Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), 1–13

Canon 1

We have recognized it as just that the canons set forth by the holy fathers at every council up to now should remain in force.

(Trullo 2; VII Ecum. 1; Carthage 1).

— In the acts of this council we find that on several sessions, in connection with various questions, the canons of previous councils were read out. Thus, at the fourth session, on the occasion of the two monks Carosus and Dorotheus, who had been partisans of Dioscorus and who, after their general condemnation, sought to be reinstated, canons were read by Aetius, archdeacon of the church of Constantinople, out of a particular book (ἀπὸ βιβλίου)—canons which in the acts bear the numbers 83 and 84, and which are nothing other than the 4th and 5th canons of the Council of Antioch. At the same session the 4th canon of the Council of Nicaea was read by Atticus of Nicopolis, on the occasion of the dispute between Photius and Eustathius.[1] At the eleventh session, owing to the dispute between Bassianus and Stephen over the see of Ephesus, Leontius, bishop of Magnesia, read out of that same book (ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ βιβλίου) two canons under the numbers 95 and 96, which again are nothing other than the 16th and 17th canons of the Council of Antioch.[2] At the thirteenth session, on the occasion of the dispute between the bishops of Nicomedia and Nicaea, the 4th canon of Nicaea was again read from the same book.[3] Finally, at the sixteenth session, when the question of the primacy of honor of the bishop of Constantinople was discussed, the secretary Constantine read from the book which the archdeacon Aetius offered him three canons—the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd canons of the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.[4]

From all this it is seen that at the time of the Council of Chalcedon the canons issued at previous councils were generally known and binding upon all, and, what is chief, that all these canons had been gathered together and formed one particular collection, which in the acts is called τὸ βιβλίον τῶν κανόνων, and in Latin, codex canonum. This collection has not come down to us in its entirety, but, judging by the numbers under which the aforesaid canons are cited in the collection, we can nevertheless know which councils’ canons composed it. In first place stood the canons of the First Ecumenical Council, and they bear in the collection the very same numbers they bear in themselves. After these come the canons of the Council of Antioch, such that the first Antiochene canon bears, in the general sequence, the number 80. Between the one set and the other there is no citation in the acts by which it could be said what numbers the intervening canons bore; but this is easily learned from the known number of canons of the preceding councils. If we add to the number of canons of the First Ecumenical Council, of which there are 20, the 25 canons of the Council of Ancyra, then the 14 of Neocaesarea, and the 20 of Gangra, we get exactly 79 canons, and to these, as number 80, is joined the 1st Antiochene canon, or the 4th and 5th as 83 and 84 by the Chalcedonian collection. After the Antiochene canons, no canon is mentioned until the canons of the Second Ecumenical Council; but from the acts of the Council of Chalcedon it may be inferred that this collection was composed of all the remaining canons that had thus far been issued at councils in the East, and that is, besides those mentioned, also the canons of the provincial council of Laodicea and of the Third Ecumenical Council.[5] — When and by whom this collection of canons, which the Chalcedonian fathers had at hand, was compiled, is not known.[6] It is enough for us here, however, to know that the Council of Chalcedon was the first among the ecumenical councils to confirm the canons of the provincial councils that before it had been held in the East, and to proclaim them generally binding for the whole Church, and that at the time of the Council of Chalcedon there already existed a particular collection of church canons, which had to serve as a manual for the whole Church.[7]

The occasion for the issuing of this canon was the general awareness of the necessity that, according to the needs of the Church and the importance of the canons already existing, the ecumenical voice of the Church should confirm the canonical force of those canons which had been issued at particular councils. This was all the more necessary because the provisions composing the collection presented at the Council of Chalcedon related for the most part to provincial councils, which of themselves had binding force only for a single local church, but not yet for the whole ecumenical Church; and in order for them to acquire that force for the ecumenical Church too, an ecumenical council had to confirm them. The fathers of Chalcedon, with the intention of preserving the necessary unity in the Church, both in matters of faith and in ecclesiastical discipline, and conscious withal that, without confirmation by an ecumenical council, the canons of a single provincial council could not have generally binding force for the whole Church, and finding, moreover, in the canons of the provincial councils held up to that time in the East such provisions as could be salutary for the whole Church, established this canon, by which it is ordained that all the canons issued up to that time at all the councils must be sacredly preserved; and we have now seen that these canons are namely the canons of the First, Second, and Third Ecumenical Councils and the canons of the provincial councils of Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodicea—canons which had all already been gathered into one particular canonical collection, τὸ βιβλίον τῶν κανόνων, and which from that time forth had to be generally binding for the whole Church.

This institution of the Council of Chalcedon served as the norm for all other councils afterward; and we find later that among the first acts of both the Council in Trullo and the Seventh Ecumenical Council was, namely, the confirmation of the canons of the preceding councils. The emperor Justinian, in issuing his 131st Novel, certainly had before his eyes this institution of the Council of Chalcedon, when he says: “We ordain that the church canons issued or confirmed at the four holy councils must have full force of law—namely, at the council of the 318 fathers at Nicaea, at the council of the 150 fathers at Constantinople, further at the council of Ephesus, at which Nestorius was condemned, and at the council of Chalcedon.”

Canon 2

If any bishop performs an ordination for money, and turns grace, which cannot be sold, into a matter of sale, and for money appoints a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other who belongs to the clergy, or out of vile love of gain produces for money an oeconomus, or ecdicus, or paramonarius, or anyone else who is numbered in the canon, and it is proven that he has indeed done this—let him be deposed from his rank; and let him who has been so appointed have no benefit from the purchased ordination or advancement, but let him be regarded as having neither the dignity nor the office which he obtained by money. And whoever has also acted as intermediary in such a vile and unlawful trafficking, let such a one, if he is a cleric, be deposed from his rank; if he is a layman or a monk, let him be anathema.

(Ap. 29; Trullo 22, 23; VII Ecum. 4, 5, 15, 19; Laodicea 12; Sardica 2; Basil the Great 90; [letter of Gennadius]; [letter of Tarasius]).

— By this canon every kind of simony is condemned; and the occasion for the issuing of the canon was the accusation brought at the ninth and tenth sessions of this council against Ibas, bishop of Edessa, who, among other things, was also charged with simony.[8]

We have already spoken of simony in the 29th Apostolic canon, and we saw that that canon subjects to deposition, and thereafter to excommunication from the Church, both him who ordains someone for money and him who has received ordination for money. But that canon establishes this penalty only for those who receive or give ordination in the strict sense—that is, ordination to a sacred ministerial degree: of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. In this canon the penalty is established not only for ordination (χειροτονίας) for money, but also for every advancement (προαγωγήν) for money to whatever office in the Church, and the penalty is set alike for those who receive or give the money, and equally for those who act as intermediaries in it, and even for those who, though they have not carried it out, are proven to have been ready to do so.

Among others, alongside the bishop, presbyter, and deacon, the canon mentions the chorepiscopus, the oeconomus, the ecdicus, and the paramonarius. The chorepiscopus was a bishop of a smaller place and stood in dependence on the chief bishop, and could ordain presbyters and deacons only with the chief bishop’s permission. The oeconomus administered the church’s property. The ecdicus was the church’s advocate.[9] The paramonarius was the guardian of church buildings.[10] The canon does not name the other church officers, but includes them all under the phrase “or anyone else who is numbered in the canon” (ἢ ὅλως τινὰ τοῦ κανόνος).

Ordination or advancement for money the canon calls αἰσχροκερδίαν (turpe lucrum), vile love of gain, and establishes that the guilty party must without exception be deposed. As regards those who mediate in such dealings, it establishes that the guilty party, if he belongs to the clergy, is to be deposed; if he is a layman or a monk, he is to be delivered to anathema. In imposing an equal penalty on laymen and monks, the canon means by the latter those who bear no sacred rank upon themselves and who thus stand outside the clergy. We find this severity of the canon against simony in other councils as well, and in particular epistles of the Fathers of the Church, and we find the same severity also in the civil laws, which Balsamon adduces for us in his commentary on the 34th chapter of the 1st title of the Nomocanon of Fourteen Titles.[11]

Canon 3

The holy council has learned that some members of the clergy, out of vile love of gain, take on lease the estates of others and undertake secular business, and, neglecting the service of God, go about the houses of laymen and, for the sake of love of money, undertake to administer their property. The holy and great council therefore ordains that in future no one—neither bishop, nor clergyman, nor monk—shall take an estate on lease, nor undertake the conduct of secular business, except if he is called by law to accept guardianship over minors, which he could not decline, or if the bishop of the city charges him to take care of church affairs, or of orphans, or of widows who are without protection, or of persons who in a particular manner require the help of the Church, for the fear of God’s sake. Whoever after this dares to transgress this ordinance shall be subject to ecclesiastical penalties.

(Ap. 20, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 7; VII Ecum. 10; Carthage 16; Protodeutera 11).

— At the sixth session of this council, held in the presence of the emperor, after the confession of faith, three matters of a disciplinary character were laid before the council for deliberation and decision. Of these three matters, one forms the content of this canon, while the other two form the content of the 4th and 70th canons. This canon establishes that everyone who belongs to the clergy must confine himself only to his own office, and may in no way, out of vile love of gain and love of money, occupy himself with secular business, thereby neglecting the service of God to which he has devoted himself.

The Apostolic canons 6, 20, and 81 speak of the same subject, and subject to deposition the bishop, presbyter, deacon, and in general anyone belonging to the clergy who undertakes secular affairs and neglects church ones. Strict observance of these provisions has always had particular importance in the Church, and we find that at several councils these same provisions are repeated in one form or another. In the period before the Council of Chalcedon it was observed, in Constantinople and in other places, that many sacred persons, forgetting their calling, gave themselves over to occupations which by their nature could in no way accord with their church office. This circumstance drew general attention and provoked condemnation on the part of the civil authority, and, on the part of society, denial and contempt for the clerical estate. To put a stop to this, the fathers of Chalcedon, prompted by the emperor himself, found it necessary to issue a special canon and to threaten with deposition every cleric who should thenceforth, neglecting his office out of love of money, give himself over to occupations of a secular character. However, in issuing such a provision, having regard to the state of society, and lest it be inferred from the non-mention of every forbidden occupation that clerics might engage in some occupations even outside the canon, the fathers of Chalcedon expressly indicated what kinds of secular occupations and under what circumstances clerics might undertake—namely, they established that a cleric might be a guardian of minors, widows, and orphans, first, if he is expressly called to this; second, if the bishop specially charges him with it; and third, if those minors, widows, and orphans are found to be without any other protection; and further, that he might enter civil courts and appear before them as advocate when the interests of the Church call him to it and when he is again specially authorized to this by his immediate superior.

Similar were the provisions of the civil authority, issued certainly in accordance with this provision of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus, regarding the affairs which clerics may not occupy themselves with, we read the following: “We command that no bishop, or cleric, or monk shall undertake and conduct affairs touching the state treasury, or administer public or private properties, or appear as representative in public lawsuits, for thereby harm is done to the holy houses and the sacred service is hindered.”[12] And again we read that it was permitted to clerics and monks to undertake care of orphans and widows, and besides this, they could appear as representatives of the interests of their own churches and monasteries before the civil authority, if they were specially authorized to this by an act of their superior bishop.[13] In general, in the earlier period of the Church the civil authority was always in agreement with the ecclesiastical authority when it concerned the securing of church rights and the preservation of the standing of the clerical estate.

Noteworthy here is how the emperor proceeds in summoning the council to issue this and other canons at the aforesaid session; when the main business had been concluded, the emperor addresses the council with the following words: there are several matters that concern yourselves, and whose resolution we do not consider it right for us to render, but leave it to you, holding that it must be established by you canonically at the council, before we proclaim it by our laws.[14] As can be seen, the emperor by no means wishes to arrogate to himself the right of issuing laws touching the Church and its ministers independently of the competent ecclesiastical authority, but grants this right exclusively to the latter. And with what regard, what respect, does he proceed in this! He has learned of certain unseemly conduct among clerics and monks, which needs to be put an end to; but still he does not decide to carry this out himself, but entrusts it to the council, considering, as is seen from his own words, that it is more fitting and proper for the ecclesiastical authority, and not the civil, to decide on this—that is, the council, and only then would he issue the relevant laws. And clerics were always, in earlier centuries, independent of civil jurisdiction, and every disputed church matter was always resolved not by secular but by ecclesiastical judges. Nor did the Christian rulers of that time do this because they were compelled to it, but out of full awareness of the significance of ecclesiastical authority in ecclesiastical matters, and with the intention of securing the freedom of the Church, which had been granted to her by her divine Founder Himself. The best example is furnished by the above-quoted words of the emperor Marcian, with which he addresses the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. In the same manner the emperor Constantine had expressed himself even earlier, and after him Honorius, in a letter addressed to the emperor Arcadius in the East.[15] And Justinian himself, wholly devoted as he was to the civil laws, expresses himself no differently on this: “If the transgression,” he says, “is of an ecclesiastical nature, entailing a penalty, let the God-loving bishop examine it, and let the civil judges in no way interfere in it; it is necessary that such matters be settled according to the relevant holy and divine canons, which must be sacredly honored even by our laws.”[16] And if a cleric should commit some civil transgression, the same Justinian does not permit him to be brought before a civil court until he has first been finally deposed from his sacred degree by ecclesiastical judgment.[17] From all these testimonies, taken from the very words of the emperors themselves, it is seen that no cleric, as such, could ever be subject to civil jurisdiction, nor were civil judges empowered to summon clerics before them for whatever transgression of theirs; this whole business was left unconditionally and exclusively to the ecclesiastical courts, in the narrower sense to the bishops, to whom God has granted the power of judging their subordinates. And only once a person had, as a consequence of a prior ecclesiastical condemnation, ceased to be a cleric, could he come before a civil court. It is seen from these testimonies, and especially from Marcian’s conduct before the Council of Chalcedon, that the emperors issued the relevant laws touching clerics only once the ecclesiastical authority had already pronounced its judgment concerning them, and these laws never were, nor could ever be, other than in accordance with the prior decision of the ecclesiastical authority. Such was the practice of the ancient Church, and it was wholly in accord with the spirit of evangelical teaching.

This canon of the Council of Chalcedon was repeated several times afterward as well, but the passion for αἰσχροκερδία, for vile love of gain, which is held up as the cause of every evil and which was likewise condemned in the preceding canon, could not be uprooted, and Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, laments that even after all these canons the evil remained in the East without remedy: “for,” he says, “even today we observe the same evil, and no one—neither patriarch, nor emperor, nor bishop—is able to root it out. So many canons are forgotten, and moreover patriarchs and bishops even hold communion with the transgressors of these canons, who by rights ought to be deposed according to them.”[18] But if in the East this evil had become so deeply rooted, in the West it was even worse, especially if we look to the period of the Middle Ages.[19]

Canon 4

Those who genuinely and sincerely lead the monastic life should be held in due honor. But since some make use of the monastic habit merely as a pretext, and throw into confusion both church and civil affairs, wandering about the cities without restraint, and even wish to found monasteries for themselves, it is ordained that no one shall anywhere found or build a monastery or house of prayer without the consent of the bishop of the city concerned. And the monks of every city and every place are to be subject to the bishop, are to love quiet, are to devote themselves only to fasting and prayer, and are always to remain in the places in which they have been established; nor are they to meddle or take part in ecclesiastical or secular affairs, abandoning their monasteries, except in a case where this is permitted them by the bishop of the city out of necessity. Nor is any slave to be received into a monastery to become a monk, without the consent of his master; and whoever transgresses this our ordinance, we ordain that he be excommunicated, lest the name of God be blasphemed. The bishop of the city must exercise the most diligent oversight over the monasteries.

(Ap. 82; IV Ecum. 24; Trullo 40–49, 85; VII Ecum. 17–21; Gangra 3; Carthage 63; Protodeutera 1–7).

— Like the preceding one, this canon too was established by the council on the proposal of the emperor Marcian at the sixth session of the council. The minutes of the fourth session of the council show that the Eutychian monks, and in particular the archimandrite Barsumas, had by their conduct drawn upon themselves the attention of both the church and the civil authority, and had thrown the whole East into confusion—this gave the chief occasion for the issuing of this canon.[20]

By the canons of Basil the Great and Pachomius the Great it had been established in detail what the life of a monk must be. Among other things, among those canons we find that a monk must be in unconditional obedience to his superior, and mediately to his bishop, that he must not leave the monastery in which he has been tonsured, that he must devote himself to unceasing prayer and fasting, that he must not himself found a new monastery on his own, and that under no circumstances is he to occupy himself with secular affairs unless specially called to it by his bishop. These canons, which were sacredly kept at first, in the course of time began to lose their force, and we find, especially in the first half of the fifth century, many monks who, forgetting the canons of their order, wandered from place to place, built for themselves particular dwellings apart, wore only outwardly the monastic garb, meddled in secular affairs, and, in particular, we find them stirring up the world and disturbing society. The ecclesiastical legislative authority had to find a remedy for all this, and by strict canons to restrain the self-will of monks, so as to preserve order in the Church and society and to safeguard the standing of monasticism itself. The Council of Chalcedon was the first to issue a particular canon on this, and the Council in Trullo, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the First-and-Second council establish several canons on monks and their life. Of monasticism we shall speak further when we come to examine the canons of the aforesaid councils.

In this canon, first place is given to the significance which monasticism has in the Church, and the honor of which the members of it must be deemed worthy when they live truly and sincerely according to the canons.[21] In this the council does nothing other than express that general opinion which prevailed in the Church regarding monasticism. “Those who are truly devoted to monasticism, and who sincerely, that is, from a pure heart, and not hypocritically, or with some other purpose, lead the monastic life, the holy council recognizes as worthy of that honor,” says Zonaras on this in his commentary on this canon.[22] Having emphasized the honor of which true monks are worthy, the canon at once points to the abuses observed among monks, and enumerates and condemns them. Having in view the many false monks who, out of ambition, and in order to free themselves from subjection to their archimandrites, themselves built their own monasteries, this canon establishes that no monk may, of himself, without the corresponding permission of his bishop, build a new monastery or house of prayer. By a house of prayer (εὐκτήριον οἶκον, orationis vel oratoriam domum) are meant the smaller cells which certain Eutychian monks had made a custom of building for themselves apart from their monastery, and in which they lived either alone or together with their like-minded followers, appropriating to themselves the title of archimandrite. In the acts of the fourth session of the council we read that certain archimandrites submitted a petition to the emperor, that the accusation to which they had been subjected on account of their attachment to Eutyches be lifted from them, and that they be declared innocent. Before the council proceeded to this, the Orthodox archimandrites were summoned to state before the council whether they recognized the archimandrites who had signed the petition, and whether they were in fact archimandrites—and they, through the pious Faustus, answered: “Carosus and Dorotheus are archimandrites; Elpidius is only the keeper of the memorial of Procopius; we do not know Photinus; Eutyches has no monastery, but lives at the martyr-church of Celerina; Theodore lives at the memorial of a certain martyr; we do not know Moses; Maximus is an archimandrite, a disciple of Eutyches; we do not know Gerontius; we do not know Nemesinus; Leontius is only a treasurer; Hypsis lives within a wooden enclosure; Callinicus, Paul, and Gaudentius live alone, at martyrs’ memorials, and we do not know Eugnomonius. But we ask that some persons be sent out by this holy council to visit these monasteries of theirs, and to see and satisfy themselves whether they truly exist, or whether these men are mocking the dignity of the archimandrite; and if this be proven, let them be punished, so that in future those who dwell at some cell or martyr’s memorial shall not be called archimandrites.”[23] It is against these, then—the false archimandrites who built themselves separate cells and lived apart, and who, spreading the false teaching of Eutyches, had caused so much disorder throughout the East—that the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon direct their aim, establishing that no one may build houses of prayer without the bishop’s permission.

Following the existing rules of monastic life, the council next recalls the chief duties of monks and ordains, in the first place, that they must be in full dependence on their bishop. This ordinance was directed in particular against the followers of Barsumas, who had broken away from their bishops and renounced obedience to them. In subjecting them to the bishops, as those best able to oversee whether the established canons are observed, and having regard to the contemporary excesses on the part of monks, the council ordains that monks must dwell in quiet, devoting themselves to fasting and prayer, for it is to this that they have dedicated themselves and this is the purpose of monastic life. It further ordains that they must not leave their monasteries, but must always remain in them, as in the places in which they have renounced the world.

This ordinance, owing to the disobedience of monks, was afterward confirmed also by the civil authority through particular edicts. “Those who have dedicated themselves to monastic life,” we read in one edict, “must under no circumstances go out of their monastery, to wander about Antioch and other places, save only the apocrisarii, whom we permit to leave the monastery when their apocrisiary duties require it.”[24] And further: “A monk who, having left his monastery, goes to another, must be sent back at once, and must seek in his own monastery whatever he needs.[25] The holy bishops of the places concerned are to see to it that neither monks nor nuns wander about the cities, and if they have something to seek, let them do so through persons appointed for that purpose, but let them by no means go out of the monastery.”

These ordinances had every justification, especially when the circumstances of that time are taken into account. “Nor are they to meddle,” the canon continues, “or take part in ecclesiastical or secular affairs, abandoning their monasteries, except in a case where this is permitted them by the bishop of the city out of necessity.” By their vow, monks could take upon themselves no business that did not relate directly to monastic life. But there were occasions when they were specially called out of their monasteries and entrusted with various church duties.[26] The canons of the Council in Trullo (canon 41), the First-and-Second council (canon 4), and others speak clearly of this; and Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, says that the conduct of not only ecclesiastical but also civil business was entrusted to monks, and that many bishops and monks performed state and public offices—βασιλικοῖς καὶ δημοσιακαῖς δουλείαις. A monk, then, could perform any office, but only and exclusively with the bishop’s permission and when necessity required it; otherwise he was excommunicated from the Church—ἀκοινώνητος.[27] The penalty which the council imposes on monks who transgress the canons is the same as that imposed on transgressing laymen, and this, as we saw in the 2nd canon of this council and as we shall further see in the 8th canon, is because they—or at least the great majority of them—did not have ordination upon themselves, and accordingly were not reckoned as clergy in the strict sense, for otherwise the penalty of deposition, and not excommunication, would have been prescribed for them. The council thus ordains that such transgressing monks be excommunicated, lest the name of God be blasphemed—“for by such conduct the holy habit and the holy institution are exposed to mockery, and that mockery will pass from them onto God Himself,” says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon.[27] And so that the provisions of this canon might be strictly observed, the fathers of Chalcedon recommend to the bishops that they take particular care over the monasteries, keep them in unconditional subjection, visit them, and see that nothing is done in a monastery without their knowledge. “Two purposes,” says Zonaras, “are thereby achieved: on the one hand, monks are freed from cares over various affairs, have nothing to distract them, and can lead a quiet life, occupying themselves only with what pertains to spiritual profit; on the other hand, the bishop too draws great spiritual benefit from this, and it serves toward the glorification of God.” The relations of subjection of monasteries to their respective bishops were afterward confirmed at other councils as well, and we find several civil laws to the same effect.[28]

The canon further speaks of no slave being received into a monastery without the permission of his master.[29] This was a general norm, confirmed also by the civil laws, that no slave might be received either into the clergy or among the monks until his master had wholly freed him. Only under Justinian was it afterward established that slaves might be received among the monks if they had spent three years in the monastery and their masters had not, during that time, sought their return.[30] Both the church and civil laws were in general strict as regards the reception among the monks of persons who, by their social position, might afterward cause some complication in the monastic community; and the aim of both was ever the same—to preserve the sanctity of the spiritual canons of monasticism and the standing of monastic life.

Canon 5

In regard to bishops or clergy who pass over from one city to another, it is ordained that the canons issued by the holy fathers shall have full force.

(Ap. 14, 15; I Ecum. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 10, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18; Antioch 13, 21; Sardica 15, 16; Carthage 54, 90).

— At the eleventh session of this council the question of Bassianus and Stephen, bishops of Ephesus, was examined. Stephen complained before the council that Bassianus had forcibly ascended the see of Ephesus, having abandoned his previous eparchy. This dispute between these two bishops in all likelihood gave the occasion for the issuing of this canon.

Of the passing over (μετάβασις) of a bishop from one see to another we have already spoken in our commentary on the 15th canon of the First Ecumenical Council. Such a passing over was never permitted, either by the church canons or by custom. And the reason is evident when it is considered that the whole community took part in the election of a bishop, and that he was ordinarily chosen from the local clergy, so that, accordingly, such a bishop’s passing from his own see to another was bound to prove disadvantageous both to those he left and to those to whom he passed over without a proper call. The consequence was always disorder in the one church or the other, as best shown by the dispute between the aforementioned Bassianus and Stephen. Besides this, the bond of a church with its bishop is represented as the closest possible, like the marriage bond between a bishop and his church, and we shall see, in the 25th canon of this council, that a church is called a widow (χηρεύουσαν) after the death of its bishop. Accordingly, passing over to another church, or in general the abandonment of one’s own church by a bishop, could not, and cannot, be regarded otherwise than as a violation of that spiritual bond which existed between them—and such an act could under no circumstances be permitted in the Church, save, of course, in the case, as the 14th canon of Antioch says, “when a bishop should be compelled so to act, having in view a higher benefit which he might bring about elsewhere by his pious word.” The provision of this canon is not confined to bishops alone, but forbids the passing over from one city to another to clergy as well, regarding the bond between them and the church at which they were ordained, according to the sense of the 16th canon of the First Ecumenical Council and the following (6th) canon of this council, as one that must be indissoluble. In confirming “the canons issued by the holy fathers,” the council in this canon of its own certainly has in view the 15th and 16th canons of the First Ecumenical Council, the 2nd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the 13th and 21st canons of the Council of Antioch—canons which were found in the collection of canons that lay before the fathers at the council, and of which we spoke above in our commentary on the 1st canon of this council—and in regard to all these canons it ordains that they must have full force—ἔχειν τὴν ἰσχύν.

Canon 6

No one shall be ordained absolutely—neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor any other of the ecclesiastical order—unless the one ordained be specifically appointed to a city church, or a village church, or a martyr’s shrine, or a monastery. Concerning those who are ordained without such appointment, the holy council decrees that their institution be void, and that they be permitted to perform no service, to the shame of him who performed the ordination.

(Ap. 15; I Ecum. 15, 16; Neocaesarea 13).

— From Apostolic canon 15 and canon 15 of the First Ecumenical Council we learn that every bishop, presbyter, and deacon was always regarded as ordained for one particular place, one particular church, and, judging by the text of the cited canon of the First Ecumenical Council, we must hold that in the time of the Council of Nicaea it either was not permitted, or at least was not customary, to appoint anyone bishop, presbyter, or deacon without a fixed place of service. In the time of the Council of Chalcedon we observe something different, and we find many sacred persons—particularly presbyters, deacons, and other lower clergy—who appeared in various places preaching the false teaching of Eutyches and stirring up the peaceful populace, and of whom, moreover, it was not known to what church they belonged nor where they served. The acts of the fourth session of this council mention a multitude of παπᾶ [papas] who represented themselves as sacred persons, whom, however, no one recognized. In order to establish a norm which should canonically hold good throughout the church, and to bar the way to the contemporary appearance of false priests, and—what is chief—to preserve the dignity of the church hierarchy, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon found themselves moved to issue this canon.

The decisiveness with which the canon is expressed shows the whole weight which the Chalcedonian fathers placed upon having the ordinance of the canon carried out with strictness. It forbids most decisively that anyone be ordained without the most exact specification (ἐδικῶς ) of the place at which he is to serve, declaring void every institution not performed in that sense, “to the shame of him who performed the ordination—ἐφ᾽ ὕβρει τοῦ χειροτονήσαντος (ad ejus, qui ordinavit, contumeliam; ad ordinantis injuriam)”; and, further, it forbids appointment not only to the presbyteral or diaconal degree, but to every other and lower ecclesiastical degree as well. Balsamon, answering those who held that this canon applies only to presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, and not to readers, since they have no ordination (διὰ τὸ μὴ χειροτονεῖσθαι καὶ τούτους) and may therefore pass from place to place, says: “readers too are clergy, and they have the cheirothesia (χειροθεσίαν) of the hierarch, that is, the seal by the hand of the hierarch; the canon must therefore apply to them as well.” It applies, then, to all sacred ministers and church ministers alike, whom the canon forbids to appoint ἀπολελυμένως (libere, absolute)—without specification, that is, without assignment to a definite place.

Among the places to which they may be so assigned, the canon mentions first the city church (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ πόλεως), then the village church (κώμης), then the martyr’s shrine (μαρτυρίῳ), and lastly the monastery (μοναστηρίῳ).[31][32] By a martyr’s shrine is understood a consecrated building, a shrine erected in honor and memory of some martyr, or upon his grave; at such shrines there were their own particular sacred and church ministers.[33] Monasteries are mentioned because monks in general were not sacred ministers, and even the superiors of monasteries were for the most part without ordination; but in order that divine service might be regularly performed in the monasteries, a particular presbyter was appointed, or else one of the more worthy brethren was ordained, and he served at the monastery church.[34] Archimandrites without the presbyteral degree were not rare even in the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and blessed Augustine, in his writings, always distinguishes the monastic presbyter from the superior, who was not a presbyter.

Canon 7

Those who have once entered the clergy, or have devoted themselves to the monastic life, we ordain may no longer enter either military or worldly service; and those who dare this, and do not, repenting, return to that which they chose for God’s sake, let them be anathema.

(Ap. 6, 20, 81, 83; IV Ecum. 3, 16; Trullo 21; VII Ecum. 10; Carthage 16; Protodeutera 11).

— In the Christian church it has always held as a rule that the mysterial consecration of a sacred person to the service of the church, as likewise the vows of monasticism, cannot thereafter be separated from him who receives them; for these, being received voluntarily and solemnly, bind the man by their very nature to the church and require of him that he renounce forever every worldly service and devote himself wholly to God. The return, after such consecration, of a consecrated person or a monk to worldly service was not regarded, nor could it be regarded, otherwise than as a transgression; it was regarded, in the fine expression of Archimandrite John in his commentary on this canon, as “a breach of oath before God, a betrayal of conscience, a disparagement of the sacred service to God, for the sake of devoting oneself to the service of the world.” This general rule of the church was, however, frequently violated, and we find several positive canons which condemn these violations in the most decisive manner.[35] Thus Apostolic canon 81 subjects to deposition sacred persons who take upon themselves worldly offices, and Apostolic canon 83 likewise subjects to deposition those who occupy themselves with military affairs; canon 12 of the First Ecumenical Council says the same.[36] But all these canons were not yet able to root out the evil, and the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, moved by the same motive that had moved them in issuing their canon 3, found it necessary to renew the former ordinances and to establish this canon.[37]

The severity of the penalty which the fathers impose upon transgressors shows how much weight they placed on preserving the sanctity of the mysterial consecration to the service of God and of the monastic vows. Every one, the fathers establish by this canon, who has been enrolled in the clergy, or has entered a monastic community, and thereafter abandons the service he himself chose and takes up military or some other worldly service, is to be delivered to anathema. The canon subjects such transgressing clergy not merely to deposition from their hierarchical degree, but anathematizes them equally with transgressing monks.[38] “It was no longer thought necessary”, says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, “to subject them to deposition, as a punishment, since they themselves had already cast off the priestly dignity from themselves; and therefore the canon imposes upon them another, much heavier, penalty.”[39] Nor were the civil laws any milder with regard to clergy and monks who abandoned their calling and passed over into civil service.[40] Not only could such persons not thereafter be received into civil or military service, but, stripped of all their rights, they were remanded to the authority of the church, nor could they obtain any dignity whatsoever thereafter. “A monk who has left his monastery and passed over to worldly life, if he has by chance already obtained some civil or military honor, let him be deprived of it, and let him at once be sent back to the monastery by the bishop concerned and the provincial judge”—thus we read in a Novel of Justinian; and the emperor Leo ordained that no one who has rashly cast off the garb of the clergy shall be permitted to obtain any office, but must be punished according to the law of the church, which he also proclaims by his own law. And this severity is entirely justified when one considers the sublimity of the sacred service of the altar and the sublimity of the aim of the monastic life; for if in general great caution is needed in the choosing of a calling, the highest caution is needed here, where it is known how weighty in itself the sacred service is, and how arduous the monastic life. To such as abandon the service to which they have once devoted themselves apply the words of the evangelist concerning the man who began to build something and was not able to finish it (Luke 14:28–30), or those other words: no one who puts his hand to the plough, and looks back, is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). The completion of the commentary on this canon we bring forward in the commentary on canon 21 of the Council of Trullo.

Canon 8

Clergy who are attached to almshouses, to monasteries, and to martyrs’ shrines shall, according to the tradition of the holy fathers, be under the authority of the bishop of the respective city, and shall not obstinately withdraw from their bishop. And those who dare in any manner whatsoever to violate this ordinance, and are not subject to their bishop, if they are clergy, let them be subjected to the penalties prescribed by the canons; if they are monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated.

— By the canons of the councils and of the fathers, every monastery, as likewise every charitable establishment, was required to stand under the supreme oversight of the bishop, and nothing of importance might be undertaken without the bishop; in particular, no one might, bypassing the bishop, determine anything concerning the clergy who were attached to the churches of a monastery or a charitable establishment. There existed, however, a custom in certain places in the East by which the superiors together with the monks of a monastery, or, in charitable establishments, the patrons of these establishments together with their administrators, might choose clergy—that is, sacred and church ministers—at their own will, and afterward remove them at their own discretion, independently of the bishop in whose territory those monasteries or charitable establishments lay. On the strength of this custom, some, according to the words of Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, maintained that clergy attached to the churches of monasteries and charitable establishments in general, and likewise clergy attached to martyrs’ shrines, need not be reckoned on the same footing as the clergy of a bishopric or metropolis, but must be independent of the bishop and dependent only on the superiors of the monasteries, or on the patrons of the respective establishments, and that at martyrs’ shrines they must be altogether independent. In order to remove the disorders which could arise from this custom, and which had indeed arisen together with Eutychian monks, and, in doing so, to bar the way to a mistaken understanding of the relation of clergy to the bishop of the respective territory, the fathers of the council, following the tradition of the fathers and perceiving in such conduct a violation of the bishop’s supreme right over the clergy throughout his territory, issued this canon and established that every cleric, without any distinction whatsoever, must be unconditionally subject to his own bishop and dependent on him alone, and that none may obstinately (κατ᾽ αὐθάδειαν, per arrogantiam, per contumaciam) withdraw from his bishop.[41] Any cleric found in this, and who dares in any manner whatsoever to act against this ordinance, is punished according to the canons.

The canon further says that monks or laymen who transgress against this ordinance are likewise subjected to a penalty, namely, excommunication.[42][43] Hefele, in his account of the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon on this canon, finds that they, on the strength of these words in the canon, expressed the view that absolutely all monks and laymen must in everything and always be dependent on the bishop.[44] What Hefele says has a relative validity; and however correct his inference from the words of the commentators named may be with regard to monks, that same inference must be taken altogether otherwise with regard to laymen. By the canons, monks are unconditionally subject to the bishop, but laymen are not so. And Zonaras, having stated without any qualification that this ordinance of the fathers must hold good for monks, and that they must be unconditionally subject to their bishop, asks with regard to laymen: “But in what manner has the canon, speaking of clergy, also mentioned laymen?” — and answers: “I hold that the thought of the fathers was this: they thought that clergy would never of themselves decide to withdraw from their bishop, but would do so at the instigation of certain powerful laymen, who by their own power give them the boldness—or rather the impudence—for such a self-willed act; and it is such laymen, then, whom the canon subjects to excommunication (τῇ ἀκουνωνησέᾳ)”.[45] It does not speak here, then, of any unconditional subjection of laymen to the bishop, a subjection such as could be equated with the subjection by which monks are bound to their bishop, but of a subjection altogether different, and one that holds particularly in matters of faith, morals, and hierarchical discipline.

What a martyr’s shrine (μαρτύριον) is, which the fathers mention in this canon, we have stated in the commentary on canon 6 of this council. Besides the clergy of these shrines, the canon further mentions clergy attached to monasteries and clergy attached to the churches of almshouses. “Almshouses (πτωχεῖα)”, says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, “are called the establishments which are intended as a refuge for the poor.”[41] “Almshouses (πτωχεῖα)”, says Zonaras in his commentary on the same canon, “are houses into which the poor are received and in which they are maintained—that is, houses to which the aged, orphans, and the like betake themselves, and in which those who suffer find the necessary support.”[46] At such establishments there were their own churches, at which, naturally, there had also to be their own clergy, and this clergy, like that at the churches of monasteries or martyrs’ shrines, must be dependent on the bishop in whose territory those establishments lay. And why these establishments had their own churches, Zonaras again tells us: “so that those sheltered in them should not remain without prayer, it being impossible for them to attend the general assemblies at the churches, whether because of extreme old age, or bodily infirmity, or sickness; and for this reason the founders of these almshouses arranged that each should have its own church, and, attached to it, its own clergy, who should perform the service to God, and whom the infirm could easily attend in hearing that service.”[45]

Canon 9

If any cleric has some dispute with another cleric, let him not bypass his bishop and turn to secular courts, but let him first bring the matter before his bishop, or, with the bishop’s consent, let the case be tried before those whom both sides shall choose; and whoever transgresses this, let him be subjected to the penalties prescribed by the canons. If a cleric has some dispute with his own or with another bishop, let him be judged before the provincial council. But if a bishop or a cleric has some dispute with the metropolitan of the respective province, let him have recourse to the exarch of the great district (diocese), or to the throne of imperial Constantinople, and let him be judged there.

(Ap. 74, 75; I Ecum. 6; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 17, 19, 21, 28; Trullo 8; Antioch 14, 15, 20; Laodicea 40; Sardica 4; Carthage 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 59, 104, 107, 128, 129, 130, 132).

— This canon speaks of the ecclesiastical courts which are competent, in the first instance, to adjudicate the suits which a given sacred person may bring against other sacred persons, namely: a) suits between clergy, understanding here presbyters, deacons, and other lower clergy, and likewise monks; b) suits of clergy against a bishop, whether their own or another’s; and c) suits of a bishop or cleric against a metropolitan. For the first, the competent court is that of the bishop, or a court of jointly-chosen judges, but with the bishop’s consent; for the second, the court of the provincial council (ἡ τῆς ἐπαρχίας σύνοδος); for the third, the court of the exarch of the great district (τῆς διοικήσεως), or of the throne of Constantinople (τοῦ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνου).

The chief thought that moved the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon to issue this canon was, first, to uphold the dignity of the church authority and its influence over sacred persons, and further, to preserve sacred persons from the disparagement to which they might be exposed were a secular court to adjudicate their affairs.[47] Confirming the former ordinances concerning the competence of the various courts and the suits that might be brought before them—leaving in full force, therefore, what had been established on this question by canons 74 and 75 of the holy Apostles and canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, of which we have spoken in their place, and what had been established by other canons of the local councils of Antioch, Carthage, and others—the fathers forbid, under threat of a canonical penalty (ὅρῳ ἐπιτιμίοις ὑποκείσθω), that suits between sacred persons—of course suits of a civil character, for those of an ecclesiastical character always and unconditionally fell to the church court—be brought before secular courts, bypassing the church court, but require rather that they must in every case be brought for hearing and judgment before the church court.[48] The fathers, moreover, as Beveregius and Van Espen aptly observe, do not altogether exclude the competence of secular courts as well in certain circumstances in suits of sacred persons, but require that such suits must first (πρότερον, prius) be brought before the church court, and only after the judgment of this court has gone unheeded may the matter pass to the judgment of the secular court.[49]

For suits between clergy of one diocesan territory (μιᾶς ἐνορίας) the court of the bishop is, by the canon, competent in the first instance.[50] Besides this court, the canon mentions, for the same suits, also the court of judges chosen by mutual agreement, that it may pronounce judgment on the suit. Balsamon expounds this second court thus: “Do not suppose that what is meant here is such a chosen judge (αἱρετὸς δικαστής) as has no lawful right of judgment, for such a one is made judge by the wish of the parties and a stipulated penalty, and this is not what the canon intends—but a judge who has the right to pronounce a properly ecclesiastical judgment in general, but is not competent with respect to those particular parties save by their consent (συμφώνου δὲ ὄντος τοῖς μέρεσιν).”[51] He turns his attention, further, to another question, namely, whether a cleric would be guilty in the same way as when he brings his suit to a secular court, if, bypassing his bishop, he brought that suit directly to the metropolitan; and he answers that he would not be guilty to the same degree, since he has still not brought his suit to a secular court, but he would nonetheless have to be subjected to a penalty for it; and he concludes: “In such a manner, a cleric who, against the will of his bishop, has himself tried before a non-competent court—even though it be an ecclesiastical court—is subjected to the penalty prescribed by this canon.”[52]

A suit of a cleric against his own or another bishop is examined, by the canon, in the first instance by the court of the metropolitan, that is, by the metropolitan or provincial council. A suit, however, of a cleric or a bishop against the metropolitan is examined in the first instance by the court of the exarch of the great district—in other words, by the patriarchal council. These last suits the canon permits also to be brought before the court of the throne of Constantinople.[53] The intent and purpose of this provision with regard to the throne of Constantinople is aptly set forth by Archimandrite John in his commentary on this canon: “This was a particular privilege of the patriarch of Constantinople, to whom both the ecclesiastical and the civil laws gave the right to resolve, by a mediating judgment, the contested affairs of the whole East, just as the patriarch of Rome did the same in the West.[54] But the canon of the council, without obligating the parties concerned to have recourse unconditionally only to the patriarch of Constantinople, but leaving that to the will of those who so wish, thereby bars the way to any exaltation of the authority of that patriarch, while at the same time, by the particular extension of his rights in the East, it prevents anyone else from meddling in the affairs of the East.” And this, as is evident, was the chief purpose of the conciliar provision, directed against the great claims of Rome.[55]

The completion of the commentary on this canon we shall bring forward further on, in the commentaries on canons 17 and 28 of this council, with which this canon stands in close connection, and which are as important in their content as they deserve special attention, having been the subject of many and various interpretations, particularly among Roman canonists.

Canon 9 of the Council of Chalcedon is received also by the Roman church, and is found in its Corpus juris canonici as canon 46 of causa IX, quaestio 3. But it speaks decisively against the Roman theory of the supreme judicial authority of the bishop of Rome throughout the whole church, and consequently, as it was originally issued by the council, the Roman canonists could not receive this canon into their collections, still less could the bishops of Rome themselves, the popes. It was necessary to bring this canon over, in their own fashion, into the Western canonical collections, and to append to it such an interpretation as would show that it in no way denies the right of the pope’s supreme judicial authority throughout the church, but on the contrary, that it precisely establishes that authority and commands that whoever has any suit against a metropolitan must have recourse exclusively to the pope, and that only if the pope permits may that suit be submitted to another for judgment.

The main force of the question lies in these words of the original text of the canon: τὸν ἔξαρχον τῆς διοικήσεως.[56] By these words is meant “the exarch of the great district,” to whom, in the first instance, clergy or bishops must have recourse when they have some suit against a metropolitan. According to the text of the canon, and according to the most straightforward understanding of it, by the name of this “exarch” is understood the chief metropolitan, exarch, or patriarch—that is, the head of a great ecclesiastical district in which there are several metropolitans with their bishops—and this head, together with the metropolitans and bishops subject to him, constitutes the “district council,” or “patriarchal or national council,” before which council clergy and bishops could bring their suits against a metropolitan.[57] The Roman canonists of an earlier age had no wish to understand the words of the canon in so simple a way, but set about interpreting in their own fashion what the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon had meant when they issued this canon of theirs, translating the word ἔξαρχον as “Primatem,” and the word that follows it, τῆς διοικήσεως—some translated it as “ecclesiae dioeceseos,” others as “universalis dioeceseos,” others again as “dioeceseon”—and there emerged something altogether new, namely, that this “Primas christianae dioeceseos, universalis dioeceseos,” or “Primas dioeceseon” is none other than the pope of Rome himself, who alone by right has authority to render judgment on suits brought against metropolitans. And since in the canon, after those words, there followed further: “or to the throne of Constantinople,” it was interpreted that the patriarch of Constantinople too might pronounce judgment on such suits, but only ex permissione of the pope of Rome, and by no other means.

In his notes on this canon, Binius speaks thus: “Primas dioeceseos is the bishop of Rome, for the Greek word ἔξαρχος does not properly denote him who is first (non proprie Primatem), but a prince (Principem); and the Roman high priest (Pontifex) himself is the prince of the Christian district (est Princeps christianae dioeceseos).[58] And by these words a law is established, by which, if anyone has some suit against a metropolitan, he cannot, nor may he, bring that suit of his anywhere else, but before the prince of the district, that is, before the Roman high priest (apud Principem dioeceseos, Romanum scilicet Pontificem).” This interpretation, as one can see, is drawn straight out of his own head—and Beveregius, having cited this passage of Binius, was entirely right when he made the following remark upon it: “See to what lengths excessive zeal has driven unfortunate men! Who, after this, will be surprised that anyone derives anything from anything, and wishes to find any meaning whatsoever in those words?” Having granted, then, that ἔξαρχον here means “Princeps, prince,” and that τῆς διοικήσεως means “christianae dioeceseos—the Christian district—the Christian world,” and having thus twisted the canon, Binius could easily persuade those willing to believe him that the fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, in issuing this canon 9—just as also canon 17, in which the same ἔξαρχον τῆς διοικήσεως is mentioned in the same sense—had in view the supreme right of judgment, over the whole ecumenical church, of the Roman high priest. And this was the easier for a Roman theologian to do, since he had, as an example in this, none other than a Roman high priest himself, the famous Pope Nicholas I.

Pope Nicholas I had occasion to invoke this canon of this council in order to prove that very thing which Binius later proved.[59] Well known is the celebrated letter (VIII) which Nicholas I addressed to the emperor Michael at Constantinople in the year 865, in which he seeks to prove his supreme right in the church, and demands that both Photius and Ignatius must come to Rome, where he will render judgment on the dispute between them.[60] Invoking, in that letter of his, the canon mentioned above, Nicholas I is not content merely to prove his claim on the strength of the sense which Dionysius gave to the word ἔξαρχον, but proves it further by a particular interpretation of his own. The canon establishes that when anyone has some suit against a metropolitan, he must have recourse to the court of either the exarch of the great district, or the throne of Constantinople (ἢ τὸν ἔξαρχον τῆς διοικήσεως, ἢ τὸν τῆς βασιλευούσης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνον). The canon, then, leaves it to everyone’s will to be judged either at the one or at the other court. Nicholas understands this provision of the canon in his own way, and in those words, “let them have recourse to the exarch of the great district,” he finds a positive ordinance of the fathers, which must hold as a fundamental rule, while in the words, “or to the throne of Constantinople,” he finds a conditional ordinance. “And that nothing,” he says in the letter mentioned, “may be done without canonical authority, let us recall the canons of the Council of Chalcedon, which establish this: when a cleric has a suit against his own or another bishop, he must have recourse for judgment to the provincial council; but if a bishop or cleric has some dispute with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the primate of the great district, or to the throne of the imperial city of Constantinople. Accordingly, this order must be observed, namely, if a cleric or bishop has some dispute with a metropolitan… wherever he may be, he must have recourse to the primate of the great district; but if he happens to be near Constantinople and wishes to content himself with the judgment of the head of that city alone, let him have recourse to that imperial city. When it is here said, ‘let him have recourse to the primate of the great district,’ the holy council thereby issues an ordinance and establishes a law; when afterward it adds, by way of a disjunctive particle, ‘or to the throne of the imperial city of Constantinople,’ it is as clear as the sun that this is granted only after, and subordinate to, the aforesaid permission.”[61] It follows, then, on Nicholas I’s understanding, that every suit against a metropolitan, wherever it be brought, must by law (juxta regulam) be submitted to “the primate of the great district,” and may be submitted to the throne of Constantinople only by permission (secundum permissionem) of that “primate.” By what means Nicholas I could derive, from those simple and clear words of the canon, that what is spoken of here is something that must be done by law (ex regula) and something that can only be done, in turn, by permission (ex permissione)—that, perhaps, he himself would have been capable of explaining, but no one else in the world.[62]

And as to who this “primate of the great district” is, to whom this right belongs ex regula, Nicholas further says in the same letter: “When the holy council said, ‘the primate of the great district,’ none other can be understood here but the vicar of the first Apostle. For he is that primate, who is both first and highest.”[63] The pope of Rome, then, as vicar of the first Apostle, as first and highest, alone has, by law, the right to adjudicate disputes between metropolitans and bishops or other clergy. So Nicholas I tells the emperor Michael. And in order to persuade him yet further that the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon really thought as he says they did, he proceeds to a further interpretation of the meaning of the word διοικήσεως. “One need not,” he says, “be troubled in the least by the fact that ‘of the great district’—dioeceseos—is said in the singular; for one must know that it means exactly the same thing to say ‘primate of the great district’—dioeceseos—as it would to say ‘primate of the great districts’—dioeceseon”; and in confirmation of this he has recourse to nothing less than Holy Scripture, to show thereby how words may be twisted at will. “The holy books,” he continues, “are full of just such a form of expression. It is written: ‘A spring went up from the earth to water the whole face of the earth’ (Gen. 2:6), and it is not said there that one spring went up, but it is said that the spring went up from the earth; the singular is used for the plural, to signify the many springs which were to water all the places and regions of the whole earth…. So too here, ‘the great district’ is put in the singular, but for the sake of the unity of peace and faith the plural is to be understood.”[64] This manner of interpreting the words of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon we leave without any comment, since it is only too clear in itself.

Such an interpretation, by Nicholas I, of a canon of an ecumenical council recognized by the whole church, could not but bring the Roman theologians into great embarrassment when they were compelled, in their writings, to speak of it.[65] To argue that Nicholas I did not write this, that he could not have written thus, the Roman theologians cannot do, for the matter is only too evident, and the letter of Nicholas containing this interpretation—which they themselves call “ein herrliches Aktenstück”—is only too well known; they must, meanwhile, admit that such an interpretation of this Chalcedonian canon is groundless, and that the claim which Nicholas I bases upon that canon is unwarranted.[66] — This act, moreover, shows nothing out of the ordinary. It shows what has long been known to everyone, namely, the tireless endeavor of Rome to justify, by every possible means, its theory of the absolute authority of the Roman high priest over the whole ecumenical world, and it demonstrates at the same time how weak, in itself, that theory is, when such devices must be resorted to in order to justify it.

Canon 10

It is not permitted for a clergyman to be reckoned at one and the same time among the clergy of the churches of two cities—both that for which he was ordained in the beginning, and that to which, as being more distinguished, and moved by a desire for empty glory, he has transferred. And those who do this are to be restored to their own church, for which they were ordained in the beginning, and are to serve only there. But if anyone has been duly transferred from one church to another, he may have nothing further in common with the affairs of the former church, whether these concern the martyria, or the houses for the poor, or the hospices for strangers dependent on that church. Should anyone, after this decree of this holy and ecumenical council, dare to do anything of what is now forbidden, the holy council determines that he be cast down from his rank.

(Ap. 15; I Ecum. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 5, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18; Antioch 3; Sardica 15, 16; Carthage 54, 90).

The Council of Chalcedon, by its 6th canon, established that no one may be ordained without a precise designation of the church at which he is to exercise his ministry (ἀπολελυμένως). And by the decree of the 15th and 16th canons of the First Ecumenical Council, the person concerned must remain permanently attached to that church and serve it, and may not withdraw from it and pass over to another church. In this canon the decrees of the aforementioned canons are repeated, and it is forbidden for one man to serve at two churches at the same time—that is, at the one for which he was ordained, and also at another; and if he has been transferred from the former church to another, he can no longer have any part whatsoever in the affairs of the former church.

The occasion for the issuing of this canon was, according to Zonaras, that certain men, having been ordained for a lesser place, out of love of honor transferred to the church of a greater place. The council, in order to condemn such ambitious tendencies and to put a stop to this disorder, determines that such men must be restored to their own churches and serve only at them. But if anyone has been transferred by a lawful process to another place, the council directs that such a transfer be regarded as valid, except that in such a case the one transferred can no longer have any right to his former place. For transgression of the decree of this canon, the council determines that the offender be deposed.

Canon 11

We establish that the poor and those in need, after examination, are to receive for their journey only letters of peace from the church, and not letters of recommendation; for letters of recommendation ought to be given only to those persons who are under suspicion.

(Ap. 12, 13, 32, 33; IV, 13; Trullo 17; Antioch 6, 7, 8, 11; Laodicea 41, 42; Sardica 7, 8, 9; Carthage 23, 106).

— The text of this canon, as it is set out in the Athenian Syntagma and in the Russian Synodal edition, presents in itself considerable difficulty for grasping the thought which the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon had in mind when they issued it. And only with the help of the parallel canons and the interpretations of the medieval Greek canonists is it possible to understand the sense of the canon precisely.[67]

The canon speaks of the various certificates which bishops—or, respectively, metropolitans and other senior bishops—must issue, according to need, to persons subject to them, and in particular to the poor and to persons under suspicion.[68] We shall say below whom the canon understands by those persons to whom these certificates are to be issued, and for now we shall turn our attention to the certificates themselves.

There are mentioned first εἰρηνικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (literae pacificae), and then συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (literae commendatitiae). Of these latter letters we have spoken in the commentary on canon 13. Here we shall speak of the former.

A letter of peace (litterae pacis, Friedensbrief) is, according to Aristenus, a written certificate issued by the church authority to a person with whom nothing untoward has occurred—who is, that is, in good standing—and it is issued when that person is about to set out on a journey. This is the general sense of letters of peace. In particular, they were issued on various occasions and differed in content. a) When a cleric had to pass from one diocese to another, or a bishop had to be absent for a time from his diocese, the bishop or, respectively, the metropolitan concerned issued him a particular letter, attesting that he departs with the knowledge of his bishop or metropolitan, and such a letter was called a letter of peace. Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, explains why such a letter was called a “letter of peace” and says: “because such a letter serves to confirm peace; for if a cleric were to pass from one place to another without the permission of his bishop, both he and the one who received him would be subjected to a penalty: the cleric would lose the right to perform sacred service, and the bishop who received such a cleric is subjected to excommunication under Apostolic canons 15 and 16.” Such letters are also called ἀπολυτικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (literae dimissoriae), as we shall see in canon 17 of the Council of Trullo.[69] They were so called because they contained an authorization, on the part of the bishop, for the person concerned to depart freely from the diocese and pass over to service in another. b) A letter of peace was further issued when a bishop or metropolitan had need to go to the emperor. In it, likewise, it was attested that the person concerned departed with the knowledge and approval of his superior.[70] A letter of peace for a bishop was issued by the metropolitan, and for a metropolitan by the patriarch.[71] Without such a letter, according to the canons (canon 11 of Antioch and canon 106 of Carthage, and others), no one was permitted to present himself before the emperor. c) Finally, letters of peace were also the name given to those letters which bishops or chorbishops (Antioch canon 8) issued to poor persons, and in which letters it was attested that the person concerned was indeed in a state of poverty and in need from others, and they were commended to the mercy of the faithful. “Without a letter of peace no stranger may be received,” runs canon 7 of the Council of Antioch.

It is this last kind of letters of peace that is mentioned in this Chalcedonian canon, and it is established that letters of peace be issued to the poor and to those in need of help, by the authority concerned—that is, by the bishop, or at least by the chorbishop—when they set out on a journey for the purpose of begging. These were in universal use among Christians in the early centuries, and Sozomen, in his ecclesiastical history, says that the wretched who presented them were held in particular esteem by all, and that they contributed greatly to the preservation of mutual love among the faithful. But so that they might not be abused, and might not be given to the unworthy, the council decrees that the condition of the person concerned must first be examined, and whether he must in truth live only by alms, and only when this has been ascertained is the letter of peace to be issued to him.

Having thus established that the bishops must take care of the poor, the council decrees that the aforementioned letters of peace be issued to these poor, but immediately adds: “but not letters of recommendation, for these ought to be given only to those persons who are under suspicion.” To understand the difference between the two kinds of letters, it must be observed that the former were merely certificates attesting the poverty of the person concerned, whereas the latter were official documents and concerned only hierarchical discipline—that is, persons belonging to the hierarchy, and of whom another bishop might not even know, who were therefore unknown to him, or, as the canon says, who were ἐν ὑπολήψει, under suspicion, doubtful, in his eyes.[72] They could also concern laymen, but only in one case, namely, if these had been subjected to excommunication or some other church penalty, and had afterward been vindicated, while meanwhile having occasion to go somewhere on church business.[73]

The last words of the canon, προσήκειν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὑπολήψει μόνοις παρέχεσθαι προσώποις, we have translated as “ought to be given only to those persons who are under suspicion.” This same sense is given to these words also in the Russian synodal edition of the canons, where it stands: “надлежит давати токмо лицам, находящимся под сомнением.”[74] In Beveregius’s Pandectae canonum it stands: “iis solis personis, quae sunt suspectae, praeberi oportet”[75]; in the Codex canonum ecclesiae universae which Ch. Justellus published in his Bibliotheca, and which we have mentioned above,[76] it likewise stands: “iis solis personis, quae in aliquam suspicionem venerunt, praeberi oportet.”[77] But in the Dionysian collection it stands otherwise: “honoratioribus tantummodo praestari personis conveniat”[78], and likewise in the edition of J. B. Pitra[79], as also in Van Espen.[80] Similarly, in the translation of Isidore Mercator: “eos tantum accipere convenit, qui in opere sunt clariores”[81]; and in the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph the Egyptian, according to Beveregius’s translation: “quoniam litterae istae iis dumtaxat qui bonae sunt famae, et bonae conversationis, et melioris notae scribuntur.”[82] Nor is this latter translation (of Dionysius and others) unwarranted, for the word ὑπόληψις in the canon signifies as much “suspicio” (suspicion, objection, Verdacht) as it does “existimatio” (esteem, reputation, Ansehen, Leumund). We have adopted, in our translation, the first meaning, following Balsamon’s commentary on this canon.[69] From this difference of interpretation of the word ὑπόληψις in this canon, nothing else can be derived save a difference of opinion as to the letters of recommendation themselves.

Canon 12

We have learned that certain persons, contrary to the ecclesiastical institutions, having had recourse to the magnates, on the strength of a pragmatic [imperial rescript], have divided one province into two, so that as a result there come to be two metropolitans in one and the same province. The holy council therefore decrees that no bishop henceforth presume to do any such thing, for whoever attempts it shall be deposed from his degree. But as for cities which, by imperial charters, have been honored with the title of metropolis, let them enjoy only the honor, as also the bishops who govern the churches of those cities, but let the rights of the lawful metropolis be preserved to it entire.

(Ap. 34; I Ecum. 6, 7; II Ecum. 2, 3; III Ecum. 8; IV Ecum. 28; Trullo 36, 39).

— The occasion for the issuing of this canon was, first, the dispute between Photius, bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus, concerning metropolitan authority, of which the council took counsel at its fourth session, and then the dispute over jurisdiction between Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea, with which the council occupied itself at its thirteenth session. The fathers of the council, in issuing their canons at the fifteenth session, issued, on the occasion of these disputes, and in order to establish a positive norm for the future, this (12th) canon. Confirming the rights of the lawful metropolitans, and not permitting that metropolitan provinces be divided by imperial decrees alone, independently of the council of all the bishops, repeating, then, in this canon that same norm which had been established by canons 6 and 7 of the First Ecumenical Council and canons 2 and 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, and, correspondingly, also by canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, they issue this canon and decree that no bishop may, independently of the council, have recourse to the imperial authority and seek and obtain from it metropolitan rights to the detriment of the lawful metropolitan, threatening with deposition any bishop who should dare to transgress this ordinance. The council, moreover, grants to the imperial authority that it may honor with the dignity of metropolitan a bishop whose see is in the capital city, a metropolis in the civil sense, but so that the rights of the canonical metropolitan not be thereby injured, it immediately adds that such a bishop may enjoy only the honor of a metropolitan, while to the canonical metropolitan all the metropolitan rights must be preserved in full strictness.

In issuing this canon, the fathers of the council had before them those declarations of the Byzantine emperors concerning the church canons which we have cited in the commentary on canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, and, further, that declaration of the imperial legates at this council, on the occasion of the disputes mentioned, that “such matters are not decided by imperial decrees, but by the church canons.”[83]

Canon 13

Foreign clergy, and those who are unknown, shall nowhere and in no manner minister in another city, without letters of recommendation from their own bishop.

(Ap. 12, 13, 32, 33; IV Ecum. 11; Trullo 17).

— This canon forbids that very thing which had already been forbidden by the Apostolic canons, namely, that no strange cleric may minister anywhere, if he has not a letter of recommendation from his own bishop.

We have spoken of letters of recommendation in the commentary on Apostolic canon 12, and shown the diversity of content of the various letters of recommendation. In this canon what is meant is those letters of recommendation which a bishop issued to the sacred persons concerned, to attest to their lawful ordination, their hierarchical degree, their rights, and that they have the right to perform sacred functions anywhere.[84] Without such a letter of recommendation from his own bishop, no cleric was permitted to perform sacred functions outside his own diocese, and if some cleric had been permitted this by another bishop within that bishop’s own diocese, then, by canon 12 of the holy Apostles, both that cleric and the bishop who gave him the permission were deposed; and even when the cleric concerned did show a letter of recommendation, judgment had, by Apostolic canon 33, still to be made concerning his piety, and only then was he to be received, “for much deceit occurs”—that canon concludes. In this canon there is added μηδόλως μηδαμοῦ, “nowhere and in no manner,” that is, he is forbidden to perform sacred functions not only in the city to which he has gone without written authorization from his bishop, but in any other place whatsoever.[85]

In the Latin editions of this canon the opening words run differently: “peregrinos clericos et lectores,” instead of “peregrinos clericos et ignotos,” as the text of the Athenian Syntagma would have it. The word ἀγνώστους (“unknown”) has been replaced by ἀναγνώστας (“readers”). Van Espen and others find the Greek reading more sensible, namely that it should read ἀγνώστους, “unknown,” as a synonym of the canon’s opening word ξένους, “strange,” and not ἀναγνώστας, since otherwise the canon becomes unclear.[86] Hefele, examining this difference between the Latin and Greek texts of this canon, says that the Latin translators certainly translated the word thus because they found it so in their manuscripts, but, allowing for the supposition that the fathers might have used the word ἀναγνώστας instead of ἀγνώστους in this canon, adds with good reason: it may be that the council meant to say all strange clergy, and readers too, and so on.[87]