Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), 14–27

Canon 14

Since in some provinces readers and cantors have been permitted to marry, the holy council decrees that none of them may take a wife of a different faith. And those who have had children of such a marriage and have already had them baptized among heretics, must bring them into the communion of the catholic church; but if they have not yet baptized them, they may not have them baptized among the heretics, nor likewise unite them in marriage with a heretical, or Jewish, or Hellenic [pagan] person, unless the person who wishes to be united in marriage with an Orthodox person promises to be converted to the Orthodox faith. And whoever transgresses this ordinance of the holy council, let him be subjected to the penalty prescribed by the canons.

(Ap. 26, 45, 65; Trullo 6, 72; Laodicea 10, 31, 34, 37, 39; Carthage 21).

— Of the fact that it is permitted to readers and cantors to marry, we have spoken in the commentary on Apostolic canon 26. In this canon it is mentioned that in “certain provinces” it was otherwise. The canon confirms the ordinance of Apostolic canon 26, and establishes with women of which confession readers and cantors may contract marriage, and how they are to deal with children they have had of a marriage which they happened to have contracted with a person of a different faith.

On the words of the canon, “in certain provinces” (ἐν τισιν ἐπαρχίαις), Balsamon remarks in his commentary on this canon: “As it appears (ὡς ἔοικεν), in certain provinces readers and cantors were permitted to contract marriage bonds on the strength of Apostolic canon 26, while in others it was, without foundation (παραλόγως, praeter rationem), forbidden to them.”[1] If in some provinces it had been forbidden for readers and cantors to enter into marriage, this must have arisen from an excessively strict view of marriage and of the unfitness of one who had already, unmarried, devoted himself to the service of the church, to contract a marriage bond. In any case, in view of the fact that marriage was permitted to these by the Apostolic canons, and that this permission had been constantly upheld in practice in the church, and that it was afterward confirmed by particular canons, we must say, with Balsamon, that if it was anywhere forbidden, this was in any case an unwarranted, groundless prohibition (παραλόγως).

Recognizing, then, the right of readers and cantors to enter freely into marriage, the canon establishes that they must take to themselves as a wife only a maiden who is of the Orthodox faith, and by no means one who does not confess that faith, who is of a different faith (ἑτερόδοξον).

Marriages of the Orthodox with persons who do not confess the Orthodox faith are forbidden by the canons, in general, to all the faithful. We have seen in canons 45, 65, and other Apostolic canons that the church forbids all communion with heretics, and excommunicates from the church community the Orthodox person who permits himself this. This same prohibition we find repeated afterward at the councils. If, then, the church forbids simple communion of the faithful with heretics and schismatics (Laodicea canon 33), it must all the more have forbidden the Orthodox to contract marriage bonds with such persons. Canon 31 of the Council of Laodicea establishes that no one of the faithful may contract marriage with a heretic, nor give his daughter to a heretic. The same was also established by canon 21 of the Council of Carthage. And this was a universal norm in the church. In canon 72 of the Council of Trullo we shall see the church’s most decisive ordinance against marriages between the Orthodox and those of a different faith, and there we shall set forth the principle by which the Orthodox church was guided in issuing such strict canons against these marriages.

Forbidding every one of the faithful to enter into marriage with those of a different faith, the church had all the more reason to forbid this to those who already belong to the clergy, but who may, by the canons, enter into marriage. This is what this Chalcedonian canon serves to express.

It must be held that up to that time, that is, up to the year 451, when this council was held, readers and cantors did marry maidens who were not Orthodox as well. This canon issues the ordinance that henceforth, under threat of penalty, this must not be, but that when a reader or a cantor wishes to marry, he may take only an Orthodox maiden. As for those, however, who at that time found themselves already in a marriage contracted with persons of a different faith, and as for their children, the council establishes the following: 1. Children of such a marriage, if they have already been baptized among those of a different faith, must be brought into the bosom of the Orthodox church. 2. If these children, born of such a marriage, have not yet been baptized, they may not receive baptism among those of a different faith, but only in the Orthodox church. 3. The parents of such children may not, moreover, permit their children to contract marriage with a person belonging either to some heretical sect, or to the Jews, or to the pagans—save in the one case where the person concerned declares readiness to pass over into the Orthodox church. — The canon does not mention whether readers and cantors found at that time in the aforesaid marriage must also convert their wives to the Orthodox faith; but this must be understood of itself, as soon as attention is paid to the canon’s ordinance concerning the children. — Transgressors of this ordinance the canon subjects to the penalty prescribed by the canons, namely, deposition from their degree.

Canon 15

No woman shall be appointed a deaconess before she is forty years of age, and this after careful examination. And if, having received consecration, she has remained for some time in the ministry, but afterward marries, having despised the grace of God, let her be anathema, together with him who has joined himself to her.

— This canon concerns deaconesses: at what age, namely, and under what conditions they may be received into the order, and to what penalties they are subjected if, having entered the order, they afterward wish to marry.

Deaconesses existed in the church already from apostolic times. In his epistle to the Romans the Apostle Paul mentions Phoebe, a deaconess (ἡ διάκονος) of the church at Cenchreae, and recommends that she be received in the Lord as befits the saints (16:1–2); and in his first epistle to Timothy he establishes that only such women may become deaconesses as have already completed their sixtieth year and who present good testimony concerning their life (5:9–10).

What exactly the ministry of deaconesses was in the apostolic age cannot be precisely determined; but that they belonged to the clergy, and were therefore appointed to their ministry by some particular church rite, may be inferred from the words of the same Apostle, who, in that very passage of the epistle mentioned where he speaks of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, speaks immediately afterward also of the qualities with which women must be distinguished (3:11), understanding here, undoubtedly, deaconesses. The first explicit mention of deaconesses is in the Apostolic Constitutions, in which it is also told what their ministry in general was and in what manner they were appointed. In these Constitutions we read of the ministry of deaconesses: “A deaconess does not bless, nor can she perform anything of what presbyters or deacons do in the church, save that she guards the door of the temple and assists when the presbyters baptize women” (VIII, 28). We further read: “Choose (O bishop) for the ministries of women a deaconess who is faithful and holy. It sometimes happens that into the houses of unbelievers, where there are women, you cannot send a deacon, because of the unbelievers; send, then, a deaconess, so that the wicked can say nothing. We need a deaconess for many tasks. And first, when women are baptized, the deacon is only to anoint them with holy oil on the forehead, and after the deacon, let the deaconess anoint them further. It is not fitting that women be seen by men” (III, 15). Besides this, deaconesses had to stand at those doors of the temple through which women entered and exited, just as deacons stood at the other doors, through which men passed (II, 57); without a deaconess no woman was permitted to go to the bishop or a deacon (II, 26), and so forth. Besides the Constitutions, Clement of Alexandria mentions the ministry of deaconesses, calling them “chosen persons,” and remarks that, since “men cannot enter the women’s quarters without giving rise to all manner of suspicion, deaconesses go there and preach the word of God.”[2] Tertullian, Epiphanius, and others also mention them. And all present this ministry to us not as a diaconal, priestly ministry, but as a ministry which they performed outside the sanctuary (ἐκτὸς τοῦ βήματος) whenever some church rite was performed with women, particularly at the baptism of women, or as intermediaries between women and the sacred and church ministers.[3] This, moreover, is in general all that is known of the ministry of deaconesses; the particulars of that ministry were already unknown by the twelfth century.[4]

In what manner deaconesses were consecrated for their ministry, the same Apostolic Constitutions again tell us. They say, namely, that they received consecration through the laying on of hands by the bishop.[5] And Blastares tells us that the woman concerned was brought by a deacon before the bishop, who, laying his hands upon her bowed head and signing her with the sign of the cross, read a particular prayer, which began with the words, “Divine grace, which healest the infirm,” and placed upon her neck the diaconal orarion, which was tied crosswise, so that both ends of the orarion came forward; and afterward, at the time of communion, she was communed after the deacon, and the bishop handed her the chalice, which she placed upon the holy table. And this consecration is called, in this canon of the Council of Chalcedon, cheirothesia (χειροθεσίαν).

For such deaconesses this canon establishes that they must in every case be forty years of age. This canon appears to contradict, as regards the age of deaconesses, the ordinance of the Apostle Paul, who prescribes sixty years. This apparent contradiction Zonaras resolves in his commentary on this canon by drawing attention to the fact that the Apostle speaks of widows, whereas this canon speaks of maidens, for there were deaconesses who were taken from among widows, and there were, again, deaconesses who became deaconesses from among maidens. For the former, sixty years of age was required; for the latter, forty. “That woman (maiden),” Zonaras explains, “who has to her fortieth year kept herself in purity and has abstained, not having tasted the pleasure of union with a husband, and has received the ministry of deaconess, will in any case be reluctant to incline to marriage and desire the carnal union she has never tasted. But a widow, who has enjoyed her husband’s bed and tasted the pleasure of carnal union with a husband, may be more inclined to that passion. And for this reason the great Basil too, in his canon 18, does not subject to an equal penalty a maiden who has sinned in like manner….. In this way, holding the widow as more inclined to the passion of carnal union than the maiden, the holy Apostle ordains that she be received at a much more advanced age than the maiden.”[6] In any case, the strictness of the canon as regards the age which a woman had to have in order to be received as a deaconess was not always observed, and the main thing to which attention was paid was whether the woman concerned was, by her qualities, worthy to be received, and if this could be proved by trustworthy testimonies, she was received without regard to age, at the bishop’s discretion. This condition—that the purity of life of her who wished to enter the order of deaconesses must chiefly be proved—is emphasized also by our canon: “after careful examination,” namely, whether they are such as the Apostle Paul commands them to be (1 Tim. 3:11).

Deaconesses could be only either maidens or widows, and although they were not nuns, they nevertheless took a strict vow of virginity, which they had to keep sacred until death.[7] The canon recalls here this vow of theirs, and, having in view certain aspersions which were in all likelihood cast about in the world concerning their manner of life—for instance, in Lucian’s sarcastic epistle “The Stranger,” in that of Julian and others—it strictly forbids them, once they have entered the order of deaconesses, to enter into marriage anew; and if they transgress this ordinance, it subjects them to anathema, together with him with whom they have entered into carnal union.[8]

The order of deaconesses in the West ceased already in the sixth century, as a consecrated order, on account of various abuses caused, as the councils of Arausicanum I (441), Agathense (506), and Aurelianense II (553) say, by female weakness. This last council issues the following (18th) canon: “Placuit, ut nulla postmodum feminae diaconalis benedictio pro conditione huius fragilitatis credatur.”[9] In the East, as we have seen, the order of deaconess was already gone by the twelfth century.[10]

Canon 16

A maiden who has consecrated herself to the Lord God, and likewise those who belong to monasticism, may not enter into marriage. And those found in this, let them be excommunicated. We ordain, moreover, that the local bishop have authority to show also loving-kindness toward such persons.

(IV Ecum. 7; Trullo 44, 46, 47; Ancyra 19; Basil the Great 6, 18, 19, 20, 60).

— Besides monks and nuns, who took the vow of virginity upon entering the order, there were also, in ancient times, certain maidens who, without entering monasticism, but living in worldly dress and in the cities with their parents or kindred, consecrated themselves to God and gave, solemnly before the bishop in the church, a promise that they would spend their whole life in virginity. In this these maidens were equal to the deaconesses of whom we spoke in the preceding canon. Having consecrated themselves to God, they were regarded as brides of Christ, to whom they offered their virginity as a sacrifice, and were for this reason regarded and called by the church holy virgins, ἱεραὶ παρθένοι.

As such, they were no longer permitted to enter into marriage, for by this they would betray Christ, their betrothed. Already in an earlier age, however, disorders must have arisen in this regard, for we find canons which warn against these and impose penalties on those who violate the vow they have taken. The Chalcedonian fathers found themselves moved to repeat the former canons on this matter, and ordain that every such maiden must be excommunicated from the church community, just as every monk and nun found in this must be.[11]

Having issued so strict an ordinance, the canon leaves it to the local bishop to apply, at his own discretion, this strictness in individual cases—that is, as Balsamon remarks here, either to enforce it or to mitigate it.[12] This, moreover, must not be understood as though the bishop could also recognize as lawful a marriage contracted by the persons mentioned, for this would contradict the express canons on this matter, such as canon 15 of this council, canons 6 and 18 of Basil the Great, and canon 19 of the Council of Ancyra, which were issued before this council, and, further, canon 44 of the Council of Trullo and others, issued afterward; but rather that he may also decide not to excommunicate the transgressors entirely from the church community, imposing on them instead a greater or lesser penance. Hefele’s remark, accordingly, that by this canon a marriage contracted by a monk or a maiden who has taken the vow of virginity is not thereby annulled, and likewise that of Van Espen, whom Hefele invokes, is in no way warranted.

In the Dionysian edition, before that place in the canon where this authorization is given to the bishop to act at his own discretion, there stands further “confessis”—that is, if the transgressor concerned acknowledges and confesses his transgression, the bishop is then to mitigate the penalty for him. In the Greek text there is nothing of this, but we nonetheless hold that this must be understood, even without its being mentioned, for a bishop can hardly be expected to show loving-kindness toward one who remains obstinate.

Canon 17

In every province, the parishes which are in villages or hamlets must remain unalterably attached to those bishops in whose authority they are, and especially if they have held and governed them without dispute for thirty years. But if some dispute has arisen concerning them, or should arise, before the thirty years have elapsed, it is permitted to those who consider themselves wronged to bring a suit concerning this before the provincial council. But whoever has been wronged by his metropolitan, let him have recourse to the exarch of the great district (diocese), or to the throne of Constantinople, as has been said before. But if a new city has been, or shall hereafter be, founded by imperial authority, in such a case let the arrangement of the ecclesiastical districts follow the arrangement of the state and civil districts.

(I Ecum. 6; Trullo 25; and all the parallel canons cited alongside canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council).

— This canon establishes that the boundaries of provinces must be exactly delineated, and that no one is entitled to violate those boundaries, especially if they are warranted by the right of prescription, which the canon extends to thirty years; and in the event that some dispute arises over the right to one or another church parish, between one bishop and another, or between a bishop and a metropolitan, the canon ordains that the competent church authorities must decide that dispute; and, so that similar disputes may not occur in the future, it makes into law the practice already followed up to that time, expressed already by the First Ecumenical Council, that the arrangement of provinces must be adjusted to the political arrangement of the lands.[13]

In canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council we saw with what strictness the violation of another’s rights was condemned, especially when those rights were warranted by prescription.[14] Here the fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council proceed from the same point of view, and just as the fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council condemned every bishop who extends his authority over a province which had not previously been, and from the very beginning, under his administration or that of his predecessors, so these fathers too establish that the right over a parish as well—even the smallest one—must remain unviolated for the bishop who has always administered it. The canon does not mention city parishes, taking these for granted, and supposing that a dispute is less likely to arise over them, as being large, well-known parishes, but mentions rather the smaller parishes, namely those which are in villages and hamlets. These latter are called in the canon ἀγροικικοί (rurales) and ἐγχώριοι (vicanae). The former we have translated as “parishes in villages,” the latter as “parishes in hamlets.” Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, concerning these different parishes, says that parishes in hamlets are called those which are at the very borders of the province and have only a small number of inhabitants, which are also called “single-household” (μονοίκια, unam domum habentes), while village parishes are those which have more inhabitants, and thus constitute a proper village.

There was no exact demarcation of provinces in the first centuries, nor could there have been, on account of the servile condition in which the church found itself, and on account of the expansion which began to proceed freely, but only gradually, from the middle of the fourth century. The rights of provincial bishops over their districts were founded chiefly, at first, on custom, and afterward on prescription. But custom, no less than prescription, can attain full legal force only when it has been made law. And just as the First Ecumenical Council made custom into law, confirming the rights of the patriarch of Rome, founded on custom, and establishing the rights of the other patriarchs, following that same custom, so too this council made the prescription of possession into law, establishing thirty years as the boundary after which no one may assert any rights of his own to that possession, and the one who has been in possession of a district for so many years, no one having spoken against his possession during that time, must after that time be regarded as the rightful owner, nor is it permitted anyone thereafter to assert any rights of his own against him.[15]

Having thus established the right of prescription, the canon foresees the cases which may arise before a possession can be warranted by that right, and ordains that if a dispute over the right of possession to a parish is raised by one bishop against another before thirty years have elapsed since it came under that bishop’s authority, that dispute, according to the norm established by canon 9 of this council, must be presented for judgment to the provincial council, that is, to the council composed of the provincial bishops under the presidency of the metropolitan; and if such a dispute is raised by a bishop against the metropolitan, it must be presented for judgment to the exarch of the great district, or to the throne of Constantinople. Who this exarch of the great district was, to whose judgment disputes between a bishop and a metropolitan were to be submitted, we have said in the commentary on canon 9 of this council mentioned above; and we have also said when and why such disputes may be submitted for judgment to the throne of Constantinople.[16] As a supplement to this, and so that it not be thought that the throne of Constantinople has unconditional authority over all metropolitans even outside its own patriarchate, we adduce from Zonaras’s commentary on this canon the following as well: “But the patriarch of Constantinople is set up as judge not over all metropolitans without exception, but only over those who are subject to him, for he cannot summon before his court the metropolitans of Syria, or of Palestine and Phoenicia, or of Egypt, against their will; but the metropolitans of Syria are subject to the judgment of the patriarch of Antioch, those of Palestine to the judgment of the patriarch of Jerusalem, and those of Egypt must be judged before the patriarch of Alexandria—from whom they, namely, receive their ordination, and to whom they are accordingly subject.”[17]

The canon concludes with the provision that the political arrangement must serve as the measure also for the arrangement of the ecclesiastical districts. We have seen, in the commentary on canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council, that this norm was adopted by the fathers of that council. And this norm had been adopted already from apostolic times, and the church of all ages since has followed it, recognizing it as chiefly authoritative. Following this fundamental norm, the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council determined the boundaries of the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; the fathers of the succeeding councils, the boundaries of the other ecclesiastical districts; and on the strength of that same norm the church recognized precedence for bishops who were in cities of greater political importance, while it assigned a secondary position to those bishops who were in cities of lesser political importance. An example is furnished by the bishop of Jerusalem, who occupied the oldest and most important see, from which the whole church was once governed, and who nevertheless, on account of the small importance of Jerusalem compared with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, occupied only the fifth place, after the bishops of those cities.

Canon 18

Conspiracy, or factious combination, is, as a transgression, strictly forbidden even by the external laws; how much more, then, is it necessary to prevent this from occurring in the church of God. Accordingly, whatever clergy or monks are found to have entered into a conspiracy, or to have formed a faction, or to be laying snares against a bishop or fellow clergy, let them be altogether cast down from their degree.

(Ap. 31; II Ecum. 6; III Ecum. 3; Trullo 31, 34; Gangra 6; Sardica 14; Antioch 5; Carthage 10, 11; Protodeutera 13, 14, 15).

— The canon mentions first conspiracy (συνωμοσία, conjuratio), and then factious combination (φατρία, factio), as transgressions for which clergy or monks, if found guilty of them, are deposed. “A conspiracy occurs,” says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, “when several persons agree together against someone and bind themselves by oath not to depart from their undertaking until they have carried it out entirely; this is mentioned also in the Acts of the divine Luke, who says that certain of the Jews formed a plot and bound themselves by oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. And a factious combination is when several persons take counsel together and agree upon wicked deeds.”[18] These transgressions, when they concerned the state, were strictly punished also by the civil laws, to which the canon points under the name of “external” (ἔξω νόμους, externas leges).[19] These civil laws are cited in the Nomocanon, in the fourteen titles, and speak first of conspiracy against the person of the emperor, and then against the state and, in general, the interests of the state.

If, in the civil sphere, such transgressions were regarded as deserving of the strictest penalty and were regarded as criminal, all the more had they to be condemned by the church legislation, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and just as the civil legislation condemns him who enters into a conspiracy against the interests of the state, so too the church legislation condemns him who belongs to its jurisdiction and is found in a conspiracy, or otherwise lays snares against the church superiors, or, in general, against persons who stand in the service of the church.[20][21] Of conspiracies against the person of the emperor or the state, of which a cleric might be a participant, the council does not speak in this canon, but such conspiracies it has already condemned by its appeal to the civil laws, while issuing this ordinance concerning participants in conspiracies against the church superiors; and, regarding those laws as a general norm for everything, it issues this canon of its own for particular cases not mentioned in those laws, and it is, accordingly, a supplement to them.

The occasion for the issuing of this canon may have been the disputes concerning Ibas of Edessa and Athanasius of Perrhe, with which the council occupied itself at its tenth and fourteenth sessions; and since it was necessary to put a stop to the self-willed conduct of clergy and others who permitted themselves to disturb the peace of the church and enter into conspiracies against their superiors, the council, invoking similar provisions of the civil legislation, issues this canon, which must serve as a measure for all time, and which even today all those ought to bear in mind who, without always discerning whether there is anything deserving of condemnation in the conduct of a given bishop, are ready to enter into a conspiracy against their church superiors, and thereby, of course, cause only harm to the church.

Canon 19

We have heard that in the provinces the synods of bishops established by the canons are not held, and that on this account many church matters, which ought to be set in order, remain neglected. Therefore the holy synod ordains, in accordance with the canons of the holy fathers, that in every province the bishops shall assemble twice a year at the place which the bishop of the metropolis judges best, and that all matters which have arisen shall be set in order. But the bishops who do not come, but remain in their own cities, being in health and free from every urgent and unavoidable business, shall be brotherly reproved.

(Ap. 34, 37; I Ecum. 5; II Ecum. 2; Trullo 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch 20; Laodicea 40; Carthage 18, 73).

— This canon mentions “synods of bishops” (σύνοδον τῶν ἐπισχόπων), by which is to be understood the synod of a single metropolitan district, at which all the bishops of that district are present under the presidency of the metropolitan. We have spoken of these synods in the commentaries on the 37th canon of the Holy Apostles and the 5th canon of the First Ecumenical Synod.

The fathers of the synod state the occasion for issuing this canon in the opening words of the canon: “we have heard that in the provinces” the synods of bishops established by the canons are not held, and that on this account many church matters, which ought to be set in order, remain neglected. This was especially important in the time of the Council of Chalcedon, when we consider the many complications that then appeared in church administration—complications certainly caused in part by the fact that the established synods of bishops were not being held; and besides that, by all manner of unorthodox teachings which were appearing in individual provinces and which, because the synods were not held, could not be checked in their spread. Individual bishops had, in neither respect, the power on their own to restore the disturbed order; meanwhile the synods, as the fathers say, were not being held, so that the necessity arose to recall the relevant ordinances of the fathers and to issue this canon.[22]

In the aforementioned canons (37th of the Apostles and 5th of the First Ecumenical Synod) nothing is said of the possibility that a bishop might simply not come to the synod.[23] It must be held that, over the course of time, the metropolitans concerned did convoke synods, but that the bishops did not appear at them, and hence for that reason too the synods could not be held. And therefore the fathers certainly add in this canon of theirs a kind of penalty, which the canon calls “reproof” (ἐπέπληξις), and which, even though it be “brotherly” (ἀδελφικῶς), must nevertheless be regarded as a punishment.

The difference between the aforementioned canons and this one is further that there the time of year is also established when these synods are to gather—the first in spring, the second in autumn; here the fathers of Chalcedon leave it to the metropolitan to designate both the place and the time where the synod shall meet. ‘From this,’ remarks Van Espen, ‘it may be concluded that the metropolitan’s power has considerably expanded compared with before.’ We shall see these ordinances concerning metropolitan or diocesan synods repeated again, though within some limitation, apart from local [synods], at the Council in Trullo (canon 8) and at the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (canon 6).

Canon 20

It is not permitted that clerics who are in service at one church be transferred to serve at the church of another city, as we have already established, but they must be content with the church for whose service they were from the beginning found worthy—except only those clerics who, having lost their native land, have of necessity passed over to another church. But if any bishop, after this ordinance, receives a cleric belonging to another bishop, it is established that both the one received and the one who received him be excluded from communion, until the cleric who has fled return to his own church.

(Ap. 15; I Ecum. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 5, 10, 23; Trullo 17, 18; Antioch 3; Sardica 15, 16; Carthage 54, 90).

— This canon establishes that no cleric may leave the church for whose service he has been appointed and pass to another, unless outward circumstances compel him—namely, if the territory in which his church lay has fallen under the enemy, and he has been forced by circumstance to flee and pass to another church. Whatever cleric transgresses this canon falls under exclusion from church communion, that is, the highest degree of punishment appointed for sacred persons (ἀκοινωνησία), and not he alone, but also the bishop who receives him to himself; and both alike remain subject to this punishment according to the canon until the cleric in question returns to his own place, or the bishop concerned agrees to release the fugitive cleric.[24]

Like the 3rd and 4th, this canon too was issued at the proposal of the emperor Marcian. And with what noble manner he brought that proposal before the synod, how highly he regarded the authority of the synod of bishops, and how he considered the synod alone competent to decide church matters, we have already seen.[25]

That clerics must remain with the churches for which they are appointed, must not pass to the service of other churches, or be simultaneously enrolled in the clergy of two churches, the synod had already established by two canons, the 5th and the 10th, and to this it refers in the words of this canon: “as we have already established” (καθὼς ἤδη ὡρίσαμεν).[26] Out of respect for the emperor’s proposal, the fathers now recall once more the ordinances already issued and give the force of a canon to this proposal, enacting it in the very same words in which it had been read to Veronicianus by imperial order at the sixth session. The fathers’ motive for adopting this proposal could have been, first, regard for its proposer, who thereby showed his love for the church and his care for church order; and second, that this in some measure supplemented the ordinances already contained in canons 5 and 10. Canon 5 is of a general character and forbids only the voluntary transfer of a bishop or cleric from one church to another; canon 10 speaks only of a cleric transferring to another church out of ambition—whereas this canon forbids, in general, for whatever cause, that a cleric transfer to another church, excepting only the case where he is compelled to do so by political circumstances beyond his control. Given such content, this canon may accordingly be regarded as a supplement to canons 5 and 10 of this synod, and a repetition of canons 14 and 15 of the holy Apostles and 15 and 16 of the First Ecumenical Synod.

The ordinance of this canon was afterward repeated at the Council in Trullo (canon 18), while the condition under which a bishop might retain with himself a cleric of a foreign province was established by canon 17 of the Council in Trullo, which speaks of letters of release (ἀπολυτικαὶ γραφαί).

Canon 21

Clergymen or laymen who bring accusations against bishops or clergy ought not simply and without investigation to be admitted to lodge their charges, until the reputation they enjoy has first been examined.

(Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Carthage 8, 11, 12, 13, 30, 128, 129).

By this canon the decree of the 6th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council is repeated, and it is ordained that, before any accusation brought against a bishop or clergyman by another clergyman or layman is admitted, the person of the accuser must first be well examined—what reputation he enjoys in society, and whether he is free of suspect motives in bringing the accusation.

We have spoken in detail, in the commentary on the aforementioned 6th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, about which persons may be admitted as accusers against a bishop, and about the judicial instances for rendering verdicts on accusations brought.

Canon 22

It is not permitted to clerics, after the death of their bishop, to plunder the things belonging to him, as is likewise forbidden to those who take these things over; for those who do this stand in danger as regards their hierarchical rank.

— We have translated this canon in our work following the underlying text of the Athenian Syntagma. It reads thus: “Μὴ ἐξεῖναι κληρικοῖς μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου, διαρπάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα αὐτῷ πράγματα, καθὼς καὶ τοῖς παραλαμβάνουσιν ἀπηγόρευται. ἢ τοὺς τοῦτο ποιοῦντας, κινδυνεύειν περὶ τοὺς ἰδίους βαθμούς.” This text corresponds exactly to that in Beveregius, as does his translation.[27] In the Russian synodal edition of 1862 it reads differently, and in place of καθὼς καὶ τοῖς παραλαμβάνουσιν ἀπηγόρευται stands καθὼς καὶ τοῖς πάλαι κανόσιν ἀπηγόρευται, translated ‘as this is forbidden also by the ancient canons (Apostolic canon 40).’[28] John of Antioch, in his ‘Collection of Canons,’ has the same reading as the Russian synodal edition.[29] In Dionysius the passage is rendered: ‘sicut jam antiquis quoque est canonibus constitutum,’[30] and similarly in Isidore: ‘sicut jam praecedentibus regulis statutum habetur.’[31] The so-called Codex canonum ecclesiae universae, published by Justellus,[32] and the so-called Prisca,[33] likewise give the same reading as Dionysius.

The first text is accepted by both Zonaras and Balsamon, who interpret the sense of the canon thus: ‘This canon forbids clerics to plunder the estate remaining after the death of a bishop.[34] The words of the canon “as is forbidden also to those who take these things over” should be understood in accordance with the 35th canon of the Council in Trullo, which forbids the metropolitan to whom the deceased bishop was subject to appropriate to himself anything from the church or personal effects left after that bishop’s death, and commands the clergy, if there are any in the diocese, to guard that property until a new bishop arrives; and if by chance there are no clergy, the canon entrusts the metropolitan with guarding that property, so that he may hand it over undiminished to the bishop who is to be ordained.’

We have followed, as we have said, the Athenian text, for the sole reason that we resolved to follow it unconditionally throughout our translation of the canons, and for that reason have so translated this canon. But at the same time we declare that we fully share the judgment of Beveregius[35], who considers simpler and clearer that text in which, in place of ‘as is forbidden also to those who take over (the goods remaining after the bishop’s death),’ stands what the Russian synodal edition likewise gives—‘as is forbidden also by the ancient canons’—all the more since there do exist such ancient canons ordaining that no one may touch, after a bishop’s death, his private estate, namely the 40th Apostolic canon and the 24th canon of the Council of Antioch.[36]

In neither text, however, is the sense of the canon lost, but in substance it remains the same. The fathers of Chalcedon acknowledge the old church norm, by which a bishop may have his own private property and may dispose of it by his own will after death—‘for he may have a wife and children, or relatives, or servants,’ as the aforementioned 40th Apostolic canon says—and all these had, by the canons, a right to the bishop’s property for their maintenance, whether he left behind a written testament or not, provided only that an accurate inventory be found of what in the diocese constitutes the bishop’s private property and what constitutes church property.[37] ‘For,’ says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, ‘if he has not made such an inventory, all his property passes to the church; but if there is an inventory, and the bishop dies without a will, I think his heirs, by the (civil) laws, are his relatives, who are called to intestate succession.’ If the bishop leaves no relatives behind, that private property of his then passes to his successor on the episcopal see, and it falls to the clergy and the metropolitan concerned to administer it until the new bishop takes office. Should the clergy, instead of guarding this property and administering it conscientiously, allow themselves to dispose of it as they please or divide it among their own members, or should the metropolitan likewise appropriate it to himself, then, by this canon—repeated afterward also by the Council in Trullo (canon 35)—they fall under deposition from their rank.

Canon 23

The holy synod has heard that certain clerics and monks, having no letter of commendation from their own bishop, and some indeed even excommunicated by him, come to the imperial city of Constantinople, and remain there for a long time, stirring up disturbances and throwing church order into confusion, and even overturning the households of individuals. Therefore the holy synod ordains that such persons shall first be admonished, through the ekdikos of the most holy church of Constantinople, to withdraw from the imperial city; but if without shame they continue in the same courses, they shall, through that same ekdikos, be forcibly expelled and returned to their own places.

— In the history of this synod are mentioned the disorders which individual clerics or monks caused, stirring up the people against their lawful bishops and thereby producing disorder in the church community. To put a stop to this, the fathers of Chalcedon issued this canon, which by its sense has a more general import. Following the established norm that everyone must remain in his own place and carry out the service entrusted to him, the canon commands that no cleric or monk, without a special letter of commendation from his own bishop, may go to other cities, abandoning his place of service; and if he is found doing so, the local authority must call him to order and persuade him by counsel to return—and should he not heed the counsel, the authority must then compel him to it by force. In this regard the ordinance of the 20th canon of this synod applies, which subjects to excommunication such clerics as leave their place without their bishop’s permission, and likewise the bishops who allow such clerics to reside in their territory.

The canon mentions the church ekdikos, whose office it was to maintain order in this respect. The ekdikos (ἔκδικος, defensor, advocate, Anwalt) was the representative of one of the parties before the civil court, and in civil relations held an official position. When church affairs multiplied, and the church needed, in defending either its own rights as a juridical person, or the rights of those who had recourse to it—especially on account of the long-granted right of asylum belonging to it—to enter into relations with the civil power, while the bishops themselves could not always personally appear as advocates of these rights and defend them before the civil court; and, on the other hand, when the church needed, for its own general protection, to secure itself against the arbitrary will of the civil authority—official recognition was obtained from the civil authority for special officers, who were to represent before the civil court persons belonging to the church or under the church’s protection, just as such officers existed in civil society (ἔκδικοι τῶν πόλεων). These persons were called church ekdikoi (ἐκκλησιέκδικοι, defensores ecclesiastici, church advocates, Kirchenanwälte). They were first instituted at the beginning of the fifth century, when the Council of Carthage of the year 401, by one of its canons, petitioned the emperors that, for the protection of the wronged who continually troubled the church with their complaints, official church advocates be chosen and appointed under the bishop’s oversight.[38] From that time we find ekdikoi attached to every bishop, and with the patriarchs there were several in number, the first among them being called the protekdikos (πρωτέκδικος), although, by Balsamon’s account, one was called protekdikos even when he was the only advocate attached to a bishop.[39][40]

The office of the ekdikos is described in a special treatise of Balsamon’s (Μελέτη χάριν τῶν δύο ὀφφικίων τοῦ χαρτοφυλακείου καὶ τοῦ πρωτεκδικείου), and consisted, in general, in this: that he had to defend, before the civil court, church property and persons under the church’s protection—in essence it was what today is the office of the consistorial advocate.[41] By the canon of this synod, his office further included seeing to unemployed and foreign clerics found in a city, and persuading them, either by counsel or by force if obstinate, to leave that city and return to their own.

Canon 24

Monasteries once consecrated with the consent of the bishop must remain monasteries forever, and the goods belonging to them must be preserved for them, and they can never be turned into secular dwellings; and those who allow this to be done shall be subject to canonical penalties.

(IV Ecum. 4; Trullo 49; VII Ecum. 13, 17; Protodeutera 1; Cyril of Alex. 2).

— The history of this synod tells us that many monks allowed themselves to build monasteries for their own use without the knowledge of the church authority, and we already know what disorders resulted in the church from this, so that in the end the civil authority too was compelled to raise its voice against these disorders. At the proposal of the emperor Marcian this synod issued a special canon (the 4th), which enjoins upon bishops the most diligent oversight over monasteries, and at the same time forbids anyone to build a monastery without the bishop’s consent. ‘If without the bishop’s consent,’ says Zonaras, ‘a monastery is built, and if the bishop’s prayer has not preceded the building of the monastery, and has not been laid as its firm foundation, such a monastery ought not even to be considered a monastery.’[42] A monastery, then, according to the canons, is only that which has been specially consecrated by a bishop, or dedicated to God by a bishop’s prayer—in other words, upon whose building a bishop has bestowed his blessing. This is discussed in detail in canon 1 of the Synod in the Church of the Holy Apostles, which we shall bring forward in its place.

Concerning such true monasteries the fathers of Chalcedon speak in this canon of theirs, and ordain that they must forever remain monasteries, may never be turned into secular dwellings, nor may monastic goods be diverted to other purposes—in other words, they forbid the secularization of monasteries and monastic property. This canon, on account of the disorders that appeared in the course of time, was repeated word for word at the Council in Trullo (canon 49), and likewise at the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, which, by its 13th canon, condemning those who allow themselves to turn a monastery or monastic property to secular use, ordains that such persons, if clerics, be deposed, and if monks or laymen, be excommunicated. It is in this sense that one must understand the closing words of the canon, that the guilty ‘must be subject to canonical penalties.’

The strictness with which church legislation forbids the secularization of monasteries and monastic property is evident from this canon and especially from the 13th canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod. But already in the twelfth century we find different views held on this in the East, and Balsamon, answering some who defended this strictness, expresses the view that in certain circumstances such secularization was in fact permitted. It seems to us that this canon and other related canons should be understood not in an absolute sense, as though a monastery or monastic property might never, under any circumstance whatsoever, be put to any other use, but in a conditional sense. A monastery or monastic property may of course never be alienated from the church and made private property.[43] But if a monastery and its property, according to the circumstances of time and place, could bring more benefit to the church by being turned into an educational institution, in which, for example, good priests, good teachers, and even good craftsmen in the fine arts might properly be trained, or the like, and such an institution stood under the immediate oversight of the church authority, and that authority alone administered it, it seems to us that this could in no way be condemned by anyone, the less so since neither this canon nor other canons say anything about such a transformation of a monastery, nor do they condemn it—they condemn only the turning of monasteries into secular dwellings (κοσμικὰ καταγώγια, secularia habitacula), that is, their being withdrawn from church authority, losing their ecclesiastical character, and becoming a secular house, in which its original sanctity might even be desecrated, should it fall, say, into the hands of unbelievers, or be put to some immoral end.[44] We do not say that all monasteries could be put to the aforementioned noble ends, but only some—namely, where these, as we have noted, according to the circumstances of time and place and the needs of the people, could bring more benefit to church society than if they remained only dwellings for monks. As holy as is, from the Christian standpoint, the purpose of a monastery, equally holy is the purpose of an institution that educates in a Christian spirit under the church’s administration; and therefore in the secularization, in our sense, of a single monastery, the general Christian purpose would not be missed—in particular, only one holy purpose would be replaced by another, equally holy one. The right to carry out such a transformation of a monastery must, however, belong solely and exclusively to the church authority, and to no one else.

Canon 25

Since certain metropolitans, as we have learned, neglect the flocks entrusted to them and delay the appointment of bishops, the holy synod ordains that the appointment of bishops must take place within three months, except where some unavoidable necessity requires that the time be extended; and those who do not do this shall be subject to church penalties. Meanwhile the property of the widowed church shall be preserved undiminished by the economos of that church.

(Ap. 58; Trullo 19, 35; Sardica 11, 12; Carthage 71, 121, 123; Protodeutera 17).

— Care for the appointment of bishops to provinces that had become vacant—that is, deprived of their betrothed, the bishop—was by the canons entrusted to the metropolitan, who was to convoke the other bishops to a synod for the election of the new bishop by special letters (Antioch canon 19), confirm the election, and finally ordain the one chosen (I Ecumenical canon 4).[45] From this canon of theirs it appears that the fathers of Chalcedon had learned that certain metropolitans were not attending to this duty enjoined on them by the canons, but were allowing individual widowed dioceses to remain for a long time without their own bishop (and according to one commentator it appears that they did this deliberately, to spare themselves expense)—and so, to put a stop to this disorder, they ordain that a diocese must not remain without a bishop for more than three months, except in the case where, on account of some serious cause, it is not possible to appoint a bishop within that time, so that it must be postponed.[46] ‘Such a case,’ Balsamon remarks in his commentary on this canon, ‘may occur if a city has been captured by unbelievers and it is not possible for anyone to enter it’—the cause the fathers therefore chiefly have in view is of a political character, in allowing that the ordination of a bishop may be postponed even beyond the three-month period.[47] And this three-month period must be reckoned from the day on which the bishop in question died; within that time, accordingly, the metropolitan had to convoke the synod for the election, carry out the election, and ordain the one chosen.[48]

Having issued such an ordinance, the synod adds that a metropolitan who transgresses this canon is subject to church penalties (ὑποκεῖσθαι ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις). Asked what penalty this is, Balsamon answers: ‘I think such as the synod may determine’—and that is the best answer, since there is no other canon on this matter to which he might appeal, as he does in his commentary on the 24th canon of this same synod, where too only ‘church penalties’ are mentioned; meanwhile the most severe penalties are to be understood, such as deposition and excommunication.

For the period of vacancy the canon ordains that the property of the widowed church must be administered by the economos in question, who shall keep it so that it suffers no diminution in anything, and, when the new bishop takes office, shall hand it over to him in full. This ordinance stands in connection with the one already issued in the 22nd canon of this synod, where clerics are forbidden to appropriate to themselves the property of a bishop after his death. And there were, as we saw in the commentary on that canon, cases where metropolitans too allowed themselves to appropriate the property of a widowed church. To check such abuse of this property, whether by the clergy or by the metropolitan, the fathers of Chalcedon issue this ordinance: that during the period of vacancy—whether the ordinary three-month period, or a longer one owing to some grave event—the church economos, together with the clergy concerned, must take care and keep account of the property of the widowed church, so that it may be handed over to the new bishop.

Canon 26

Since in some churches, as we have heard, bishops manage church property without an economos, it is established that every church which has a bishop must have, from its own clergy, an economos also, who shall administer church affairs according to the directions of his bishop, so that the church’s administration may not be without witness, and so that its goods may not be squandered thereby, and so that reproach may not be brought upon the clergy; and whoever does not do this shall be subject to the divine canons.

(Ap. 38, 41; IV Ecum. 25; Trullo 35; VII Ecum. 11, 12; Ancyra 15; Gangra 7, 8; Antioch 24, 25; Carthage 26, 33; Protodeutera 7; Theophilus of Alexandria 10; Cyril of Alexandria 2).

— The 41st Apostolic canon established that a bishop should have authority over church property, for it is said in that canon: ‘if precious human souls are entrusted to him, how much more should the care of money be commanded to him, that he administer everything by his own authority’; and that he might dispose of that property conscientiously, the 38th Apostolic canon reminds him that God is witness of his conduct. But although by these canons the authority to administer church property was entrusted to the bishop, he could not for all that do this at his own arbitrary will, without any accountability, but had to administer the property in agreement with his clergy (Antioch canon 25). When church affairs multiplied and the bishop personally was no longer able to attend, among other things, to the affairs of church economy, the administration of that economy was entrusted to particular clerics, whose task this was to be exclusively; they were called church economoi. These economoi are first mentioned in the 10th canon of Theophilus of Alexandria, which requires that at every church there be its own separate economos, ‘so that the church’s income may be spent as it ought (πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰς δέον ἀναλίσκεσθαι).’ [49]And although we have no other synodal canon besides this one that speaks explicitly of economoi, the custom that every church should have its economos was nevertheless universal in the fifth century, of which we may be persuaded, among other things, by the 2nd canon of this very synod, which, condemning the ‘shameful love of gain’ (αἰσχροκέρδειαν) of certain bishops who make a matter of sale of grace that cannot be sold, mentions, among others, the economos as a well-known office in universal use throughout the church.[50]

Meanwhile, the fathers of Chalcedon say, they have heard that in some churches bishops have no economos beside them, but themselves alone manage the church property, and this moved them to issue this canon. In all likelihood the immediate occasion was the case of Ibas of Edessa, examined at the ninth and tenth sessions of the synod.[51][52] Among other things, in the examination of Ibas’s case, a complaint of several presbyters of Edessa was read out against Ibas, that he abused church property, appropriated to himself all the church’s revenues, put his relatives in the best positions in church administration, sold ordination for money, and so on. In general the complaint stressed that Ibas disposed, on his own authority, of church revenues for his own purposes, and that this was why he did not wish to keep an economos beside him. The synod restored Ibas to his see on account of his confession of faith, but did not find it necessary to examine the rest further; meanwhile Ibas himself had already given a prior promise that he would henceforth keep an economos beside him, after the example of other churches—by which, of course, he acknowledged that he had not kept one before, so that his clergy had had good reason to complain against him. It was to this circumstance that the fathers of Chalcedon certainly turned their attention, and it was in consequence of it that they issued this canon of theirs.

Having established that every church which has a bishop must also have an economos, the canon further provides that this economos must be chosen from among the local clergy, and that he must administer all the church property—yet not on his own, but according to the directions of the bishop (κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου), since the bishop has full authority over church property, and it is he who must see to it that help is given to the poor, to strangers, and in general to all who have need of church assistance (Apostolic canon 41).

With regard to the case of Ibas, which, as it seems, gave occasion for the issuing of this canon, the fathers also state the purpose for which they ordain that there must be an economos beside every bishop. That purpose is threefold: first, that church administration may not remain without witness. If it is necessary in general, even in civil administration, to know what is being done and how it is administered, and whether the laws are observed, then it is all the more necessary in the church, in which everything is holy and directed to a holy end, that everyone should know where the church’s revenues go and on what they are spent, so that, learning that they are spent on good ends, he might be moved himself to contribute to the church. Second, so that church property may not be squandered, that is, so that it may be spent on that for which it is intended. Third, so that reproach may not be brought upon the priesthood (λοιδορίαν τῇ ἱερωσύνη προστρίβεσθαι). Such reproach certainly falls upon the bishop in question, for it will be suspected ‘that he spends church property badly, that he uses it unlawfully and impiously,’ and, as a consequence, distrust of him will arise among those subject to him, and occasions of scandal will be given on account of the authority granted him.[53] To him in such a case will apply the words of the great Paul, who says: ‘take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak,’ and again further on: ‘but when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ’—and this, given the loftiness and sanctity of the episcopal dignity, must in no wise be permitted. To preserve, then, a bishop’s reputation and good name from every suspicion—that is the chief purpose of this canon.

What the duties of this economos were the canon states briefly and clearly: ‘who shall administer church property,’ that is, all movable and immovable goods, all the income and expenditure of the church, keeping exact accounts of everything, and at appointed times presenting those accounts for the bishop’s review.[54] During the vacancy of the episcopal see, the economos himself, as we have already seen in the preceding canon, administered the property of the widowed church, and rendered account of it to the new bishop.

This canon was repeated also at the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, which by its 11th canon further established that, if a bishop should fail to appoint an economos for his church, the metropolitan must do so, and appoint an economos for that church by his own authority.

Canon 27

As for those who, under the pretext of marriage, carry off women, or who assist those who carry them off, or who support them, the holy synod ordains that, if they are clerics, they be deposed from their rank, but if they are laymen, they be anathematized.

— In the 67th Apostolic canon we saw condemnation pronounced against those who violate a maiden; in this canon the matter concerns those who carry off a maiden. Abduction (ἁρπαγή, raptus, Entführung) occurs when someone forcibly seizes a female and carries her off with him to live with her in carnal union. As such, abduction is a transgression in itself, first of all, and further because it violates one of the chief conditions of Christian marriage, namely the free expression of the woman’s will—and against abduction both church and civil legislation alike have proceeded in a decisive manner. The relevant provisions of the latter are set forth in chapter 30 of title IX of the Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles, which punish the guilty either with many years’ imprisonment or with death.[55] Church legislation, for its part, imposes the heaviest penalties upon them, and the expression of that legislation is this canon of ours, which was afterward found repeated word for word at the Council in Trullo (canon 92).

In our canon a woman (γυνή) in general is mentioned as the object of abduction, and under this general term one must understand, according to Balsamon, every maiden without distinction of social standing, excepting of course a nun, who, should she become the object of abduction, would bring upon the guilty party, as upon herself, the heaviest penalties of both church and civil legislation alike.[56][57]

It is further said in our canon: ‘under the pretext of marriage’ (ἐπ’ ὀνόματι συνοικεσίου)—and it is abduction carried out for this purpose that the canon condemns.[58] ‘But if someone carries off a maiden not under the name of marriage, but for the sake of fornication, shall he not be punished?’ asks Balsamon, and answers: ‘The more so (καὶ μάλιστα), for of this there can be no question.’ In such a case the guilty party is subject to double punishment, for he has committed a double transgression: (a) abduction, for which he is subject to the penalty appointed by this canon, and (b) fornication, for which, if he is a layman, he falls under the penalty established by the 22nd canon of Basil the Great, but if a cleric, under the other relevant canons (Apostolic 25; Basil the Great 3, 32; Neocaesarea 1).[56]

In ordaining deposition, or anathema, against the abductors (τοὺς ἁρπάζοντας), the canon subjects to the same penalties, further, also those who take part in the abduction (τοὺς συμπράττοντας), and those who support the abductors in it (τοὺς συναιρουμένους). By the first term are called ‘those who take part (physically) in the very act of seizure,’ and by the second, ‘those who do not help by deed, but give counsel and take care about it, and in this way (morally) support those who carry out the transgression and defend them’—so Zonaras explains; and, finding that those who lend assistance in the crime truly deserve a penalty equal to that of the abductors, he says: ‘For he who abducts a woman for himself has a passion which drives him to such a lawless act; but he who takes part, or lends support, can far less be excused, for he has nothing to move him to such an impious act, save his own malice, by which alone he helps the one who carries out the transgression of abduction.’ [59]And indeed, in an abduction several transgressions concur, each of which by itself falls within the domain of criminal law, for besides the seizure itself, we find here a person deprived of her freedom, a violation of family right, an unlawful, illicit union between two persons, and finally a violation of the social order. For the commission of such a transgression it might be impossible for one man alone, on account of the many obstacles connected with it, so that perhaps he would even abandon his intention unfulfilled; but when helpers come to his aid, offering him both their physical and moral support in it, then he becomes more resolute, and the transgression can the more easily be carried through. In such a state of affairs the abductor himself becomes, in some respect, less guilty than his helpers, or at least the latter are as guilty as he, and therefore the ordinance of this canon of ours, which imposes an equal penalty on both, is entirely just and holy.

The canon does not say whether marriage between the abductor and the abducted maiden is possible; but it already implies the impossibility of this in itself, and subsequent church legislation on this point stood firmly by the provision of the 143rd Novel of Justinian, according to which a lawful marriage between an abductor and an abducted maiden can never be contracted, and such a marriage has always been regarded as unlawful.[60]