§ 22. The Canons
By canons, as we have seen, are meant those church laws which are contained in the basic canonical collection and which are binding upon the whole Church. This basic canonical collection was compiled by degrees and received its chief conclusion when, in the year 883, it was issued in the form of the Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles. It contains the canons of the holy Apostles, the canons of the ecumenical councils, the canons of ten local councils, and the canons of thirteen holy Fathers. These are the basic canons of the Orthodox Church. In the Athens Syntagma, to these basic canons are further added, under the heading Διάφορα, several further canonical prescripts from various works of Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and St Anastasius, then the synodal responsa of Nicholas, Patriarch of Constantinople, the canons of Nicephorus the Confessor, and the Kanonikon of John the Faster, and after this Kanonikon it is noted that the canons conclude at this point (Τέλος τῶν ἱερῶν κανόνων). So it stands in the Athens Syntagma. And since that Syntagma has been approved by the synods of the chief present-day Orthodox local churches, foremost among them the patriarchal synod of Constantinople, we are bound to regard as binding upon the whole Church all those canons which are so distinguished in this Syntagma—hence not only those contained in the basic canonical collection, but also those brought in under the heading Διάφορα.
By name, the canons contained in the basic canonical collection are these: 1) the canons of the holy Apostles; 2) the canons of the ecumenical councils, ten in number: a) the First of Nicaea, b) the First of Constantinople, c) of Ephesus, d) of Chalcedon, e) in Trullo, and f) the Second of Nicaea; 3) the canons of the local councils, namely: a) of Ancyra, b) of Neocaesarea, c) of Gangra, d) of Antioch, e) of Laodicea, f) of Sardica, g) of Constantinople under Nectarius, h) of Carthage of the year 419, i) of Constantinople of the year 861, and j) of Constantinople of the year 879; 4) the canons of the holy Fathers, ten in number: a) Dionysius of Alexandria, b) Gregory of Neocaesarea, c) Peter of Alexandria, d) Athanasius the Great, e) Basil the Great, f) Timothy of Alexandria, g) Gregory the Theologian, h) Amphilochius of Iconium, i) Gregory of Nyssa, j) Theophilus of Alexandria, k) Cyril of Alexandria, l) Gennadius of Constantinople, and m) Tarasius of Constantinople. A supplement to these canons is formed, besides the aforementioned canonical prescripts from the works of Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Anastasius, by: a) the synodal responsa of Nicholas of Constantinople, b) the canons of Nicephorus the Confessor, and c) the Kanonikon of John the Faster.
All these canons are found, as we have said, in the canonical collection approved by the highest church authorities of the chief present-day local churches—that is, in the official general-church collection, namely the Athens Syntagma. They are found, more or less completely, also in those canonical collections which have been issued for the various local churches and which have official standing among the Orthodox Slavs, Greeks and Romanians, namely: in the Kormchaia, which holds good for the Orthodox Slavs generally, in the Kniga Pravil, which, alongside the Kormchaia, holds good in the Russian Church, in the Pedalion, which holds good in the Greek Church, and in the Îndreptarea legii, which holds good for the Orthodox Romanians.[1]
I. The Canons of the Holy Apostles (Κανόνες τῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων).[2] — Under the name of the holy Apostles there have come down to us 85 canons. At first it was held that these were canons which the Apostles issued in common and intended for the Church’s governance; this opinion of their origin was established especially in the West and prevailed for a full fifteen centuries. When the Magdeburg Centuriators expressed their doubt as to their apostolic origin, one of the notable scholars of that time came out against them (Turrianus), arguing that these canons were issued in writing directly by the Apostles themselves, and indeed at a council of theirs held at Jerusalem in the year 45 after the birth of Christ. This view was defended by many other scholars of the 17th century. From that time scholarly investigation began into whether the Apostles really did set out these canons in writing, or whether these canons perhaps entered church practice by some other path. Attention was turned to the last (the 85th) Apostolic canon, in which mention is made of the writer of the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions,” which contain our canons at their end, then to the content of the canons themselves in general, and to the purpose for which they might have been issued. Many wholly conscientious investigations have shown that it is impossible to find exact data as to the time when these apostolic canons actually appeared; further, that it is not possible, having regard to the questions of which these canons speak, to accept the idea that they proceeded directly from the Apostles themselves; and finally, that there is no explicit mention whatsoever of them before the First Council of Nicaea. The result of these investigations has been the now generally established opinion that these canons were not issued in writing directly by the holy Apostles, but that they proceeded from apostolic tradition, that they were preserved by oral tradition among the successors of the Apostles, and that, in accordance with the pressing needs of the Church, they were gathered together in the period before the Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council, by some unknown pious man, who called these canons “apostolic” in order thereby to show that they derive, by tradition, from the Apostles themselves. The same holds of these canons as of the so-called Apostles’ Creed: the Apostles did not compose that creed and hand it in writing to the Church, but it was composed on the basis of apostolic tradition after the Apostles and handed to the Church under the apostolic name, so as to show its true source.
That these canons are, however, an exact expression of what the Apostles taught and what they orally handed down to their first successors is proved by their complete agreement, in their fundamental ideas, with the teaching contained in the canonical books of Holy Scripture; it is proved, further, by the fact that they correspond in full strictness to that church practice which the writings of the disciples of the Apostles and their nearest successors present to us; and, finally, by the fact that apostolic authority was acknowledged to them by the councils and Fathers of the first centuries of the Church. As such, these canons, even though they were not issued in writing by the Apostles themselves, nonetheless deserve their name and that regard which the ecumenical Church accords them.
In the oldest canonical collections we find the apostolic canons in the first place. The difference is only in their number. The Eastern Church, from the very beginning down to today, receives and acknowledges 85 apostolic canons; in the old Western collections we find only 50 of them. Among other things, this difference may depend on the difference among the canonical collections that existed in the first centuries of the Church.[3] At the Council in Trullo, by its 2nd canon, they were solemnly confirmed and received (numbering 85) alongside the canons of the councils and Fathers, and from that time they have been placed first in all the canonical collections of the Eastern Church.[4]
In the Kormchaia (first chapter), in the Kniga Pravil and in the Pedalion the number of apostolic canons is equal; the order alone differs from the Athens Syntagma in canons 64, 65 and 66: namely, canon 64 corresponds in the said collections to 65, 65 corresponds to 66, and 66 corresponds to 64; further on the canons agree. In the Îndreptarea legii they are reduced to 83 canons.
Under the name of the holy Apostles there are still a few more canons in our Kormchaia, which make up its 2nd, 3rd and 4th chapters—namely 17 canons of the Apostle Paul (ch. 2), 17 canons of Peter and Paul (ch. 3), and 2 canons “of all the holy Apostles together” (ch. 4). These canons are extracted from the eighth book of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions, and were introduced into that Synopsis on which Aristenus wrote his commentaries, and which, as we shall see further on, served as the basis for our Kormchaia, as it did also for the Îndreptarea legii—although in this last collection these canons are not found.[5] The canons in question are not binding, for the Council in Trullo, by its 2nd canon, deprived of all juridical force the very source from which they were taken. Zonaras says of them the following: “Since the 2nd canon of the Sixth Council so ordains, and makes no mention anywhere of any other so-called apostolic canons besides those 85, no other canons bearing the apostolic name are to be received; on the contrary, such canons are to be condemned, held to be spurious and rejected, for they bear false titles, are corrupted, and are not among those approved by the holy and divine Fathers.”[6]
II. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils (Κανόνες τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων).[7] The Orthodox Church receives and acknowledges seven ecumenical councils, held in the period from 325 to 787. Of these seven councils, which met on account of various heresies that had arisen in the Church, six have left us canons, namely: the First of Nicaea, the First of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, in Trullo, and the Second of Nicaea. The First and Second of Constantinople issued no canons at all, and therefore, in order to supply what those councils had not done, the Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople were convened a second time in Constantinople, who, together with other bishops, assembled in that same imperial hall (Τρούλλον) in which they had first met, in the years 691–692, and issued the relevant canons. Accordingly the canons of this council are called the canons of the Sixth Council, or of the Fifth-and-Sixth—that is, of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils—or of the Council in Trullo.
1. The First Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council.[8] This council was held on account of the heresy of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. To expose the falsity of Arius’s teaching, which had already won many followers and threatened to spread everywhere, the Orthodox bishops resolved to convene a general council, by whose voice, as that of the ecumenical Church, right belief might be confirmed against Arius’s false teaching. The Emperor Constantine the Great responded to the urging of the Orthodox bishops, and the council met in the year 325 at Nicaea, the chief city of Bithynia. In all there were 318 Fathers present. Among them the most prominent were: Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem; the bishop of Rome, Sylvester, was represented by two special legates, the presbyters Victor and Vincentius. There took part, distinguished for their holiness: Nicholas of Myra in Lycia, Spyridon of Trimythous, Paphnutius of the Thebaid, Hosius of Cordova, and others. On the Arian side there were around 20 bishops. Besides the bishops, there were present at the council also several presbyters and deacons; among the latter there was distinguished by his deep theological knowledge and eloquence the young archdeacon of the church of Alexandria, Athanasius. The first solemn session was held on 20 May 325, and the sessions of the council continued until 25 August of the same year. The presiding seat was occupied by Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and in his absence by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. The honorary president was the emperor. After the relevant deliberation on the chief question, at the session of the council on 19 June the symbol of the Orthodox faith was set forth.
This council issued 20 of its canons. In that same number they are found in all the canonical collections, both of the Eastern and of the Western Church. In the Kormchaia they make up the 2nd chapter.
In Harduin’s edition of the councils we find many other canons ascribed to the Nicene ones, translated from the Arabic. The first translation is Turrianus’s, and contains 80 canons; the second is that of the Maronite Abraham Ecchellensis, and contains 84 canons.[9] But these and other canons, besides our 20, are all apocryphal.[10]
2. The First Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.[11] On account of the heresy of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, and at the petition of the Orthodox bishops, the Emperor Theodosius convened a council at Constantinople in the year 381. At the council there were 150 Orthodox bishops, all from the eastern half of the Christian world. The council began its work in May, and concluded it on 9 June of the said year. It was presided over by Meletius of Antioch, and when he died, the presiding seat was occupied first by Gregory the Theologian, and then by Nectarius of Constantinople. The emperor was present at the opening of the council. After the condemnation of Macedonius, a supplement was issued to the Nicene symbol of faith.
Before the council’s conclusion 7 canons were issued. That number entered the basic canonical collection; in that same number they are found in the Kniga Pravil and in the Pedalion. In the Kormchaia (chapter 11) and in the Îndreptarea there are eight of them; but this is because in the Synopsis, the basis of these collections, the last (7th) canon is divided into two. In the Western collections there are only the first four canons of this council; the last three are held not to have been issued by this council, but to have been added afterward.[12]
3. The Council of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Council.[13] Fifty years after the Second Ecumenical Council the need arose to convene a new ecumenical council on account of a false teaching that had arisen concerning Christology. This council was convened at Ephesus by the Emperor Theodosius II. It opened on 22 June 431, held seven sessions, and concluded on 31 July following. There were present at the council around 200 Fathers, for the most part Eastern. The bishop of Rome, Celestine, was represented by three legates. Cyril of Alexandria presided over the council. After the condemnation of the heresy that had arisen and of its chief heresiarch, Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople, and after the Orthodox faith had been confirmed, the council occupied itself with the resolution of a number of questions of a disciplinary character.
In the Eastern canonical collections 8 canons of this council are recorded. The first six canons are not of a disciplinary character; they concern matters of faith arising from the heresy. The seventh canon speaks of how the established symbol of faith is to be kept inviolate; and the eighth establishes the autocephaly of the bishop of Cyprus. Of canonical significance also is the council’s letter addressed to the council of Pamphylia concerning the resignation tendered by Eustathius, bishop of Pamphylia, from his see. Given this significance of it, this letter is carried in the Kormchaia (ch. 12) and in the Îndreptarea as the ninth canon of the Council of Ephesus.[14] In the canonical collections of the Western Church these canons are not found. Only in certain Latin manuscripts are there found a few extracts from the conciliar acts, in one form or another.[15]
4. The Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council.[16] By the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, the great Christological question had not yet been settled. Eutyches, archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople, put forward a certain heresy, on account of which an ecumenical council had to be convened. The Emperor Marcian convened this council, which met and opened at Chalcedon on 3 October 451, held sixteen sessions, and closed on 1 November of the same year. There were present at it 630 Fathers. The Western Church was represented by five Roman legates. The conduct of business was in the hands of Anatolius of Constantinople, Paschasinus and Lucentius, the senior legates of the bishop of Rome, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem. After the examination of Eutyches’s teaching, the council declared him a heretic and confirmed the relevant dogma of the faith.
At the last sessions the council issued 30 canons—that is, at those sessions 28 canons were issued, and the 29th and 30th canons were set forth at the fourth session of the council, and were now added to the rest. In the Kormchaia, Kniga Pravil, Pedalion and Îndreptarea, the same number of Chalcedonian canons stands. In the Western canonical collections only 27 canons of this council are recorded. The last two (29th and 30th) are, in all likelihood, not recorded because they were not issued expressly in the form of canons; and the 28th is not recorded because the Roman legates at this council protested against it, regarding it as an infringement of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.[17]
5. The Council in Trullo, the Fifth-and-Sixth Ecumenical Council. The council which is known under the general name of the Trullan council met, as we have said, with the intention of supplying, in respect of the issuing of canons, what the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils had left undone—those councils having occupied themselves exclusively with doctrinal questions and having issued not a single prescript in respect of church discipline.[18] Meanwhile there was a pressing need that canons should be issued, by the authority of an ecumenical council, which would restore the discipline weakened as a result of heretical disorders; it was necessary to renew the force of the canons of earlier councils and to establish, by new canons, strict order in the Church.
Since the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council had dispersed immediately after their dogmatic determination, it was necessary to convene them a second time, so that they might issue the relevant canons, and thereby supply what had not been done before. The council, in accordance with this its task, was named the Fifth-and-Sixth (Πενθέκτη, Quini-Sexta), and since this council is nothing other than a continuation of the council of the year 681, and was held in that same imperial hall in which the latter had met, its canons too are called the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Trullan.
At the summons of the Emperor Justinian II, the Fathers assembled in council at Constantinople in the year 691. The council’s activity falls in the period from 1 September 691 to 31 August 692. There were 227 Fathers—hence 53 more than in the year 681. The patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were personally present; the Roman pope was represented by his legates, among whom the chief was Basil, archbishop of Gortyna. After the greeting to the emperor, the council at once began its work, and issued 102 canons. These canons were received into all the Eastern canonical collections. In the Kormchaia they make up the 18th chapter; in the Îndreptarea they are reduced to 98.
The Western Church does not today acknowledge for itself binding force in all these canons. But it was not always so. At the council itself Roman legates were present, and the signature of Basil of Gortyna is found among the first on the acts of the council. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, when, on the occasion of the 52nd Trullan canon, these canons were mentioned as canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Roman legates did not so much as think of raising objection. Pope Hadrian I solemnly declares his recognition of these canons in a letter to his own Patriarch Tarasius, and likewise in another letter to the Frankish bishops in defence of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Pope John VIII, speaking of these canons, expresses no opposition to them whatsoever. Innocent III cites the 82nd canon and calls it a canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In his Decretum, Gratian cited many canons of our council as canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the course of the centuries opinion in the West began to regard these canons differently, and of all these testimonies, and of others, it is said that they ascribed those canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council only out of ignorance.[19]
6. The Second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh Ecumenical Council.[20] This council was convened against the Iconoclasts by the Empress Irene together with her son. It opened on 24 September 787 and lasted a month. It had eight sessions, of which seven were held at Nicaea, and the eighth at Constantinople. It was presided over by Tarasius of Constantinople, except at the eighth session, at which the presiding seat was occupied by Irene together with her son. The number of members present at the council, according to the figures preserved, ranges between 330 and 367. The whole Church was represented, Eastern and Western. After the confirmation of the dogma of the veneration of icons, 22 canons were issued. In that same number they are found in all the canonical collections of the Eastern Church. In the Kormchaia they make up the 19th chapter.
After the canons of this council, in the editions of the conciliar acts, there is found also the letter of Tarasius of Constantinople to Pope Hadrian concerning simony.[21] It was written immediately after this council, and for that reason in the older collections it was carried immediately after the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Of this letter we shall speak further on.
III. The Canons of the Local Councils (Κανόνες τῶν τοπικῶν ἤτοι ἐπαρχιακῶν συνόδων). — Only the canons of those local councils are binding on the whole Church to which the ecumenical Church has acknowledged that standing. Eleven such councils are counted, namely the ten which we mentioned at the beginning of this section, and the Council of Carthage under Cyprian (255 A.D.) on heretical baptism. The canons of all these eleven councils are found in the Athens Syntagma and in the Pedalion.[22] In the Slavonic and Romanian canonical collections only the canons of ten councils are found, and the canons of the Carthaginian council under Cyprian are absent from them. The reason why that Cyprianic council is omitted in these latter collections is chiefly this: that the ruling of that council, that every heretic or schismatic converting to Orthodoxy must be baptized anew,[23] is not binding on the whole Church, but was, in the words of the 2nd canon of the Council in Trullo, a ruling that had force, according to the circumstances of time and place, only for the African Church. Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, says: “By this it is established that all those who turn to the Orthodox Church, whether from heretics or from schismatics, must be baptized anew, even though they had previously received baptism. Meanwhile the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council ordains something quite different in respect of those who are and who are not to be baptized a second time, establishing on this point an exact distinction. Read, then, that canon, and follow the one that was issued later. Read also the 2nd canon of the Council in Trullo, and you will see that what this letter speaks of was not received by all the Fathers; for it is there stated thus: ‘The canon which was issued by Cyprian, former archbishop of the African region and martyr, and by his council, and which is observed only in the places of the aforesaid primates, according to received custom.’ From which it follows that at the outset this canon was not even in use among all of them…. And since the 7th canon of the Second Council ordains something quite different from what is established in this letter in respect of heretics and schismatics who turn to the faith, its institution has likewise fallen into disuse.”[24]
The canons of the following ten councils were received by the whole Church:
1. The Council of Ancyra.[25] After Maximinus’s persecution against Christians, when peace was established, many among the Christians who, either from fear or otherwise, had fallen away from the Church, now sought to be received back. The question of whether they ought to be received, and the manner in which they ought to be received according to the circumstances under which they had fallen away, was not at all clear to the bishops in general. And for this reason a council was convened, which was to pronounce its judgment on this matter. The council met in the year 314 at Ancyra, in Galatia, at which there were up to 18 bishops from Asia Minor and Syria under the presidency of Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, and it issued 25 canons, of which the first nine and the twelfth concern the chief question that had occasioned the council; the rest speak of church discipline in general. — In the Kormchaia the canons of Ancyra make up the 6th chapter.
2. The Council of Neocaesarea[26] was held after that of Ancyra, between 314 and 325. There were present at it 24 bishops under the presidency of the same Vitalis of Antioch, who had also presided at the Council of Ancyra. 15 canons were issued, which in the Kormchaia make up the 7th chapter.
3. The Council of Gangra.[27] On account of Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, a semi-Arian, and his followers, who preached an anti-evangelical asceticism and who thereby caused much disorder in the Church, a council was held in the mid-4th century, around the year 340, at Gangra, the chief city of Paphlagonia. Eusebius of Nicomedia presided at the council, and 13 bishops were present. In the canonical collections 21 canons of this council are counted, namely 20 canons against the Eustathians, and the 21st forms a summary conclusion of all the canons.
The same number of canons, and in the same order, is found in the Îndreptarea legii and in the Pedalion. In the Îndreptarea, and likewise in chapter 8 of the Kormchaia, where these canons are translated, it is otherwise. At the beginning stands the title of the council’s letter to the bishops of Armenia,[28] then in the first there are 20, and in the second 19 canons. This depends on the fact that there are only 20 canons in the Synopsis, the basis of both the one and the other collection; while in this latter the 9th canon is joined together with the 10th.
4. The Council of Antioch.[29] On the occasion of the dedication of a new church at Antioch there gathered, in the mid-year 341, up to 100 bishops. After the dedication had been carried out, the assembled bishops formed themselves into a council, in order to issue several rulings concerning the uniform church administration among all. Placitus, bishop of Antioch, presided at this council, and 20 canons were issued, all of which entered the general church canonical collection, and are regarded with particular respect by both East and West alike. In the Kormchaia they make up the 9th chapter.
5. The Council of Laodicea.[30] Around the year 343, a council was held by many bishops of Asia Minor at Laodicea, the chief city of Phrygia, at which 60 canons of various content were issued, all of which, though variously divided, entered the canonical collections. In the Pedalion the number is the same as in the Kniga Pravil. In the Kormchaia the canons of the Council of Laodicea make up the 10th chapter, and number 56, though by content they are all found in it too. In the Îndreptarea there stand 59 canons, which depends on the fact that the last two are made into a single canon.
6. The Council of Sardica.[31] On the border between the eastern and western parts of the Greco-Roman empire, at Sardica (today Sofia), there met in the year 343[32] a numerous council, with the aim of establishing, in respect of Athanasius the Great, harmony between the Eastern and Western bishops, who were divided among themselves as a result of Arian intrigues. In all 376 members are counted as present at this council, of whom 300 were Western and only 76 Eastern bishops. Hosius, bishop of Cordova, known already from the Council of Nicaea, presided. After all the charges brought against Athanasius had been proclaimed groundless, and the Nicene symbol confirmed, the council issued 21 canons concerning church discipline, and all these canons entered the general church canonical collection.
In our present-day collections the difference is only in numbering, but by content they are all found. In the Îndreptarea all the canons stand in order. In the Pedalion there are 20 of them—namely the 16th is missing, but since this one stands in inseparable connection with the following (19th), which speaks of the same subject, the content of the canons themselves suffers not at all from this. In the Kniga Pravil there are likewise only 20 canons found, which depends on the fact that the 18th and 19th are made into one—namely the 18th canon. In the Kormchaia the order is different, though it too has 21 canons.
7. The Council of Constantinople.[33] On the occasion of the dispute between two bishops, Agapius and Bagadius, each of whom asserted for himself his right to the metropolitan see of Bostra in Arabia, a council met at Constantinople in the year 394 to resolve this dispute. There took part in the council Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, Flavian of Antioch, and a further 17 bishops. Nectarius presided. The decision was made that a bishop may be deposed by a council of many bishops, and not by three alone; and this decision was issued as a particular canon, which then entered the general church canonical collection.
This canon is found variously in the present-day collections, and for the most part only excerpts from the full text are given. In the Pedalion it is divided into two canons, and the first is composed from the proposal of the bishop of Arabia, which recalls the relevant ruling of the Council of Nicaea, that two bishops may neither appoint nor depose another bishop; while the second is from the concluding decision of the conciliar president. In the Îndreptarea, in the Kormchaia and in the Kniga Pravil there is only a single canon, and that in a much abridged form. In this last it is composed: the first half from the concluding decision of Nectarius, and the second from the relevant proposal of Theophilus of Alexandria.
8. The Council of Carthage.[34] The question of the right of the bishop of Rome to receive appeals against the decisions of councils of the African Church gave occasion to a great council at Carthage in the year 419. Present at this council were 217 bishops under the presidency of Aurelius, archbishop of Carthage. Representatives of the Roman Church were also present. Two main sessions were held, the first on 25 May, the second on 30 May.
After the chief business had been discussed, and every right of the Roman pope to receive appeals against decisions rendered by a council of bishops of the African Church had been solemnly rejected, the Fathers of the council issued several of their own canons regarding church discipline, then reviewed all the canons which had been issued at the earlier councils of the African Church, beginning from the year 345. In no church, as in the African, was the rule of holding annual councils so strictly observed. History has preserved for us records of the multitude of councils that were held in the first centuries in that church for legislative purposes; a multitude, therefore, of church-disciplinary canons must have existed, issued at these various councils. Among these canons many were similar to one another and identical in subject matter, many, according to the circumstances of place and time of their issuing, had only a local and temporary validity, and could therefore not be binding on all in general. The Fathers of the Council of Carthage of the year 419 took under review all the earlier canons, and among these received and adopted for the whole African Church the canons of the following fourteen councils: a) of Carthage of 348, b) of Carthage of 390, c) of Hippo of 398, d) of Carthage of 397, e) of Carthage of 16 June 401, f) of Carthage of 13 September 401, g) of Mileve of 402, h) of Carthage of 403, i) of Carthage of 404, j) of Carthage of 405, k) of Carthage of 407, l) of Carthage of 409, m) of Carthage of 410, and n) of Carthage of 418. From these councils 121 canons were received. To these the council added of its own 12 canons, and in this way there were received and proclaimed generally binding at this council, for all, 133 canons, known today under the name of the canons of the Council of Carthage.
In some collections, and likewise in our Kormchaia, five further canons are counted, besides those mentioned; but these are not, in the strict sense, canons, but either letters of the African Fathers or replies of theirs to questions addressed to them by the Council of Carthage. The first is the council’s letter to Pope Boniface on the chief matter on account of which the council of 419 had met; the second and third are made up of the replies of Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, who send the original texts of the Council of Nicaea; the fourth is a document containing the symbol and canons of the Council of Nicaea, sent by the Fathers of the Council of Carthage to Pope Boniface; and the fifth is a letter of the same Fathers, of the year 424, to Pope Celestine on that same matter on account of which the council of 419 had been held. Namely, the presbyter in question (Apiarius), whom the council had condemned, had turned to Pope Celestine, seeking protection from him, and the pope, finding that he might take that presbyter under his protection, wrote to the Carthaginian Fathers to this effect. The Fathers’ reply to this letter of Celestine’s, by which they refuse his intervention on behalf of the said presbyter, makes up the letter in question. It is placed alongside the canons of the council of 419 because it relates directly to that council and represents the final conclusion of the council’s chief business.
The canons of the Council of Carthage entered all the canonical collections; but the manner in which they are carried differs greatly, both as to text and as to numbering. In the original collection they are as numerous as in the Athens Syntagma, namely 133, plus the said 5 documents. These last are not numbered in the Athens Syntagma, but in the old collections they are, and bear the numbers 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138. They are numbered also in our Kormchaia. In the later collections these documents are either altogether absent, or only some of them are carried. Likewise the number of canons differs. In the Kormchaia there are 134 of them plus all five documents; in the Îndreptarea there are 141 canons, and not a single document; in the Pedalion there are likewise 141, plus the letters to Boniface and to Celestine; and in the Kniga Pravil there are 147 plus the letter to Celestine. From this difference in the number of canons it is not to be inferred that in the Athens Syntagma certain canons are omitted which are found in the said collections; on the contrary, in it these canons are much more complete than in those, and of some canons of the Athens Syntagma—for instance in the Pedalion—there is altogether nothing; the difference in the number of canons in those collections depends on the fact that certain canons are there divided into two, three or even five canons, and as a result of this a larger number resulted. This procedure of the various editors in dividing a single canon into several, though in many cases justified with regard to the content of the various canons, must nonetheless also be regarded as arbitrary, as has been demonstrated for the editors of the Pedalion. As for the Kniga Pravil, it may be that its editors followed earlier work, for there exists one Parisian edition in which, as in it, there are 147 canons of the Council of Carthage.
9. The Council of Constantinople in the Church of the Holy Apostles.[35] The ninth century, the century of Nicholas I and Photius, may be reckoned among the most turbulent, and at the same time among the most calamitous in its consequences for the Church. The act of deposing Patriarch Ignatius and electing Photius to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople gave rise to much unrest in the East, and at the same time gave the Roman pope occasion to interfere in the internal affairs of the patriarchate of Constantinople. On the other side, Iconoclasm too, although condemned at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, continued in this century still to trouble the Church. In order that a final condemnation of Iconoclasm might be pronounced, and the disturbed order in the Church restored, it was resolved to convene a great council of bishops, which met at the beginning of May 861 at Constantinople, in the Church of the Holy Apostles. The Emperor Michael III was present at the council, and there were 318 bishops; the Roman pope was represented by special legates. At its first sitting the council could not reach the desired conclusion, on account of the assaults of the non-Orthodox, and it was only at the second sitting that it was able to act freely. On account of this council’s meeting in two sessions, it is also called the First-and-Second Council (πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα, primo-secunda, dvukratni). At this second sitting the council confirmed the condemnation of Iconoclasm, then the regularity of the election of Patriarch Photius to the see of Constantinople was acknowledged, and finally 17 canons regarding church discipline were issued. In the Kormchaia, Kniga Pravil and Îndreptarea these canons occupy the second-to-last place in the order of conciliar canons; in the Pedalion they come immediately after the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
10. The Council of Constantinople in the Church of Hagia Sophia.[36] The peace which had been established in the Church in the year 861 was soon again disturbed, as a result of circumstances of an altogether particular character, and that peace was restored only after the death of the former Patriarch Ignatius, and when Pope John VIII sat on the Roman throne. For the solemn confirmation of this peace a council was convened in the year 879 at Constantinople, in the Church of Hagia Sophia. There were present at it 383 Fathers; the Roman pope was represented by three special legates. Having proclaimed, in solemn manner, the peace established between the Eastern and Western Church, the council issued 3 of its canons, which in the Kormchaia, Kniga Pravil and Îndreptarea occupy the last place among the canons of the councils, while in the Pedalion they stand in second place among the canons of the local councils.
VI. The Canons of the Holy Fathers (Κανόνες τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων)—In the 2nd canon of the Council in Trullo twelve Fathers are mentioned whose canons are binding on the whole Church, namely those twelve who were first mentioned at the beginning of this section. Besides these, binding force for all is held also by the letter of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, on simony.
As the councils were interpreters of the fundamental legal principles expressed in Holy Scripture and Tradition, so individual Fathers were interpreters of the conciliar institutions. The conciliar canons represented general rulings, which the pastors of this or that local church then had to apply, according to their own discernment and under their own responsibility, to particular cases and according to given circumstances. This application, in deed, of the conciliar rulings by individual pastors often became public in their encyclical letters to their own flocks, in canonical letters of one pastor to another, in their canonical replies to questions put to them, and so forth. The deep canonical learning of individual among these pastors earned them universal regard in the Church, and from their letters or other writings were taken the relevant passages which in themselves represented exalted rules of pastoral governance, and as such were received and approved for the whole Church, and, together with the canons of the councils, entered the general church canonical collections.[37] The difference between the canons of the Fathers and those of the councils is represented, in the following wholly exact manner, by one of the best canonists of recent times: “The difference consists in this, that the councils extended their authority to fundamental questions of church life, established order and laws in respect of church administration itself, touched upon its hierarchy, and pronounced their supreme judgment on the very persons to whom its administration was entrusted; whereas the Fathers issued their rulings in respect of various particular questions, having before their eyes chiefly the persons who were governed in the Church, rather than those who governed the Church, chiefly the spiritual court rather than the external court; they touched chiefly upon such questions as were of a moral character, rather than those which concerned the administration of the Church.”[38]
The canons of the Fathers were not originally issued in the form of particular legal rulings, but are either extracts from various writings of the Fathers, or, and this is the chief manner, letters which they addressed to individual persons, and which, because of their content, were called “canonical letters.” In the course of time, with regard to the subjects of which these letters spoke, they were divided into a number of canons, and in this form incorporated into the general church collection. The first was John Scholasticus (of the 6th century), who included in his collection two letters of Basil the Great to Amphilochius; after him, already in all the general church collections, we find the canons of the Fathers, especially after the confirmation of their canonical authority at the Council in Trullo.
1. Dionysius of Alexandria (†265).[39] A pupil of the school of Alexandria, and afterward its head, on account of his deep learning and his services to the Church, especially in the struggle against Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, Dionysius was called “the Great” and “teacher of the ecumenical Church.”
The canons which entered the general church collection under the name of Dionysius make up a canonical letter which he addressed in the year 260 to Basilides, bishop in Libya, in reply to four questions which the latter had put to him for resolution. According to the replies to these questions this letter of Dionysius is divided into four canons—which are found in full text in the Kniga Pravil and in the Pedalion, and at the end there is further added the letter’s conclusion. In the Kormchaia (chapter 26) it is otherwise. There stands first, separately, the beginning of the letter concerning the hour at which the great fast is to end, then follow four numbered canons under the special heading “Of the same, without a title,” of which the first makes up an extract from Dionysius’s letter to Conon, while the following (2nd, 3rd and 4th) form, in abridged form, the second half of the letter to Basilides. The conclusion of the letter is absent. This exactly corresponds to the text of Dionysius’s canons in the Synopsis.[40] In the Îndreptarea these canons of Dionysius are altogether absent among the canons.
2. Gregory of Neocaesarea, the Wonderworker (†270).[41] Trained in the school of Alexandria, Gregory was distinguished for depth of mind and great piety. On account of the many miracles which he performed, especially as bishop of Neocaesarea, his contemporaries gave him the name “Wonderworker.” He was distinguished by great zeal in turning pagans to the faith of Christ, and history tells us that there were in Neocaesarea only 17 Christians when he became bishop, and when he died there were only 17 pagans; all the rest had been converted to Christianity. Among Gregory’s many writings, for us his canonical letter has significance, which he addressed in the year 258 to his diocese.[42] The occasion for this letter is indicated in general in its very title. Namely, while he was bishop in Neocaesarea, barbarian peoples fell upon Pontus and laid waste the cities. During this barbarian invasion, the Christians did not conduct themselves as worthy of their name, but many of them collaborated with the barbarians and themselves fell into grave sins. As chief bishop of Pontus, Gregory issued this letter of his, pointing out the gravity of the sins committed and prescribing the corresponding penances for them.
The letter is divided into a number of canons; but these canons are found in varying numbers in the canonical collections. In the Athens Syntagma there are 11 of them, in the Kniga Pravil and the Pedalion 12, and in the Kormchaia (chapter 28) there are 13. In the Îndreptarea there is not a single one. The letter itself properly makes up the first ten canons according to the Athens edition, or the first 11 according to the Kniga Pravil and the Pedalion, while the last is not a constituent part of the letter itself, but is a later addition, and forms a supplement drawn from the rule of Basil the Great regarding degrees of penance. On this account, in the translation of the 11th canon, after the word “says,” we have in our own “Collection” placed in brackets who says it—namely Basil the Great, in his 75th canon.[43] And since this supplement, or the 11th (or 12th) canon, is absent from the Synopsis, this explains why it is likewise absent from the Kormchaia, which was prepared according to the Synopsis. The difference in the number of the first canons depends on the fact that the first canon, according to our edition, is divided into two in those collections, so that instead of ten, eleven appear there. In the Kormchaia, as we have said, that supplement is absent, and the number 13 in it depends on the fact that, according to our edition, the 2nd and 4th canons are each divided into two.
3. Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria (†311).[44] Distinguished for his learning, Peter took, in the year 295, the position of head of the school of Alexandria, which he directed for five years, and in the year 300 was chosen archbishop of Alexandria. For only three years did he govern his church in peace, and in 303, when Diocletian’s edict for the persecution of Christians appeared, troubles began for the Alexandrian pastor, which ended in his martyr’s death. During the persecution many Christians fell away from the faith, and employed all manner of means merely to escape torment. Most, nonetheless, again turned back to the Church, repenting of their apostasy. Peter turned his attention to this circumstance; and, moved by Christian love and desiring to offer help to those who had, under duress, renounced Christ and the Church, and who now approached the Church in repentance, he wrote in the year 306 a discourse on repentance, in which he set forth the manner by which those who had turned away from the Church were to enter into church communion again.
This discourse of Peter’s, divided into 14 canons, entered the general church collection. In that same number they are found in the Kniga Pravil and the Pedalion. In the Kormchaia (ch. 27) there are, as in the Synopsis, 13, for the 6th and 7th canons according to our edition make up one (6th) canon in it. In the Îndreptarea these canons are absent. The last (15th) canon in our “Collection,” and likewise in the three said collections, on fasting on Friday and Wednesday, is taken from a discourse of Peter’s on Pascha.
4. Athanasius the Great (†373).[45] Deeply versed in the truths of the Christian faith, Athanasius earned eternal glory as a defender of Orthodoxy against Arianism, on account of which he was deservedly called “the father of Orthodoxy” and “the Great.” His activity on behalf of the Church he began to develop from the day when Arianism appeared, and it developed by degrees to the end of his life.
Numerous are the writings, of apologetic, polemical, historical-dogmatic and moral content, which Athanasius left us. For church law three have significance, namely: his letter to Ammon, his 39th letter on the festivals, and his letter to Rufinianus. The first was written around the year 356 in reply to the monk Ammon, who had turned to Athanasius, asking him for guidance as to how he must judge involuntary nocturnal defilements of the body. The second was written in the year 367 and speaks of the canonical books of Holy Scripture. This letter has come down to us incomplete, without its beginning, and to indicate this we have, in our “Collection,” placed several dots at the beginning of this letter. The third is addressed to Bishop Rufinianus around the year 370 in reply to his question as to the manner in which heretics are to be received when they turn to the Church.
The order in which these three letters are carried in the Athens Syntagma and in our “Collection” is the same also in the Kormchaia and the Pedalion. In the Kniga Pravil there stands first the letter to Ammon, then that to Rufinianus, then that on the festivals. In the Kormchaia (ch. 29), after the letter to Rufinianus (there, as in the Synopsis, this bishop is called Rufinian), there stands still one further excerpt under the title “Of the same, from another letter,” speaking of the exaltedness of virginity;[46] this, however, is not some other letter, but merely an extract from the letter to Ammon. In the Îndreptarea these letters of Athanasius are absent.
5. Basil the Great (†379).[47] Among all the Fathers and teachers of the Church, for church law and for church discipline generally, Basil the Great has the greatest significance. He completed his learned formation at Athens, where at the same time Gregory the Theologian was also studying, with whom Basil was in the closest friendship. Afterward he travelled through Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia, and on this journey came to know many holy men (Macarius, Paphnutius and others), who awakened in him deep reverence for the monastic life. On his return, he at once devoted himself to the solitary life, and settled in a wholly secluded place, where together with Gregory he spent a long time. In the year 370 he was raised to the see of Caesarea. Zeal for the glory of Christ, for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in that troubled age, and for the establishment of order and morals in the Church, developed in Basil to such a degree that he earned the name of “the Great” and “the glory and adornment of the Church.”
From Basil the Great 92 canons entered the general church collection. They are compiled from eight of his letters and from his book “On the Holy Spirit.” The first 85 canons make up three letters which Basil addressed to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. Amphilochius held particular regard for Basil and, besides personal consultations with him on the advancement of the Church, often turned to him also in writing, asking him to resolve various questions of church administration and discipline in general, or to explain to him some passage of Holy Scripture which had seemed unclear to him. The replies to these questions of Amphilochius’s make up the content of these letters, or the first 85 canons of Basil the Great. The following (86th) canon is again an extract from a letter which Basil addressed to Amphilochius in the year 376. The 87th canon is the letter to Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, under whose name a letter had reached Basil attacking a ruling of his regarding kinship. Canon 88 makes up a ruling of Basil’s, issued to the presbyter Gregory, regarding a certain woman he kept in his house. Canon 89 is the letter to the chorepiscopi, who were overstepping the bounds of their authority. On the occasion of a suspicion raised against his subordinate bishops, that they were simoniacs, Basil wrote a special letter, and it makes up the 90th canon. The last two (91st and 92nd) canons are extracted from Basil’s famous work “On the Holy Spirit,” written on the occasion of an accusation that he did not confess the true divinity of the Holy Spirit. This work too is addressed to Amphilochius, who had urged Basil to write it.
Among the canons of the Fathers, the canons of Basil the Great, as we have mentioned, were the first to enter the canonical collections, and only afterward were the canons of other Fathers incorporated. In all present-day collections they are found. There is some difference in number. In the Pedalion and the Kniga Pravil the number is the same as in the Athens Syntagma and in our “Collection.” In the Kormchaia (ch. 21) there are 91, which depends on the fact that the conclusion of the third letter to Amphilochius is absent, and the first three letters are divided into 84 canons. In the Îndreptarea it is otherwise. In all there are 85 canons. The first three letters are divided into 80 canons; the 81st corresponds to our 86th, the 82nd makes up the letter to the presbyter Gregory, the 83rd the letter to the chorepiscopi, the 84th the letter to the subordinate bishops, and the 85th canon is Basil the Great’s treatise on the various degrees of penance, which we find in the Synopsis.[48]
In the Kormchaia, from the rules of Basil the Great are made up chapters 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. But of this later, in the analysis of the content of the Kormchaia.
6. Timothy of Alexandria (†385).[49] A pupil of Athanasius the Great, Timothy was the successor of his brother Peter on the Alexandrian throne. Besides that he took part in the Second Ecumenical Council, and took a lively part in the question then under discussion concerning the see of Constantinople, little else is known of Timothy’s life.[50]
There have come down to us many canonical replies of Timothy to questions addressed to him by various bishops and clergy. Of these replies, 15 entered the general church collection; and in that same number they are found also in the Pedalion, in the Kniga Pravil, and in the Îndreptarea. In the Kormchaia (ch. 32) these replies are called “rules,” and there are only 15 of them; the last three are absent.[51] Of Timothy’s other replies, several are found in the Îndreptarea (p. 693 and following).
7. Gregory the Theologian (†389).[52] Devoted to the solitary life and deeply pious, Gregory considered himself unworthy of holy orders; he was nonetheless obliged to yield to the general wish, and in the year 381 was raised to the archiepiscopal throne at Constantinople. Perceiving that his election was displeasing to some, he at once resigned and withdrew to Nazianzus, where he spent, in literary labors, the last years of his life in solitude.
Gregory composed his writings sometimes in prose, sometimes in verse. He availed himself of this latter manner of writing, as he himself says, chiefly in order to preserve the Christian truth from the Apollinarians, who were spreading their false teaching in verse. Among such poetical works of Gregory’s, there were taken into the general church collection his verses on the canonical books of Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. In the Kniga Pravil and the Pedalion they stand in their proper place. In the Kormchaia, together with the verses of Amphilochius on the same subject, they make up the 30th chapter. In the Îndreptarea they are absent, as are, in general, the rules of all the Fathers following Gregory the Theologian.
8. Amphilochius of Iconium (†395).[53] Amphilochius took part in the Second Ecumenical Council, as a zealous defender of Orthodoxy against the Pneumatomachians; and a year before his death he took part again, at Constantinople, in the well-known council concerning Agapius and Bagadius, where he contributed to the establishment of the standing of the episcopal dignity.
Amphilochius’s letter to Seleucus, on the canonical books of Holy Scripture, entered the general church collection and is found in its place in the Pedalion and the Kniga Pravil. In the Kormchaia it makes up the 30th chapter together with the verses of Gregory the Theologian on the same subject.
9. Gregory of Nyssa (†395).[54] The younger brother of Basil the Great, Gregory is notable for the strictness of his life, for his learning and enlightened zeal for the sanctity of Orthodoxy, and for his excellent gift of speech. As bishop of Nyssa he took part in the Second Ecumenical Council, and for the zeal he showed and his defence of Orthodox teaching, he was called “the pillar of Orthodoxy.” He took part afterward also in the council of Constantinople (in the year 394) under Nectarius, on the occasion of the well-known question of the metropolis of Bostra.
Among his numerous writings, there entered the canonical collections his letter to Letoius, bishop of Melitene in Armenia. The latter had turned to Gregory, asking him to say what penances were to be imposed for various sins. In reply Gregory sent him, around the year 390, that letter, in which he reveals his deep psychological knowledge, while at the same time showing a strictness in penalties for sins much greater than that of his predecessors.
This letter is divided into 8 canons, and in that same number they are found in the Pedalion, the Kniga Pravil and the Kormchaia. In this last (ch. 31) the division alone differs. Canon 1 in the Athens Syntagma and in our “Collection” makes up, in the Kormchaia, the “Preface”; 2, 3 and 4 correspond in it to 1, 2 and 3; 5 makes up, in the Kormchaia, 4 and 5; further on the numbers coincide. The conclusion of the letter is absent from the Kormchaia.
10. Theophilus of Alexandria (†412).[55] From Theophilus of Alexandria, known for his ill-will toward John Chrysostom,[56] there have come down to us his paschal discourses, several letters, and canons. These last are compiled from: a) a certain decision of his concerning the case when the eve of Theophany falls on a Sunday; b) an instruction to Ammon on various questions of a personal character but touching on church order; c) an instruction concerning the reception of Cathari into the clergy; d) an instruction to Bishop Agathon; and e) an instruction to Bishop Menas. The first, on Theophany, makes up one canon, the instruction to Ammon is divided into 10 canons, the remaining instructions one canon each—in all, therefore, 14 canons.
In the Kniga Pravil and the Pedalion they carry also the relevant titles of the sources from which the canons are compiled; only the title of the instruction on the Cathari differs. In the original there stands: ἀφήγησις, and we have translated this in our “Collection” as “Statement.” In the Pedalion it stands: To Aphou (or Aphrygius, according to others), Bishop, on…; in the Kniga Pravil: To Aphios, Bishop, on… (i.e. to the bishop of Aphingo, on…). The reason we translated it as we did is that we wished to follow the original faithfully.[57] In the Kormchaia (ch. 33), except for the first item, the others have no title. In the first canon, in the Kormchaia, we read in the middle: “according to the usual service of St John Chrysostom.” This clause is absent from the Synopsis,[58] and given Theophilus’s relation to Chrysostom, we regard it as inserted through ignorance.
11. Cyril of Alexandria (†444).[59] A nephew of Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyril did not share his uncle’s views regarding Chrysostom, and, on the contrary, held him in deep regard, especially in his later years. He was chosen archbishop in the year 412, and from that time developed a lively zeal, as an apologist of pure Orthodoxy, as an exegete, and as a wise governor of the Church. He distinguished himself especially in his struggle against Nestorianism and in his energetic activity at the Third Ecumenical Council.[60]
From a canonical point of view several canons of Cyril’s are of importance, compiled from two of his letters: one to Domnus, archbishop of Antioch, concerning Bishop Peter, who complained that he had been forced to tender his resignation from his see; and another to the bishops of Libya and Pentapolis concerning unlawful ordinations. These two letters make up 5 canons: the first 3, the second 2, all of which entered the general church collection. In that same number, and with the corresponding titles, they are found in the Pedalion and the Kniga Pravil. In the Kormchaia (ch. 34) they are likewise found; but to them are further added: a) to Maximus the deacon, b) to Gennadius the archimandrite, c) an extract from the letter to Eulogius of Alexandria, and d) the eleven anathemas of Cyril against Nestorius (ch. 35). All these items are found also in the Synopsis, and from there passed into the Kormchaia.[61]
12. Gennadius of Constantinople (†471).[62] Chosen patriarch of Constantinople, Gennadius greatly raised the standing of his see, which had before been so tarnished as a result of the false teachings that individual prelates of Constantinople had spread from that see. Distinguished by deep piety, he was especially grieved that simony had lodged itself in the Church of Christ among many bishops, giving occasion to the condemnation of the church system itself. To put a stop to this grave evil in the Church, Gennadius gathered, in the year 459, a council at Constantinople of 81 bishops, and there the encyclical letter against simony was drawn up, which then entered all the canonical collections. It is addressed, as appears from the title, to all the bishops of the East and to the pope of Rome.[63] In the Athens Syntagma it is carried with the signatures of all the bishops present at the council.[64]
In the Kormchaia this letter is found in the 36th chapter among other letters against simony, and the signatures of all (51) bishops are carried. In the Pedalion there are no signatures, but it is said that this letter was signed, together with Gennadius, by “seventy-three or eighty-one bishops.” In the Kniga Pravil there are likewise no signatures, but it is said that “seventy-three bishops” signed together with Gennadius.
13. Tarasius of Constantinople (†809).[65] He was chosen patriarch of Constantinople in the year 786. For his efforts, together with the Empress Irene and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, to have the Seventh Ecumenical Council convened, which was to overthrow Iconoclasm, Tarasius earned undying glory in the Church.
For canon law, among Tarasius’s many writings, important is his letter to the Roman pope, Hadrian, against simony, which did not cease to defile the Church of Christ and undermine the standing of the priestly dignity. In the Kniga Pravil and the Pedalion this letter is carried in the same form as in our “Collection.” In the Kormchaia it makes up, together with other items against simony, the 30th chapter.
This letter of Tarasius’s, as we have already noted, is found in many collections immediately after the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, for it was issued immediately after the council, and was appended by the compilers to the conciliar acts.
With this letter of Tarasius’s the basic canonical collection of the Orthodox Church concludes. There follows to it the aforementioned supplement, namely:
1. The Kanonikon of John the Faster (†595).[66] John became patriarch of Constantinople in the year 582, and was held in particular esteem by the people. On account of his constant strict fasting he was called “the Faster” (Νηστευτής, Ieiunator). Among the writings of John the Faster, for church law his Kanonikon has significance, in which he instructs confessors how they are to proceed at confession and how they are to apply the relevant canons for various transgressions.[67] This book was held in great regard through all the centuries. Blastares drew on it in the 14th century in composing a handbook for confessors;[68] and this handbook of Blastares’s, made up of extracts from the Faster’s Kanonikon, passed into the Greek canonical collections, first into the Pedalion, and then into the Athens Syntagma.[69] The Kanonikon of John the Faster served as the basis for the “Nomocanon” found appended to the Slavonic “Great Trebnik”.
2. The Canons of Nicephorus the Confessor (†818).[70] Nicephorus became patriarch of Constantinople in the year 806, and governed the Church until the year 815, when he was deposed by the Iconoclast Emperor Leo the Armenian for wishing to remain faithful to the institutions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and died in exile. Of his many writings, several are of importance for church law. Known to us are: a) on the first (six) ecumenical councils,[71] b) canonical prescripts on various subjects,[72] c) canons extracted from his Typikon,[73] and d) canons extracted from the church prescripts which he issued together with the holy Fathers.[74] Of all Nicephorus’s canons, Blastares gathered 37 of the principal ones, which entered the Pedalion, and, according to another manuscript, 38 entered the Athens Syntagma. There were added, in both the one and the other collection, a further 7 canons, then in this latter (the Athens Syntagma) a further 9 from Nicephorus’s general church prescripts, and 17 canonical questions and answers from one of his canonical letters.[75] Into the Kormchaia (ch. 57) entered 23 canons from those gathered by Blastares.[76]
3. The Synodal Responsa of Nicholas of Constantinople. During the time of this patriarch (1084–1111),[77] the monks of the Holy Mountain addressed to the patriarchal synod of Constantinople various questions of a church-administrative character. The resolutions of these questions make up the said responsa.[78] In the Pedalion, and likewise in the Athens Syntagma, there are 11 questions and as many answers, and in this latter also Balsamon’s commentaries on individual answers. In the Kormchaia (ch. 53) there are 20 questions and answers, under a special title different from that in the other editions.[79]
4. Canonical Prescripts: a) of Basil the Great, on steadfastness in the good—an extract from Basil’s letter to the Nicopolitans;[80] b) of John Chrysostom, on the correction of transgressors;[81] c) on the time for receiving communion: α) a canonical reply of St Anastasius,[82] β) a canonical prescript of Basil the Great, contained in his letter πρὸς Καισαρίαν πατρικίαν[83], and γ) prescripts on the same subject in John Chrysostom’s commentaries on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians and to the Hebrews;[84] d) on how a priest must conduct himself in church, a prescript of Basil the Great to priests.[85]
Besides what has thus far been set out here, in the Athens Syntagma there stands, further, under the same heading, the Synopsis of the canons—that is, the abridged text of the canons, which was afterward, in the 12th century, prepared for practical use by Alexius Aristenus and translated into Slavonic and Romanian. Of this Synopsis we speak in section II of this Part One.
b) Supplementary Sources.