Canons of the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), 7–20

Canon 7

Since custom and ancient tradition have been established, that the bishop who is in Aelia be distinguished with special honor, let him accordingly enjoy also what is bound up with that honor, but with the preservation of the dignity which belongs to the metropolis.

(Ap. 34; II Ecum. 2; IV Ecum. 12; Trullo 36; Antioch 19).

— Many circumstances contributed to the fact that the oldest church, the church of Jerusalem, mother of all other churches, did not from the very beginning occupy in the hierarchy the place which by its significance belonged to it. In the apostolic age the church of Jerusalem was the metropolis of all the churches in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. But already in the year 70 after the birth of Christ, when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Christians were compelled to withdraw to a small Greek town, Pella, that significance which the church of Jerusalem had until then ceased for it. When afterward the Emperor Hadrian (117–138) founded on the ruins of Jerusalem a new small city, Aelia (Aelia Capitolina), there a new church community was formed of Christians converted from paganism, with its own bishop. This bishop, though he was in the place of the former Jerusalem, did not nevertheless occupy in the hierarchical relation the position which the bishop of Jerusalem had formerly held, but was subordinated to the bishop of Caesarea, which after the destruction of Jerusalem had become the chief city of Palaestina Prima, so that the bishop of Caesarea had the significance and authority of metropolitan of the province of Palaestina Prima, under which Jerusalem (Aelia) also fell. Such was the hierarchical position of the bishop of Jerusalem in the period of the Council of Nicaea. This Council, having by its sixth canon regulated the hierarchical relations for the privileged churches mentioned in that canon, turned its attention also to the bishop of Jerusalem, as bishop of the city sanctified by the life and death of the Founder of the Church. The Council states at the beginning of this canon that custom and ancient tradition (συνήθεια κεκράτηκε καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαία) have been established concerning the high regard that has always been shown to the bishop of the holy city, and it wishes that this regard remain firm also for future times, and for this reason it ordains by law that this bishop is to enjoy the corresponding honor and what is bound up with that honor (τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς τιμῆς) among all the other bishops of the provincial church in question; it thus recognizes to the bishop of Jerusalem the primacy of honor among all the other provincial bishops. But since at that time Aelia, or Jerusalem, still occupied a second-rank position in the political relation with respect to Caesarea, which was the chief provincial city, and since the church provincial organization had to correspond to the state organization, the Council does not therefore give to the bishop of Jerusalem also the authority of a metropolitan, but leaves that authority, as before, to the bishop of Caesarea.[1] For the rest, this relation between the bishop of Jerusalem and the bishop of Caesarea lasted comparatively briefly, and already at the Third Ecumenical Council a different relation was established, while at the Fourth Ecumenical Council the bishop of Jerusalem was made equal in rights with the other first-throned patriarchs.

Canon 8

With regard to those who call themselves Cathari, when they come over to the catholic and apostolic Church, the holy and great council determines that hands are to be laid upon them, and that they may then remain in the clergy. But before all else they must acknowledge in writing that they will hold to, and in all things follow, the dogmas of the catholic and apostolic Church; that is, that they will be in communion both with those living in a second marriage, and with those who lapsed during the persecution, for whom a time of penance and a term for forgiveness has been appointed—and, in general, that they will follow in all things the dogmas of the catholic Church. Accordingly, where, whether in villages or in cities, none but these themselves are found ordained, let them then remain as they are, in the clergy and in their rank. But if there exists a bishop or presbyter of the catholic Church, and one of them should come over, it is clear that the bishop of the catholic Church shall retain the episcopal dignity, while the one who among the so-called Cathari is called bishop shall have only the honor of a presbyter—except in the case that the bishop should see fit to allow him to enjoy the honor of the episcopal name. But if the bishop is unwilling to grant this, let him then assign him the place either of a chorbishop or of a presbyter, so that it may be evident that he truly belongs to the clergy, and that there not be two bishops in one city.

(Ap. 68; II Ecum. 7; Trullo 95; VII Ecum. 14; Ancyra 13; Neocaesarea 14; Antioch 8, 10; Sardica 6; Carthage 47, 57, 66, 69, 99; Basil the Great 1, 47, 89; Theophilus of Alexandria 12).

— Cathari (καθαροί, “the pure”) or Novatians was the name given to the followers of Novatus, a presbyter of the church of Carthage, and of Novatian, a presbyter of the church of Rome, in the third century.[2] In what their error consisted, this canon itself tells us: moved by a spirit of excessive strictness, they denied for ever the right of re-entry into the Church to those who had fallen away from the Christian faith during a persecution, however much such persons might afterward repent; this is the first point. The second is that they held second marriage to be a grave, unforgivable sin, and held unworthy of communion for ever anyone who, after the death of his first wife, married a second time. That this was indeed the error of the Novatians is attested, among others, by Epiphanius[3] and Augustine[4]. The Novatians called themselves “the pure” (cathari), and the Orthodox likewise called them so, but in mockery (κατ’ εἰρωνείαν), as Balsamon says in his commentary on this canon.[5] On the basis of what has been said concerning the errors of the Novatians, it is evident that they were not heretics, for they did not err in the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, but sinned only against the law of love toward one’s neighbor, and were therefore mere schismatics.[6] The Nicene council held them to be such, just as Basil the Great also reckoned them among schismatics in his 1st canon.

By this canon the Nicene Council determines, first of all, how Novatian clergy converting from the schism are to be received into the Orthodox Church. For this the canon prescribes the same norm that we have already mentioned in the commentaries on Ap. canons 47 and 68, and the same norm already applied by the Nicene fathers themselves with regard to Meletius of Nicopolis, as we noted in the commentary on canon 4 of this council, or as the fathers of Carthage acted according to this same norm with regard to the Donatists (Carthage canons 47, 57, 66, 69, 99).

Specifically as to the reception of Novatian clergy into the clergy, the canon prescribes that hands be laid upon them first of all (ὥστε χειροθετουμένους, ut impositis eis manibus, “upon the laying of hands upon them”). According to Aristenus’s commentary on this canon, this means: to anoint them with holy chrism (τῷ ἁγίῳ μύρῳ χρισθήσονται).[7]

It seems to us that as to the meaning of these words one should hold to the interpretation given at the time nearest to this council, namely at the VII Ecumenical Council. At the first session of that council the question was raised of receiving certain bishops who had formerly been iconoclasts and who, having afterward repented, asked to be received into the Orthodox Church. Various canons were brought forward on this occasion, and among others this very Nicene canon was read out; and when some at the council asked how the words ὥστε χειροθετουμένους were to be understood, the president of the council, the patriarch of Constantinople Tarasius, answered that these words signify only a blessing (εὐλογία), not an ordination (χειροτονία).[8] Accepting this interpretation of Tarasius, the sense of these words in this Nicene canon is that the Orthodox bishop or presbyter concerned must, upon the Novatian clergy’s passing over from the schism into the Church, lay his hands upon their heads as is done in the mystery of penance, and at the same time read over them the appointed prayer that reconciles them with the Church (the reconciling prayer). But this rite is to be performed only once they have, as the canon says, acknowledged in writing (ἐγγράφως, in scriptis) that they will in all things strictly hold to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and, consequently, once they have renounced all their former errors.

When Novatian clergy pass over in this manner into the Orthodox Church, the canon prescribes: a) where, whether in villages or in cities, no other ordained persons are found but these themselves, then such Novatian priests or bishops are to remain in their rank and freely exercise the hierarchical power bound up with that rank—provided, naturally, that all the remaining lower clergy and laity have likewise gone over to the Orthodox Church; b) if in some place there be both an Orthodox bishop and a bishop converted from Novatianism, the former shall retain his dignity, and the Novatian bishop shall enjoy only the honor of a presbyter, except in the case where the Orthodox bishop finds it fitting to leave to such a one the honor of the episcopal title—but without hierarchical power; and c) if the Orthodox bishop is unwilling to allow the Novatian bishop to bear the title of bishop, he shall then assign him the place of a chorbishop[9] or of a presbyter, and this for two reasons: first, so that it be seen that this Novatian bishop, having renounced the schism, truly belongs to the Orthodox clergy, and second, so that there not be two bishops in one city.

Especially important in this canon is this last provision, namely, that there not be two bishops in one city (ἵνα μή ἐν τῇ πόλει δύο ἐπίσκοποι ὥσιν, ne in civitate duo sint episcopi). This rests on that significance of the bishop for his church which we have already pointed out in the commentaries on several Apostolic canons. The Roman bishop Cornelius (251–253), on the occasion of this same Novatian schism, when the presbyter Novatian (to whom the Carthaginian presbyter Novatus had joined himself at Rome) was set up as bishop by the schismatics, wrote to Cyprian: “Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum, quem confessi sumus, unum Spiritum sanctum, unum episcopum in catholica ecclesia esse debere.”[10] And the bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, on learning of the unlawful consecration of Novatian at Rome, sharply condemns such an act in one of his letters and states the general law of the Church, that “once a bishop has been appointed in a given place, and this has been recognized by the rest of the bishops and the people, another bishop may on no account be appointed for that same place.”[11] It may very well be that this case of Novatian at Rome gave the Nicene fathers occasion, in issuing the canon concerning the Novatians (Cathari), to recall, among other things, this fundamental canonical law as well—that in one place (which, in our present canonical terminology, is to be understood as one diocese) there can be only a single bishop possessing regular, ordinary episcopal jurisdiction, and never two.

Canon 9

If any have been appointed presbyters without examination, or if, upon inquiry, they confessed their own sins, and yet, notwithstanding this confession of theirs, there were found men who, contrary to the canon, laid hands upon them—such persons (who have been ordained under these circumstances) the canon does not permit to remain in the clergy; for the catholic Church requires that which is above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2).

(Ap. 25, 61; I Ecum. 2, 10; Neocaesarea 9, 10; Protodeutera 17; Theophilus of Alexandria 3, 5, 6; Basil the Great 89)

— This canon states: a) that the religious and moral conduct of every candidate for the priesthood must be examined before he is deemed worthy of ordination, and b) that no one may be ordained of whom it is proven that, on account of his religious and moral conduct, he is unworthy of the priesthood.

Very important is this canon’s provision that no one may be received into the clergy without first undergoing examination (ἐξέτασις, examinatio) by the competent persons. Basil the Great, in his letter to the chorbishops (canon 89), calls this provision an ancient one: “The ministers of the church,” says Basil, “according to the ancient custom that has become established in the churches of God (ἡ πάλαι ταῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαις ἐμπολιτευομένη συνήθεια), were received only after the most careful examination (μετὰ πάσης ἀκριβείας δοκιμάζουσα παρεδέχετο, omni diligentia probatos admittebat), and their conduct was scrutinized with the greatest exactness… And this was examined (ἐξήταζον) by the presbyters and deacons…, who reported to the bishop, and only then was the candidate in question inducted into holy orders.” Tertullian mentions presbyters who preside over the church as having been examined and tested (probati et testimonio adepti).[12] Cyprian recommends that this examination be observed with the utmost care, and requires that it be conducted with the greatest exactness and strictness.[13] Among the canons of the IV Council of Carthage (398 A.D.) we find one (the 1st) which prescribes, with regard to the person to be ordained: “Antea examinetur: si natura sit prudens, si docilis, si moribus temperatus, si vita castus, si sobrius, si semper suis negotiis cavens, si humilis, si affabilis, si misericors, si literatus, si in lege Domini instructus, si in scripturarum sensibus cautus, si in dogmatis ecclesiasticis exercitatus, et ante omnia, si fidei documenta verbis simplicibus asserat…”[14] John Chrysostom, in his treatise on the priesthood, regards the examination of candidates for the priesthood before their ordination as an important and indispensable condition.[15] This examination of the person concerned is also mentioned by canon 17 of the Council of Constantinople of 861, which requires that not only every candidate for the priesthood, before he is ordained deacon, but also every deacon before ordination to the presbyterate, and every presbyter before ordination to the episcopate, be subjected to this examination. From all this, and from other evidence, the purpose of the Church’s legislation regarding the examination of candidates for the priesthood is plainly seen: namely, that the Church obtain full assurance that the candidate possesses all the qualities the canons require of a candidate for the priesthood, and at the same time is free of all the impediments that bar entry into the clergy—in short, that the Church obtain assurance that the candidate is worthy of holy orders.

Canonical practice in this regard, founded on the prescriptions of both divine and ecclesiastical law, consists of the following: 1) the person wishing to enter the clergy must present a testimonial from the proper priest to the effect that his conduct, both religious and moral, is entirely good, and that by his natural disposition he is fit for the priestly ministry. For this purpose the proper priest observes the conduct of such a candidate, and before issuing the said testimonial, personally examines him on everything he is to attest in that testimonial. This testimonial the priest is bound in conscience to prepare and to present to the proper bishop. 2) When the time approaches for deciding whether the candidate may be deemed worthy of ordination, the presbyteral council attached to the bishop first reviews the testimonial issued to the candidate by the proper priest, then reviews the testimonial the candidate presents concerning his scholarly preparation, and finally examines whether there is any impediment standing in the way of the candidate’s entry into the clergy—namely, whether all the fundamental conditions for ordination are present in him, and whether he possesses all the qualities canonically prescribed for candidates for the priesthood, namely: physical qualities, spiritual qualities (of mind and morals), qualities touching good repute, and qualities touching a free social standing. At this point the candidate himself is summoned in person to give the necessary answers, to declare his ardent desire to devote himself to the priestly office, and finally to attest under oath his belief and his resolve strictly to perform all that the Church commands him.[16] 3) After all this examination—first by the proper priest, then by the presbyteral council in question—a designated confessor subjects the candidate to sacramental confession, hears whatever sins and repentance there may be, and issues him a special certificate attesting that he has found him worthy of the priesthood.[17] — Judgment on the first and second examination rests with the proper bishop (Theophilus of Alexandria, canon 7; Basil the Great, canon 89); while the testimonial concerning the third examination, the examination at confession, is read publicly in the church before the people at the moment immediately preceding the ordination.

The second matter this canon addresses is that no one may be ordained of whom certain sins (ἁμαρτήματα) have been proven, and that if such a one has been ordained, he must be excluded forthwith from the clergy—of this matter we have already spoken in the commentaries on Ap. canons 25 and 61, and it is these canons that this Nicene canon intends by the word κανών.

The occasion for the issuing of this canon appears to have been the opinion of some that one ought not to exclude from the clergy a man found to have been guilty of some grave sin before his ordination, on the ground that, just as by baptism a man becomes wholly clean of all the sins he committed before baptism, so too holy orders blot out the sins committed before entering the priesthood (ἡ ἱερωσύνη τὰ πρὸ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἁμαρτήματα ἀπαλείφει); “but this was never established as a canon,” says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon.[18]

Canon 10

Of those who have lapsed, if any have been appointed [to holy orders], whether through ignorance, or even with the knowledge of those who appointed them, this nevertheless in no way weakens the ecclesiastical canon; for when it becomes known, they are deposed.

(Ap. 62; I Ecum. 9; Ancyra 1, 2, 3, 9, 12; Peter of Alexandria 10; Basil the Great 73; Gregory of Nyssa 2)

— This canon stands in connection with the 9th Nicene canon, and enjoins the same thing as that canon, specifically with regard to those who during the persecution had renounced the Christian faith (παραπεπτωκότες, lapsi). In the commentary on Ap. canon 62, it was shown how necessary it was—….

Canon 11

With regard to those who, during the tyranny of Licinius, apostatized without compulsion, and not because their property had been seized, or because danger threatened them, or the like, the council determines that, although they are not worthy of clemency, nevertheless they are to be dealt with magnanimously. Those, therefore, who sincerely repent, as believers, shall spend three years among the hearers, and for seven years shall be among the kneelers, yet without partaking in the offering.

(Ap. 62; II Ecum. 12, 13, 14; Ancyra 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21; Laodicea 2, 19; Carthage 43; Gregory [Thaumaturgus] of Neocaesarea 2, 11; Basil the Great 73, 75, 81, 84; Peter of Alexandria 2, 3; Gregory of Nyssa 2)

— The last clause of this canon reads in the Greek original: “Ὅσοι οὖν γνησίως μεταμέλονται, τρία ἔτη ἐν ἀκροωμένοις ποιήσουσιν ὡς πιστοί, καὶ ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὑποπεσοῦνται· δύο δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς κοινωνήσουσι τῷ λαῷ τῶν προσευχῶν”; in the Latin translation according to Beveregius: “Quicunque ergo germane poenitentia ducuntur, tres annos inter auditores exigent, ut fideles, et septem annis prosternentur: duobus autem annis, absque oblatione, erunt orationum cum populo participes”; and in the Russian Synodal edition: “которые убо истинно покаются: те три лета проведут между слушающими чтение писаний, яко вернии: и седмь лет да припадают в церкви, прося прощения: два же лета будут участвовать с народом в молитвах, кроме причащения святых таин.” As can be seen, in the Serbian translation the original was followed; the sense of the canon’s text will be understood from the commentary that follows.

Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, describes the full fury of the persecution of Licinius.[19] This persecution, which the Nicene canon mentions, had ended only a few years before the council, and the fury with which Christians were persecuted caused many, one might say, to have fallen almost by force—that is, to have renounced the Christian faith—and by the time of the Nicene council, once Christianity had triumphed, those who had lapsed and who now repented and turned to the Church to be received back numbered in the thousands. The Nicene fathers turn their attention to these penitents in several conciliar canons, and since among these penitents there were some who had lapsed at the very first sign of danger, while others had lapsed only after much trial and torment, the council wishes to take into account the circumstances under which the persons in question had fallen away from the faith, and to graduate the corresponding penalties accordingly. The council speaks in this canon of believers, hence not of catechumens, of whom it speaks separately in its 14th canon, and it does not mention those who renounced the faith under the violence of persecutors, but addresses those who did so out of their own faintheartedness, without any compulsion (χωρὶς ἀνάγκης)—that is, those who are most gravely at fault. Of these it says that, though they are properly not worthy of any mercy, mercy is nevertheless shown them out of loving-kindness, if they truly repent with their whole heart. The canon accordingly ordains that they are to do penance for twelve years: for three years they are to undergo the harsher penance, then for seven years the milder, and finally for two years a still milder one; and only after the whole of this period of penance may they be received into full ecclesiastical communion and deemed worthy of Communion.

Three degrees of penance, as can be seen, are prescribed by this canon, which those who had lapsed (παραπεπτωκότες, lapsi) must pass through before being received into the ecclesiastical communion. We shall have occasion in our commentaries to set out the whole penitential system of the ancient Church; here we shall mention the various degrees of that system as they stood at the time of the Nicene council.

The council mentions in this canon three degrees of penance that the persons concerned must pass through. There were, moreover, four degrees, and the fourth—that is, the first and most severe degree of penance—this canon does not impose on the penitents of whom it speaks, and by this it means to show them the Church’s mercy.

In canon 11 of Gregory of Neocaesarea, likewise in canons 22 and 75 of Basil the Great, we find these four degrees of penance set out in order (compare also Ancyra canons 4, 5, 6 and Laodicea 2, 19), namely the following:[20]

The first was called προσκλαυσις (fletus, luctus), “weeping,” and those who stood at this degree of penance were called προσκλαίοντες (flentes), “the weeping.” They stood outside the church doors, in the porch (προναος), and with weeping besought the faithful who were entering the church to pray for them.

The second was called ἀκρόασις (auditus), “hearing,” and those at this degree were called ἀκροώμενοι (audientes), “the hearers.” They stood in the narthex (νάρθηξ or πρόναος) of the church, that is, just inside the main entrance door, in the space where the baptistery was located, and there they remained until the prayer for the catechumens, at which point they too had to leave the church.

The third was ὑπόπτωσις (prostratio, humiliatio), “prostration,” and those at this degree were called ὑποπίπτοντες (subjacentes, substrati). They were permitted to stand together with the faithful in the church, on the western side of the ambo, but they always had to remain on their knees, on account of which they were also called γονυκλίνοντες (genuflectentes), and they left the church after the prayer for the catechumens.

The fourth and last was called σύστασις (statio, consistentia), “standing together,” and those at this degree were called συνιστάμενοι (consistentes). They stood together with the faithful in the church, on the north and south sides of the ambo, and they left the church together with the faithful, except that they could not partake of Communion. They were so named because, unlike the penitents of the third degree, they did not have to kneel, but stood as the rest of the faithful did.

The length of time each degree of penance lasted is stated variously in the canons. According to this Nicene canon, at the second degree the persons concerned had to remain three years, at the third seven, and at the fourth and last two years. Basil the Great, in his 75th canon, says that even at the first degree of penance the persons concerned must remain for three years (τριετίαν προσκλαυέτω). Comparing what the other canons say on this matter, it may be said that the duration of penance was, by the canons, never less than fifteen years, and only then were the persons concerned deemed worthy of Communion and admitted to the full rights of the rest of the faithful—except in the case that the proper bishop should see fit to shorten this period for them, in view of their zeal in penance (I Ecum. 12; Ancyra 5).[21]

A rule for this must be the following instruction of Chrysostom: “In imposing penances one ought not look so much at the magnitude of the sins as at the will of the sinner, lest, meaning to stitch up what is torn, one make the tear still worse, and lest, wishing to raise up what has fallen, one bring it down still further in ruin; for those who are sick and dissolute, and in general given over to worldly pleasures—and likewise those who can take pride in their lineage and their power—will only little by little be brought to think of their sins, and only slowly will they be able to free themselves from the troubles into which they have fallen. And whoever would bring them to the right path all at once, by severity alone, may well fail to bring about even a partial repentance. For when the soul has been brought to the point of no longer feeling anything, it falls into despair, and thereafter heeds neither gentle words, nor fears threats, nor is strengthened by kindness, but becomes worse than that city of which the prophet speaks with contempt: ‘thou hast a whore’s forehead, thou refusest to be ashamed.’ For this reason a pastor needs great discernment, that he may be able to penetrate on every side into the leanings of the soul. For just as many, given over to despondency, despair of their salvation because they could not bear the bitter remedies, so there are some who, because they were not made to suffer punishment in measure with their sin, pay no further heed to their soul and become still worse and sin all the more. Accordingly, the priest must attend to all this, and, having examined everything with care, apply what is needful, lest his labor be in vain” (Ath. Synt., IV, 387).

To better understand at what places in the church the aforementioned penitents of the various degrees stood, as well as the catechumens of whom canon 14 of this council speaks, we here reproduce an iconography of the church of earlier times. We have taken this iconography from the Pedalion (1864 ed., p. 765), where it is taken from the Exomologetarion of Chrysanthos, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1707–1731). A similar iconography is found in Beveregius (Synodikon, Annot., p. 70), appended to his notes on canon 11 of the Nicene council. — Detailed explanations of all the numbered points on the iconography may be found in “The New Tablet” (Nova Skrizhal) of Archbishop Veniamin, in the first ten chapters of Book I. Likewise, much of this is explained in N. Pokrovsky’s book “The Origin of the Ancient Christian Basilica” (St. Petersburg, 1880, pp. 149–200).

Thus the church is divided into three parts. Beginning from the east, toward which the church is by rule oriented, the first part comprises the altar (βῆμα, θυσιαστήριον, sacrarium, altare); the second is the nave, or the church in the narrowest sense (ἐκκλησία, ναός, ecclesia, navis, oratorium fidelium); and the third is the narthex or forechurch (πρόναος, νάρθηξ, πρόπυλα, porticus). In front of this third part there is still another space, which on its north, west, and south sides was not walled, but the roof on those sides rested over this space upon columns, more or less numerous (6, 8, 10, or even 12 columns); and this space is called the exonarthex or outer narthex (προπύλαιον, πρόθυρον, προαύλιον, αἴθριον, porticus, peristylium, atrium). — To explain the iconography by its numbers, as marked upon it:

1. The upper seat for the bishop (θρόνος τοῦ ἀρχιερέως). 2 and 3. The synthronon (σύνθρονος) for the presbyters. 4. The holy table (ἁγία τράπεζα). 5. The altar (βωμός). 6. The prothesis (πρόθεσις, προσκομιδή). 7. The diaconicon (διακονικόν) or vessel-repository (σκευοφυλάκιον). 8. The place where the iconostasis was later erected. 9. The holy doors (ἅγιαι πύλαι). 10. The north doors (βόρειαι πύλαι). 11. The south doors (νότιαι πύλαι). 12. The chancel screen (καγκελλα), low balusters, within which, up to the iconostasis, lies the solea (σωλέα). 13. The ancient diaconicon (διακονικὸν ἀρχαῖον). 14. The nave (ἐκκλησία, ναός). 15. The place where the faithful and the fourth-degree penitents stood. 16. The ambo (ἄμβων). 17 and 18. The exedrae (ἐξέδραι), places set off from the nave by a wall, where church councils were held. 19. The beautiful doors (ὡραία πύλη), and the place where the third-degree penitents stood. 20. The place where the second-degree penitents stood. 21. The baptistery (κολυμβήθρα). 22. The narthex (πρόναος). 23. The place where the catechumens stood. 24. The great doors (μεγάλαι πύλαι). 25. The place where the first-degree penitents stood. 26. The exonarthex (πρόπυλον).

Canon 12

Those who, when called by grace, showed the first zeal, and cast off their military belts, but afterward, like dogs, returned to their own vomit, so that some even employed money and through gifts sought to be readmitted into military service—such persons, after spending three years among the hearers, shall for ten years be among the kneelers. But in the case of all these, their disposition and manner of repentance must be examined. And accordingly, those among them who with fear and tears, with patience and good works, show—not in outward appearance, but in truth—that they are converted, such, once they have completed their time among the hearers, may forthwith be admitted to the fellowship of the prayers, it being left to the bishop’s discretion to deal with them yet more humanely still. But those who bear their exclusion from the fellowship of the prayers with indifference, and who consider it sufficient for their conversion merely to come to church, such shall fulfill the whole time [appointed them for penance].

(Ap. 62, 83; I Ecum. 11, 13, 14; Trullo 102; Ancyra 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21; Laodicea 2, 19; Carthage 23; Gregory of Neocaesarea 2, 11; Peter of Alexandria 2, 3; Basil the Great 3, 73, 74, 75, 81, 84; Gregory of Nyssa 2, 4, 5).

— This canon too concerns events from the time of Licinius’s persecution of the Christians. Christians were not generally tolerated in the military service of the pagan state, particularly once, for reasons of state at that time, it became necessary to persecute the Christian faith by force of arms;[22] and according to Zonaras’s commentary on this canon, no one could remain in military service who had not first renounced the Christian faith.[23] Many Christians, wishing to remain steadfast in their faith, gave up military service (for that is what the canon means by “cast off their military belts,” ἀποθεμένους τὰς ζώνας, cingula deposuerunt); but afterward they repented of this act of theirs, and sought, by money and by bribery, to be readmitted into that service, declaring, of course, that they renounced the Christian faith.

The fathers of the Nicene council speak of these persons in this canon of theirs and ordain that such may again be received into the Church on condition that they spend three years at the second degree of penance, then ten years at the third degree, and only then be admitted to the fourth degree of penance. How long they were to remain at this last degree, and in general how the spiritual authority was to judge the whole duration of these persons’ penance, depended on whether they repented sincerely or merely for the sake of appearance; and in the former case it was left to the proper bishop, according to his own discernment, to shorten the time of penance as much as he saw fit.

Beveregius, in his notes on this canon,[24] draws attention to this last point, and says that it illuminates the exalted dignity of the bishop. It lies within their power—and the authority of this celebrated ecumenical council confirms this to them (celeberrimae hujus generalis synodi autoritate)—to remit or reduce the penalties imposed upon offenders; and this is a far greater power than any state judge can claim for himself. State judges may, according to their conscience, pronounce a heavier or a milder sentence, and may act in this quite freely and independently; but no judge can reduce a sentence once pronounced, even should he subsequently become convinced of the accused’s innocence—only the sovereign (princeps) can do that. To the bishop, meanwhile, just as to the sovereign himself, this belongs by law, naturally within the bounds of his own competence, as the head of the church in question. The relevant Greco-Roman state laws are found in chapter 39, title 9, of the Nomocanon in XIV Titles.[25] This right of pardon had already been granted to bishops by the Council of Ancyra (314) in its 5th canon, and the ecumenical council of Nicaea confirms the ordinance of that local council, proclaiming it universally binding for the whole ecumenical Church and for all ages.

Canon 13

With regard to those who are at the point of death, the ancient and canonical law shall be observed, according to which he who is departing this life may not be deprived of the last and most necessary provision [for the journey]. But if such a one, having already been given up for dead and deemed worthy of Communion, should again be restored among the living, let him then be placed with those who may have only the fellowship of the prayers. In every case, however, with regard to anyone who is at the point of death and desires to be deemed worthy of the Eucharist, let the bishop, after the appropriate examination, grant him a portion of the offering.

(Ap. 52; I Ecum. 11, 12; Ancyra 6, 22; Neocaesarea 2; Carthage 7; Basil the Great 73; Gregory of Nyssa 2, 5)

— The Nicene council, having issued in its 11th and 12th canons an ordinance on the length of penance that those who had renounced the faith must undergo, foresees in this canon the case in which one of these should find himself at the point of death without having completed the whole time of his penance, and it ordains that in such a case Communion is to be given to him without any hesitation. In this the council appeals to the ancient and canonical law (παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόμος, prisca et canonica lex) which had established this, and to which law this ecumenical council now gives universally binding force. This ancient law would be canon 6 of the Council of Ancyra and certain other Western local councils.[26]

By appealing to the ancient and canonical law that one at the point of death must be deemed worthy of holy Communion—of this last and most necessary provision [for the journey] (τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου, ultimo ac maxime necessario viatico)—the Nicene council, as Balsamon rightly observes in his commentary on this canon, thereby issues a general canon (κανὼν γενικός). It ordains that everyone who is under penance and forbidden to receive the holy mysteries must be deemed worthy of the good provision of holy Communion (τῆς ἁγίας εὐχαριστίας) when at his last breath, and this after examination by the bishop; and if there is no bishop, then after examination by a priest, lest a man be left without this good provision on account of the bishop’s absence. But the canon adds that if such a one, having been given Communion, should be preserved from death, he may then pray together with the faithful, but Communion is not to be given him again until the whole time of his penance has been fulfilled. Balsamon holds that one who was under penance and has recovered may be permitted to be in the fellowship of the prayers with the faithful—that is, at the fourth degree of penance—if he had been at that degree already before his illness; but if he had been at some other degree, he must, upon recovering, return to that same degree.[27]

Canon 14

With regard to catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great council ordains that they spend three years among the hearers, and thereafter let them pray together with the catechumens.

(I Ecum. 2, 11, 12, 13; Trullo 96; Neocaesarea 5; Laodicea 19; Basil the Great 20; Timothy of Alexandria 4, 6; Cyril of Alexandria 5).

— In the preceding canons (11, 12, and 13) the Nicene council issues ordinances concerning the faithful who during the persecution had fallen away from the faith of Christ, and how they are to be received when they return again to the Church; in this (14th) canon, which stands in close connection with those canons, the council issues the corresponding ordinance concerning catechumens. Catechumens (κατηχούμενοι) did not, in the strict sense, belong to the Church, and accordingly their apostasy from the faith during the persecution could not be judged as strictly as the apostasy of the faithful. It was, of course, in the nature of the thing itself that the period of catechesis had to be extended for those who, already as catechumens, had lapsed during the persecution and then again sought to be received into the Church. This Nicene canon takes this case into account, and ordains that catechumens who have lapsed (παρειπεσόντων), once they have converted again, are to spend three years with those who hear in church the reading of holy Scripture and the sermon (τριῶν ἐτῶν αὐτοὺς ἀκροωμένους), and only then may they be permitted to pray in church together with the catechumens.

Catechumens, that is, those persons who, belonging to some pre-Christian faith, desired in mature age to become Christians and for that purpose had, for an appointed period, to be instructed in Christian doctrine before being deemed worthy of baptism—these catechumens ceased to exist in the Church already long ago. Once, in the 5th and 6th centuries, Greco-Roman paganism had almost entirely disappeared and the greater part of the barbarian peoples had gone over to Christianity, catechumens as such—persons who in mature age had to pass over from a non-Christian faith to Christianity—of themselves also ceased to exist. Cessante causa, cessat effectus. This was contributed to also by the fact that infant baptism (the baptizing of children), which is mentioned even in the Apostolic Constitutions (VI, 15) as an apostolic custom, and which in some churches had already been made law from the 3rd century—this infant baptism, from about the 5th century on, became almost universal.[28] Accordingly, the institution of catechumens has long since belonged to the domain of archaeology; and, as an ancient subject, various opinions have been expressed about it in scholarship, and various things have been written about it.[29] According to the results of present-day scholarship, the matter stands as follows.

By the word κατηχούμενος, which is found in holy Scripture (Rom. 2:18; Gal. 6:6, cf. Acts 18:25; 1 Cor. 14:19), are meant all those who are to be instructed in Christian doctrine so that they may be received into the Christian Church (Matt. 28:19, cf. Acts 18:25: κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Κυρίου). These, then, would be aspirants or candidates for baptism. This instruction in Christian doctrine was called κατήχησις or λόγος κατηχητικός (catechetical discourse), and also κατηχισμός. The teacher of these candidates for baptism was called κατηχητής or κατηχιστής (catechista). The place, moreover, where this instruction was held, was called κατηχούμενον.

Catechumens, or catechumeni, are divided variously into several classes: into two, three, four, and even five.[30] We accept the view of the medieval Greek commentators—Zonaras, Balsamon, Aristenus, and M. Blastares—who divide them into two classes.[31] In his commentary on this Nicene canon, Aristenus says: “There are two kinds of catechumens: some are those who have only just come forward (οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄρτι προσέρχονται), and others who have already become more perfect (τελεώτεροι), having been sufficiently instructed in the truths of the faith.”[32] Zonaras and Balsamon say the same in their commentary on canon 5 of the Council of Neocaesarea; and Aristenus repeats the same in his commentary on this canon of Neocaesarea.[33] Referring to the commentaries of the aforesaid commentators, M. Blastares says the same in his Alphabetical Syntagma.[34] According to this, then, catechumens were divided into two classes. When some pagan or Jew announced his desire to enter the ranks of the catechumens, he had to turn to some Christian layman or deacon, who would vouch for his good intent and bring him to the presbyter or bishop in question (Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 32). This bishop, or presbyter, having satisfied himself of the good intent of the person concerned, would read over him the prescribed prayer, sign him with the cross, and induct him into the first class of catechumens, where the first rudiments of Christian doctrine were imparted to them. They were called ἀκουόμενοι (audientes), because they were permitted to come to church for the liturgy and to hear the reading of holy Scripture; but immediately after the reading of the Gospel they had to leave the church. Ordinarily they remained in this first class for three years (Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 39), though this time could be either shortened or lengthened, depending on how much zeal the person in question had shown and what his conduct had been. When the catechist saw that his pupils were sufficiently trained in the rudiments of Christian doctrine and were of good conduct, he then permitted them to pass into the second class of catechumens, where the persons concerned were given a fuller exposition of Christian doctrine, and, above all, the Creed was expounded to them in all its particulars. They were called εὐχόμενοι (orantes), because they were permitted to pray, even after the Gospel, together with the faithful, or γονυκλίνοντες (genuflectentes), because they knelt down when the prayer was read over them during the liturgy, or also συναιτοῦντες (competentes) and τελεώτεροι (perfectiores, elect). They remained in the church right up until the deacon, during the liturgy, turned to them with the words, “Catechumens, depart,” and then they left. How long the persons concerned had to remain in this class again depended on their zeal in learning and on their conduct. The place of the catechumens of both the first and second classes in the church was the same as that of the second-degree penitents, namely, in the narthex (νάρθηξ, πρόναος), in front of the baptistery (κολυμβήθρα), and this closer to the main entrance of the church.[35]

Speaking of catechumens who had renounced the faith of Christ, this Nicene canon applies to them the existing provision of canon 5 of the Council of Neocaesarea concerning catechumens who have fallen into some grave sin, and ordains that such must be transferred from the second class, nearer to baptism, back to the first class, and that in that class they are to spend three years, without counting the time they had previously spent as catechumens.

Canon 15

On account of the many disturbances and dissensions that occur, it has been deemed good altogether to abolish the custom which, contrary to the apostolic canon, has taken root in certain places, and to establish that no bishop, presbyter, or deacon may pass over from one city to another. And if, even after this ordinance of the holy and great council, anyone should undertake such a thing, that act shall be entirely without effect, and the person concerned shall be restored again to the church for which he was appointed as bishop or presbyter.

(Ap. 14, 15; II Ecum. 4; IV Ecum. 5, 6, 10, 20; Trullo 18; Antioch 3, 13, 16, 21; Sardica 1, 2, 3, 12, 16; Carthage 48, 54, 65, 71, 90)

— In the commentaries on Ap. canons 14 and 15 we have seen that no bishop, presbyter, or deacon may of his own will leave the diocese for which he was ordained. In this canon the general principle expressed in those apostolic canons is adopted, and, in accordance with that same principle, a bishop, presbyter, or deacon is forbidden to pass from one city to another within the diocese in question. Given that this canon mentions no penalty for those who pass from one place to another, whereas other, similar canons do lay down such penalties, Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, observes that it might seem to someone that these canons contradict one another and prescribe different things, and he immediately adds that this is not so. There is a difference between translation, transfer, and usurpation. Translation (μετάθεσις, translatio) occurs when a bishop endowed with wisdom is called by many bishops to leave his own see and take up another, so as to raise up piety in it where it is endangered. Such was the case with the great Gregory the Theologian, who was called from Sasima to take up the see of Constantinople. Such a translation is permitted by canon 14 of the holy Apostles. Transfer (μετάβασις, transitio) occurs when a bishop whose see has been seized by pagans, and who is thus without a see, is called by many bishops to take up a widowed see, in which he might be able to establish Orthodoxy and set the church’s affairs in order. Such a transfer is permitted by the holy fathers assembled at Antioch. Usurpation (ἐπίβασις, invasio) occurs when a bishop who has no see, or who has one, of his own will, unlawfully, and by improper means seizes a new see. This the holy fathers of the Council of Sardica condemned so strongly that they ordained that whoever should so act be deprived of all communion with Christians, and not be deemed worthy of communion even at the last hour. This 15th canon of the present council, mentioning nothing of the kind, contradicts none of the canons named, for it speaks neither of translation, nor of transfer, nor of usurpation, but forbids a bishop, presbyter, or deacon to depart from one city and settle in another. For this reason the council does not punish the bishop for this, but ordains that he be restored to his former see. That this canon is to be so understood is plain from its very words, which mention a city (πόλις, civitas), not an episcopal see, for one and the same bishop may have many cities within the bounds of his episcopal see, but as a mere bishop he can in no way have more than one episcopal see. This is likewise plain from the fact that the canon does not mention bishops exclusively, but presbyters and deacons as well.[36]

Canon 16

Presbyters, or deacons, or any other clergy whatsoever, who inconsiderately, having no fear of God before their eyes and disregarding the ecclesiastical canon, leave their own churches—such persons may on no account be received into another church, but they must in every case be compelled to return to their own dioceses; and should they refuse, let them be excluded from communion. And if any bishop should dare to entice away a man belonging to another bishop, and to ordain him in his own church, without the consent of that bishop from whom the cleric has fled, in such a case let that ordination be void.

(Ap. 14, 15, 16; I Ecum. 15; IV Ecum. 5, 10, 20)

— In the Greek original of this canon, to designate persons who are in the service of the church—likewise also in canons 17 and 19 of this council—the expression οἱ ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι (qui in canone recensentur) is used, and we have translated it “clergy” (in the Russian Synodal edition: “к клиру причисленные,” “reckoned to the clergy”), following the corresponding commentary of Zonaras on canon 17 of this council, where he says that this is the same as saying ἐν κλήρῳ τεταγμένοι (in clerum cooptati), those who have been enrolled in the clergy.[37] By the word κανών, among many other things, was also meant the roster of clergy attached to a given church. For this reason all consecrated persons were also called κανονικοί (Basil the Great, canon 6), and in the West: canonici. Zonaras, in commenting on canon 6 of Basil the Great, says: “κανονικούς” means all those who are enrolled in the canon (ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζομένους, qui in canone recensentur), namely, clergy, monks, nuns, and virgins who have vowed themselves to virginity.[38] In canon 15 of the Council of Laodicea, singers properly appointed in the church are called κανονικοὶ ψάλται (canonici cantores), to distinguish them from the other laity who sang in church.

This canon stands in close connection with the preceding one. From the closing words of the preceding (15th) canon it is seen that every bishop, presbyter, and deacon is ordained for one particular church and appointed for that church. Accordingly, each must serve at his own church, and may not depart from it and pass over to another church. This Nicene canon has in view those who have done this and are unwilling of their own free will to return, and it ordains that they may not be admitted to communion in the church. It ordains bishops that they may on no account retain such persons within their diocese. And should some bishop, disregarding this provision, resolve to ordain a cleric from another’s diocese, without having obtained the consent of the bishop in question, the council, confirming the intent of Ap. canon 35, declares such an ordination null and void. The penalty this canon imposes on these offending presbyters, deacons, and other clergy is expressed by the words “let them be excluded from communion.” This appears at first sight to contradict Ap. canon 15, to which the council itself appeals in this canon, for that canon ordains that a cleric who has left his own church and, without the will of his bishop, passed over to another, must be regarded as a mere layman. In this canon the words “excluded from communion” mean, according to Zonaras’s interpretation, only this: that the clergy may not permit such persons to serve together with them, not that entry into the church is forbidden them, or that holy Communion must be withheld from them. By “communion” the holy fathers here did not mean the receiving of holy Communion, but joint liturgical service together with those who have unlawfully come from another episcopal diocese. Understood in this way, this Nicene canon is in full agreement with Ap. canon 15, which likewise establishes that such persons are not to serve in church.[39]

Canon 17

Since many clergy, carried away by covetousness and a shameful greed for gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says: “he has not put out his money to usury” (Ps. 14:5), and, lending at interest, demand percentages, the holy and great council determines that if, after this ordinance, anyone be found taking interest on a loan, or transacting this business by some other means, or demanding a half again as much, or in general contriving anything of the sort out of shameful greed for gain, he shall be deposed from the clergy and be removed from the roll of the clergy.

(Ap. 44; Trullo 10; VII Ecum. 19; Laodicea 4; Carthage 5, 16; Basil the Great 2, 14; Gregory [Thaumaturgus] of Neocaesarea 3; Gregory of Nyssa 6)

— The ancient Roman laws permitted money to be lent at a profit, and this profit ordinarily consisted of 12% per year, or the hundredth part of the borrowed sum per month (usura centesima).[40] There was also a half-again profit (hemiolion, sesquialter), by which the debtor had to pay, besides the whole borrowed sum, half again as much on top of it.[41] The laws of the Christian emperors, by special edicts, restricted the right to take a great profit. Constantine forbade taking more than 12%.[42] Later emperors after him permitted so great a profit only in those cases where the debtor was not a person of the most reliable standing.[43] The first Christians kept themselves from this trade in money, as a thing unjust, and hence forbidden, or at least held themselves aloof from it for as long as brotherly love, which made the goods of all their common possession, prevailed among them. Unfortunately, some among the Christians began to follow the pagans and imitate them in this same trade. And this was the more deserving of censure in that it was observed that many clergy too had, in this, become followers of the pagans—clergy who by the Church’s teaching ought rather to have been distributing to the poor, and instead were themselves taking unlawful profit. The apostolic canon (44) had already established that “a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who takes usury, must cease, or else be deposed.” The Nicene council turns its attention to this same matter of which the aforesaid apostolic canon speaks, and, mentioning first the interest of 12% per year, or the hundredth part of the borrowed sum per month (usura centesima), then the half-again profit (hemiolion), and every other means of unlawful gain—that is, every form of usury whatsoever—it ordains that every cleric found guilty of this must be deposed. As to the canon’s words “or transacts this business by some other means,” Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, says: “These words have the following meaning: some among the consecrated, knowing this canon and wishing to circumvent it, take care to preserve the letter while mercilessly violating its sense; they give money to some man, that he may work with that money, and then they divide the profit between themselves, while the risk of usury falls upon him who received the money to work with, so that those to whom the money belongs, and who are in fact the usurers, cover themselves with the name of benefactors. The canon, having this unlawful trade in view, punishes with deposition the fathers who give themselves over to it.”[44] The canon forbids every cleric without exception to lend money at a profit or to engage in any kind of usury whatsoever; we say every cleric—for as we said in the commentary on the preceding canon, by the words ὁ ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενος are meant all clergy, that is, both those in holy orders—bishops, presbyters, and deacons—and those in minor orders—subdeacons, readers, singers, and so forth. The custom of usury, which was fostered by the laxity of the civil laws, long persisted even after the Nicene council and continued to infect persons in holy orders, so that many other canons against the usury of clergy had to be issued even after this council.

Canon 18

The holy and great council has learned that in some places and cities deacons administer the Eucharist to presbyters, whereas it is altogether contrary both to the canon and to custom that those who have no authority to offer the sacrifice should give the Body of Christ to those who rightfully offer the sacrifice. And this too has been learned, that certain deacons receive the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all this now cease, and let the deacons keep within their own bounds, remembering that they are the ministers of the bishop and lower in rank than presbyters. Let them, then, receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, whether it is the bishop or the presbyter who administers it to them. Nor may deacons sit among the presbyters, for this too is contrary to canon and to order. And whoever, even after these ordinances, will not submit, let him be deprived of the diaconate.

(Ap. 15, 39; I Ecum. 15; Trullo 7, 16; Antioch 5; Laodicea 20).

— Three offenses are singled out in this canon against the deacons: the first, that they wished to give Communion to presbyters; the second, that they were communed even before the bishops; and the third, that they wished to be senior in the church to the presbyters and permitted themselves to sit among the presbyters during the holy service in church.

The position of the deacon in the sacred hierarchy is well known. Deacons constitute the third degree in that hierarchy. Ignatius the God-bearer says of deacons that they are to be honored by all, for they are not mere ministers of food and drink, but servants of the church of God;[45] and in another place the same father says that deacons are subject to the bishop and the presbyters by the grace and gift of Jesus Christ.[46] As servants of the church of God, deacons had to receive from the faithful the offerings for the sacrifice and hand them over to the bishop, to read the Gospel at the church services, to assist when the holy sacrifice was offered and at other liturgical rites, to instruct the catechumens, to visit martyrs and confessors in prison, and to record the acts of the martyrs.[47] Above all, deacons are the bishop’s assistants, so that for the bishop the deacon is the most indispensable person. In the Apostolic Constitutions (II, 30) the deacon is called ἄγγελος καὶ προφήτης τοῦ ἐπισκόπου; and in the same Constitutions (II, 44) he is called the bishop’s ear, eye, mouth, heart, and soul (ἔστω ὁ διάκονος τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἀκοὴ καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς, καὶ στόμα, καρδία τε καὶ ψυχή). This relation of the deacon to the bishop was already the cause, in the earliest centuries of the Church, chiefly in the West, of deacons beginning to hold their own importance in high regard and to consider themselves superior to presbyters.[48] At a Western council (that of Arles), at the beginning of the 4th century—that is, before the Nicene council—a canon of this kind had already been issued against deacons who resided in the city with the bishop: “de diaconibus urbicis, ut non sibi tantum praesumant, sed honorem presbyteris reservent, ut sine conscientia ipsorum nihil tale faciant” (can. 18).[49] It is held that it was precisely the arrogance and unlawful pretensions of the deacons who resided in Rome that gave occasion for the issuing of this Nicene canon, and this on the proposal of the two Roman presbyters who were present at the council as representatives of the bishop of Rome.[50]

Against these abuses on the part of deacons in general, and against their arrogance, this canon was issued. It ordains, as a law for all time: first, that deacons have no right to give Communion to presbyters. Here one must understand not presbyters in general when they themselves celebrate the liturgy, but presbyters when they served together with the bishop. According to the testimony of Justin, deacons gave Communion to the faithful who were present at the liturgy for Communion.[51] Serving together with the bishop, these same deacons wished to commune the presbyters in the same way, and it is against this that this council issues its ordinance, declaring it contrary both to the canon and to custom that those who have no authority even to offer the sacrifice should give the Body of Christ to those who rightfully offer the sacrifice. Condemned, secondly, in this canon is the fact that certain deacons communed themselves at the liturgy even before the bishop. This is not at all to be understood of the case in which the bishop himself was celebrating. It happened that a bishop would direct a presbyter to celebrate on some occasion, of course together with a deacon, and the bishop would only be present at the service. In such cases the deacon, who had to commune himself first, and then the rest of those present in church—since it was the custom of that time for all those present to commune—having communed himself, would then bring Communion to the bishop, so that it turned out that the bishop was communed after the deacon; and it is this overturning of order by the deacon (τὴν τάξιν παραλύοντες), as Balsamon says in his commentary on this canon, that the council wishes to remove by this canon.[52] Third, in this connection, the canon ordains that deacons must know their own order and rank, and must commune after the presbyters, whether they serve together with the bishop or only with a presbyter; and finally it condemns the practice, contrary to canon and to order (παρὰ κανόνα καὶ παρὰ τάξιν), that had grown up whereby deacons in church, during the holy service, took precedence over presbyters and sat among the presbyters, when the latter, by their rank, were to sit (in the upper place, the synthronon, σύνθρονον) during the service. The canon concludes with a threat of penalty for every deacon who transgresses the ordinances just named: it ordains that such a one be deprived of the diaconate, or in other words, deposed from holy orders and reduced to the rank of a layman.

All these ordinances of the Nicene canon concerning deacons were not, moreover, strictly observed, and we find, even after the Nicene council, new complaints against the arrogance of deacons and new conciliar ordinances that had to check this arrogance and insolence of deacons.[53]

Canon 19

With regard to the Paulianists who have afterward converted to the catholic Church, the ordinance shall hold that all of them, without exception, must be baptized anew. If any of them formerly belonged to the clergy, and it is found that their life was blameless and above reproach, once they have been baptized anew, let them be ordained by the bishop of the catholic Church. But if upon examination it is proven that they are unworthy, they must be deposed. In the same manner shall it be done also with the deaconesses, and in general with all who belong to the clergy. And we have mentioned here those deaconesses who are such only by their attire; since they have no consecration at all, they may be reckoned altogether among the laity.

(Ap. 46, 47, 49; Trullo 95; Carthage 6, 126; Basil the Great 1)

— In our original it stands περὶ τῶν παυλιανισάντων; in the Russian Synodal edition: “concerning former Paulianists,” and in Beveregius’s Latin translation: de paulianistis. It seemed fitting to us to follow Beveregius in our translation, and this the more so because these heretics are called variously—Paulianists, and Paulicians, and Samosatenes, and Manichaeans.[54] — The Paulianists are the followers of Paul of Samosata, an antitrinitarian, who in the year 261 was appointed bishop of Antioch, and whom the Council of Antioch deposed in the year 269.[55] The teaching of Paul of Samosata consisted in this: there is one God, who in holy Scripture bears the name of Father. The Son, who in holy Scripture is mentioned as the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the Word and Wisdom; but this Word and Wisdom in God is not some separate being or person, but is the divine mind, as reason is in man. Christ is only a man, who began to exist when he was born of Mary; but in this man the divine Word and Wisdom was present and active. Through this Wisdom, Christ little by little perfected himself in virtue and became the son of God; but this divine Wisdom left him at the hour of his sufferings. What Paul taught concerning the Holy Spirit is not clear.[56] The Paulianists, according to the words of Athanasius the Great, did name the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit[57] at baptism, but since they taught falsely concerning the Persons of the Holy Trinity, their baptism could not be regarded as a true baptism in the sense of Ap. canon 49. The Nicene council issues this canon of theirs concerning the Paulianists and their baptism, and, confirming the existing ordinance (this being, in Hefele’s opinion, canon 8 of the Council of Arles of the year 314)[58] concerning antitrinitarian baptism, it prescribes that Paulianists who turn to the Orthodox Church must all, without exception, be baptized anew (ἀναβαπτίζεσθαι, rebaptizentur). Not recognizing Paulianist baptism, the Nicene council could, quite consistently, likewise not recognize any ordination performed within the Paulianist religious community, for one who has not been rightly baptized can naturally not be rightly ordained either, nor can there be, there, any valid and lawful priesthood. The canon admits an exception with regard to former Paulianist clergy when they pass over into the Orthodox Church: it permits, namely, that if it be found that their life was blameless and above reproach (εἰ μὲν ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀνεπίληπτοι), then once they have been baptized anew, the Orthodox bishop may freely ordain them—otherwise let them be mere laymen. This last is expressed in the canon by the words καθαιρεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς προσήκει. Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, remarks on these words, and observes quite soundly: “I think that the word ‘deposition’ (καθαίρεσις) is not used here in its proper sense (κατὰ χρῆσιν, usitate), for he is deposed who has a valid ordination and who has been raised to the height of the priesthood; but this man, who from the very beginning was not in truth ordained, how, from what, and from what height can he be deposed? It is, then, said in an inexact sense: ‘let him be deposed’ (καθαιρεθήσεται), instead of saying: ‘let him be expelled from the clergy’ (ἐκβληθῆναι τοῦ κλήρου).”[59]

Further, this canon mentions deaconesses. In the commentaries on the canons of the Council of Chalcedon we speak of deaconesses in particular; here we shall note about them only so much as is needful to make clear the sense of this canon. Deaconesses were maidens or widows who took the vow of perpetual celibacy and consecrated themselves to the service of God. Up to the age of forty they remained under the oversight of the church, dwelt in their own houses, and wore at first ordinary secular dress, and afterward a special dress, and kept themselves apart from the laity, fulfilling their vows in their own persons; at forty years of age, or later, the bishop would make deaconesses of the most worthy among them, in a manner similar to how minor clergy are appointed today. The Nicene council mentions those deaconesses who had fallen into the Paulianist heresy, and it ordains that they too, like the other clergy, are to be dealt with when they turn to the Church. The words of the canon, “we have mentioned here those deaconesses who are such by their attire,” Zonaras explains thus: “In ancient times maidens who vowed always to preserve their chastity approached God; these the bishops, by canon 6 of the Council of Carthage, consecrated, and cared for according to canon 38 of that same council. From among these maidens, at the appointed time, that is, when they completed forty years, deaconesses were ordained. To these maidens, when they were twenty-five years of age, the bishops gave a special dress, according to canon 126 of the aforesaid council. It is these maidens, then, that the canon calls ‘deaconesses by attire,’ who do not have the laying-on of hands (χειροθεσίαν μὴ ἔχουσαι), and it ordains that they be reckoned among the laity, once they acknowledge and cast off their heresy.”[60]

Canon 20

Since there are some who bend the knee on the Lord’s Day and during the days of Pentecost, therefore, that all things may be alike in every region, the holy council decrees that on these days prayers are to be offered to God standing.

(Ap. 66; Trullo 66, 90; Gangra 18; Laodicea 29; Peter of Alexandria 15; Basil the Great 91; Theophilus of Alexandria 1).

This canon ordains that on the Lord’s Day and throughout all the days of Pentecost one is to pray standing, that is, not bending the knee to the ground. In the 91st canon of Basil the Great it is explained why this must be done.