CANON VI.

(Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 

382. Vide Introduction on the number of Canons.)

FORASMUCH as many wishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order, 

do contentiously and slanderously fabricate charges against the orthodox 

bishops who have the administration of the Churches, intending nothing 

else than to stain the reputation of the priests and raise up 

disturbances amongst the peaceful laity; therefore it seemed right to 

the Holy Synod of Bishops assembled together in Constantinople, not to 

admit accusers without examination; and neither to allow all persons 

whatsoever to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, nor, 

on the other hand, to exclude all. If then, any one shall bring a 

private complaint against the Bishop, that is, one relating to his own 

affairs, as, for example, that he has been defrauded, or otherwise 

unjustly treated by him, in such accusations no examination shall be 

made, either of the person or of the religion of the accuser; for it is 

by all means necessary that the conscience of the Bishop should be free, 

and that he who says he has been wronged should meet with righteous 

judgment, of whatever religion he may be. But if the charge alleged 

against the Bishop be that of some ecclesiastical offence, then it is 

necessary to examine carefully the persons of the accusers, so that, in 

the first place, heretics may not be suffered to bring accusations 

touching ecclesiastical matters against orthodox bishops. And by 

heretics we mean both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom 

we ourselves have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold 

the true faith who have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up 

conventicles in opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any who have 

been condemned for faults and cast out of the Church, or excommunicated, 

whether of the clergy or the laity, neither shall it be lawful for these 

to bring an accusation against the bishop, until they have cleared away 

the charge against themselves. In like manner, persons who are under 

previous accusations are not to be permitted to bring charges against a 

bishop or any other clergyman, until they shall have proved their own 

innocence of the accusation brought against them. But if any, being 

neither heretics, nor excommunicate, nor condemned, nor under previous 

accusation for alleged faults, should declare that they have any 

ecclesiastical charge against the bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first 

lay their charges before all the Bishops of the Province, and before 

them prove the accusations, whatsoever they may be, which they have 

brought against the bishop. And if the comprovincials should be unable 

rightly to settle the charges brought against the bishop, then the 

parties must betake themselves to a greater synod of the bishops of that 

diocese called together for this purpose; and they shall not produce 

their allegations before they have promised in writing to undergo an 

equal penalty to be exacted from themselves, if, in the course of the 

examination, they shall be proved to have slandered the accused bishop. 

And if anyone, despising what has been decreed concerning these things, 

shall presume to annoy the ears of the Emperor, or the courts of 

temporal judges, or, to the dishonour of all the Bishops of his 

Province, shall trouble an Ecumenical Synod, such an one shall by no 

means be admitted as an accuser; forasmuch as he has east contempt upon 

the Canons, and brought reproach upon the order of the Church.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPlTOME OF CANON VI.

Even one that is of ill repute, if he have suffered any injury, let him 

bring a charge against the bishop. If however it be a crime of 

ecclesiastical matters let him not speak. Nor shall another condemned 

before, speak. Let not one excommunicated, or cast forth, or charged 

with any crimes speak, until he is cleared of them. But those who should 

bring the charge are the orthodox, who are communicants, uncondemned, 

unaccused. Let the case be heard by the provincials. If however they are 

not able to decide the case, let them have recourse to a greater synod 

and let them not be heard, without a written declaration of liability to 

the same sufferings [i.e. of their readiness to be tried by the lex

talionis.] But should anyone contrary to the provisions appeal to the 

Emperor and trouble him, let such be cast forth.

The phrase "who have the administration of the Churches," Hatch in his 

Bampton Lectures (Lect. I., p. 41) erroneously supposes to refer only to 

the administration of the Church's alms. But this, as Dr. Bright well 

points out (" Notes on the Canons," in loc.) cannot be the meaning of 

    oikonamein    when used absolutely as in this canon. He 

says, "When a merely 'economic' function is intended, the context shows 

it, as in Chalcedon, Canon xxvj." He also points out that in Canon ij., 

and in Eusebius (H. E. iv., 4), and when St. Basil wishes his brother to 

    oikonomein    a church suited to his temperament (Epist. 

xcviij., 2) the meaning of the word is evidently spiritual stewardship.

ZONARAS.

By "those who were cast out of the Church" are to be understood those 

who were altogether cut off from the Church; but   by those who were 

"excommunicated" the  holy fathers intend all those, whether clerics  or 

laymen, who are deprived of communion for a set time.

VAN ESPEN.

It is evident from the context of this canon that "Diocese" here does 

not signify the district or territory assigned to any one bishop, as we 

to-day use the word; but for a district, which not only contained many 

episcopal districts, as today do ecclesiastical provinces, but which 

contained also many provinces, and this was the meaning of the word at 

the time of this Council's session.

ZONARAS.

We call Adrianople, for example, or Philopopolis with the bishops of 

each a "Province," but the whole of Thrace or Macedonia we call a 

"Diocese." When these crimes were brought forward to be corrected, for 

the judging of which the provincial bishops were by no means sufficient, 

then the Canon orders the bishops of the diocese to assemble, and 

determine the charges preferred against the bishop.

VAN ESPEN.

Both the Canon and the Civil Law require the accusers to submit 

themselves to the law of retaliation (lex talionis). Vide Gratian, Pt. 

II., Causa II., Quaest. III., 2 and 3, where we read from the decree of 

Pope Hadrian; "Whoever shall not prove what he advances, shall himself 

suffer the penalty due the crime he charged." And under the name of 

Damasus, "The calumniator, if he fail in proving his accusation, shall 

receive his tale." The Civil Law is in L. x., Cod. de Calumniatoribus, 

and reads, "Whoso charges a crime, shall not have licence to lie with 

impunity, since justice requires that calumniators shall endure the 

punishment due the crime which they failed to prove."

The Council wishes that all accusations of bishops for ecclesiastical 

offences shall be kept out of the secular courts, and shall be heard by 

synods of bishops, in the manner and form here prescribed, which is in 

accordance with the Constitution which under the names of Valens, 

Gratian, and Valentinian, the Emperors, is referred to in law xxiij. of 

the Code of Theodosius, De Episcopis et Clericis.

Whatever may be said of the meeting of bishops at which this canon was 

enacted, this is clear, no mention was made of the Roman Pontiff, nor of 

the Council of Sardica, as Fleury notes in his Histoire Ecclesiastique, 

Lib. xviij., n. 8. From this it is evident either that at that time the 

Orientals did not admit, especially for bishops, appeals to the Roman 

Pontiff; nor did they accept the authority of the Synod of Sardica, in 

so far as it permitted that the sentence given in a provincial synod, 

should be reopened by the neighbouring bishops together with the bishops 

of the province, and if it seemed good, that the cause might be referred 

to Rome.

WARNING TO THE READER TOUCHING CANON VII.

(Beveridge, Synodicon, Tom. II., in loc.)

This canon, I confess, is contained in all the editions of the 

Commentaries of Balsamon and Zonaras. It is cited also by Photius in 

Nomocanon, Tit. xii. ch. xiv., besides it is extant in a contracted form 

in the Epitome of Alexius Aristenus. But it is wanting in all the Latin 

versions of the Canons, in the ancient translations of Dionys. Exig., 

Isidore Mercator, etc.; also in the Epitome of Sym. Logothet., and the 

Arabic paraphrase of Josephus AEgyp., and what is particularly to be 

observed, in the collection and nomocanon of John of Antioch; and

this not through want of attention on his part, as is clear from this 

namely, that in the order of the Canons as given by him he attributes 

six Canons only to this second General Council, saying "... of the 

Fathers who assembled at Constantinople, by whom six Canons were set 

forth," so that it is clear the present was not reckoned among the 

canons of this council in those days. Nay, the whole composition of this 

canon clearly indicates that it is to be ascribed, neither to this 

present council, nor to any other (unless perhaps to that of Trullo, of 

which we shall speak afterwards). For nothing is appointed in it, 

nothing confirmed, but a certain ancient custom of receiving converted 

heretics, is here merely recited.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 368.)

As we possess a letter from the Church at Constantinople in the middle 

of the fifth century to Bishop Martyrius of Antioch, in which the same 

subject is referred to in a precisely similar way, Beveridge is probably 

right in conjecturing that the canon was only an extract from this 

letter to Martyrius; therefore in no way a decree of the second General 

Council, nor even of the Synod of 382, but at least eighty years later 

than the latter. This canon, with an addition, was afterwards adopted by 

the Quinisext Synod as its ninety-fifth, without, however, giving its 

origin.