὐτῇ αἱρέσει ὑποκείσθωσαν.

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, qui in fornicatione aut perjurio aut furto captus est, deponatur, non tamen communione privetur; dicit enim Scriptura: Non vindicabit Dominus bis in idipsum.

This canon alludes to a passage in the prophet Nahum. It certainly belongs in the main to the most ancient canons; for S. Basil the Great says in his letter to Amphilochus (c. 3), that, according to an ancient rule (ἀρχαῖον κανόνα), thieves, etc., were to be deprived of their ecclesiastical offices. Leo the Great, however, calls this an apostolic tradition. Drey supposes that this sentence of S. Basil’s gave rise to the canon.

CAN. 26

Similiter et reliqui clerici huic conditioni subjaceant.

In the Greek this canon is not separately counted; it forms only the last sentence of the one preceding. As for its antiquity, see the remarks on the twenty-fifth canon.

CAN. 27 (25)

Τῶν εἰς κλῆρον προσελθόντων ἀγάμων κελεύομεν βουλομένους γαμεῖν ἀναγνώστας καὶ ψάλτας μόνους.

Innuptis autem, qui ad clerum provecti sunt; præcipimus, ut si voluerint uxores accipiant, sed lectores cantoresque tantummodo.

Paphnutius had declared in the Council of Nicæa in favour of an ancient law, which decided that, whoever had taken holy orders when unmarried, could not be married afterwards. The Synod of Ancyra, held in 314, also recognised this law, and for that reason, in its tenth canon, established an exception in favour of deacons. The Council of Elvira went still further. These approaches prove that the present canon is more ancient than the Council of Nicæa, and that it is a faithful interpreter of the ancient practice of the Church. Even Drey says that this canon is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions (vi. 17), and consequently is ante-Nicene.

CAN. 28 (26)

Ἐπίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον ἢ διάκονον τύπτοντα πιστοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἢ ἀπίστους ἀδικήσαντας, τὸν διὰ τοιούτων φοβεῖν θέλοντα, καθαιρεῖσθαι προστάττομεν• οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξε• τοὐναντίον δὲ αὐτὸς τυπτόμενος οὐκ ἀντέτυπτε, λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἁντελοιδόρει, πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει.

Episcopum aut presbyterum aut diaconum percutientem fideles delinquentes, aut infideles inique agentes, et per hujusmodi volentem timeri, dejici ab officio suo præcipimus, quia nusquam nos hoc Dominus docuit; e contrario vero ipse, cum percuteretur non repercutiebat, cum malediceretur non remaledicebat, cum pateretur non comminabatur.

Drey believes this canon to be one of the most recent of the apostolic canons, for no ancient synod ever thought it necessary to put forth such decisions. The Synod of Constantinople, held A.D. 394, was the first to forbid the clergy to strike the faithful, and this apostolic canon is only an imitation of that.

CAN. 29 (27)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος καθαιρεθεὶς δικαίως ἐπὶ ἐγκλήμασι φανεροῖς τολμήσειεν ἅψασθαι τῆς ποτε ἐγχειρισθείσης αὐτῷ λειτουργίας, οὖτος παντάπασιν ἐκκοπτέσθω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, depositus juste super certis criminibus, ausus fuerit attrectare ministerium dudum sibi commissum, hic ab Ecclesia penitus abscindatur.

This canon is similar to the fourth of the Council of Antioch, held in 341. Drey believes this apostolic canon to be more recent than that of Antioch, and intended to correct it; for the latter refers only to the case of a bishop who is regularly deposed, and that for acknowledged sins. But it may be, on the contrary, that our canon is more ancient than that of Antioch. The Fathers of Antioch perhaps only applied to S. Athanasius the orders of a rule before known. See the comments upon the tenth canon.

CAN. 30 (28)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος διὰ χρημάτων τῆς ἀξίας ταύτης ἐγκρατὴς γένηται, ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ χειροτονήσας, καὶ ἐκκοπτέσθω τῆς κοινωνίας παντάπασιν, ὡς Σίμων ὁ μάγος ἀπὸ ἐμοῦ Πέτρου.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus per pecunias hanc obtinuerit dignitatem, dejiciatur et ipse et ordinator ejus, et a communione omnibus modis abscindatur, sicut Simon magus a Petro.

We have seen in the comments upon the canons of the Synod of Elvira, that this Council in its forty-eighth canon forbade all fees for the administration of baptism as simoniacal. The Council, however, did not use the word simony; but at the time when the thirtieth apostolic canon was formed, the word simony seems to have been used as a technical term. This observation would go to prove that this apostolic canon has a later origin: it is hardly probable, indeed, that in times of persecution it should have been attempted to buy bishoprics for money. But the Synod of Sardica shows from its second canon that it was then aware of such cases. Abuses of the same kind also drew S. Basil’s attention. Drey thinks that this thirtieth apostolic canon is only an extract from the second canon of the Council of Chalcedon. See the remarks above.

CAN. 31 (29)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος κοσμικοῖς ἄρχουσι χρησάμενος διʼ αὐτῶν ἐγκρατὴς γένηται ἐκκλησίας, καθαιρείσθω καὶ ἀφοριζέσθω, καὶ οἱ κοινωνοῦντες αὐτῷ πάντες.

Si quis episcopus secularibus potestatibus usus ecclesiam per ipsos obtineat, deponatur, et segregentur omnes, qui illi communicant.

The object of this canon is to oppose the intervention of Christian Emperors in the choice of bishops: it is not probable that it was decreed by an ancient council; rather it must have been composed by whoever collected the apostolic constitutions and canons. Drey strongly doubts whether any ancient council would have dared to offer such explicit and declared opposition to the Emperors.

CAN. 32 (30)

Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος καταφρονήσας τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου χωρίς συναγωγὴν καὶ θυσιαστήριον πήξει, μηδὲν κατεγνωκὼς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἐν εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ, καθαιρείσθω ὡς φίλαρχος• τύραννος γάρ ἐστιν• ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοὶ καὶ ὅσοι ἐν αὐτῷ προσθῶνται• οἱ δὲ λαϊκοὶ ἀφοριζέσθωσαν• ταῦτα δὲ μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην παράκλησιν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου γινέσθω.

Si quis presbyter contemnens episcopum suum seorsum collegerit et altare aliud erexerit, nihil habens quo reprehendat episcopum in causa pietatis et justitiæ, deponatur, quasi principals amator existens, est enim tyrannus; et cæteri clerici, quicumque tali consentiunt, deponantur, laici vero segregentur. Hæc autem post unam et secundam et tertiam episcopi obtestationem fieri conveniat.

It happened, even in the primitive Church, that priests caused schisms: this was the case, for instance, in the Novatian schism. But as the synods of the fourth century, and particularly that of Antioch, held in 341, treat of the same subject as the thirty-second apostolic canon, Drey considers that this canon was formed after the fifth of Antioch. But we will here once more recall what we said on the tenth canon.

CAN. 33 (31)

Εἴ τις πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἀπὸ ἐπισκόπου γένηται ἀφωρισμένος, τοῦτον μὴ ἐξεῖναι παρʼ ἑτέρου δέχεσθαι, ἀλλʼ ἢ παρὰ τοῦ ἀφορίσαντος αὐτὸν, εἰ μὴ ἂν κατὰ συγκυρίαν τελευτήσῃ ὁ ἀφορίσας αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπος.

Si quis presbyter aut diaconus ab episcopo suo segregetur, hunc non licere ab alio recipi, sed ab ipso, qui eum sequestraverat, nisi forsitan obierit episcopus ipse, qui eum segregasse cognoscitur.

We have several times had occasion to remark that the ancient councils gave similar rules to those of the thirty-third apostolic canon. Drey believes this canon to be in substance of very high antiquity, but in its form taken from the sixth canon of Antioch.

CAN. 34 (32)

Μηδένα τῶν ξένων ἐπισκόπων ἤ πρεσβυτέρων ἢ διακόνων ἄνευ συστατικῶν προσδέχεσθαι• καὶ ἐπιφερομένων αὐτῶν ἀνακρινέσθωσαν• καὶ εἰ μὲν ὦσι κήρυκες τῆς εὐσεβείας, προσδεχέσθωσαν, εἰ δὲ μήγε, τὴν χρείαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιχορηγήσαντες εἰς κοινωνίαν αὐτοὺς μὴ προσδέξησθε• πολλὰ γὰρ κατὰ συναρπαγὴν γίνεται.

Nullus episcoporum peregrinorum aut presbyterorum aut diaconorum sine commendaticiis recipiatur epistolis; et cum scripta detulerint, discutiantur attentius, et ita suscipiantur, si prædicatores pietatis exstiterint; sin minus, hæc quæ sunt necessaria subministrentur eis, et ad communionem nullatenus admittantur, quia per subreptionem multa proveniunt.

The thirteenth canon contains a similar rule. In the primitive Church, Christians who travelled could not in fact be received into a foreign church without letters of recommendation—litteris commendaticiis. Thus, for instance, about the middle of the second century, Marcion was not received at Rome, because he had no letters with him from his father the Bishop of Sinope. There is also mention of these letters of recommendation in the twenty-fifth canon of the Synod of Elvira, and in the ninth of that of Arles. According to Drey, this canon in the main belongs to the most ancient apostolic canons; but according to the same author, it must have been arranged after the Apostolic Constitutions, and after the seventh and eighth canons of Antioch.

CAN. 35 (33)

Τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτον, καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλὴν, καὶ μηδέν τι πράττειν περιττὸν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης• ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαστον, ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳ ἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπʼ αὐτὴν χώραις. ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντων γυώμης ποιείτω τι• οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ Θεὸς διὰ Κυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι.

Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit, quis inter eos primus habeatur, quem velut caput existiment, et nihil amplius præter ejus conscientiam gerant quam illa sola singuli, quæ parochiæ propriæ et villis, quæ sub ea sunt, competunt. Sed nec ille præter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid. Sic enim unanimitas erit, et glorificabitur Deus per Christum in Spiritu sancto.

According to Drey’s researches, this canon is either an abridgment of the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held in 341, which treats of the same subject, or else this canon of Antioch is an amplification of the apostolic canon. Drey finally adopts the former opinion.

CAN. 36 (34)

Ἐπίσκοπον μὴ τολμᾶν ἔξω τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ὅρων χειροτονίας ποιεῖσθαι εἰς τὰς μὴ ὑποκειμένας αὐτῷ πόλεις καὶ χώρας• εἰ δὲ ἐλεγχθείη τοῦτο πεποιηκὼς παρὰ τὴν τῶν κατεχόντων τὰς πόλεις ἐκείνας ἢ τὰς χώρας γνώμην, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ οὓς ἐχειροτόνησεν.

Episcopum non audere extra terminos proprios ordinationes facere in civitatibus et villis, quæ ipsi nullo jure subjectæ sunt. Si vero convictus fuerit hoc fecisse præter eorum conscientiam, qui civitates illas et villas detinent, et ipse deponatur, et qui ab eo sunt ordinati.

A similar rule was adopted by the Synod of Elvira, by that of Nicæa, and by that of Antioch. Drey acknowledges (S. 271 and 406) that the rule here expressed has been observed from the first times of the Church; he also makes no difficulty in classing this canon, in the main, among the most ancient apostolic canons. He thinks, besides, that it was taken from the Synod of Antioch held in 341.

CAN. 37 (35)

Εἴ τις χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπίσκοπος μὴ καταδέχοιτο τὴν λειτουργίαν• καὶ τὴν φροντίδα τοῦ λαοῦ τὴν ἐγχειρισθεῖσαν αὐτῷ, τοῦτον ἀφωρισμένον τυγχάνειν, ἕως ἂν καταδέξηται• ὡσαύτως καὶ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος. Εἰ καὶ μὴ δεχθείη, οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ μοχθηρίαν, αὐτὸς μενέτω ἐπίσκοπος, ὁ δὲ κλῆρος τῆς πόλεως ἀφοριζέσθω, ὅτι τοιούτου λαοῦ ἀνυποτάκτου παιδευταὶ οὐκ ἐγένοντο.

Si quis episcopus non susceperit officium et curam populi sibi commissam, hic communione privetur, quoadusque consentiat obedientiam commodans, similiter autem et presbyter et diaconus. Si vero perrexerit, nec receptus fuerit non pro sua sententia, sed pro populi malitia, ipse quidem maneat episcopus, clerici vero civitatis communione priventur, eo quod eruditores inobedientis populi non fuerint.

This rule was made partly by the Synod of Ancyra and partly by that of Antioch. Drey holds this canon to be an imitation of the two canons of Antioch; but perhaps the contrary is really the truth. See the note on canon 10.

CAN. 38 (36)

Δεύτερον τοῦ ἔτους σύνοδος γινέσθω τῶν ἐπισκόπων, καὶ ἀνακρινέτωσαν ἀλλήλους τὰ δόγματα τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τὰς ἐμπιπτούσας ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἀντιλογίας διαλυέτωσαν• ἅπαξ μὲν τῇ τετάρτῃ ἑβδομάδι τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, δεύτερον δὲ ὑπερβερεταίου δωδεκάτῃ.

Bis in anno episcoporum concilia celebrentur, ut inter se invicem dogmata pietatis explorent, et emergentes ecclesiasticas contentiones amoveant; semel quidem quarta septimana pentecostes, secundo vero duodecima die mensis Hyperberetæi (id est juxta Romanos quarto idus Octobris).

The Synods of Nicæa and of Antioch also gave rules about provincial synods. According to Drey, this canon must be more recent than these two Synods, and especially must have been taken from the canon of Antioch.

CAN. 39 (37)

Πάντων τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐχέτω τὴν φροντίδα καὶ διοικείτω αὐτὰ, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐφορῶντος• μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ σφετερίζεσθαί τι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἢ συγγενέσιν ἰδίοις τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ χαρίζεσθαι• εἰ δὲ πένητες εἶεν, ἐπιχορηγείτω ὡς πένησιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ προφάσει τούτων τὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀπεμπολείτω.

Omnium negotiorum ecclesiasticorum curam episcopus habeat, et ea velut Deo contemplante dispenset; nec ei liceat ex his aliquid omnino contingere, aut parentibus propriis quæ Dei sunt condonare. Quod si pauperes sunt, tanquam pauperibus subministret, nec eorum occasione Ecclesiæ negotia deprædetur.

This canon and the two following are in a measure similar to the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth canons of Antioch; so that Drey considers them more recent, and derived from those two canons. But see what was said about the tenth canon.

CAN. 40 (38)

Οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ διάκονοι ἄνευ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ἐπιτελείτωσαν• αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πεπιστευμένος τὸν λαὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν λόγον ἀπαιτηθησόμενος.

CAN. (39)

Ἔστω φανερὰ τὰ ἴδια τοῦ ἐπισκόπου πράγματα, εἴγε καὶ ἴδια ἔχει, καὶ φανερὰ τὰ κυριακὰ, ἵνα ἐξουσίαν ἔχῃ τῶν ἰδίων τελευτῶν ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, οἶς βούλεται καὶ ὡς βούλεται καταλεῖψαι, καὶ μὴ προφάσει τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων διαπίπτειν τὰ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἐσθʼ ὅτε γυναῖκα καὶ παῖδας κεκτημένου ἢ συγγενεῖς ἢ οἰκέτας• δίκαιον γὰρ τοῦτο παρὰ Θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις τὸ μήτε τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ζημίαν τινὰ ὑπομένειν ἀγνοίᾳ τῶν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου πραγμάτων, μήτε τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἢ τοὺς αὐτοῦ συγγενεῖς προφάσει τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πημαίνεσθαι, ἢ καὶ εἰς πράγματα ἐμπίπτεν τοὺς αὐτῷ διαφέροντας, καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ θάνατον δυσφημίαις περιβάλλεσθαι.

Presbyteri et diaconi præter episcopum nihil agere pertentent, nam Domini populus ipsi commissus est, et pro animabus eorum hic redditurus est rationem. Sint autem manifestæ res propriæ episcopi (si tamen habet proprias) et manifestæ dominicæ, ut potestatem habeat de propriis moriens episcopus, sicut voluerit et quibus voluerit relinquere, nec sub occasione ecclesiasticarum rerum, quæ episcopi sunt, intercidant, fortassis enim aut uxorem habet, aut filios aut propinquos aut servos. Et justum est hoc apud Deum et homines, ut nec Ecclesia detrimentum patiatur ignoratione rerum pontificis, nec episcopus vel ejus propinqui sub obtentu Ecclesiæ proscribantur, et in causas incidant qui ad eum pertinent, morsque ejus injuriis malæ famæ subjaceat.

See our remarks on the thirty-ninth canon.

CAN. 41 (40)

Προστάττομεν ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πραγμάτων• εἰ γὰρ τὰς τιμίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχὰς αὐτῷ πιστευτέον, πολλῷ ἂν μᾶλλον δέοι ἐπὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἐντέλλεσθαι, ὥστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐξουσίαν πάντα διοικεῖσθαι, καὶ τοῖς δεομένοις διὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων ἐπιχωρηγεῖσθαι μετὰ φόβου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πάσης εὐλαβείας• μεταλαμβάνειν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τῶν δεόντων (εἴγε δέοιτο) εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας αὐτῷ χρείας καὶ τῶν ἐπιξενουμένων ἀδελφῶν, ὡς κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον αὐτοὺς ὑστερεῖσθαι• ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ διετάξατο, τοὺς τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ ὑπηρετοῦντας ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τρέφεσθαι• ἐπείπερ οὐδὲ στρατιῶταί ποτε ἰδίοις ὀφωνίοις ὅπλα κατὰ πολεμίων ἐπιφέρονται.

Præcipimus, ut in potestate sua episcopus Ecclesiæ res habeat. Si enim animæ hominum pretiosæ illi sunt creditæ, multo magis oportet eum curam pecuniarum gerere, ita ut potestate ejus indigentibus omnia dispensentur per presbyteros et diaconos, et cum timore omnique sollicitudine ministrentur, ex his autem quibus indiget, si tamen indiget, ad suas necessitates et ad peregrinorum fratrum usus et ipse percipiat, ut nihil omnino possit ei deesse. Lex enim Dei præcipit, ut qui altari deserviunt, de altari pascantur; quia nec miles stipendiis propriis contra hostes arma sustulit.

See our remarks on the thirty-ninth canon.

CAN. 42 (41)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κύβοις σχολάζων καὶ μέθαις ἢ παυσάσθω ἢ καθαιρείσθω.

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus aleæ atque ebrietati deserviens, aut desinat, aut certe damnetur.

The Council of Elvira, in its seventy-ninth canon, has a similar prohibition of the game of thimbles. As to the different kinds of usury of which the forty-fourth apostolic canon speaks, they were all prohibited by the twentieth canon of Elvira, the twelfth of Arles, and the seventeenth of Nicæa. This and the two following canons should be included in the number of the most ancient so-called apostolic canons. Their origin is unknown.

CAN. 43 (42)

Ὑποδιάκονος ἢ ψάλτης ἠ ἀναγνώστης τὰ ὅμοια ποιῶν ἢ παυσάσθω ἢ ἀφοριζέσθω, ὡσαύτως καὶ οἱ λαϊκοί.

Subdiaconus, lector aut cantor similia faciens, aut desinat, aut communione privetur. Similiter etiam laicus.

Compare the remarks on the forty-second canon.

CAN. 44 (43)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τόκους ἀπαιτῶν τοὺς δανειζομένους ἢ παυσάσθω ἢ καθαιρείσθω.

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus usuras a debitoribus exigens, aut desinat, aut certe damnetur.

Compare the remarks on the forty-second canon.

CAN. 45 (44)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος αἱρετικοῖς συνευξάμενος μόνον, ἀφοριζέσθω• εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς ὡς κληρικοῖς ἐνεργῆσαί τι, καθαιρείσθω.

Episcopus, presbyter et diaconus, qui cum hæreticis oraverit tantummodo, communione privetur; si vero tanquam clericus hortatus eos fuerit agere vel orare, damnetur.

This canon is merely an application to a particular case of general rules given by the apostles, and this application must have been made from the first centuries: therefore this canon must in its substance be very ancient. Yet Drey believes that it was derived from the ninth, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth canons of the Council of Laodicea.

CAN. 46 (45)

Ἐπίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον αἱρετικῶν δεξάμενον βάπτισμα ἢ θυσίαν καθαιρεῖσθαι προστάττομεν• Τίς γὰρ συμφώνησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ πρὸς τὸν Βελίαλ; ἢ τίς μερὶς πιστοῦ μετὰ ἀπίστου;

Episcopum aut presbyterum hæreticorum suscipientem baptisma damnari præcipimus. Quæ enim conventio Christi ad Belial, aut quæ pars fideli cum infideli?

Drey holds this canon and the one following to be very ancient. Döllinger, on the contrary, as we have said, considers it to be more recent. This opinion had before been enunciated by Peter de Marca, who argued justly, that if this canon had been in existence at the period of the discussion upon baptism administered by heretics, that is, about the year 255, S. Cyprian and Firmilian would not have failed to quote it. This canon and the following are taken from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 47 (46)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τὸν κατʼ ἀλήθειαν ἔχοντα βάπτισμα ἐὰν ἄνωθεν βαπτίσῃ, ἢ τὸν μεμολυσμένον παρὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσῃ, καθαιρείσθω, ὡς γελῶν τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου θάνατον καὶ μὴ διακρίνων ἱερέας τῶν ψευδιερέων.

Episcopus aut presbyter, si eum qui secundum veritatem habuerit baptisma, denuo baptizaverit, aut si pollutum ab impiis non baptizaverit, deponatur tanquam deridens crucem et mortem Domini, nec sacerdotes a falsis sacerdotibus jure discernens.

See the remarks on the preceding canon.

CAN. 48 (47)

Εἴ τις λαϊκὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐκβάλλων ἑτέραν λάβῃ ἢ παρʼ ἂλλου ἀπολελυμένην, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis laicus uxorem propriam pellens, alteram vel ab alio dimissam duxerit, communione privetur.

The same rule was given by the eighth and tenth canons of Elvira, and by the tenth of Arles. Drey reckons this canon among the most ancient. Its source is unknown.

CAN. 49 (48)

Εἲ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διάταξιν μὴ βαπτίσῃ εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἀλλʼ εἰς τρεῖς ἀνάρχους ἢ τρεῖς υἱοὺς ἢ τρεῖς παρακλήτους, καθαιρείσθω.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter juxta præceptum Domini non baptizaverit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, sed in tribus sine initio principiis, aut in tribus filiis, aut in tribus paracletis, abjiciatur.

This canon must be reckoned among the most ancient canons, and is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 50 (49)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος μὴ τρία βαπτίσματα μιᾶς μυήσεως ἐπιτελέσῃ, ἀλλʼ ἕν βάπτισμα εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου διδόμενον, καθαιρείσθω• οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος• Εἰς τὸν θάνατον μου βαπτίσατε, ἀλλὰ• Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter non trinam mersionem unius mysterii celebret, sed semel mergat in baptismate, quod dari videtur in Domini morte, deponatur. Non enim dixit nobis Dominus: In morte mea baptizate; sed: Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti.

This canon is among the most recent of the collection. It is not known from what source it was derived.

Here the Latin translation made by Dionysius the Less ends. From the fifty-first canon we give the translation by Cotelerius.

CAN. 51 (50)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ γάμων καὶ κρεῶν καὶ οἴνου οὐ διʼ ἄσκησιν ἀλλὰ διὰ βδελυρίαν ἀπέχεται, ἐπιλαθόμενος ὅτι πάντα καλὰ λίαν, καὶ ὅτι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ βλασφημῶν διαβάλλει τὴν δημιουργίαν, ἢ διορθούσθω ἢ καθαιρείσθω καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀποβαλλέσθω• ὡσαύτως καὶ λαϊκός.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, aut omnino ex numero clericorum, a nuptiis et carne et vino non propter exercitationem, verum propter detestationem abstinuerit, oblitus quod omnia sunt valde bona, et quod masculum et feminam Deus fecit hominem, sed blasphemans accusaverit creationem, vel corrigatur, vel deponatur, atque ex Ecclesia ejiciatur. Itidem et laicus.

This canon is evidently directed against the Gnostics and Manichæans, who, in accordance with their dualistic theory, declare matter to be satanic. Therefore it may be said to be very ancient, that is, from the second or third century: it is very similar to the ordinances in the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 52 (51)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τὸν ἐπιστρέφοντα ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας οὐ προσδέχεται, ἀλλʼ ἀποβάλλεται, καθαιρείσθω, ὅτι λυπεῖ Χριστὸν τὸν εἰπόντα• Χαρὰ γίνεται ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter eum, qui se convertit a peccato, non receperit sed ejecerit, deponatur, quia contristat Christum dicentem: Gaudium oritur in cœlo super uno peccatore pœnitentiam agente.

This canon in substance belongs to a period before the end of the third century, and is directed against the severity of the Montanists and Novatians. It is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 53 (52)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν ἑορτῶν οὐ μεταλαμβάνει κρεῶν καὶ οἴνου, βδελυσσόμενος καὶ οὐ διʼ ἄσκησιν, καθαιρείσθω ὡς κεκαυτηριασμένος τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, καὶ αἴτιος σκανδάλου πολλοῖς γινόμενος.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus in diebus festis non sumit carnem aut vinum, deponatur, ut qui cauteriatam habet suam conscientiam, multisque sit causa scandali.

This canon, like the fifty-first, is aimed against the Gnostic and Manichæan errors, and probably is of the same antiquity. It was also taken from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 54 (53)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἐν καπηλείῳ φωραθείη ἐσθίων, ἀφοριζέσθω, παρὲξ τοῦ ἐν πανδοχείῳ ἐν ὁδῷ διʼ ἀνάγκην καταλύσαντος.

Si quis clericus in caupona comedens deprehensus fuerit, segregetur, præterquam si ex necessitate de via divertat ad hospitium.

This canon is very ancient, and of unknown origin.

CAN. 55 (54)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ὑβρίζει τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, καθαιρείσθω• Ἄρχοντα γὰρ τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς.

Si quis clericus episcopum contumelia affecerit injuste, deponatur; ait enim Scriptura: Principi populi tui non maledices.

Drey supposes that this canon and the one following are not ancient: 1st, because in the primitive Church the clergy would not have behaved so outrageously against a bishop; and 2d, because the lower clergy, whom the fifty-sixth canon mentions, were not known in the primitive Church,—bishops, priests, and deacons not being distinguished. The source of the canon is unknown.

CAN. 56 (55)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ὑβρίζει πρεσβύτερον ἢ διάκονον, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis clericus presbyterum vel diaconum injuria affecerit, segregetur.

See the remarks on the preceding canon.

CAN. 57 (56)

Εἴ τις [κληρικὸς] χωλὼν ἢ κωφὸν ἢ τυφλὸν ἢ τὰς βάσεις πεπληγμένον χλευάζει, ἀφοριζέσθω• ὡσαύτως καὶ λαϊκός.

Si quis clericus mutilatum, vel surdum aut mutum, vel cæcum aut pedibus debilem irriserit, segregetur. Item et laicus.

The coarseness alluded to in this canon, as also in the fifty-fifth, proves that it was formed at a recent period.

CAN. 58 (57)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἀμελῶν τοῦ κλήρου ἢ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ μὴ παιδεύων αὐτοὺς τὴν εὐσέβειαν, ἀφοριζέσθω, ἐπιμένων δὲ τῇ ῥαθυμίᾳ καθαιρείσθω.

Episcopus aut presbyter clerum vel populum negligens, nec eos docens pietatem, segregetur; si autem in socordia perseveret, deponatur.

This canon seems to have been formed towards the middle of the fourth century, at a time when the clergy, and especially the bishops, often left their churches, and betook themselves frequently to the city where the Emperor resided.

CAN. 59 (58)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερός τινος τῶν κληρικῶν ἐνδεοῦς ὄντος μὴ ἐπιχορηγεῖ τὰ δέοντα, ἀφοριζέσθω• ἐπιμένων δὲ καθαιρείσθω, ὡς φονεύσας τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter, cum aliquis clericorum inopia laborat, ei non suppeditet necessaria, segregetur; quod si perseveret, deponatur, ut occidens fratrem suum.

We may repeat here what was said about the canons 39–41, to which the present canon is related. Drey considers it to be more recent than the somewhat similar twenty-fifth canon of the Synod of Antioch of the year 341.

CAN. 60 (59)

Εἴ τις τὰ ψευδεπίγραφα τῶν ἀσεβῶν βιβλία ὡς ἅγια ἐπὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δημοσιεύει ἐπὶ λύμῃ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ κλήρου, καθαιρείσθω.

Si quis falso inscriptos impiorum libros, tanquam sacros in Ecclesia divulgarit, ad perniciem populi et cleri, deponatur.

This canon belongs in substance to the second century of the Christian era. It bears a certain similarity to the Apostolic Constitutions; but, according to Drey, it must have been composed much later, as he concludes from the expressions “to spread in the Church,” and “people and clergy,” which entered into ecclesiastical language at a later period.

CAN. 61 (60)

Εἴ τις κατηγορία γένηται κατὰ πιστοῦ πορνείας ἢ μοιχείας ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς ἀπηγορευμένης πράξεως καὶ ἐλεγχθείη, εἰς κλῆρον μὴ ἀγέσθω.

Si qua fiat accusatio contra fidelem, fornicationis vel adulterii, vel alterius cujusdam facti prohibiti, et convictus fuerit, is non provehatur ad clerum.

This canon belongs to the third century. A similar rule was made in the thirtieth and seventy-sixth canons of Elvira, in the ninth of Neocæsarea, and in the ninth and tenth of Nicæa. The source of this canon is unknown.

CAN. 62 (61)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς διὰ φόβον ἀνθρώπινον Ἰουδαίου ἢ Ἕλληνος ἢ αἱρετικοῦ ἀρνήσηται, εἰ μὲν ὄνομα Χριστοῦ, ἀποβαλλέσθω, εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κληρικοῦ, καθαιρείσθω• μετανοήσας δὲ ὡς λαϊκὸς δεχθήτω.

Si quis clericus propter metum humanum Judæi vel gentilis vel hæretici negaverit, siquidem nomen Christi, segregetur; si vero nomen clerici, deponatur; si autem pœnitentiam egerit, ut laicus recipiatur.

Drey thinks that the persecutions of the Christians at the commencement of the fourth century, under the Emperors Diocletian, Galerius, Maximin, and Licinius, gave occasion for this canon, which is from an unknown source.

CAN. 63 (62)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἤ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ φάγῃ κρέα ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ ἢ θηριάλωτον ἢ θνησιμαῖον, καθαιρείσθω τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ νόμος ἀπεῖπεν. Εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, aut omnino ex catalogo clericorum, manducaverit carnem in sanguine animæ ejus, vel captum a bestia, vel morticinium, deponatur; id enim lex quoque interdixit. Quod si laicus sit, segregetur.

This canon must be classed among the most ancient of the collection.

CAN. 64 (63)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἢ λαϊκὸς εἰσέλθῃ εἰς συναγωγὴν Ἰουδαίων ἢ αἱρετικῶν συνεύξασθαι, καθαιρείσθω καὶ ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis clericus vel laicus ingressus fuerit synagogam Judæorum vel hæreticorum ad orandum, ille deponatur, hic segregetur.

The same remark applies to this as to the sixty-third canon. This canon was formed from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 65 (64)

εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἐν μάχῃ τινὰ κρούσας καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς κρούσματος ἀποκτείνει, καθαιρείσθω διὰ τὴν προπέτειαν αὐτοῦ̇ εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis clericus in contentione aliquem ferierit, atque ex ictu occiderit, deponatur ob suam præcipitantiam; laicus vero segregetur.

It was not thought necessary to make such a law as this during the ancient Church: it was only subsequently, in the midst of the contentions excited by Arianism, that it became indispensable that such acts of brutality should be condemned. The origin of this canon is unknown. We must remark, further, that according to the order followed in the apostolic canons, where they are placed after the Apostolic Constitutions (as in Cotelerius, Galland, Drey), the present canon follows the sixty-sixth, so that they change places. We prefer to follow the order which is observed in the ancient collections of canons and of councils.

CAN. 66 (65)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθῇ τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν νηστεύων ἢ τὸ σάββατον πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς μόνου, καθαιρείσθω εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis clericus inventus fuerit die dominica vel sabbato, præter unum solum, jejunans, deponatur; si fuerit laicus, segregetur.

In some countries—for instance in Rome, and also in Spain—Saturday was a fast-day; but in other countries this fast was not observed, and this difference is very ancient. The custom of fasting on Sunday is to be met with only among those sects who professed a sort of Gnostic dualism,—for instance, the Marcionites. It may therefore be said that this canon belongs to the most ancient of the collection, and that it is formed from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 67 (66)

Εἴ τις παρθένον ἀμνήστευτον βιασαμενος ἔχει, ἀφοριζέσθω μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ ἑτέραν λαμβάνειν ἀλλʼ ἐκείνην, ἥν ᾑρετίσατο, κἃν πενιχρὰ τυγχάνῃ.

Si quis virginem non desponsatam vi illata teneat, segregetur, nec aliam ducat, sed hanc, quam sic elegit, retineat, etiamsi paupercula fuerit.

The eleventh canon of Ancyra had before condemned the rape of girls, but it concerned only those girls who were betrothed, as also did S. Basil the Great, in the twenty-second chapter of his second canonical letter to Amphilochius. As, in point of severity, this canon holds the middle course between the ancient ordinances of Ancyra and of S. Basil, and the more recent rules of the Council of Chalcedon, Drey concludes that its origin must be referred to the period between these Councils of Ancyra and Chalcedon, and it must therefore be considered as among the most recent of the collection. He goes so far as to think that we should not be wrong in regarding it as an imitation of the twenty-second canon of Chalcedon.

CAN. 68 (67)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος δευτέραν χειροτονίαν δέξεται παρά τινος, καθαιρείσθω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ χειροτονήσας, εἴ μήγε ἄρα συσταίη, ὅτι παρὰ αἱρετικῶν ἔχει τὴν χειροτονίαν τοὺς γὰρ παρὰ τῶν τοιούτων βαπτισθέντας ἡ χειροτονηθέντας οὔτε πιστοὺς οὔτε κληρικοὺς εἶναι δυνατόν.

Si quis episcopus vel presbyter aut diaconus secundam ordinationem acceperit ab aliquo, deponatur et ipse, et qui eum ordinavit, nisi ostendat ab hæreticis ordinationem se habere; a talibus enim baptizati et ordinati neque fideles neque clerici esse possunt.

The same remark applies to this as to the forty-sixth canon. Its origin is not known.

CAN. 69 (68)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ἀναγνώστης ἢ ψάλτης τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστὴν τοῦ πάσχα ἢ τετράδα ἢ παρασκευὴν οὐ νηστεύοι, καθαιρείσθω, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διʼ ἀσθένειαν σωματικὴν ἐμποδίζοιτο εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus aut lector aut cantor sanctam Quadragesimam non jejunat, aut quartam sex-tamque feriam, deponatur, nisi infirmitate corporis impediatur; laicus vero segregetur.

The custom of fasting before Easter, during Lent, is very ancient. S. Irenæus even believes that it proceeded from the apostles. Therefore Drey considers this Canon to be one of the most ancient, and that it may be traced back to about the third century. In another passage, Drey gives it as his opinion that this canon and the one following were taken from the spurious Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Philippians.

CAN. 70 (69)

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπς ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἤ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν κληρικῶν νηστεύοι μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ᾒ συνεορτάζοι μεἰ αὐτῶν ἢ δέχοιτο παρʼ αὐτῶν τὰ τῆς ἑορτῆς ξένια, οἷον ἄζυμα ἢ τι τοιοῦτον, καθαιρείσθω̇ εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis episcopus aut alius clericus cum Judæis jejunet, vel dies festos agat, aut festorum munera ab ipsis accipiat, veluti azyma hisque similia, deponatur; si laicus hæc fecerit, segregetur.

According to Drey, this canon and the one following date from the end of the third or the middle of the fourth century. The Synod of Elvira had before recommended, in its forty-ninth and fiftieth canons, that too intimate connections with Jews should be avoided. Drey is, however, of opinion that this canon and the one following were derived from the thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth canons of Laodicea.

CAN. 71 (70)

Εἴ τις Χριστιανὸς ἔλαον ἀπενέγκῃ εἰς ἱερὰ ὠθνῶν ἢ εἰς συναγωγὴν Ἰουδαίων ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς αὐτῶν, ἢ λύχνους ἅπτει, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Si quis christianus ad templa Gentilium aut ad synagogas Judæorum oleum deferat, vel in istorum festis lucernas accendat, segregetur.

See the comments on the preceding canon. The Council of Elvira had before made several rules for preventing Christians from communicating in sacris with pagans.

CAN. 72 (71)

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς ἢ λαϊκὸς ἀπὸ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας ἀφέληται κηρὸν ἢ ἐλαιον, ἀφοριζέσθω [καὶ τὸ ἐπίπεμπτον προστιθέτω μεθʼ οὗ ἒλαβεν].

Clericus aut laicus ceram aut oleum e sancta ecclesia auferens, segregetur, ultraque ablatum quintam partem restituat.

The robbery here spoken of shows that this canon was formed in corrupt times: it must therefore be reckoned among the least ancient, and is of unknown origin.

CAN. 73 (72)

Σκεῦος χρυσοῦν καὶ ἀργυροῦν ἁγιασθὲν ἣ ὀθόνην μηδεὶς ἔτι εἰς οἰκείαν χρῆσιν σφετεριζέσθω̇ παράνομον γάρ. Εἰ δέ τις φωραθείη, ἐπιτιμάσθω ἀφορισμῷ.

Vasa argentea aureave, necnon linteamina Deo consecrata nemo deinceps in proprios usus vertat, nefas enim est. Deprehensus in eo segregatione multetur.

What this canon says is entirely in harmony with the views and customs of the ancient Church. It supposes, indeed, an opulence which the churches hardly possessed in the first ages: it is proved, however, that from the third century several churches were in possession of a considerable number of vessels of gold and silver. We may therefore trace this seventy-third canon back as far as the second half of the third century. Drey, however, holds it to be more recent; it is of unknown origin.

CAN. 74 (73)

Ἐπίσκοπον κατηγορηθέντα ἐπί τινι παρὰ ἀξιοπίστων ἀνθρώπων, καλεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἀναγκαῖον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπισκόπων̇ κἂν μὲν ἀπαντήσῃ καὶ ὁμολογήσῃ ἢ ἐλεγχθείη, ὁρίζεσθαι τὸ ἐπιτίμιον̇̇ εἰ δὲ καλούμενος μὴ ὑπακούσοι, καλείσθω καὶ δεύτερον, ἀποστελλομένων ἐπʼ αὐτὸν δύο ἐπισκόπων̇ ἐὰν δὲ καὶ οὕτω καταφρονήσας μὴ ἀπαντήσῃ, ἡ σύνοδος ἀποφαινέσθω κατʼ αὐτοῦ τὰ δοκοῦντα, ὅπως μὴ δόξῃ κερδαίνειν φυγοδικῶν.

Episcopum ab hominibus christianis et fide dignis de crimine accusatum in jus vocent episcopi. Si vocationi paruerit responderitque, fueritque convictus, pœna decernatur; si vero vocatus haud paruerit, missis ad eum duobus episcopis iterum vocetur; si ne sic quidem paruerit, duo rursus ad eum missi tertio vocent episcopi Si hanc quoque missionem aspernatus non venerit, pronunciet contra eum synodus quæ videbuntur, ne ex judicii detrectatione lucrum facere videatur.

This canon and the one following are certainly ancient in some parts; but they are undoubtedly subsequent to the Council of Nicæa. Drey supposes that this canon was formed in compliance with what the Synod of Chalcedon decreed against Dioscurus. See our remarks at the commencement of the Appendix.

CAN. 75 (74)

Εὶς μαρτυρίαν τὴν κατʼ ἐπισκόπου αἱρετικὸν μὴ προσδέχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πιστῶν ἕνα μόνον• ἐπὶ στόματος γὰρ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ρῆμα.

Ad testimonium contra episcopum dicendum nec hæreticum hominem admittite, nec etiam fidelem unicum; ait enim lex: In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum.

See the comments on the preceding canon.

CAN. 76 (75)

Οτι οὐ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἢ υἱῷ ἢ ἐτέρῳ συγγενεῖ χαρίζεσθαι πάθει ἀνθρωπίνῳ• οὐ γὰρ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίαν ὑπὸ κληρονόμους ὀφείλει τιθέναι̇ εἰ δέ τις τοῦτο ποιήσει, ἄκυρος μενέτω ἡ χειροτονία, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιτιμάσθω ἀφορισμῷ.

Episcopum fratri suo, aut filio vel alteri propinquo episcopatum largiri, et quos ipse vult, ordinare non decet; æquum enim non est, ut Dei dona humano affectu divendantur, et Ecclesia Christi, episcopatusque hæreditatum jura sequatur. Si quis ita fecerit, ejus quidem ordinatio sit irrita, ipse vero segregationis ferat pœnam.

The twenty-third canon of the Synod of Antioch, in 341, makes a rule almost similar to this in the main. Therefore Drey believes that the apostolic canon was formed from that of Antioch.

CAN. 77 (76)

Εἴ τις ἀνάπηρος ἢ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἢ τὸ σκέλος πεπληγμένος, ἄξιος δέ ἐστιν, ἐπίσκοπος γινέσθω̇ οὐ γὰρ λώβη σώατος αὐτὸν μιαίνει, ἀλλὰ ψυχῆς μολυσμός.

Si quis fuerit vel oculo læsus vel crure debilis, cæteroquin dignus, qui fiat episcopus, fiat; non enim vitium corporis polluit, sed animi.

The canons 77–79 inclusive belong to the first three centuries of the Church. Their origin is unknown.

CAN. 78 (77)

Κωφὸς δὲ ὢν καὶ τυφλὸς μὴ γινέσθω ἐπίσκοπος• οὐχ ὡς βεβλαμμένος, ἀλλʼ ἵνα μὴ τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ παρεμποδίζοιτο.

Surdus vero, mutus aut cæcus ne fiat episcopus, non quod pollutus sit, sed ne impediantur ecclesiastica.

CAN. 79 (78)

Ἐάν τις δαίμονα ἔχῃ, κληρικὸς μὴ γινέσθω, ἰλλὰ μηδὲ τοῖς πιστοῖς συνευχέσθω̇ καθαρισθεὶς δὲ προσδεσχέσθε καὶ, ἐὰν ᾗ ἂξιος, γινέσθω.

Dæmonem qui habet, clericus non sit, nec etiam cum fidelibus oret. Emundatus autem recipiatur, et si dignus habeatur, clericus existat.

This canon may have been formed from the Apostolic Constitutions.

CAN. 80 (79)

Τὸν ἐξ ἐθνικοῦ βίου προσελθόντα καὶ βαπτισθέντα ἢ ἐκ φαύλης διαγωγῆς οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστι παραυτίκα προχειρίζεσθαι ἐπίσκπον̇ ἄδικον γὰρ τὸν μηδὲ πρόειραν ἐπιδειξάμενον ἑτέρων εἷναι διδάσκαλον̇ εἰ μήπου κατὰ θείαν χάριν τοῦτο γίνεται.

Qui ex gentibus, aut post vitam non laudabiliter actam per baptismum ad ecclesiam accessit, hunc non decet mox prove-here ad episcopatum; iniquum enim est, aliorum existere doctorem, qui probationem non dederit, nisi forte divino id munere contingat.

S. Paul gives a similar rule. Cf. Drey, who considers it to be an imitation of the second canon of Nicæa.

CAN. 81 (80)

Εἴπομεν, ὅτι οὐ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον καθιέναι ἑαυτὸν εἰς δημοσίας διοικήσεις, ἀλλὰ προσευκαιρεῖν ταῖς ἐκκλησιαστικαῖς χρείαις̇ ἢ πειθέσθω οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ποιεῖν ἢ καθαιρείσθω̇ οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν, κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν παρακέλευσιν.

Diximus non oportere, ut episcopus in publicas administrationes sese demittat, sed Ecclesiæ utilitatibus vacet. Aut igitur persuadeatur hoc non facere, aut deponatur. Nemo enim potest duobus dominis servire, juxta Domini admonitionem.

So long as heathenism predominated, it was exceedingly dangerous for Christians to accept public offices, because they obliged those who filled them to communicate often in sacris with pagans. See (sec. 12) the canons of Elvira, and the comments accompanying them. At this period, however, it was only the laity who competed for public offices: among the bishops, Paul of Samosata was the first known example of this kind. Such cases increased when, under Constantine the Great and his successors, Christianity gained more and more the upper hand; and it became important to forbid bishops to accept civil employment by a special ordinance. Drey considers this canon as an abridgment of the third canon of Chalcedon.

CAN. 82 (81)

Οἰκέτας εἰς κλῆρον προχειρίζεσθαι ἄνευ τῆς τῶν δεσποτῶν γνώμης, ἀνατροπὴν τὸ τοιοῦτο ἐργάζεται̇ εἰ δέ ποτε καὶ ἄξιος φανείη ὁ οἰκέτης πρὸς χειροτονίαν βαθμοῦ, οἷος καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος Ὀνήσιμος ἐφάνη, καὶ συγχωρήσουσιν οἱ δεσπόται καὶ ἐλενθερώσουσι καὶ τοῦ οἵκου ἑαυτῶν ἐξαποστελοῦσι, γινέσθω.

Servos invitis dominis ad clerum promoveri non permittimus, ne molestia possessoribus flat, hoc namque domos evertit. Si quando vero servus dignus videtur, ut ad ordinationem ascendat, quemadmodum visus est Onesimus noster, et consentit dominus ac manumittit, suique juris facit, fiat clericus.

We are not in a position to fix the antiquity and origin of this canon.

CAN. 83 (82)

Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος στρατείᾳ σχολάζων καὶ βουλόμενος ἀμφότερα κατέχειν, Ῥωμαϊκὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν διοίκησιν, καθαιρείσθω• τὰ γὰρ τοῦ Καίσαρος Καίσαροι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ.

Episcopus vel presbyter vel diaconus militiæ dans operam, et utraque volens retinere, Romanum magistratum et sacerdotalem administrationem, deponatur. Quæ enim sunt Cæsaris Cæsari, et quæ sunt Dei Deo.

Drey considers this canon to have been formed from the seventh of the fourth Œcumenical Council, and consequently that it is one of the most recent of the collection. See, in opposition to his opinion, our remarks at the beginning of this Appendix.

CAN. 84 (83)

Ὅστις ὑβρίζει βασιλέα ἢ ἄρχοντα, τιμωρίαν τιννύτω• καὶ εἰ μὲν κληρικὸς, καθαιρείσθω, εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω.

Quicunque commiserit aliquid contra jus adversus Cæsarem aut magistratum, puniatur; et quidem si clericus fuerit, deponatur; si laicus, segregetur.

It might be thought that this canon was formed in a time of persecution, when it could be more easily understood that Christians should despise the Emperors; but nevertheless it was not so. This canon fits in much better to the time of the Arian struggle, when such offences against the Emperors were much more abundant. The origin of the canon is unknown.

CAN. 85 (84)

Ἔστω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν κληρικοῖς καὶ λαϊκοῖς βιβλία σεβάσμια καὶ ἅγια, τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαθήκης Μωυσέως πέντε, Γένεσις, Ἔξοδος, Λευϊτικὸν, Ἀριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον• Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ναυῆ ἓν, Ῥούθ ἓν, Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν ἡμερῶν δύο, Ἐσθὴρ ἓν, Μαχαβαϊκῶν τρία, Ἰὼβ ἓν, ψαλτήριον ἓν, Σολομῶντος τρία, Παροιμίαι, Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, Αἷσμα ᾀσμάτων• Προφητῶν δεκαδύο ἓν, Ἠσαίου ἓν, Ἰερεμίου ἓν, Ἰεζεκιὴλ ἓν, Δανιὴλ ἕν• ἒξωθεν δὲ προσιστορείσθω ὑμῖν, μανθάνειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σειράχ. Ἡμέτερα δὲ, τοῦτʼ ἔστι τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, Εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα, Ματθαίου, Μάρκου, Λουκᾶ, Ἰωάννου• Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, Πέτρου ἐπιστολαὶ δύο, Ἰωάννου τρεῖς, Ἰακώβου μία Ἰούδα μία, Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ δύο καὶ αἱ διαταγαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐπισκόποις διʼ ἐμοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν ὀκτὼ βιβλίοις προσπεφωνημέναι, ἂς οὐ δεῖ δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάντων διὰ τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς μυστικὰ, καὶ αἱ Πράξεις ἡμῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων.

Sint autem vobis omnibus, cum clericis tum laicis, libri venerabiles et sancti: veteris quidem testamenti, Moysis quinque,—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium; Jesu filii Navæ unus; Judicum unus, Ruth unus; Regnorum quatuor, Paralipomenon libri dierum duo; Esdræ duo; Esther unus; Judith unus; Machabæorum tres; Hiobi unus; Psalmi centum quinquaginta; Salomonis libri tres, Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum; Propheæ sexdecim; præter hos nominetur vobis etiam Sapientia multiscii Sirachi, quam adolescentes vestri discant. Nostri autem, id est libri novi testamenti: Evangelia quatuor, Matthæi, Marci, Lucæ, Joannis; Pauli epistolæ quatuordecim; Petri duæ; Joannis tres; Jacobi una; Judæ una; Clementis epistolæ duæ;. et Constitutiones vobis episcopis per me Clementem octo libris nuncupatæ, quas non oportet inter omnes divulgare, ob mystica quæ in eis sunt, et Acta nostra apostolorum.

This is probably the least ancient canon in the whole collection. In most of the Greek manuscripts the apostolic canons are followed by a short epilogue, containing an exhortation addressed to the bishops, recommending them to observe these canons. It ends with a prayer, which was printed with the apostolic canons in Cotelerius, Galland, Mansi, Ueltzen, and also in Latin in Drey.