So-called First-and-Second Council

84 For St. Epiphanius (in his Haer. 23) says that Satornilus used to traduce marriage by asserting that it was of the devil. The same fact is stated also by Irenaeus in his Book I, ch. 22, concerning Heresies, with regard to the same Satornilus.

85 Regarding this matter Isidore of Pelusium (i.e., St. Isidore the Pelusian) writes: “Things intended for the indigent ought not to be distributed without examination to persons they ought not to go to, but obedience ought to be paid to the one who has been appointed to manage the handling of them, and if anything be wrongly consumed by him, he is rendered responsible for the offense of sacrilege” (from his letter 44 to a bishop named Moses).

86 In other manuscripts it says “as if holding marriage in abomination.”

87 The robe called a berus, according to Zonaras, was a kind of fabric, which led to their being called also holoberi (i.e., all-berus, or, as we say nowadays in English, all-silk), just as, for example, velvet, damask, coutini, chares, and other similar fabrics are esteemed by us. Suidas, in his definition of the Greek word ephestris (another word denoting robe, etc.), says that the ephestris was a Roman garment which is called a cloak and a robe (or berus), which things when seen during sleep betoken affliction, as Artemidorus the oneirocritic also asserts.

88 Hence many holy women who threw away their feminine attire and donned men’s clothing are not liable to the anathema pronounced by the above Canon, since they did not do this for the sake of supposed and pretended exercise, but for the sake of truly and really ascetic exercise, in order that the women’s clothing might not become an obstacle to them in their ascetic mode of life; and not that they were manifest, but, on the contrary, they escaped the observation of the masses, and were unknown. But the Canon refers to women doing this manifestly and openly.

89 For many women, hearing the Eustathians (i.e., the adherents of Eustathius) say that all women who are married are destitute of any hope of salvation, departed from their husbands, but later, being unable to endure their condition, they committed adultery, and were reproached on this account, as is indicated by the letter of the present Council which was sent to Armenia.

90 That is why divine Chrysostom says for parents not to forbid or prevent their children if they (i.e., the children) want to become monastics (that is what he says to a believing father on page 170 of the sixth volume, and he expatiates against those who endeavour to injure those parents who happen to have incited their children to a monastic life, and especially when the latter are capable of perfect discrimination of what is logical and reasonable, and, in addition to this, are also masters of their own conduct). See also Footnote to c. XXI of the 7th.

91 For this reason it was too that Emperor Theodosius made a law for those who cut off their hair to be driven away from the churches, and for all bishops who should admit them to be deposed from the prelacy, as Sozomen historically records in his Book VII, ch. 16. But as for those holy women who for the sake of truly ascetic exercise have cut off their hair, just as many women appear to have done in historical accounts, they are not liable to the penalty provided in the present Canon, since they did this for the sake of truly ascetic exercise and with humility, and they were not manifest, but unknown to the masses.

92 Not only did the Eustathians fast on meat days, but they even refused to eat meat, not on the ground that they were practicing temperance, but on the ground that they abhorred it. In his Eccles. History, ch. 42, Socrates states that Eustathius used to teach persons not to observe the appointed fasts, but to fast on Sundays, altogether the contrary, that is to say, to the common tradition of the catholic Church.

93 In other manuscripts it says “haunted by the thought,” which is more correct.

94 For ungodly Eustathius used to say also this, that unless wealthy persons gave up all their property and departed anchoretically to the exercise of asceticism, they had no hope of salvation.

95 Many different Councils, some of them heretical and others Orthodox, were convoked in Antioch, both before the present Council was held and after it was held. And for these see volume I of the Conciliar Records (page 263).

96 The Council held in Antioch during the reign of this same Constantius, A.D. 370, which is mentioned by Milias in the second volume of the Conciliar Records, and which was heretical, appears to have been a different one from this one. For there was another Council held in Antioch; but the only Canons extant are those of this one.

97 The reason for the holding of the present Council was as follows. Constantine the Great had built a great octagonal church in Antioch, but had left it unfinished. Constantius, his son, finished it, and, being present in Antioch on account of the Persian war, he wanted to dedicate that same church five years later after the falling asleep (or demise) of his father. Hence, Eusebius, the bishop of Constantinople, taking advantage of this situation, contrived to persuade the Emperor to assemble the present Council, ostensibly by way of enhancing the splendor of the dedication ceremonies, but covertly with a view to overthrowing the doctrine of coessentialism (or likeness of essence, more frequently called in English “consubstantialism” through confusion of the meaning of “substance” with that of the Greek word for essence), as Socrates avers (Book II, ch. 8). Nevertheless, in its definition this Council proclaimed the Son of God to be a true God, and immutable, and unalterable, and to be the very image, or facsimile, of His essence and will and glory. That is why the Second Ecumenical Council in its c. V accepted the definition of the present Council, since it was not opposed to the Nicene faith, though it did not expressly state the doctrine of the coessentiality of the Son.

98 Concerning the Canons of this Council see Socrates, Book VI, ch. 18, and Sozomen, Book VIII, ch. 26, and Dositheus, page 133 of the Dodecabiblus.

99 The fact that the decree concerning Easter was made by the First Council is attested even by the letter of this Nicene Council to the Alexandrians, the text of which is to be found in the ninth chapter of Book I of Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History, which says: “We bring you the good tidings of the agreement regarding the most holy Pascha (or Easter), that with your prayers this part too has been accomplished,” etc.; and also by Epiphanius (Haer. 69), and Eusebius, in his life of Constantine, Book II, ch. 18, and in his Ecclesiastical History, Book I, ch. 9 (or in other editions ch. 8), by Sozomen, in Book XXX, ch. 21, and by Socrates in Book VI, ch. 16 and 18. Epiphanius, in his Heresy 70, states that the heretical Lydians used to celebrate Easter together with the Jews, on the alleged ground that this had always been the custom of the Church, since olden times, that is to say.

100 To me, however, it seems truer to say that this external honor was that belonging to the external habit of those in holy orders, which they were entitled to wear even after being deposed from office. For it was only the unrepentant ones in holy orders who refused to abstain from sin after being deposed from office that forfeited even the very habit of the holy orders and had to adopt the habit of laymen; and not all of them, according to c. XXI of the 6th. But perhaps by the expression “external honor” the Canon means the honor accorded to priests in non-ecclesiastical conventions (or assemblies). And see the Footnote to c. XXVI of the 6th.

101 The distribution of antidoron was introduced because everyone could not be prepared to receive the Blessed Sacraments each Sunday, and it was a means of providing means of sanotification to those not receiving. The antidoron is sanctified bread, since it comes from the loaf which has been offered to God and also because it is a type of the womb of the Theotokos. According to St. Germanus, “The Lamb which is to be mystically offered is taken from the shew bread, just as the Lamb of God had come forth with a body from her womb.” Nicholas Kabasilas calls the antidoron pieces of the elevated shew bread. Concerning the antidoron Nicholas Kabasilas states: “Then the offered bread, from which the sacred Lamb has been cut and offered to God, is broken in many portions and distributed to the faithful, who reverently receive it and kiss the Priest’s right hand which immediately before had touched the most holy Body of Savior Christ, thus receiving sanctification and imparting it to those who are able to touch it.” Consequently, Christians must remain at the Divine Liturgy until the very end in order to receive sanctification from the antidoron. St. Germanus states, “It is believed that a spiritual blessing and imparting of good things to the generation of Christians is effected by the distribution of the bread of the body of the Theotokos (namely the antidoron).” The same blessing is imparted to those who elevate the bread of the Theotokos at the table on the feasts of martyrs and saints, which practice the church has received from the times of the Holy Apostles according to St. Symeon of Salonica.

102 In other manuscripts it says “or otherwise included in the Canon.”

103 This same Canon is cited by the Fourth Council in its fourth Act, having been read by Aetius, an archdeacon and primicerius of the Great Church. But I am at a loss to account for the fact that in almost all the books of minutes of the Councils this Canon is designated as LXXXIII in the inscription. But perhaps it is a literal error (page 149 of volume II of the Collection of the Councils). Note, however, that because at the present Council the Arian Eusebius, attended by his followers, was the exarch, it left the present Canon undefined, with a view to having it aid them in opposing the Fathers whom they were persecuting at that time, and especially in opposing St. Athanasius. For this reason St. Athanasius, but indeed also John Chrysostom, according to Socrates, Book VI, ch. 18, criticized this Canon as not being one of the catholic Church, but one of that of the Arians. For it was by means of this Canon that the Eusebians had deposed Athanasius, and the bishops assembled in Constantinople against Chrysostom had tried to depose even Chrysostom because, as they explained, after being deposed he leaped upon the throne without another Synod’s having first voted a decision in regard to the matters concerning him. Even Pope Innocent, in his letter he sent to the Constantinopolitans in behalf of Chrysostom, criticized this Canon, according to Sozomen, Book VIII, ch. 26, and according to Dositheus (page 433 of his book entitled “A History of those who have served as Patriarchs in Jerusalem”), — since, I say, even these Saints criticize this Canon, but the Fourth Ecumenical Council admits it and recognizes it, as we have said, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council does so too, therefore and on this account there is need of its being established so as to be exempt from any criticism — or, in other words, to the effect that there shall be no excuse in defense or hope of reinstatement of any bishop who has been deposed, first, on account of evident and just accusations brought against him in accordance with Ap. c. XXVIII; secondly, not by a Synod of only some bishops of the province, with one in favor of vindication and another in favor of condemnation, in accordance with c. XIV of the same Council of Antioch (for in that event the Metropolitan ought to summon bishops from nearby provinces, to have the case properly considered and remove all doubt respecting the same), but, on the contrary, either by a Synod of all the bishops of the province pronouncing sentence against him in unison, and not in discord, in accordance with c. XV of the same Council of Antioch, or else by the Synod of the Patriarch of the diocese; thirdly, it being provided that the person being tried shall be present, and that a chance be given him to defend himself, in accordance with Ap. c. LXXIV, except only if he has been invited to do so and has not answered in accordance with the same Ap. c.; fourthly, it being further provided that his accusers shall not be avowed enemies of his, and that neither shall the same persons be allowed to act as both accusers and judges, as actually happened at the illegal depositions of Athansius and of Chrysostom, concerning which see the Footnotes to Ap. cc. XXVIII and XXXII. Moreover, even the presbyters and deacons and the lower clerics ought to stand trial before their own prelates in the beginning; but if they find fault with their tribunal, they ought to call in other neighboring bishops to judge them, or even the metropolitans of their provinces, in accordance with c. XXXVI of Carthage, and in accordance with c. XII of this Council of Antioch.

104


^ In other manuscripts it says “including any third person.”

105 This Canon too is cited by the Fourth EC. C. in its fourth Act (page 149 of the second volume of the Councils), which designates it in the inscription as c. LXXXIV, perhaps by a literal error. It employed this Canon against Carosus and Dorotheus, the Archimandrites, and against Barsumas the Syrian monk, because they, limping with respect to the faith, named Dioscorus a bishop even after his deposition. For the Council says there concerning them that if these persons disobey the Council and flee, they are to be chastised with the aid of the civil authorities in accordance with this Canon, which the bishops proclaimed to be a Canon of the Holy Fathers.

106 Perhaps it would be more correct to say “undertaking.” (According to the authors.)

107 In connection herewith the definite article which appears in the Greek is either superfluous — say the authors — or the word Presbyters is missing, in order to make the whole say “the Presbyters in villages or small towns” (in accordance with c. VIII of this same Council, that is to say) “or the so-called Chorepiscopi,” etc. Note from these two Canons — c. VIII, I mean, and c. X — "that it would appear that of chorepiscopi there were some who were merely presbyters, since those whom c. VIII above called Presbyters in country districts” are called below this Chorepiscopi, and even the present Canon appears to mean this, as we have said; but others had the distinction of having been made bishops by the laying on of hands, as this c. X clearly states.

108 The term “exorcisers” and exorcists are applied to the catechists of infidels, or unbelievers, and heretics who are joining the faith, because, in the course of catechizing them, they exorcise the evil spirits inhabiting them, in the name of the Lord in order to cause them to flee from them. And this is plainly evident, on the one hand, from those sons of Sceva who named over those possessed by demons the name of the Lord, saying to the demons, “We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth” (Acts 19:12-14); and, on the other hand, from the exorcisms which the priests read over those who are about to be baptized. In the eighth book of the Apostolic Injunctions, ch. 26, exorcists are required “to have the gracious gift of cures,” and it says that they are not ordained, but are revealed by God and thus made known. Canon XXVI of Laodicea says that they are not to exorcise and catechize anyone unless they be appointed or nominated by a bishop.

109 The statement that ordinations are to remain void and invalid is to be understood exactly as c. VI of the 4th took it, and see what is said there. Likewise see also the Footnote to Ap. c. XXVIII. Note this too in connection with the present Canon, that even if anyone is invited to officiate as a bishop in the province of another bishop, yet he is not permitted to sit upon the sacred joint throne, according to the Synodic decision of Michael the Patriarch and peerless philosopher (in Armenopoulos, Epitome of the Canons, page 3 of the first volume of the minutes of the Councils). See also c. LXXXII of Carthage.

110 Note that c. IV of Sardica does not conflict with the present Canon, as Balsamon asserts, since the latter says that one who has been tried by all the bishops of a province cannot be tried any longer by others, whereas the former, failing to add the word all, allows the trial of the one under judgment to be reviewed by a higher ecclesiastical tribunal. I leave out of account the fact that this Canon also adds that all the judges must be agreed, as we have said.

111 Though properly speaking such a one is not said to be without a see, since in the reign of John Comnenus it was questioned whether John Haploucheres, who was not in possession of his see and who had been Patriarch of Antioch for twenty-eight years, ought to be considered to be without a see, because he could not go there to take possession of it owing to its being in the hands of the Franks (i.e., Westerners); and it was decided that he should not be held to be without a see, because he had been duly ordained and had been accorded a large number of votes by the metropolitans subject to the bishop of Antioch, notwithstanding that he could not be duly seated upon the throne of Antioch. Hence even the great economos of the Great Church failed to be regarded as being without a see as bishop of Constantinople in the year 6042 after Adam and 1134 after Christ. And see c. XXXVII of the 6th.

112 The present Canon is cited verbatim by the 4th Ec. C. in its Act 11. Note, however, that although Nicephorus the Metropolitan of Gangra, after becoming Hegoumenos of the Monastery of Cosmidion, received Amastris as one without a see; and the bishop of Axioupolis received Abydus as one without a see, and afterwards Apro; and Nicholas Mouzalon of Cyprus, as one without a see and hegoumenos of the said Monastery of Cosmidion when thirty-six years old, became bishop of Constantinople (cf. Dositheus, page 221 of the Dodecabiblus); and many others likewise; yet all those persons received the provinces by vote and decision of a Synod, and not in any rapacious manner.

113 The present Canon is likewise cited verbatim by the same 4th C. in its Act 11.

114 Admittedly Narcissus, a bishop of Jerusalem, when one hundred and sixteen years old, and unable any longer to officiate, appointed Alexander of Cappadocia bishop of Jerusalem, who was the bishop of another province. Yet he did not do this on his own initiative, but at the instance of a divine revelation which appeared to him at night, as Eusebius historically records in Book VI, chapters 10 and 11, of his Ecclesiastical History. But also Theotecnus, a bishop of Caesarea, Palestine, according to the same Eusebius, by way of providing a successor to his throne after his death, ordained a man by the name of Anatolius, and the two of them together for some time acted as bishops of Caesarea. But nevertheless, these and any such incidents, being uncanonical and rare, ought not to be imitated, nor ought they to become a law of the Church.

115 This Laodicea is a different one from the maritime Laodicea situated in Syria and eommonly called Latakia (or Lyche). Nowadays this Laodicea concerning which we are speaking is called by the Turks “Eski Isar.” It was honored with the throne of a Metropolitan, to whom twelve bishops used to be subject. According to Meletius (page 459 of his Geography) it is six or eight miles distant from Hierapolis. It was from this city of Laodicea that the First Epistle to Timothy was written, as may be seen at the end of it. That is why many persons, when they see that St. Paul declares in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians, verse 16, “Cause it (sc. the Epistle to the Colossians) to be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and read ye likewise that from Laodicea,” are left at a loss to understand what is meant, and do not know that it is the first Epistle to Timothy, as has been said.

116 Others say that it was assembled in the year 365, and others in 357, and others in 348, in the time of Pope Damasus (in vol. II of the Conciliar Records).

117 It appears that these fathers were not assembled to issue only these Canons, but on account of some other occasion. That was the fact that some persons in Asia and this Pacatian Phrygia disputed and wondered about the dogmas of the faith, being loath to confess the co-essentiality of the Holy Trinity. Hence, upon learning this, the then reigning pious Emperor Valentinian commanded that a Council be held in Illyricum, and the confession of faith voted and validated by that Council, being the same as the creed adopted by the First Nicene Council, was to be sent to the bishops of this Phrygia. All this is stated by Theodoret, Book IV, ch. 6, 7, and 8. “For after learning,” he says, “that some persons in Asia and Phrygia were disputing concerning the divine dogmas, Valentinianus commanded that a Council be held hi Illyricum” (That Council took place in A,D. 365, according to vol. II of the Conciliar Records, in the Table, at the time, that is to say, when the Council in Laodicea was convoked). In fact, the Emperor himself sent a divine letter to Phrygia superscribed as follows: “The greatest and ever-most-pious Emperors and August Victors, Valer-ianus (Note of Translator. — This appears to be a slip of the pen for Valentinianus, in the original edition of 1908, at least, of the present work), and Valens, and Grati-anus, to the Bishops of the Asian Administration (or Diocese) of Phrygia, of Caro-phrygia, of Pacatian. Rejoice in the Lord!” Likewise the Council of Illyricum in addressing a letter to this Council, superscribes it as follows: “The Bishops of Illyri-eum to the Churches of God and to the Bishops of the Administration of Asia, of Phrygis, of Carophrygia, of Pacatian. Rejoice in the Lord!” But note also this fact too, that that which purports to be a letter from Paul the Apostle to the Laodieeans is spurious and false, as the holy Council rejected it in its Act 6.

118 In other MSS, it says “liberally,” The Canon would be more correct if worded as follows: “By concession communion should be allowed to those “who have liberally and legally contracted a second marriage, but not a clandestine one, after a short time has passed, and they have spent it in praying and fasting.” Otherwise it is ungrammatieal. In other MSS, however, instead of “allowed,” it is written “given.”

119 Note that Zonaras and Balsamon, in interpreting the present Canon, say that what the Canon refers to here as ordinations are the formalities of voting for and electing those in holy orders, during which certain laymen called listeners ought not to be present, in order to prevent their hearing certain accusations brought against the persons being voted for, and their becoming in consequence thereof scandalized or incited to wickedness. But others have said that the ordinations, or, in other words, the sacred ceremonies carried out with prayers in connection with those who are being admitted to holy orders (for even selection by voting is also called ordination, and so is also the sacred ceremony with prayers, as we have said in the Interpretation of Ap. c. I), ought not to be carried out when there are present in the church “listeners,” who were one of the four orders of catechumens (see c. XIV of the First EC. C.), but only after they leave church and there remain therein only the faithful. Then it is that they are to be carried out, that is to say, after the deacon calls out, “All ye catechumens, come forward,” since such persons, being uninitiated and unbaptized, ought not to listen to those horrible prayers which are repeated over candidates who are being ordained. Nevertheless, such persons ought to remember that the ordination of a bishop, which is indeed a most sublime and most divine one, takes place at a time when the “listeners” (or audientes), i.e., the catechumens, are still inside (the church), since it is performed before the Apostle, and the catechumens leave after the Gospel is finished. It is nowhere written that when a bishop is to be ordained catechumens must first leave. But not even in connection with the ordination of priests is it fitting to hold such a view, since even without any ordination being on the program, catechumens, according to custom, have gone out before that time, or, more precisely speaking, before the Cherubic Hymn, after which the ordination of a presbyter is carried out. Hence the prior opinion is more convincing, since in reality it is not advisable for a lot of listeners to be present at the voting for bishops, because many controversies and wrangles occur between the voters even to this very day, though as a matter of fact the affair is not transacted properly, but is transacted secretly. But an ordination is supposed to be carried out openly and in the face of everybody, in order that the people present may be witnesses and collaborators and may sing the saying “Worthy,” etc. in accordance with c VII of Theophilus of Alexandria. I leave out of account the fact that those horrible prayers are read in secret, so that oftentimes even the closest faithful do not hear them. But if the votes for candidates for holy orders ought to be cast principally by the bishops, yet it is none the less true that collaterally the more prudent and more reverent among the laymen ought to be asked whether they assent to them. And see Ap. cc. XXX and LXI, and c. XIII of the present C.