22.

 For everything to be dedicated to God, and not to be slavishly subject to one’s own will, is undoubtedly a great thing in itself. For whether you are eating or you are drinking, the divine Apostle says, you are doing everything for the glory of God. Christ, therefore, our God, in His Gospels has ordered us to cut out the origins of sins. For not only is adultery chastised by Him, but even a mental tendency to attempt adultery is condemned, in that He says: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Taking a cue from this assertion, we ought to purify our thoughts. “All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient” (1 Cor. 10:23), we are taught by an Apostolic utterance. It is therefore indispensable for every man to eat in order to live. Accordingly, for those whose life is one of marriage and children and popular amusement it is proper for men and women to eat in mixed company, though to avoid calumny and reproach they ought to take food merely in order to obtain nourishment, and not for the enjoyment of it, and in absence of theatrical arts, or what may be called Satanic songs, music of harps, and whorish twistings of the body. For upon such as participate in these things the prophetic curse descends speaking as follows: “Woe unto them who drink wine with harp and lute, but regard not the work of the Lord, neither have considered the works of his hands comprehendingly” (Isa. 5:12). And if there ever should be such among the Christians, let them correct themselves or be corrected; but if not, let the rules laid down by those before us canonically and promulgated prevail in regard to them. But as for those persons whose life is quiet and monotonous, he who has joined hands with the Lord God “ought to bear the yoke solitary . . . as he sitteth alone and broodeth in silence” (Lam. of Jer. 3:27-28). But what is more even for those who have chosen a priestly life, it is not at all permissible for them to eat privately in the company of women, unless it be somewhere together with God-bearing[290] and reverent men and women, in order that the banquet itself may lead to some spiritual guidance. And in the case of relatives, too, let him do the same. If, again, during a journey a monk or a priestly man should happen to be in want of what he needs, and as a matter of necessity wishes to put up somewhere, be it at an inn or in someone’s home, he is to have the right to do this, on the ground of the exigency.[291]

[1] The duration of catechization is not fixed the same by all. The Apostolical Injunctions ordain that a catechumen is to be catechized for a year. Canon 42 of the regional council held in Illiberia, a town in Spain, a little before the First Ecumenical Council, prescribed two years. Justinian Novel 144 also prescribed two years for Samaritans joining the faith. Canon 25 of the local council held in Agatha in the year 506 fixed the time as eight months for converted Jews. Canon VIII of the 7th Ecum. C. will not have us accept Jews feigning belief, but only those who really believe and who criticize the practices of the Jews. Some writers, however, think that catechization occupied only as many days as there are in Great Lent, inferring this from c. XLV of Laodicea, and from Jerome’s letter to Pammachius, and from the first catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem. But perhaps from these premises nothing less is to be inferred except the fact that during Great Lent the last and more accurate part of catechization was completed, because at that time catechumens used to be baptized during the night of Great Saturday and of Easter. Sometimes, however, the duration of catechization was curtailed on account of necessary circumstances. That is why catechumens in danger of dying used to be baptized before the time fixed for catechization had expired, according to c. XII of Neocaesarea, c. XLVII of Laodicea, c. LII of Carthage, c. V of Basil, and c. V of Cyril. But the Burgundians, too, a nationality of France, on account of the fervid faith they showed in Christ, and on account of the need they had to fight the Huns, with whom they were at war, were catechized in only seven days, and on the eighth day they were baptized by the bishop in one city of France (Socrates, Book VII, ch. 30). Yet, according to this Canon, it is better to let a long time pass that is sufficient to test the catechumen more efficaciously.

[2] Zonaras calls every sin a psychical (or animal) sin that is due to an aberrancy of the three faculties of the soul, namely, the reasoning faculty, the affective faculty, and the desiderative faculty. Balsamon says that a psychical (or animal) sin is any sin that causes an injury to the soul (the Greek name of which is psyche, and the Latin anima), whether the origin of it be traceable to an appetite of the body or to a craving of the soul. Others have considered a psychical sin to be one resulting from passions of the soul, such as presumption, waywardness, etc. Properly, however, the psychical sin spoken of in this Canon is the state of being puffed up, and supercilious, and proud. For it is only this passion that belongs to the spiritual and immaterial nature of the soul; and this is the condemnation and snare into which the Devil fell, according to the saying of the Apostle which the Canon mentions here, and according to the interpretation placed upon it by St. Ambrose. That is why St. Augustine (in Book III concerning the City of God) says that the Devil is not a drunkard or anything else of such a nature, but is, in fact, a conceited and witchlike being. So if a bishop falls into the passion of pride and reveals this by what he says or does, and is exposed by two or three witnesses, let him be dismissed from the clergy, perhaps in order that he may be humbled and moderate his sentiment, and thus become entitled to be restored to holy orders. But if he keeps on getting prouder, and refuses to cease, let him be completely deposed from his rank. The fact that open pride is a sufficient cause for deposition is also evident from the Novatians, who were ousted from the Church on this account, because out of presumption and pride they called themselves pure and refused to admit those who had denied in time of persecution and had repented, nor would commune with persons married twice. Some authorities, however, have asserted that by “psychical sin” the Canon means here a cacodoxical and impious sentiment or belief or frame of mind. But if this were meant, anyone entertaining it ought not only to cease therefrom, but also to be sternly deposed and to be outlawed and proscribed from the Church. So, inasmuch as pride is a mortal sin, and those who commit a sin involving death forfeit their rank, according to c. XXXII of Basil (which you are advised to read), the present Canon chastises anyone that has fallen into such a sin by unfrocking him.

[3] Not only do ecumenical and regional councils commonly blame and place under a penance those clergymen, or even laymen, who have strange women in their home, whether it be in order to have them do work as servants, as was presbyter Gregory against whom Basil the Great complains, or it be that as an excuse they are alleged to be unprotected and have no one to provide for them, but also separately as individuals every one of the divine Fathers took care to stigmatize this evil. For St. Gregory the Theologian in his epic verses wonders and is at a loss among whom to class those who keep women in their house or have women staying with them in their home, whether they ought to class them among married men, or among unmarried and virgin men, or in a middle group between married men and virgin men; on which account he says:

“As for the subintroductors, as all of them allege indeed,

I know not whether to allow them a marriage, or to keep them with the unmarried.

Or to place them in the middle somewhere between both these groups.

For I at any rate will not praise this thing even though I be criticized.”

The saint of the same name, Gregory of Nyssa, in his discussion of virginity, finds fault with such persons and says: “They not only provide their belly with whatever gives it pleasure, but they even cohabit openly with women, and call such living together a fraternity.” Divine Chrysostom (discourse on those having subintroductae, p. 214 of vol. vi) says the following: “There are some who take virgin girls without a marriage and intercourse, place them in their home permanently, and live with them continuously until extreme old age, not for the sake of giving birth to children (since they claim not to have any sexual intercourse with them), not for the sake of fornication and licentiousness (because they claim to be keeping them virgins and chaste). But if one were to ask them for what reason they are doing this, they have a lot of excuses to offer in reply; yet they have no reasonable and decent excuse. For the real reason of their living with these girls in this fashion is none other than a passionate craving and pleasure which affords them a more intense and vehement sexual appeal than that enjoyed by men living with a lawful wife. Because a wife allows the man living with her unrestricted intercourse and allays vehement sexual love, and often leads the man to satiety of pleasure and inhibits unlimited desire; besides these differences, there are also the parturient pangs of a lawful wife, the inconveniences of giving birth to children, and bringing them up, and the illnesses and weaknesses which she incurs from all these causes ultimately wither the flower of her beauty, and consequently make the center of pleasure less attractive to the man. But in the case of the subintroducta virgin these consequences do not follow. For neither sexual intercourse with her can make the man living with her abate the passionateness of his irresistible desire, nor do parturient pangs and child-rearing wither their flesh; on the contrary such women retain their beauty for many years, because of their remaining untouched by any of the causes destructive of their beauty we have mentioned; in fact they get to be forty years old and nevertheless appear as pretty as girls and young women who have not yet made their debut. Hence a double desire is aroused in men living with such girls, first, because they do not allay their passionate craving and lust for them with the act of mingling and indulgence in sexual intercourse, and secondly, because the object of their passionate craving remains for a long time at its prime and strongly provocative, which object is the pretty face and the beauty of the women. So, according to Basil the Great (ascetic ordinance 4), such men are so overcome by their passions that they have no feeling, but, instead, are like frenzied and drunken men. According to the same Chrysostom (discourse on the fact that an ascetic must not joke) they are all the time being wounded, all the time being preyed upon by wild beasts, all the time indulging in adultery (probably meaning fornication), and being rendered languid by exceeding the bounds of sobriety. And can it be said (asks the saint) that you are a senseless stone and are not scandalized (probably meaning tantalized)? You are a man subject to the passions of human nature. Well, then, how can it be thought possible for one to put fire inside his bosom, or to walk upon burning coals, without getting burnt, when he is an easily inflammable straw. Nevertheless, again Basil the Great (ascetic ordinance 4) says that even though we allow that he (sc. the one who is keeping subintroductas) is not irritated nor even tantalized by the passion of desire, yet if he be not suffering he cannot in spite of this easily persuade others that he is not actually suffering. But to scandalize the common run of men, without any show of virtue, is not without danger to one who does so. Besides, there is also another consequence to be reckoned with: even granting that the man himself is not injured by looking at the woman, it nevertheless cannot be maintained that the woman is not subject to the passions of the body. Hence she, either being weak in reasoning power or having a most acute passion, has conceived a passion of love for the man who has been so indiscreet as to associate with her; and though he himself has not been wounded, he has wounded her many times without even knowing it.” So in order to avoid having all these consequences follow, every man ought to guard himself, and if possible shun the company of women altogether, or if this is impossible, and he cannot avoid frequent and prolonged meetings with women, and of all others especially women that are leading a monastic life or have grown old as nuns. All clergymen as well as laymen, and especially monks and nuns; since nuns have the same trouble in fighting shy of monks, as monks have in fighting shy of nuns. That is why Abbas (i.e., abbot) Isaac, in admonishing a monk, tells him in addition to these things to avoid canonicae, that is to say, nuns, as though they were fire. But if saints forbid a man to associate with women and nuns, how much more do they not forbid him to live with them? These things which we have said in regard to men keeping subintroductae women, apply also to those who keep beardless young men in their house as subintroducti and are living with them. Hence it is that Gregory the great saint recommends in his epic verses that not only a virgin man, but every other man, and especially every clergyman and monk, should refrain from living with such young men. In fact he says verbatim:

                “Beware of every male, but especially of having one as a subintroductus.”

                In the ascetic discourse which Basil the Great composed concerning renunciation, he says: If you are a young man with respect to the body, or are an old man with respect to the body, but a young man with respect to sentiment, avoid association with young men as you would a flame. For the enemy having burnt up many men with a desire for such young men, consigned them to the everlasting fire after hurling them down into a yawning chasm of sodomites under the pretext of spiritual love. For those keeping such young men (as the same Basil says in his discourse concerning virginity) are excited to a desire for that object in particular to which they are naturally inclined by an erotic impulse, or, in other words, to a desire for a woman. Hence as a result of the relation they bear to what is natural, they are forced to violate the law with respect to what is unnatural, in seeking the female in the male. Being unable to attain their object, nor being themselves in any position to allay their absurd and improper erotic passion by unnaturally mingling with a male, they suffer the very same consequences as are suffered by those who keep subintroductae women. “For when they gaze” (says the same Basil in the above discourse concerning renunciation) “at the face of the beardless young men and receive a seed of desire from the enemy and sower of evils and woes commonly called the Devil, they reap sheaves of destruction and of perdition. The woes deserving many tears are also plainly visible to those who know history, for they have been time and again inflicted upon the world as a result of beardless young men. For many great lavras (i.e., monastic retreats) and monasteries have been wiped out, and the souls of many men have been swallowed up by Hades.”

[4] Note the present Novel and the above Canons.

[5] That is why Theodoret, in his Ecclesiastical History (Book I, ch. 9), says that “all the Fathers of the present First Council in Nicaea, sending in a conciliar letter to the bishops in Alexandria, stated in writing that the ordinations of bishops ought to be ratified by the Bishop of Alexandria, voting along with them and ratifying the election by the general assembly in Alexandria. Hence Synesius when corresponding with Theophilus says in a letter of his concerning a man named Anthony, who was about to be made a bishop, that the most important point connected with his ordination that needed to be attended to was: “the hand of Theophilus. . . . may it be my lot to join in electing him to an equal rank in holy orders. But there is still one most important point to be attended to, though, by thy sacred hand.” And even the Council held in Chalcedon, in mentioning the present Canon in its Act XIII, says: “This Canon prescribes that ratification of what is done in each particular province must be left to the Metropolitan, and the latter must ordain all the bishops subject to his jurisdiction. For the sacred formality, according to sacred Symeon of Thessalonica, is interpreted as meaning that the synod (or council) must vote for three candidates and they are to be referred to the Metropolitan or to the Patriarch; one of the latter two will then decide which one of the three in question is to receive notification of his ordination; and either he himself will ordain the one chosen with the other prelates assisting in the ceremony, or with his permission others may ordain him.

[6] The reason why the present Canon was issued by the Council was as follows. It used to be the custom with bishops of Egypt and of Libya and of Pentapolis to have the bishop of Alexandria as their chief, and without his approval not to engage in any ecclesiastical action, as Epiphanius says in his Haer. 61. By exercising this authority, Peter the sacred martyr, who was Bishop of Alexandria, deposed Meletius, a Bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, as Athanasius the Great bears witness in his second apology. The same saint notes further that before Peter’s time, since some bishops in Pentapolis in Upper Libya had accepted the opinion of Sabellius, and his spurious doctrines came to prevail so widely that the Son of God was hardly being preached in the churches, when Dionysius of Alexandria learned about this, he dispatched envoys to them for the purpose of converting them to the orthodox doctrine of the Church. From these facts it becomes evident indeed that even before this First Council was held the Bishop of Alexandria enjoyed Patriarchal privileges also by virtue of an ancient custom (which, in fact, prevailed in consequence of Ap. c. XXXIV, which says that the bishops of each nation ought to recognize one of their number as their chief, and so forth). He had authority not only to govern the ecclesiastical affairs of the provinces and dioceses there, but also to depose bishops and metropolitans of that clime. But because the said Meletius had been deposed by the Bishop of Alexandria, he attempted to violate this custom and to dare to ordain other bishops in the diocese of Alexandria, this present Nicene Council renewed the ancient custom by the terms of the present Canon and again ratified the rule giving the Bishop of Alexandria authority over all the bishops in Egypt, etc. And this was the meaning attached to the present Canon by the Bishops from Egypt at the Council held in Chalcedon, in Act 4 (according to Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus). This authority is also conferred in c. XXX of the 4th.

[7] For the name Patriarch first began being used in the time of Theodosius the Little. For seeing that the Patriarchs had formerly been called specially Bishops of the Apostolic thrones, this Theodosius first called the Biship of Rome a Patriarch, and also applied the term to St. Chrysostom, according to what is stated by Socrates in Book VII, ch. 31. This appellation was also mentioned in the Council held in Chalcedon; and it was indeed by Justinian that patriarchs were actually and officially called Patriarchs. This noun signifies two different things: either the bishops who were made superintendents and exarchs in some provinces and dioceses by a common synod, as this was done also by the Second Ecum. Council, according to Socrates (Book V, ch. 8). One of such bishops was St. Gregory of Nyssa, being subject to the Bishop of Caesarea. These prelates were called Patriarchs not by reason of any superiority of their throne, but as a result of a conciliar decision in order that they might have greater authority to exercise for the purpose of implanting and uprooting, because of their being equal to the other Patriarchs. That is why, in writing to Flavian of Antioch, against the Bishop of Caesarea who had treated him scornfully, the Bishop of Nyssa said: “If the dignity be judged sacerdotally, the privilege of both of us has been made equal and one by the Council, but rather it may be said that the care taken in correcting common matters depends upon having the benefit of equality. Or it properly signifies the bishops who have the first honor in the Church by reason of the superiority of their own thrones and the chief office, not being a personal one like that of those, but belonging to their thrones by succession, which were five in number, namely, that of Rome, that of Constantinople, that of Alexandria, that of Antioch, and that of Jerusalem. These bishops were called on the principle of acrostic, Caraj (or in Greek, Karai). For the letter C stands for Constantinople, the first letter a for Alexandria, the letter r for Rome, the second letter a for Antioch, and the letter j for Jerusalem. But because of the fact that the one first mentioned (i.e., the so-called Pope of Rome) bolted the reins, the Patriarch of Constantinople was left as the first among the remaining four. Later a fifth Patriarch was added, namely, the Patriarch of Greater Moscow (i.e., of Russia). But he too is no longer. Although it is a fact that Peter of Antioch in writing to the Bishop of Aquileia said that he alone was specially designated as Patriarch, to which Balsamon assented, yet we do not pay regard to what bishops say about themselves, but to what the catholic Church says about them. Dionysius, too, and Timothy Ailourus called the Bishop of Ephesus a Patriarch, but the Fourth Ecumenical Council disregarded this. Theodore the historian also called the Bishop of Thessalonica a Patriarch, but he addressed him thus either in accordance with the style of address accorded to exarchs, as did the Second Council, as we have said, or, as others say, on account of the many episcopates which he had, totalling some forty in all. (Dositheus in the Dodecabiblus.)

[8] Those belonging to the Roman Church do not interpret this Canon correctly. Hence Pope Felix in a dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius, after corrupting it, asserted that the Bishop of Rome possessed sovereign authority in every council, as the Canon (meaning the present one) of the Council in Nicaea intended. Even before him Paschasinus, the legate of Pope Leo, cited the same Canon pervertedly in the Fourth Council. Nevertheless, we can ascertain the true meaning of this Council by considering the words themselves of the Canon. We assert, then, because Meletius trespassed upon the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria, as we have said, he gave occasion to this Council to formulate the present Canon and to ordain nothing new, but merely to confirm the practices which had been preserved from an ancient custom, not only in connection with Patriarchs, but also in connection with Metropolitans, and not only in connection with ordinations, which Meletius had abused, but also in the matter of every other right that belongs to Patriarchs and Metropolitans with respect to the churches subject to their jurisdiction. These facts being presupposed, the Canon says: Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop in Alexandria will enjoy the privilege of exercising authority over all these territories, since this sort of privilege is allowed also to the Bishop in Rome. At this point note that the pronoun “touto” in the Greek text of the Canon, translated hereinabove “this,” refers to nothing else than the custom, for the sake of brevity of speech. “Since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the Bishop of Rome,” it says. What treatment is that? That of allowing him to have authority over all persons and territories subject to his jurisdiction. For just as the Bishop of Rome possesses this customary privilege like the Bishop of Alexandria, in like manner he possesses the same authority as does the latter. That this is the meaning of the Canon is attested also by the Arabic translation of the same Canons, available in the Alexandrian edition. Joseph the Egyptian also attests the same fact, who is an ancient annotator of the Canons of this Council. The same fact is also attested by Dionysius Exiguus in the Latin translation which he made. The fact is further attested and confirmed by the edition of Isidorus of Mercantor; and lastly it is also confirmed by the translation made by Tyrannius Rufinus the presbyter of Aquileia. So, inasmuch as this is the truth of the matter, and the diocese of Rome is limited like that of Alexandria, it is in vain that the Romans imagine that this Canon entitles them to unlimited authority over the whole world. Note further that owing to the fact that the seniority of Rome had remained intact, the present Canon did not renew it. If it had not been the same as it said concerning the Bishop of Alexandria, it would have explained the matter as concerning Rome too. (Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus.)

[9] Note that the seniority and privileges of the Bishops of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch spoken of by the Canon here are not those of a metropolitan, as certain writers have asserted, but those of a patriarch; for both Balsamon and the Anonymous annotator of the Canons assert that the Canons are speaking of patriarchs. Moreover, John of Antioch, in the Collection of the Canons, and John Scholasticus, in the Nomocanon, in reference to the present Canon, as well as (the same Council’s) c. VII, and c. II of the 2nd, and c. VIII of the 3rd, use the heading: “Concerning the honor accorded to Patriarchs by the Canons,” and the paraphrasis which Joseph the Egyptian made of the present Canon says the same thing. And the edition of Melchitae of the Arabic text calls the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome patriarchs here (Dositheus, ibid.). Only the Patriarchs were privileged to wear sacks, chasubles adorned with multiple crucifixes, and tunics bearing letters of the alphabet and triangles, and not any other persons, according to Balsamon (p. 449 of the Juris). (According to Zonaras, however, chasubles adorned with multiple crucifixes alone were allowed also to the bishops of Caesarea, of Cappadocia, of Ephesus, of Thessalonica, and of Corinth; and see the footnote to c. IX of the 4th). They held divine services (i.e., celebrated liturgy) but thrice a year with the sacks, to wit, on Easter Sunday, on the day of Pentecost, and on Christmas, according to Demetrius Chomatianus (p. 318 of the Juris). The word patriarch is defined by Leo and Constantine the emperors thus: “A patriarch is a living image of Christ and animate, therein characterizing the truth by deeds and words. Finally, upon the patriarch depends the salvation of the souls entrusted to him, and it is for him to live according to Christ and to be crucified to the world. It is the nature of the patriarch to be didactic, and to level himself to equality without embarrassment with all other men high as well as low” (Title III of the selection of laws, p. 8, of the second book of the Juris).

[10] Note that according to Josephus (concerning the Jews, Book VII, ch. 18) the city was named Jerusalem because Melchisedec, who first built the city, and having built therein a sacred temple, he called the city, in allusion thereto, Jerusalem, because it had previously been called Salem and a temple is called (in Greek) “jeron.” Others, however, and perhaps more correctly, say, like Procopius (p. 198, vol. I of the Octateuch), that the name is derived from Jebus (1 Chron. 11:4) and Salem (Ps. 76:2), other names of the same city, by forming a compound name Jebusalem, which became corrupted to Jerusalem. Howbeit, the name Jerusalem is wholly Hebrew, and denotes “vision of peace,” according to the Fathers (though one may say that it is a compound derived from Hebrew and Greek, precisely as the word antimensium is derived from Greek and Latin. But in that case it will not longer signify “vision of peace,” of course). Though formerly called Jerusalem, the city was subsequently named Aelia capitolia, according to Dion. The name Aelia was derived from Aelius, a surname of Hadrian, who renamed Jerusalem Aelian, according to Theodoret and Eusebius, after it had been torn down and excavated before and plowed under with oxen, and scarcely recognizable on the surface, according to Gregory the Theologian. The descriptive appelation Capitolia was added to the name Aelia because the city was built on the site of the temple of God which, according to the same Dion, the same Hadrian called by the name of the temple in honor of Jupiter which stood in the Capitolium of Rome.

[11] It was named Caesarea because, according to Eusebius, Herod built it to honor the name of Augustus Caesar, though it had formerly been named Tower of Straton. In it, according to Josephus (Book XV, ch. 13, on the Jews), there were statues of Caesar and of Rome. But there were three cities named Caesarea in Asia. One was this metropolis in Palestine; a second Caesarea was that in Cappadocia, though it was also called Caesar’s Maza, according to Sozomen, Book V, ch. 4, as well as Mazaca; and a third Caesarea was Caesarea Philippi.

[12] Thus did they call themselves in accordance with their conceited way of thinking, as Eusebius states in his Book VI, ch. 43.

[13] The laying on of hands here is not ordination, as one might perhaps suppose, but it consists in the action of those in holy orders laying their hand on the heads of such heretics, and thus accepting them as penitents. For c. XLIX of Carthage also insists that penitents be accepted thus with laying on of hands, and not, of course, with any ordination. That my words are true is attested by the Seventh Ecum. C. For when this same Canon was read in the first act of the same Council, and it was asked how the expression “laying on of hands” was to be understood, most saintly Tarasius said that the phrase “laying on of hands” was employed here in the sense of blessing, and not with reference to any ordination. Hence spiritual fathers ought to learn from this Canon to lay their hands on the heads of penitents when they read to them the prayer for pardon, as c. XXXV of Carthage expressly says this. For such a laying on of hands is necessary to the mystery of repentance. Listen also to what the Apostles say in their Injunctions (Book II, ch. 18): “Accept a sinner when he weeps over his sin, and after laying a hand on him, let him remain thereafter in the flock.” And again (ibid., chapters 41 and 43): “Just as you accept an infidel after baptizing him, so shall you restore to the spiritual pasture as purified and clean a sinner after laying a hand upon him.” This laying on of hands serves him in lieu of baptism, since by imposition of the hands the Holy Spirit used to be bestowed upon believers. The custom of this imposition of hands in connection with the new grace came into prevalence from the old. For thus the high priest used to accept by imposition of hands the sacrifices of burnt offerings and those made on the score of sin. See also chapters 1 and 3 and 4 of Leviticus. Note, however, that it was by way of “economy” (or concession) that this Council accepted the Novatians, as St. Basil notes in his c. I. See also the Interpretation of c. VII of the 3rd, where c. XXXIX of the council held in Illyberia says that heretics are to be accepted by the process of laying on of hands.

[14] Just as Meletius, after being subjected to an examination, and judicial trial, was compelled by the first synod held in Lycos to continue life with the mere name of bishop; and thenceforth to ordain no one, either in a city or in a village (Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., Book X, ch. 14; and Socrates, Book X, ch. 9).

[15] In Book IV, ch. 14, of his Ecclesiastical History, when narrating the facts concerning Felix and Liberius, bishops of Rome, Sozomen states that after God had governed matters in this fashion, allowing Felix to die, that is to say, and He left Liberius by himself, in order to avoid having the throne of St. Peter dishonored by being occupied by two functionaries, which is a sign of discord and alien to the ecclesiastical Canon. St. Epiphanius, in his Haer. 68, states that Alexandria never had two bishops. And (Pope) Cornelius, the bishop of Rome, in writing to Phanius the bishop of Antioch, accuses Novatian of trying to make himself, and, in fact, of actually making himself, a bishop of Rome, when as a matter of fact Cornelius himself was the lawful bishop in that city. “How, then, is it,” he goes on to say, “that he did not know that there can be but one bishop in one church, and not two?”

[16] Because it is not permissible in a village or small city, where there is need of but one presbyter, to enthrone a bishop, lest the name of bishop be thus brought into disgrace, according to c. VI of Sardican. On this account in such small cities and villages and districts sparsely peopled it was the vogue to appoint a so-called chorepiscopus. So, according to c. X of Antioch, the chorepiscopus was appointed by the bishop of that city to which he was subject and to which his territory belonged. The same Canon also says that such a chorepiscopus may ordain anagnosts (readers or lectors), subdeacons, and oath-takers (i.e., catechists); but that he shall be deposed if he dare to ordain a presbyter or deacon without the consent of the bishop in the city, even though he has had the imposition of hands of a bishop. Canon VIII of the same council permits unaccused chorepiscopi to grant letters pacifical, i.e., dimissory, to those requesting them. Likewise c. XIII of Ancyra decrees that without the written authorization of a real bishop chorepiscopi have no right to ordain presbyters and deacons either in their own territory or in any other town. Canon XIV of Neocaesarea says that chorepiscopi, being in the nature of types of the seventy Apostles, officiate as assistant ministers and are honored on account of the interest they show in the poor by distributing among them the money collected in church. Moreover, c. XIV of the 7th says that it was an ancient custom for chorepiscopi to ordain anagnosts at the behest of the bishop. That is what c. LXXXIX of Basil, too, declares in his letter to chorepiscopi. These chorepiscopi, in fact, appear to be in some cases presbyters only, and in other cases to have had the imposition of hands of a bishop, as may be inferred from what is said in cc. VIII and X of Antioch. But there is a considerable difference between a bishop and a chorepiscopus. For a chorepiscopus is in charge of only one district; a bishop is the overseer of many districts. A chorepiscopus is appointed by the bishop to whom he is subject, whereas the bishop is appointed by the metropolitan. Accordingly, the chorepiscopus has to get written permission from his bishop for every ordination that he performs, whereas the latter executes each ordination on his own venture. So that the so-called chorepiscopi of today (i.e., as the term is now used in Greece), as not having these functions, possess a mere name, destitute of actuality.

[17] John of Antioch in the collection of the Canons, instead of the expression “confessed their sins to them,” substitutes the words “confessed the sins they had committed,” which is more correct.

[18] 1 We note here, however, a catholic and general axiom that all who have been ordained contrary to the Canons and unworthily, are nevertheless true priests until they are deposed by a council. Because, as divine Chrysostom says, “God does not ordain all men, but He does act through all men, even though they themselves are unworthy, in order that the people may be saved” (Homily 2 on 2 Tim., p. 337 of Vol. IV). And again: “Because grace operates through the unworthy not on their account, but for the sake of those who are destined to be benefited” (Discourse 11 on 1 Thess., p. 216 of Vol. IV). And again: “But now, it must be said, God is wont to operate also through unworthy persons, and the grace of baptism is in no respect injuriously affected by the life of the priest” (Discourse 8 on 1Cor., p. 290 of vol. iii). Moreover, in Discourse 3 on the Ep. to the Col., p. 107 of vol. iii, he proves this by means of numerous arguments, among which he says these things too: “God’s grace is also operative in an unworthy person, not for our sake, but for your sake.” And again: “It is not me that you are treating scornfully, but the holy orders. If you see these naked, then treat them scornfully; then not even I will tolerate any imposition. But as long as we are sitting on this throne, as long as we have the presidency, we possess the dignity and the power, even though we really are unworthy.” Symeon of Thessalonica (Reply 13) says: “in regard to ordination grace operates in them, whether they are prelates or priests, for the salvation of those coming to church; and all the mysteries they celebrate are in very truth mysteries. Woe, however, (says the same Symeon ibidem) “to such men, who, whether they sinned before the ordination or after the ordination, are unworthy of holy orders. And if they want to repent and to be saved, let them refrain altogether from the most holy works of holy orders, because there is nothing else that can help them to repent, if they fail to abstain beforehand from holy orders.” See also the testimony of Chrysostom concerning resignation, in the Form of Canonical Resignation, at the end of this handbook.

[19] Impious Licinius, who was brother-in-law to Constantia the sister of Constantine the Great, and enjoyed second place in the royal honor after Constantine himself, but later conceived an envy against the brother of the latter’s wife, and launched a fierce war upon God. Hence he first of all drove every Christian out of his house; afterwards he commanded that all Christian soldiers in every city in the realm should be deprived of the honor of their military office unless they sacrificed to the idols (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Book X, ch. 8; and concerning the life of Constantine, Book I, ch. 54). But after he was gone, most pious Constantine made a contrary law to the effect that all former Christians who had been in military service and had been persecuted on account of their faith in Christ by Licinius and had been deprived of the honor, should be given the choice of remaining imperial soldiers, just as they had been formerly, or, if they did not care for the honor, of being allowed each his freedom. (Eusebius, concerning the life of Constantine, Book II, ch. 33; and Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. I, ch. 1).

[20] Concerning Audients (or “listeners”), Succumbents (or “kneelers”), and Consistents (or “costanders”), see c. LXXV of Basil.

[21] The present-day custom of the Church treats faith-deniers for the most part considerately, in accordance with the formulation of Methodius of Constantinople. On this basis, if anyone was made a captive when a child, and as a result of fear or ignorance he denied the faith, when once he has returned thereto, after listening to the usual propitiatory prayers for seven days, on the eighth day he is bathed, and is anointed with Holy Chrism, and thus he partakes of communion, remaining thereafter in the church for eight days, and listening every day to the sacred liturgies and services. But if he was an adult and denied the faith after being tortured, in this case he is obliged to fast first for a period of twice forty days, abstaining from meat, and cheese, and eggs, and on three days in the week (namely, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) abstaining from oil and wine. (Notice that the fast of Wednesday and Friday which is obligatory on all Christians was given to this person as a canon by way of philanthropy and clemency). For seven days he listens to the same prayers, and thus he too is bathed, like the one above, and is anointed, and communes. If, on the other hand, he willingly went and denied the faith, he too has to fast for two years in identically the same manner as the one above fasted, and, according to his ability, he must make one hundred or two hundred genuflexions thereafter he also listens to the propitiatory prayers, and is bathed, and receives the other treatments, like the ones above. (Blastaris, in his synopsis of the Canons of the Faster; and Armenopoulos, Section 5, Heading 4, of his Epitome of the Canons. See also this formulation in the Euchologium, where these prayers are to be found, more in extenso.)

[22] In some such manner as this a confessor (or spiritual father) ought to shed tears and mourn over the sins of Christians who confess to him; not, however, when they are confessing to him, but after their confession, when he has to advise them, because these tears of his show that he loves sinners as a father loves his children, and is sorry for them as Jacob lamented Joseph, and as Moses as well as Jeremiah lamented for the Israelites, and just as the Lord shed tears over Jerusalem. Notice also in the discourse of Gregory of Nyssa concerning repentance how stijpngly therein he urges spiritual fathers to mourn for sinners.

[23] Hence divine Chrysostom (in his Discourse 2 concerning holy orders) says: “A pastor ought not to inflict penalties or penances proportionately to the sins, but ought to take into consideration also the will of the sinners, lest in trying to mend a tear or torn place he tear it worse than ever, and in making hasty attempt to help the fallen one to his feet he hurl him still farther down. For those who have a weak will . . . . If they are penanced a little at a time, they can free themselves, if not entirely, at any rate to some extent, from their sins and passions. But if one overwhelm them suddenly with all the penances they deserve, he will deprive them of even that small amount of correction which they ought to receive . . . ." And again: So for this reason a pastor ought to possess a great deal of discretion, and countless eyes, in order to see the habitude of the soul from all sides. For just as some men, being unable to endure an austere canon, become stiff-necked and, leaping away, fall into despondency, so too, in a contrary fashion again there are some who as a result of their not receiving a canon along with their sins become careless, and grow worse, and are egged on to sin more than ever. On this account, too, in the time of Patriarch Luke one Bishop who had penanced (or, as the original says, “canonized”) a soldier in too short a time, because of his having committed a willful murder, and who had given him a written document attesting the remission of his sin, was called to account by the Synod for the excessively lenient concession he had made. The Bishop, on his part, offered in witness the present Canon of this Council. He was told, however, by the Synod that though permission was given, true enough, to prelates to augment or to reduce the penances prescribed by the Canons, yet they are not permitted to employ an excessive and inconsiderate concession. Hence the Synod inflicted the penances of the Canon on the murderer, on the one hand, and chastised the Bishop, on the other hand, with suspension from his prelacy for the prescribed length of time.

[24] Note that in the present Canon there are observed those two points which Basil the Great mentions in his c. III, to wit, custom and form, and strictness and extremity. The custom and the form, which is the three years of “listening,” and the ten years of succumbency (or “kneeling”). The strictness and the extremity, which is the tears, and the patience endurance of hardships, the doing of charitable deeds to others, and, in general, genuine and true repentance. Accordingly, to those who tolerated the strictness, there was made the concession of exemption from the obligation of keeping the requirement of three years’ succumbency. But to those who would not tolerate this penance, no concession was made at all; on the contrary, they were ordered to keep all the years. For this reason divine Chrysostom, in his Homily 14 on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, says: “I am not asking for a multitude of years, but for correction of the soul. So show me this, whether the sinners have been contrite, whether they have changed their manner of living, and everything is finished. But as long as this is not so, no benefit will accrue from protraction of the period of penance. For even in the matter of bodily wounds, we are not concerned about how many times the wound has been bandaged, but whether the bandage has been of any benefit. So if there has been benefit in a short time, let it be no longer bandaged. But if it has been of no benefit, let it be bandaged for a longer time, even for more than ten years, until the wounded one has derived some benefit from the bandage.” And again in the same Homily he says that it is not the multitude of time that suffices to characterize true repentance, but rather the change of the sinner’s mind. For (according to the same saint, in the preamble of his commentary on the Gospel according to St. John) it is possible, if one repent in a single moment of time, and change his manner of living, for one to avail himself of God’s philanthropy and mercy. St. Gregory the Theologian, on the other hand, in his Discourse on the Lights, says that “we ought not to accept those who neither repent nor humble themselves, whereas we ought to accept those who fail to repent as they should, and who fail to display repentance equal to the wrong they did, and that we ought to sentence them to keep the forms of repentance that befit their sins. As for those, finally, who truly repent to such an extent that they actually wither as a result of their tears, we ought to admit them to communion. From these statements it will become easy to find the solution to the bewildering question why some Canons penance an adulterer, a person guilty of bestiality, a sodomite, a sorcerer and wizard, and others, with a greater number of years, while other Canons prescribe a smaller number of years for the same offenses. The reason is that the repentance of such sinners is not judged by the number of years, but by the disposition of the soul, and according to their greater or lesser degree of repentance, the number of years of penance is prescribed as more or less.” Hence John the Faster judges by the fasting and genuflexions and other hardships which the penitent has consented to do in determining how much to reduce the number of years of penance the penitent deserves.

[25] In other codices it is found written thus: “of the perfect last and most necessary,” etc.

[26] Dionysius of Alexandria also writes to Favius in his correspondence that “a faithful old man named Serapion, who was sacrificing to idols, and fell gravely ill and for three days was dumb, after recovering a little on the fourth day, called his nephew and told him to fetch a priest. The boy went to the presbyter. It was night-time. But the priest happened to be ill, so that he could not go. Since, however, I (sc. Dionysius) had given orders to the priests to allow persons at the point of death to commune, especially if they beggingly asked to do so, in order that they might die and depart the present life with a good hope, the priest gave the boy a portion of the all-holy bread and told him to wet it and pour it into the mouth of the old man; and after the boy did this the old man, having swallowed a little, immediately gave up his spirit” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., Book VI, ch. 44). Elias, too, the Metropolitan of Crete, in writing to some monk by the name of Dionysius, says that if a person is still breathing a little, and is not entirely dead, though he is senseless, and can neither take nor eat anything, or in another way spits out that which is placed in his mouth; if, I say, the person is such a one, the priest ought with a prayer to seal his lips and his tongue with the contact and affusion of the Mysteries (p. 337 of the Juris Graecoromani).

[27] Though it is said that Dionysius of Alexandria (as found in a comment on the present Canon) in his letter on a Canon, in speaking of those who lapsed in the midst of the persecution and asked to participate in the mysteries of communion while dying, he says that if a priest absolves from their sins and they are permitted to partake of the divine mysteries, and are consigned to that life absolved and free, this is a veritable imitation of godlike philanthropy and benevolence in that by virtue of such pardon and communion they are led to believe that they are going to receive a mitigation and alleviation of their future punishment. If, on the other hand, such persons should live, says he, thereafter, they must be bound again (i.e., their absolution must be revoked), and they who had formerly been pardoned, and become partakers of divine grace, and had been sent off to the Lord absolved and free, must again be made liable for their sins, without having done anything wrong since they communed. This, I say, appears to me to be inconsistent, and most unreasonable. If, I say, sacred Dionysius does say these things, it would nevertheless appear that the opinion of this Ecumenical Council is preferable to the opinion of an individual Father. Wherefore wise Photius declared quite aptly that decisons of ecumenical and common councils ought to be respected by all men, while the private declarations of any one Father or decrees of a local synod or regional council (that have not been confirmed by an ecumenical council, that is to say) leave one respecting them characterizable as superstitious, and yet, on the other hand, if one fails to accept them, it is dangerous to ignore them. For let it be granted, in accordance with the opinion of sacred Dionysius, that such persons commune as a matter of necessity, they ought not to be rebound on account of the pardon they had previously received. But, first of all, that pardon and communion was not legal and canonical, but necessitous. Secondly, no one can persuade others not to be scandalized when they see persons that are unworthy and have produced no fruit of repentance being allowed to partake of the divine Mysteries. After taking these views into consideration, the Council decreed that such persons should return again to the prior forms of repentance. For, moreover, even divine Dionysius himself, as if presumably correcting himself, adds: “If, however, any one of such Christ-deniers appear after the recovery of his health to need further conversion and repentance, we advise him to humble and inflict severe hardships upon himself, either for his own interest or in order to prevent other men from blaming him and becoming scandalized at his conduct. Accordingly, if he be persuaded to do this, he will be benefited; but if he be not persuaded, this refusal to be persuaded will become an indictment to him entailing his excommunication from the Mysteries and the faithful a second time.” But perhaps this opinion is not that of Dionysius of Alexandria, but one of Dionysius of Corinth. I surmise this because this diction is like the diction used by this Dionysius in comments on Job.

[28] John of Antioch in the collection of the Canons has it “As concerning lapsed catechumens.”

[29] Concerning catechumens Dionysius the sacred martyr says, in chapter 3 of his Hist. Hierar.: “The lowest rank is assigned to catechumens; they are destitute of any share in and are wholly uninitiated in every sacerdotal mystery.”

[30] In the Collection of Canons by John of Antioch is found also the additional inclusion “or Deacon,” as is mentioned in the Canon itself further above.

[31] Clergymen are called “canonics” and said to be “covered by the Canon,” with an implication that their life and their mind and their discourse are all governed and directed in accordance with the sacred Canons, including under this designation Apostolical, Conciliar, and Patristic Canons (see also Footnote 1 to Ap. c. II). In addition the name “canonic” is also given to monks, as may be seen in many of the Canons themselves, and most especially to nuns, on the same assumption are named canonic, that is to say, that laymen and laywomen live for the most part according to laws of their own, or, otherwise speaking, uncanonically, and conduct themselves publicly and privately in an indifferent manner (i.e., without particular pains to obey the Canons).

[32] This percentage charge is mentioned also by divine Chrysostom, in his 56th homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew, saying that one (i.e., a debtor as a human being) gives barely a percentage, whereas the other (sc. God) grants a hundredfold and life everlasting.

[33] That is why Symeon of Thessalonica says: “Deacons must not offer portions; all Deacons (must receive theirs) through the Presbyters.” And again: “Since they (sc. deacons) have not the gracious gift of formally offering to God (the sacrifice). For they are deacons solely in virtue of their having a ministerial dignity. If, then, at any rate they are not permitted to put on sacerdotal vestments without the blessing of a prelate, or of a priest, nor to commence any ceremony without a presbyter, how can they have any right to administer communion through themselves?” Divine Epiphanius, too, says the same thing in his Haer. 79: “For it is to be noted that neither have deacons been entrusted with the performance of any mystery in the ecclesiastical order, but only with acts of assistance as servants in the celebration thereof.” The Apostolical Injunctions, too, in Book VIII, ch. 46, say “Neither is it licit for a Deacon to offer sacrifice, or to baptize anyone, or to pro nounce any blessing whether small or great.”

[34] “For this reason, then, the written order of Emperor Alexius Comnenus ought to be annulled which decrees that in gatherings outside the Council and Synod the Chartophylax of the Great Church is to take his seat ahead of not only the priests but even of the prelates themselves, in spite of the fact that he is nothing more than a deacon, without having any other excuse to disregard these Conciliar Canons than the mere fact that it had prevailed as a custom for a long time: since this excuse is not reasonable. For Canons ought to have rather the superiority of authority wherever custom comes into conflict with Canons. For in spite of the fact that custom does have effect as an unwritten law even in civil matters, and long custom is recognized as having validity in lieu of a law, yet this is not the case in general, but only in regard to those matters respecting which there is no written law and in regard to those matters with respect to which it does not conflict with a written law, or a Canon: and this is so even according to Balsamon himself, who lends his sanction to the absurd decree of the emperor (for he was a chartophylax). Also, according to the fourth decree of the third title of the first book of ordinances, which is Book II of the Basilica, Title I, ch. 41, even the sixth Novel of Leo the Wise ordains that an unwritten custom ought not to have any validity if it is overruled by the Canons. Read also the Footnote to Ap. c. XXIX, and that to c. I of Sardica. How greatly that imperial order of this sort actually disturbed the prelates of that time on account of its absurd character can be learned by anyone who will take the trouble to read the text of the order itself which can be found in Balsamon’s comment on the present Canon.

[35] Paul, hailing from Samosata, a city situated in Mesopotamia near the Euphrates River, and on this account called Paul of Samosata (and not because he served as Bishop of Samosata, as Balsamon, or even others, has said), was a son of a Manichean woman named Callinica, according to Cedrenus, Blastaris, and Balsamon, and was also made Bishop of Antioch after the death of Demetrianus, the previous Bishop of Antioch, in A.D. 260; according to Eusebius (Eccl. History, Book VII, ch. 27) he believed wrongly not only in connection with the mystery of theology in that he declared that there was but one God, not because the Father is the source of divinity, but by denying the hypostasis of the Son and of the Spirit, like Sabellius, and taking God to be but one person together with His Logos, in the same manner as a human being is one with his own logos (i.e., reason), and believing nothing more than the Jews, according to divine Epiphanius (Haer. 65), but also even waxed blasphemous in connection with the incarnate economy; according to Theodoret (Conversation II), Artemon, and Theodosius, both Sabellius and Marcellus, Photinus, and Paul of Samosata, all declare Christ to have been only a mere human being, and they all deny the divinity which had been existing in Him ever since before all the ages. In A.D. 272 the regional Council held in Antioch deposed him and anathematized him. Whereof even the Conciliar letter is to be found in Eusebius ibidem, which even states that Paul used to assert that the Son of God had not come down out of heaven, but, on the contrary, that he had commenced from below out of Mary. Note, furthermore, that Cedrenus, Blastaris, and Balsamon say that the Manicheans had their names changed by this same Paul to Paulicians, who sprang up a few years after Paul. See also the prolegomena of Dionysius of Alexandria. See also page 155 of the dogmatic Panoply, wherein it is written that the Paulicians are descended from the Manichees, being called Paulicians barbarically instead of Paulojohns.

[36] Indictment is one thing and reprehension is another (says divine Chrysostom in his Second Discourse on the Book of Job). An indictment (charge or accusation) is suffered in the case of grave offenses; a reprehension (reproach or censure) is incurred in the case of light trespasses. Whoever is not liable to either of these two treatments is called unindictable. For a person that cannot be indicted as an adulterer, or as a murderer, or the like, is unindictable. A person, on the other hand, that can be reprehended as an insulter, or calumniator, or vituperator, or drunkard, or the like, though exempt from indictments, is liable, nevertheless, to reprehension. On this account Job is called irreprehensible because he was far from being guilty of even the slightest offenses. That is why God said to Abraham "Be thou complaisant towards me, and become irreprehensible" (Gen. 17:1). The Apostle, wishing to appoint shepherds of the inhabited earth, since the good things of virtue were then rare, says to Titus: Appoint Bishops, as I have ordered thee, if there be anybody that is unindictable (Titus 1:7). The word irreprehensible (or blameless) would not have been applicable at that time. . . . Irreprehensibility was too comprehensive a term. The middle ground was that reflected in the term unindictable. Even a small good can be great in evils . . . not because He laid this down as a law, but because He condescended to allow delusion. For He knew that when piety blossomed, the very nature of the fact of the matter would of its own accord prefer what is good, and that there would result a selection of those things which are superior and better. Note also that according to the assertion of Chrysostom this Canon demands that those who are about to be admitted to holy orders should be not only unindictable but also irreprehensible; since piety blossomed after St. Paul, although even during the time of St. Paul the term irreprehensible was of limited applicability. For St. Paul himself wrote to Titus as well as to Timothy, saying: "A bishop, then, must be irreproachable" (1 Tim. 3:2). This word irreproachable is almost entirely indistinguishable from the word irreprehensible, which word Chrysostom himself interprets by asserting that in saying " irreproachable" St. Paul was alluding to every virtue . . . so that if anyone's conscience upbraids him for having committed some sins, he is not doing right if he desires a bishopric and holy orders, of which by his own deeds he has made himself unworthy. Even the present Canon, too, demands irreproachability of priests, and so does c. IX of the same Council. But if it demands this of priests in general, how much more must not it demand of prelates?

[37] Note that a Deaconess, though apparently ordained later by a Presbyter and Deacon, according to c. XIV of the 6th, and authorized to officiate in the liturgy, according to c. XV of the 4th, yet according to the Apostolical Injunctions she does not appear to carry out the male deacon's service in the liturgy of the divine Mysteries in the Bema, but only that service which is performed outside the Bema. For these Injunctions say, in Book III, ch. 9, in connection herewith: “Though we have not allowed women to teach in church (because St. Paul expressly says, in his First Epistle to Timothy, ch. 2, v. 12: “I suffer not a woman to teach”), how can anyone permit them to serve as priestesses? For this reason it is a mistake of the godlessness of Greeks to ordain priestesses to their female goddesses and not of the legislation of Christ. So this deaconess was ordained at first (ibid. ch. 15 and 16) for the sake of women being illuminated, i.e., being baptized, whom, after the Bishop anointed their head with holy oil, and the deacon only their forehead, she took charge of and anointed their whole body, owing to the fact that it was not proper for a woman's naked body to be seen by men. Secondly, for the other services to women. For in those homes where women were dwelling together with unbelieving men, to which it was not perfectly decent for male deacons to be sent, on account of the risk of evil suspicions, a woman deaconess was sent, according to the 15th ch. of the 3rd book (of the Injunctions), to watch at the doors of the church lest any uncatechized and unfaithful woman might enter (Book II, ch. 17); and she examined those women who went from one city to another with letters commendatory as to whether they really were Orthodox Christian women; as to whether they were tainted by any heresy; as to whether they were married or were widows: and after the examination she would provide a place in the church for each one of them to stand according to her luck and attitude (Book III, ch. 14 and 19). But a deaconess was also needed to render services to those widows who were listed in the church roll, by offering them the alms donated by Christians; and they were useful also in connection with other services too. But most of all, according to chapters 20 and 28 of the eighth book (of the Injunctions) she was ordained for the purpose of guarding the holy gates and serving the presbyters when they were baptizing women with a view to decency and propriety, wherein it is written that “A Deaconess can neither bless nor do anything that presbyters and deacons do.” In addition Epiphanius (Haer. 9) says concerning them that the ecclesiastical order needed womankind only by way of deaconesses, whom it called widows, and the older ones among whom it called presbytidas. Nevertheless it did not command anywhere for presbyteresses or priestesses to be made such. For neither did deacons in the ecclesiastical order receive any authority to perform any mystery, but only to serve as assistant in connection with the rites being performed by the priests. And again, it is said that the battalion of deaconesses is in the Church, not to serve in the capacity of priests, nor to undertake to pardon anything, but for the sake of preserving the decency of the female sex, either in connection with rite of baptism, say, or in connection with the function of visiting the sick or those in distress, or, in time of necessity of denuding a woman's body, in order that it may be beheld only by her, and not by the male dignitaries officiating in the process of performing the sacred offices. Though it is true that Balsmon says, in reply to Question 35 of Marcus of Alexandria, that Deaconesses enjoyed a rank in the Bema (or Sanctuary), but that the complications due to menstruation dispossessed them of their rank and removed their service from the Bema, yet he himself again in the same reply says that in Constantinople deaconesses are ordained who have no share or privilege in the Bema, but who perform many ecclesiastical services and help to correct women ecclesiastically. Clement of Alexandria, surnamed Stromateus, in his Book III, says that the Apostles had women with them as sisters and fellow deaconesses in the matter of preaching for women confined to the house, through whom the Lord's teaching penetrated into the chamber and private apartment of women. It is also found stated in some books that the appointment (or quasi ordination) of a deaconess consisted in her bowing her head while the prelate laid his hand upon her, and in his making the sign of the cross three times, and repeating some prayers over her. Concerning deaconesses St. Paul writes in his First Epistle to Timothy: “Even so must their wives be modest, not calumniators, sober, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11). Note that although deaconesses were not the same as widows, nor the same as presbytides, yet, in spite of this fact, it is true that deaconesses were recruited and ordained from the battalion of widows enrolled in the church. Read also the second footnote to c. XL of the 6th, and the footnote to c. XXI of Laodicea. If anyone fond of learning things would like to know the particular way in which such deaconesses were ordained, he may learn this more in detail from Blastaris. For the latter states that in old books it was found written that the women in question were forty years old when they were ordained, and that they wore a full monachical habit (which means that of the great habit), and that they were covered with a maphorion, having its extremities hanging down in front. That when the prelate recited over them the words “The Divine Grace,” they did not bend their knee like the deacons, but only bowed their head. Afterwards the prelate would place on their neck underneath the maphorion a deacon’s stole (or scarf), bringing the two extremities of the stole together in front. He would not permit them, however, to serve in the Mysteries, or to hold a fan, like the deacons, but only to commune after the deacons, and, after the prelate communed the others, they could take the cup from his hands and replace it upon the holy table, without communing anyone. Blastaris, however, adds of his own accord that they were later forbidden by the Fathers to enter the Bema or to perform any such services, on account of dire results of menstruation, as Balsamon stated further above.

[38] One thing which occurred at this Council is particularly noteworthy as constituting a refutation of the imaginary prerogative of the present Popes of Rome, the claim, that is to say, that Popes have sole authority to convoke and assemble ecumenical councils. For, behold, the present ecumenical council is one which Pope Damasus neither convoked nor even attended either in person or by deputies, nor by the usual conciliar letter; yet, in spite of all this, all the Westerners concurred then and concur now in recognizing as a truly ecumenical council.

[39] Concerning each of these groups, see the Footnote to c. I of the present Council.

[40] For the Arians, as well as the Semi-Arians and Pneumatomachs, had altered the ancient glorification (or doxology) of the Holy Trinity to which the Church was accustomed. For instead of saying “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,” they would say “Glory be to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit,” in order that, by means of the difference of prepositions, the recusants might draw a distinction of the essence, rank, and honor belonging to the thearchic persons of the coessential and equally honorable Trinity. That is why Leontius the bishop of Antioch, who made himself a eunuch, though seeing the Orthodox Christians apply a conjunction to the Son, while the Arians, on the other hand, used the preposition “through,” and the preposition with reference to the Holy Spirit, passed over both the one and the other in silence, uttering only the end, that is to say the words “and unto the ages of ages” (Page 247 of the first volume of the Conciliar Records). During the reign of Emperor Anastasius surnamed Dicorus, when Trasmund, leader of the Arian Vandals blockaded the churches of the Orthodox in Africa and banished 120 bishops to the island of Sardinia, an Arian by the name of Barbarus (but according to others the one about to be baptized was called Barbarus), wishing to baptize someone, said: “So-and-so is being baptized in the name of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit,” when, what a miracle! the baptismal font in the meantime had become entirely dry. (Dositheus, p. 446 of the Dodecabiblus.)

[41] Led astray by the words in ch. 20 of the Book of Revelation (v. 3 to 7), where it says that Satan was shut up and bound for a thousand years, and that the righteous who participated in the first resurrection reigned together with Christ as kings for a thousand years, many men have imagined that after the second advent and common judgment take place, the righteous are to reign here on the earth as kings for a thousand years together with Christ, and thereafter to ascend to heaven; and on this account they have been called millenarians or millennialists. There have been two battalions of millenarians. For some of them used to say that during those thousand years they are to enjoy every enjoyment, and bodily pleasure; these men were followers of Cerinthus, a pupil of Simon, in the first century, and the Marcionists in the second century of the Christian era. Others said that they were not to enjoy passionate pleasures, but rather intellectual pleasures befitting rational human beings, of whom the leader was Papias the bishop of Hierapolis (in Euseb. Eccl. Hist, book 3, ch. 34) and others. Hence it is evident that Apollinaris became such a millenarian of the first battalion, as is plain from what St. Basil the Great says (letter 332), and from what the Theologian says (Discourse 51), and from what Jerome says (Book 18 on Isaiah). On this account in refutation of this heresy this Council added to the Creed of the Nicene Council that statement, which it borrowed from the sentence which the Archangel Gabriel spoke to the Virgin, viz.: “and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33). As for the thousand years referred to by St. John, they are not to come to pass after the second advent of Christ; and the kingdom of the Lord is not describable in terms of years, nor food and drink, as St. Paul said (Rom. 14:17): but, on the contrary, a thousand years are to be understood, according to those versed in theology, to mean the interval of time extending from the first advent of Christ to the second, during which Satan was bound, according to the words of the Lord, saying, “Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). The first resurrection, by contrast, took place for justification of souls through mortification of infidelity and wickedness, concerning which Christ said “He that heareth my words, and believeth in him who sent me, hath life everlasting, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life” (John 5:24); and the Apostle said “If then ye be risen with Christ . . . set your mind on the things that are above” (Col. 3:1-2). And thereafter in this interval of time the reign of the righteous with Christ took place, being their union with Him through (i.e., by means of) the Holy Spirit, and the contemplation and enjoyment of His divine illumination, respecting which the Lord said, “Some of them that stand here shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1).

[42] It developed and completed this Creed, as Nicephorus Callistus and others say, through Gregory of Nyssa, but as Dositheus says (p. 1028 of the Dodecabiblus) by the hand of Gregory the Theologian, who in the midst of this Council thundered out and theologically set forth these things through the Holy Spirit like a heavenly outburst of thunder: “If he is indeed a God, he is no creature. For with us a creature is one of the non-Gods. If, on the other hand, he is a creature, he is not a God. For (if so) he had a beginning in time. Whatever had a beginning, was not. But that of which it may be said that it was earlier non-existent, is not properly speaking a being. But how can what is not properly speaking a being be a God? Therefore, then, he is neither a creature of the three, nor one” etc. (These words were spoken in his inauguratory address.)

[43] I said that this Council anathematized every heresy that had risen during the reigns of Constantius, of Julian, and of Valens, because in spite of the fact that Constantius professed the eternity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, yet when once lured into the argument that the word coessential (or, in Greek, homoousian) was the cause of a scandal, owing to its not being in the Bible, he relentlessly combated those who held this belief. Hence he exiled, pauperized, and scorned many men of this belief, and assembled various councils and synods in the West and East against the doctrine of coessentiality. He showered favors upon the heretics, and elevated some of them to great thrones, who ordained their own friends ecclesiastics. Julian did everything that the emperors and persecutors preceding him had failed to do. Valens not only did whatever Constantius had done, but, being an Arian, he commenced a persecution of the Church that was worse than that inflicted by the idolaters. So that Lucius the bishop of Alexandria, who shared his views, even beat the ascetics of the desert themselves, and slew, exiled, and confiscated the property of the clergy. In fact, not only these emperors, but also the other heresies, and the Greeks and Jews had a free hand in their times, while the Orthodox Christians were persecuted. These three emperors kept persecuting the Church for forty years, until there remained but some few Orthodox saints to criticize the heresies, who, in the reign of Theodosius the Great, seized the opportunity to assemble in this ecumenical council.

[44] Note that the followers of Arius subsequently to the First Nicene Council were divided into three classes, according to St. Epiphanius (Haer. 73 and 74), and some were called Anomoeans, because they said that the Son was in all respects unlike the Father. They were led by Eunomius the Gaul, the bishop of Cyzicus, who was wont to rebaptize those joining his cacodoxy with a single immersion, holding their feet up and their head down. He also pratingly asserted that there is no hell or gehenna in reality, but that fear of it is instilled as a threat; and his views were held also by Aetius. Though called Eunomians, they were also known as Eudoxiansr from Eudoxius, who was like-minded with Eunomius and had served as a Patriarch of Constantinople, and had ordained Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus.

[45] Others were called Semi-Arians because they entertained half the heresy engendered by Arius. They said the Son was like the Father in all respects and coessential with the Father, but they refused to admit the word coessential as above in spite of the fact that it had been in use among the ancient Fathers even before the First Ecumenical Council (see the Prolegomena to the First Council). Their leader was Basil the bishop of Ancyra. Being one of this faction of Semi-Arians, Macedonius even proceeded to wage war upon the divinity of the Holy Spirit; but the present Second Council condemned him, since his followers were called Pneumatomachs (i.e., spirit-fighters, or opponents of the spirit). A third group called the Son neither like nor unlike the Father, but took a view midway between that of the Arians and that of the Semi-Arians.

[46] Sabellius, who hailed from Lydia and had served as a bishop of Ptolemais in Pentapolis, after becoming attached to the heresy of Noetus, a Smyrnean according to Theodore and Epiphanius, but an Ephesian according to Augustine, disseminated it to such an extent that those who were driveling it came to be called after him Sabellians, instead of Noetians. He asserted that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were three names for one and the same person, and that that person was called at times the Father, and at times the Son, and at oth3r times the Holy Spirit according to the diversities of that person’s activities and operations.

[47] Marcellus was from Ancyra. But he embraced the heresy of Sabellius, and not only called Christ a mere man, but also prated that after the second judgment the body of the Lord has to be thrown away, and to go into non-being, according to Euseb. Eccl. Hist., book 3; and that consequently His kingdom will come to an end.

[48] Photinus, who hailed from Sirmium and had served as bishop of Sirmium, entertained the same views as Paul of Samosata. For he neither recognized the Holy Trinity as a God, calling it only a Spirit creative of the universe, and declaring the Logos to be only the oral word, serving as a sort of mechanical instrument, nor did he call Christ a God, but only a mere human being who had imbibed that oral word from God and had received existence from Mary. According to Sozomenus, Eccl. Hist., book 4, ch. 6. Concerning this see also c. VII of Laodicea.

[49] Apollinaris, who became a bishop of Laodicea, Syria, embraced the heresy of Arius, who asserted among other things that the Logos (or rational faculty) served the body of Christ in lieu of a soul. According to both Athanasius and Epiphanius, at times he used to say that the Logos received a body without a soul, while at other times, being ashamed of his ignorance or want of knowledge, he would say that He received a soul, but a mindless one and an irrational one, separating, in accordance with the Platonists the soul from the mind. He even went so far as to say that we ought not to adore or worship a God-bearing human being; but, taking him up on this point, Gregory the Theologian countered that we ought to adore or worship not God-bearing flesh, but man-bearing God (see St. Gregory the Theologian’s letter 2 to Cledonius). He even went on to prate that Christ possessed the flesh from ever since the time the world began (or, as the Greek idiom has it, “from the age”), because he misunderstood the phrase “the second man (came) from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47), and consequently took it that He had received no flesh from the Virgin, as Basil attests in one of his letters.

[50] Note that although Socrates (in his book 5, ch. 8) says that the Second Council distributed the churches among the Patriarchs by the present Canon, yet Sozomen, as those interpreting Socrates, says, in regard to those whom the latter called patriarchs, that it appeared reasonable to the Council for the faith of the Nicene Fathers to be delivered to all the churches through the agency of the bishops in communion and of like mind with Nectarius of Constantinople and Timothy of Alexandria. So, then, the ones whom Socrates called patriarchs are referred to by Sozomen as those in communion, so that he said that they were improperly called patriarchs, instead of exarchs.

[51] Note that because recusant Dioscorus disregarded the present Canon and at the latrocinium (Englished Robber Council, held A.D. 449) seated the Bishop of Constantinople St. Flavian in the fifth place, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, after going away to Rome, and in the presence of clergymen of Constantinople, read this Canon to the most holy Pope of Rome Leo, who accepted it.

[52] This Maximus was an Egyptian and a Cynic philosopher by profession (they were called Cynics on account of the insolence and impudence which they had and which was like that of dogs, the name of which animals in Greek is cynes). Having gained the friendship of St. Gregory the Theologian in Constantinople, he was catechized and baptized by him, and indeed was even admitted to be enrolled in the clergy after becoming a defender of the doctrine of coessentiality (called also homoousianity) Later, however, when he plotted to get possession of the throne of Constantinople, he sent money to Peter the Bishop of Alexandria, and the latter sent some men and they ordained him Bishop of Constantinople in the house of a yokel, according to St. Gregory’s pupil Gregory, who wrote his biography. But as Theodoret (Discourse 5, ch. 8) and Sozomen (book 7, ch. 9) say, after the Egyptian bishops came to Byzantium together with Timothy of Alexandria, they stole the ordination and installed Maximus as Bishop of Constantinople. But the Council, which had become aware of the imposition, deposed him and rendered void the ordinations performed by him. Since the same Maximus was discovered to be holding the beliefs of Apollinaris, he was also anathematized by the Council in addition. The Papists say, and indeed they even boast, that this Dog (i.e., Cynic) visited the Pope and upon repenting was pardoned by him. Against this Maximus St. Gregory the Theologian also wrote some verses and some prose, e.g.: “This man, I say, rent the Church asunder and filled it with disturbance and noise, turning out to be a wolf instead of a shepherd (or pastor), and readily pardoning everything to those at fault for the one object of treating the dogmas impiously. It was by this Maximus that Sisinius, the Bishop of the Novatians, together with Emperor Julian, was given lessons in philosophy.” (According to Socrates, book 5, ch. 21.)

[53] The reason why this Tome was issued is in brief as follows. Because Emperors Constantius and Constans had learned that Eusebius and his party were troubling the church and that they had deposed Athanasius the Great and Paul of Constantinople, they commanded that a Council be held at Sardica, a city in Illyria, to be made up of Western as well as Eastern Fathers. The Easterners, it is true, when going to the Council, wrote from Philippoupolis to the Westerners to deny Athanasius and Paul seats in the Council on the ground that they had been deposed; for they were enemies of the doctrine of coessentiality. But the Westerners replied to them that they had no knowledge of their being deposed or at fault. Upon learning these things, the Easterners left the Council and returned to Philippoupolis. The Westerners, though left alone, went through with the meeting of the Council and acquitted Athanasius and Paul, confirmed the faith of the Fathers set forth in Nicaea, without adding anything thereto or subtracting anything therefrom. So it is this exposition and confirmation of the faith that the present Canon calls the Tome of the Westerners alone, and not of the Easterners, because the latter had bolted.

[54] Socrates (book 2, ch. 10) relates that the adherents of Eusebius of Nicodemeia in the Council held at Antioch during the reign of Constantine, though they did not utterly condemn the faith set forth in Nicaea, in another style and other words composed a definition of faith wherein they appear to confess a single divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which faith may be found in the work of Socrates in the same place. So it is this definition of faith that the present Canon says that the Council accepted (though this definition may have been first composed by the Eusebians insidiously with a view to gradually attracting the masses to the belief of the Arians, as Socrates himself suggests in the same place), which definition and Tome are mentioned also by Theodoret (book 5, ch. 9). For in the Conciliar letter which the present Second Council sent to the Romans mention is made of this. The letter says verbatim: “The details respecting the faith openly preached by us are such, then, as have been stated. Concerning them one may obtain a fuller understanding by consulting the Tome of Antioch made by the Council held there, and that set forth last year in Constantinople by the Ecumenical Council in which we confessed the faith more in extenso. Just as the twenty-five Canons, then, of the Antiochian Council were accepted, so too its above definition of faith has been accorded acceptance by this Second Council on the ground that it is correct (notwithstanding its having been insidiously put forth).”

[55] That is why Athanasius the Great in his apology to the Emperor says the following: “My accusers are Meletians, who ought not to be believed at all, for they are schismatics, and have become enemies of the Church, not now, but from the time of blessed Peter the martyr.” As for why the Canon called all schismatics and dissenters “heretics,” see the second footnote to c. I of St. Basil the Great.

[56] The noun “diocese” in Greek is one of many different significations, even in relation to ecclesiastical matters. For, A) it signifies the episcopate and bishopric of each bishop at any time, according to c. LXII of Carth. B) the province of a Metropolitan, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th. C) the provinces of many Metropolitans lying in one diocese, according to this c. VI of the 6th. D) the parish of each Patriarch, as it is also called in many places in the records of the councils and synods, as in those of the council held in Ephesus, “the holy Synod of the Eastern diocese.” And E) the combined parishes of two or three Patriarchs taken together, as is said in the Seventh Council: “Of John and Thomas, the legates of the Eastern Diocese, or, more specifically, of Antioch and Jerusalem.” These facts having been thus stated, the phrase “The Synod of the Diocese” is never used in the first and second senses, but in the fourth and fifth senses it has been used most especially, both of old and even down to this day being in force. As for the third sense it was in force of old in accordance with the present Conciliar Canon and in accordance with cc. IX and XXVIII of the 4th, but after the Fourth Ec. C. such a synod ceased to be operative. That is why Justinian, in ordinance 29 of the fourth Title of Book I (Photius Title IX, ch. 6), does not mention it at all, wherein concerning differences between bishops and clergymen he says: “For whether a metropolitan alone or together with his synod tries the case of a bishop or clergyman” (which is the same as saying that if the synod of a province tries a case, the Patriarch of the diocese keeps his eye on it), whatever decisions he makes are valid, as though he had tried the cases from the start. For neither can the decisions of Patriarchs be appealed.” That which the Canon here calls a “synod of the diocese” is called the exarch of the diocese in cc. IX and XXVIII of the 4th, the exarch being another dignitary than the Patriarch, as we shall state in connection with the interpretation of those Canons. Note, however, that Macarius of Ancyra misexplained this c. VI when he said that this Council calls Patriarchs exarchs of the diocese, because he mentions only the Synod of the province the Synod of the diocese, and the ecumenical Synod (i.e., Council). But in order to make the matter clearer we must state that the Synod of a Diocese was the assembly, or convention, of the metropolitans of a single diocese together with their chief the Exarch. Now, however, that this sort of Synod has fallen into desuetude, the Synod of each particular Patriarch decides all the ecclesiastical cases of the metropolitans of the diocese subject to his jurisdiction, as though this Synod had become a greater one than the synod of the diocese, since the Patriarchs received full authority to ordain their own metropolitans in the Fourth Ec. C. — an authority which they did not thitherto possess in all its fullness and completeness, according to Dositheus, page 388. By adding in the present Canon that one has no right to take a case to an ecumenical council after it has been decided by the synod of the diocese, this Council has given us to understand that an ecumenical council is the final judge of all ecclesiastical matters, and is the one to which any appeal has to be carried, concerning which see the Preface to the First Ecum. C. in the first Footnote thereto.

[57] If it be objected that Balsamon asserts that an emperor can do anything and everything, and for this reason can also grant an external (i.e., non-ecclesiastical) judge to try the case of a bishop or of any clergymen in general, and according to a legal observation can convert an ecclesiastical court into a civil court, we reply that we admit that he can do everything that is licit and right, but not, however, anything that is illicit and unjust. Because according to Chrysostom (in his discourse on the fact that sin introduced three modes of slavery) laws are authoritative to rule even the rulers themselves (Note of Translator. — The meaning of this observation is that laws have an inherent authority to overrule even the rulers ruling a country, and even though the latter be absolute nionarchs.) For, according to the Apostle (sc. St. Paul), “no law is applicable to a righteous person” (1 Tim. 1:9) — (Note of Translator. — A correct translation of this passage requires almost perfect familiarity with the Greek language, which, of course, the translators of the English Versions of the Bible were far from possessing. Consequently it appears in both the King James and the Revised Versions so badly mistranslated that I have taken especial pains here to present the exact meaning of the original.) Read also the Interpretation of c. IX of the 4th in order to assure yourself that even the emperors themselves decree that ecclesiastical affairs are not to the decided by secular authorities. See also the Footnote to c. III of St. Sophia.

[58] Though Paul of Constantinople, and Athanasius together with Pope Julius did appeal to Constans and Constantius to have the Ecumenical Council convoked which is called the Sardican, to consider their case; and Chrysostom and Innocent appealed to Arcadius and Honorius to have an ecumenical council convoked to consider the case of Chrysostom, though, I say, these saints did appeal to an ecumenical council, they are not liable to the penalty of this Canon, for one thing, because, being Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs, they had no higher court than themselves to pass judgment upon them, and, for another thing, because they made this appeal as a matter of necessity, seeing that the Eusebians who were about to judge Athanasius locally, and those about to judge Chrysostom, were manifest enemies.

[59] It is written also in the ecclesiastical edict in Book I of the Code, Title IV, No. 29, that no one is to be allowed to try a clergyman before the Patriarch in the first instance, but before his bishop. If he has a suspicion against the bishop, let him bring his case up before the metropolitan. If the latter too is open to suspicion, three superiors in point of seniority of ordination must try the case along with him on behalf of the whole synod. If even this arrangement is not satisfactory, let the case be carried up to the Patriarch, and let his judgment stand as though he had tried the case in the first instance, since decisions of Patriarchs are not subject to appeal, or, in other words, to being carried up to any other higher tribunal (in view of the fact, it is well to explain, that one Patriarch cannot become a judge in regard to the decision of another Patriarch, according to Dositheus, p. 390. Concerning which see Footnote 1 to the Prolegomena of the First Ec. C.).

[60] In the letter which was sent from Constantinople to the bishop of Antioch Martyrius, containing the whole of the present Canon verbatim and dealing with the way heretics ought to be received, it is written thus: “those calling themselves cathari and catharoteri (i.e., purer). Hence the name aristeri is found among others in the form aristi (signifying “best”).

[61] In the aforesaid letter to Martyrius it reads thus: “since there are many (heresies) here, coming especially from the country of the Galatians.”

[62] Sabbatius, according to Socrates (book 5, ch. 21), left the Jews and became a Christian, and was ordained a presbyter by Marcianus the bishop of the Novatians in Constantinople. Even after betaking himself to Christianity, however, he continued following the Jewish customs, celebrating festivals with the Jews, and celebrating even the Passover (or Easter) with them; and, moreover, according to Balsamon, observing Saturday as Sabbath after the manner of the Jews (and perhaps on this account bearing the name Sabbatius). Those following him were called Sabbatians, though they were also Novatians. These Novatians are called Aristeri, this being perhaps a corruption of the Greek word aristus, signifying “best.” They may have styled themselves thus as being “purer” than all other Christians, on the ground that they would not accept persons who had been married twice or who had lapsed during persecution, and would keep aloof from the uncleanness, or impurity, of these persons; or perhaps it was because they loathed the left hand (called aristeri in Greek) and would not receive anything with it, according to Balsamon. It is a matter of wonder, however, why the First Ecum. Council, in its Canon VIII, accepted these Novatians with a mere confession, whereas this Second Council insisted upon the seal of the Holy Myron. In an attempt to solve this perplexing question, we answer that the First Council decided to accept them on easy terms mainly and primarily as a matter of compromise and “economy” (i.e., shrewd “management”), in order to avoid making the Novatians loath to return to Orthodoxy because of their being ashamed of having to be anointed by the Orthodox like persons lacking by reason of not having received an application of myron. But, acting on a second principle, this Second Council accepted them only after they had received the seal of the myron, because, according to Theodoret, the Novatians did not anoint themselves with myron; for he says of them the following: “And to those who are baptized by them they do not offer the all-holy chrism.” That is the reason, I assure you, why the Renowned Fathers made it mandatory to anoint those joining the body of the Church from this particular heresy, as did, that is to say, those of this Second Council, and also those of the Council held in Laodicea in their c. I.

[63] They were called Quartodecimans, or otherwise Tetradites, because they celebrated Easter not on Sunday, but on whatever day the moon happened to be fourteen days old, by fasting and keeping vigil.

[64] That is why Pope Liberius asked Macedonians for a written documentary confession, and they gave him a book in which was written the Symbol of Faith (usually called the Creed in English) of the Nicene Council, according to Socrates (book 4, ch. 11). Basil the Great, in his letter 72, says of the Arians: “If they claim to have changed their mind (in repentance), let them show a written repentance, and an anathematization of the Constantinopolitan (sc. their) faith and separation from heretics, and let them not deceive the more honest.”

[65] Montanus, who lived during the second century after Christ, appeared, according to Eusebius (book 5, ch. 15, of his historical account in reference to events in Mysia, situated in Phrygia — wherefore those under him were called Phrygians), as a false prophet energized by a demon (in this sense usually spelled “daemon” in English) and calling himself a Paraclete, and opposed the Apostolic traditions. Having as followers two women, namely, Priscilla and Maximilla, he called them prophetesses. He taught that marriages should be dissolved, and that men should abstain from foods on account of a loathing thereof. He and his followers perverted the festival of Easter. They conflated the Holy Trinity into a single person; and mixing with flour the blood of a child whom they had lanced, and making bread thereof, they employed it in their liturgy, and partook thereof. These Montanists were also known as Pepouzians, because they overpraised a village in Phrygia named Pepouza, which they even called Jerusalem.

[66] For it was in this manner too that c. VIII of the First accepted the Novatians, by an imposition of the hand. This local synod, or regional council, was held in Illiberia a short while before the First Ec. C. But it may also be said that all heretics and schismatics returning to the catholic Church ought to be accepted only after an imposition of the hand.

[67] As for how long a time is required for catechization see Footnote 1 to c. II of the First Ec. C.

[68] Inevitably, indispensably, and by every necessity this Canon also baptizes the Latins too as having been baptized with no immersion at all. For if it does so in the case of those who have been baptized with only a single immersion how can it be said not to do so in the case of those who have been baptized with none at all? Sufficient has been said and proved in regard to these persons in the Interpretation of Ap. c. XLVI; and what was said there is applicable here. Yet it is not amiss to add here by way of repleteness of discussion the good conclusion in fine that just as this Council decrees that Novatians returning to the fold must be myroned (i.e., anointed with genuine myron) because they were hitherto unmyroned (i.e., unanointed), so too does the Council of the Easterners baptize Latins returning to the fold, for the good and sufficient reason that they are unbaptized. See also the last Footnote to c. XCV of the Sixth Ec. C., in order to realize that Latins ought to ask to be baptized of their own accord, and not wait to be urged to do so by others.

[69] This is stated in the letter of Cyril addressed to the clergy of Alexandria, and in the first act of this Council.

[70] I said that Nestorius became wrong-minded and blasphemous in regard to the mystery of the incarnate economy, because in the matter of the theology of the Holy Spirit he had not been blaspheming, since he confessed in his Creed: “We do not deem the Holy Spirit either a Son or to have acquired Its existence through the Son, being as It is of the essence of God, not a Son, but being in essence a God, as being of that very same essence that God the Father is of, out of whom It really derives Its essence.” That it was only in regard to the incarnation of Christ that he became blasphemous is manifest: A) from c. VII of this same Council, wherein the Council states that “all bishops and clergymen or laymen that entertain the unholy dogmas or doctrines, of Nestorius concerning the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God shall forfeit their office.” Do you see that it specifies definitely that it is speaking of the dogmas of Nestorius concerning the incarnation of the Only-begotten? B) from the letter which the same Council sent to the emperors concerning Nestorius, in which it wrote as follows: “After examining the impious dogmas which he (sc. Nestorius) has set forth in writing concerning the incorporation of the Lord Christ, we anathematized those very ones.” But what is there to show that he did not blaspheme in regaid to the theology of the Holy Spirit? Two other facts: A) that, since the theology concerning the Trinity is greater than that concerning the incarnate economy, as is acknowledged by all theologians, how could divine Cyril possibly have taken him to task as concerning the incarnation, yet have maintained silence as concerning the theology of the Holy Spirit, at a time when Chrysoloras denounced Demetrius Cydones by saying, “he that has blasphemed in regard to the Son shall be forgiven, but he that has blasphemed in regard to the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven”? and at a time when, as Macarius the bishop of Ancyra said in ch. 67, that it was the more necessary and urgent to ascertain the matter of the theology first, and that of the economy afterwards? for the former has precedence of the latter. B) It is proved from the pusillanimity and dispute which arose between St. Cyril and blessed Theodoret, and which, though not a fine thing nor anything to be praised, was nevertheless economically allowed by God to occur, in order that the true notion concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit might be conspiciously manifested. For when St. Cyril wrote in his ninth anathematization that the Spirit is something belonging to the Son, Theodoret said in refuting him: “True enough, the Spirit is something belonging to the Son: if he means something of the same nature and proceeding out of the Father, we shall agree with him, and shall accept his utterance as a pious one; but if he means to say that the Holy Spirit is derived from the Son, or that It has Its existence through and by virtue of the Son, we shall reject this notion as blasphemous and as recusant. For we believe the Lord when He says “the Spirit, which proceedeth out of the Father” (page 580 of the first volume of the conciliar records). When Theodoret put the matter thus, divine Cyril offered no objection, but, on the contrary, admitted that what he said was true, and merely explained in what way he had meant that the Spirit belonged to the Son. For he says in the apology (i.e., answer) which he wrote in reply to Theodoret’s refutation: “Though the Holy Spirit does proceed out of the Father, as declared by the Savior, yet It is something not alien to the Son” (ibid.). But what is the meaning of the expression “something not alien to”? Divine Cyril himself undertook to elucidate this further in his conciliar letter to Nestorius, by saying: “It is something not alien to the Son in respect of essence” (which is the same as to say that It is of the same essence, or co-essential. Accordingly, in interpreting the Creed the same saint says: “The Spirit is effused, or poured forth, or, in another word, proceeds, from God the Father precisely as from a wellspring, though It is supplied to creation through the Son.” Wherefore in view of the fact that Cyril had capped this apology as a reply from Alexandria to Antioch with Paul of Ephesus Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch as follows: “What has now been sent is embellished with evangelical nobility. For it is proclaimed therein that God is perfect, and our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect, and that the Holy Spirit is not derived from the Son and does not have Its existence through and by virtue of the Son, but that It proceeds out of the Father, though it is said to belong to the Son, on the ground that It is co-essential, or of the same essence.” So that inasmuch as Nestorius and Theodoret believed aright in regard to the theology of the Holy Spirit, therefore divine Cyril did not censure them, either before they were reconciled with Theodoret or later after they had been reconciled; but then again neither did anyone else besides Cyril do so, nor did this Third Council. That is why Joseph Bryennius as well as Nile of Thessalonica agree in saying that the strongest and most ingenuous proof of the Orthodoxy of us Eastern Christians is the fact that Nestorius wrote in his Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Father, and not out of the Son, nor that It has Its existence through or by virtue of the Son, and the fact that the Third Council accepted this Creed and did not object to it in the least. So prattling Aquinas is slandering, yes, slandering the Eastern Church when he describes it as Nestorian because it dogmatizes that the Holy Spirit does not proceed also out of the Son, as the Papists blasphemously assert. For if our Church were indeed Nestorian on this account, divine Cyril would be a Nestorian, the Third Ecumenical Council would be Nestorian, and the subsequent Church too, for all of them have likewise accepted and recognized this dogma, and it was and is a catholic tenet of the Church. But, as a matter of fact, Cyril, and the Third Council, and the subsequent Church were not Nestorian. Hence it is logically evident that neither is the Eastern Church Nestorian, as she agrees with Cyril and all the Church. But if it be objected that the Papists assert that the Creed of Nestorius was condemned in the Third and Fourth Councils, we reply that it was condemned, true enough, but only as pertaining to the incarnate economy, and not as concerning the theology of the Holy Spirit. For divine Cyril wrote to Eulogius that we ought not to eschew and abandon everything that heretics say. And Athanasius the Great stated that the Arians held correct views in addition to their heretical views (see pp. 495-7 of the Dodecabiblus).