In his letter to Archbishop Anastasios of Albania, Patriarch Bartholomew referenced the 1663/4 Tomos of the Eastern Patriarchs as an authoritative text. Last week, Orthodox Synaxis analyzed the relevant portions of the Tomos and demonstrated that Patriarch Bartholomew’s characterization of its contents was highly inaccurate. For the benefit of the Church, we are publishing here the complete text of the Tomos. The Greek original can be downloaded here, with the text starting on page 1055 of the pdf.
The English translation (below) is from William Palmer’s 1873 translation of the book History of the Condemnation of Patriarch Nicon by a Plenary Council of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church Held at Moscow A.D. 1666-1667. The text in parentheses and brackets is from Palmer.
In the name of the Father unbegotten and unoriginated, of the Son begotten and originated, and of the Holy Ghost originated and proceeding from the Father only, the all-holy and blessed and life-giving, undivided and unconfused and imperial Trinity, the one in nature, the only God, from which every good benefit and every perfect gift is communicated to the creation:
(Exordium.) To begin from God and to rest on God is what the voice of the Divine inoculates on those who are about to engage in any matters which are to conduct to the salvation of souls and to the conversation of ancient customs. For every matter thence begun arrives at a conclusion profitable and well-pleasing to Him. And the most prophetic Solomon, by writing as he does, ‘In the much multitude of counsel there is understanding,’ gives us to understand how very profitable is the counsel that is drawn from the holy canons, and the understanding that is collected from the divine fathers. For by the concurrence of many counsellors the unintelligent opinion which was unperceived and was lurking underneath is destroyed, and there springs forth the intelligent common counsel, as a panoplied warrior with shield and spear forcibly solving every doubt. Who then can doubt but they who begin from God and rest on God will, by the concurrence of many and good counsels, obtain those ends after which they aim? Therefore, having this confidence, as worshippers of God, and taking our stand on the common counsel of the apostles, and the canons and the sentences of the synods, we will give their proper answers to the Questions proposed, aiming above all things at the spiritual benefit to be obtained through the same.
It is to be observed that the name of tome is given to the sentence or decision made by the Synod on any matter [from the verb τέμνειν] because it cuts or decides all doubts, and solves the questions brought forward; as also νόμος (law) is so called [from νέμω] because it awards (νέμει) to each man the right which belongs to him and discriminates and makes the true distinction and partition in that which seems confused and difficult to distinguish.
CHAP. I. — Question. What is a king or emperor (βασιλεύς)?
Answer. From the great Νόμιμον (book of the laws, or Nomocanon) of the great church, ch. v. § 2.
‘A king or emperor is lawful government (or authority governing by law), a common good to all the subjects, neither doing good to any from partiality nor hurt from antipathy, but according to the merits of them that are ruled, like an umpire in the games, distributing the prizes impartially, and not bestowing new benefits of favour to some to the detriment of others:’ [i.e. it was not right to bestow on Nicon, whether as metropolitan of Novgorod or as patriarch, unprecedented favours of powers or titles, to the lowering of the nobles].
Gloss. ‘The king or emperor, as the head and apex of all, ought to be beneficent towards all the members subject to him, and neither, yielding to any partiality of affection, confer benefits on the undeserving, nor be carried away to do hurt to them that deserve honour by any passion or dislike: but as a worker of justice, setting aside all passion, he ought to apportion as a judge to all their recompenses according to their deserts, and not to favour individuals, nor confer on them any new or unusual favours, of which they who are so unduly honoured to the prejudice of others taking advantage, use the same, it may be, to cause confusion and disorder, and to oppose their benefactor. For this cause kings ought to see that they give not their own glory to another, nor do anything unprecedented in the way of conferring favours, according to the scripture, which says: ‘Give not thy glory to another, lest thou stir up against thyself a nest of hornets’.
Law. ‘The aim of the king is the preservation and security by goodness’ [i.e. by such means as goodness may use] ‘of the forces remaining and actually belonging to him, and the recovery by watchful attention of whatever has been lost, and the acquisition, through wisdom and just methods and management, of what has not yet been acquired. The end of the king is to benefit his subjects; wherefore also he receives the title of εὐεργέτης (benefactor) in a special sense; and if he fails to be beneficent, he seems to falsify, according to the ancients, the royal character. The king ought, therefore, to be most prominently distinguished [ἐπισημότατος: in the Slav. ‘high or lofty,’ i.e. above all, not eclipsed by any subject; but the natural sense of the Greek is ‘distinguished above all for his virtues’], and renowned for his zeal towards God.’
Gloss. ‘Hence it is collected that the king or emperor is lord of all his subjects, since they all who obey him receive from him benefits, and they who in any way whatever resist him receive punishments, even though the man who resists him should chance to be also the local ecclesiastical primate; for he beareth not the sword in vain, but for the praise of them that do well [in the Slav. ‘who serve,’ i.e. who serve him ‘well’], and for the punishment of evildoers. For he is the minister of God to execute vengeance. Wherefore also it is written: Fear God, honour the king; and, Pray for kings.’
CHAP. II. — Question. Are then simply all, especially the local bishop or patriarch, to submit to and obey the ruling king or emperor in all civil matters and causes, so that there may be only one lord and leader? or is it not to be so?
Answer. In ch. lxiv. Of the great Nomimon there is inserted, from the tome of the writing (ἐγγραφῆς) of the holy oecumenical patriarch Kyr Michael addressed to the then emperor Kyr Manuel, what follows: ‘Rightly to worship God in the first place, and after that to honour the emperor, and to keep faith sincerely to both, is a law which has been absolutely laid down from of old for all men who are pious towards God. And these two being the supreme objects of all human honour, in those things to which the commandment of the fidelity owing to them properly belongs (for what God is in heaven and in all things and creatures, the same on earth, after god, is the imperial preeminence and dignity in the territories, things, and persons which are under its dominion), we judge that just as he who denies the faith in God is banished from the assembly of the orthodox, so he who abjures his fidelity to the power of the emperor, and is treacherously and disloyally disposed towards it, is unworthy to be called a Christian; since he who wears the crown, the authority, and the diadem is also a christ, or anointed one, of the Lord. Since then these things are so, we are undeniably bound, every one of us, to keep a godly fidelity to our potent emperor for ever.’ And, after a little more: ‘We synodically now ordain and define that for the future all who are raised to the eminence of the high-priesthood, that is to say, the most holy patriarchs, shall also give the same engagement as security of their fidelity to the potent emperor as they each give of their orthodox sentiments respecting God.’ See the form of the profession of the patriarch, with what respect it is worded; and consider exactly its words and its meaning: ‘I engage by this my present act in writing to observe towards thee, the potent emperor, sincere fidelity and loyalty, as I owe this both of natural and of legal duty; and to be [obedient] to the determination and will and command of thy majesty against every man who contravenes this present oath.’ And, after a little more, saying that he extends the sense of the oath not only to the emperor himself, but also the empress, and to their imperial children, he continues: ‘And if it so be that thou prayest the common debt of all men, I engage that I will from thenceforth, without any sort of doubt or need of any other oath, show the same sincere fidelity and unfeigned loyalty towards the beloved son of thy majesty.’ And after a little more: ‘And, saving my fidelity and loyalty to him and the honour of thy majesty, I profess that I will be obedient to the determination and will and command of the beloved consort of thy sacred majesty the empress.’ And a little farther on: ‘And again I profess that I will be obedient to the determination and will and command of thy majesty; and I will do as thy majesty may command whether by word or writing, whether it be concerning thy beloved daughter the most illustrious princess and him who is to be her husband, or concerning any other arrangement which shall be decreed by thy majesty. And if any question or doubt arise, whatsoever it be, I will address myself to the solution of the same, according to the determination of thy majesty. And I engage to observe all this by my written act entirely and without qualification, without guile or duplicity of any kind, or any evasive interpretation. So may God be propitious to me!’ Hence it results that the king or emperor is lord and arbiter of every political matter alone, and that the patriarch is subject to him, as being in superior authority, and the executor (or executing minister) of God; and that it is by no means lawful for him to will or to do anything or to act in political matters in opposition to the judgment of the emperor, nor in ecclesiastical matters to go about to remodel the old orders and customs, and to introduce new services into the church, or call in question and abrogate the forms of the sacred liturgies [so as to vary form] those which are authorised and enjoined by the canons, viz. Those of St. John Chrysostom, and of Basil the Great, and that of the Presanctified. But he must observe towards the emperor upright fidelity; and towards the ecclesiastical traditions and customs he must have an unchanging judgment, and must by no means introduce any novelites in them. If he does otherwise, and shows himself presumptuous either towards the emperor or towards the ecclesiastical constitutions, we declare that he loses his dignity, so that he is not only no longer to be called a bishop, but he is not even to be called a Christian. (ἐκπίπτειν τῆς ἀξίας, ὥστε οὐ μόνον άρχιερέα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Χριστιανὸν λέγεσθαι). For this shows that he is not to be named [a Christian] from Christ, that he disturbs the christ of the Lord [i.e. the tsar, the Lord’s anointed].
CHAP. III. — Question. Is it right that in like manner as it is necessary that the patriarch should give an engagement [of fealty] to the emperor in writing, so he should also seek from him a written [engagement]?
Answer. The apostle cries aloud: ‘Let all things be done in order.’ But what order would be kept, if the patriarch also were to seek from the emperor a written engagement, though it were even about the smallest matter? For the emperor or king (βασιλεὺς) being the basis of the (λαῶν or λεῶν) peoples, there will so be two principles in one monarchy rivalling one another, whence strife will certainly ensue. For where there are two principles of authority not in subordination one of them to the other, but mutually independent, there also is strife; there also is ruin. Wherefore also the unerring mouth of Christ said: ‘Every rule (or principality, ἀρχὴ) which is divided into parts within itself shall be destroyed.’ So that to ask for such a thing is a sign of treachery or disloyalty, and the act of a man secretly plotting against peace. And such a one ought to be cast out and banished, as an insurgent against the imperial power (ὡς τῇ βασιλείᾳ μαχόμενον. In the Slav. ‘is to be cast out as one that is warring against the tsar’s throne). This may be collected also from tit. lx. Of the imperial book of the Laws (Νομίμου, i.e. the Basilica), viz. That by no manner of means has the primate of the church liberty (ἄδειαν) to seek a promise from the emperor. For no liberty has been given to them that preside spiritually to seek for promises from him who rules politically in any matter whatsoever, that the unity [of rule] may not be found divided into two, nor that ruin which would be the consequence of man.
CHAP. IV. — Question. Can any one, being bishop in any eparchy, ask from the emperor to exercise lordship in the same?
Answer. The Attaliote, in lib. i. ch. 109, says: ‘If any bishop, being in possession of an eparchy, ask of the emperor to rule in his own eparchy, he incurs the guilt of sacrilege, unless indeed it be the emperor who of his own will makes him to be a ruler.’
CHAP. V. — Question. Is that which has been decreed by the emperor law? and has it binding authority?
Answer. The Attaliote, in lib. i. ch. 54, says: ‘That which shall seem good to or that which shall please the emperor is law, whether he enacts it by a writing bearing his signature, or judicially gives sentence, or after consideration notifies and publishes his pleasure. And all these different forms are called ordinances. But in a stricter sense than the others those laws which are dogmatically published, and which treat methodically and make definitions on certain subjects [as those of the Code] are called ordinances’ [διατάγματα, ‘ordinationes.’ In the Slav. ‘vrouchenia i chini,’ i.e. ‘mandata et ordinationes’]. Hencer it may be collected that no one has any sort of liberty to oppose the emperor’s injunction (ἐπιτάγματι); for it is law. Nor he who is ecclesiastically chief, whether it be a patriarch or one of any other grade. Wherefore any one who opposes the injunction or the letters of the emperor shall be punished as acting contrary to law [in the Slav. ‘as a transgressor of the laws’].
CHAP. VI. — Question. Can a bishop, or a patriarch, or any other ecclesiastic, whatever title he may have, excommunicate whom they please for personal matters of their own? And are those who have been so excommunicated bound [ὑπαιτίους, i.e. bound by the excommunication] before God? And is he who excommunicates unreasonably subject to canonical penalties? [καὶ εἰ ὁ ἀφορίζων ἀλόγως ὑπαίτιος ἐστὶ τοῖς κανόσι; in the Slav. ‘Or is he who excommunicates without a true judgment obnoxious to the canons?’]
Answer. Can. xxxvii. of the synod of Carthage says: ‘Likewise it is agreed that so long as his own bishop does not communicate with him that is so excommunicated, the same bishop is not to be communicated with by other bishops, that the bishop may be the more cautious not to utter [such an excommunication] against any one.’ And Zonaras, glossing this canon, says: ‘As long as that bishop does not communicate with the man excommunicated, neither shall the other bishops communicate with the one who so excommunicates. And the reason is given, that the bishops may not be hasty and inconsiderate to accuse and to excommunicate, and may not say against any one what they cannot prove.’ And Balsamon: ‘By this canon the bishop who unreasonably excommunicates is thus punished. But I am of opinion that not only is such a bishop [by the canons] to be punished, but also that when this unreasonable excommunication has been uttered, he who has been excommunicated is to be loosed [i.e. declared free from any bond] before a superior [hierarch], and he who has excommunicated him is to be punished according to the Novell of Justinian. Novell of the emp. Justinian: “We forbid all the bishops to separate any man from the holy communion before some cause be shown for which the ecclesiastical canons order that so it should be: and if any one without such [canonical] cause shall separate or excommunicate any man, the same man, as being unjustly separated, being loosed by the superior hierarch shall obtain the communion, but he who had unjustly separated him from it shall be excommunicated by that superior priest [i.e. the hierarch] to whom he is subject; that he may justly suffer the same penalty which he had unjustly inflicted.” According then to this Novell also he is to be punished.’
Farther gloss of the same Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch: ‘So that he who is excommunicated not for any cause specified (as incurring that penalty) by the divine canons, but by the inconsiderate will of the bishop excommunicating, shall safely disregard the excommunication; and he rather who has excommunicated him shall incur punishment. For if liberty were to be given to the bishops to excommunicate seasonably or unseasonably alike, and to force those whom they censured to fear an unseasonable excommunication, the bishops might presume even to the setting up of a tyranny, and might trample under foot piety, and the canons might become the occasion of many evils; there is no extremity of confusion and mischief which might not be the result.’ And from St. Dionysius the Areopagite, from his consideration of the mystery in the case of those who have fallen asleep in holiness, it is to be collected that if the hierarch excommunicates any man contrary to the intent of God, the divine power does not follow him: ‘Thus also the hierarchs hold their powers of excommunicating as exponents of the divine judgments: not as if the all-wise power of God, to say it without irreverence, followed ministerially their unreasonable impulses, but so that they, by the sacramental Spirit suggestively moving them, excommunicate deservedly those that are condemned by God.’ And the blessed Synesius, writing to Theophilus, says of such cases: ‘The divine power follows not unreasonable impulses.’ And from the Laws: ‘If any one curses or excommunicates a man unreasonably, not only does it not affect that man, but the curse returns upon his own head.’ And the divine word says, ‘Pray, and curse not.’ For the power of binding and loosing given by the Saviour to the priests is not ready at once (or absolutely) to bind and to loose according to their view, but only as is pleasing to God. Nor is it lawful for them of their own wills to loose or to bind, but only for the causes enacted by the canons. Whence it is collected respecting the bishops who unreasonably curse or excommunicate any man, that they not only cause the curse and the excommunication to return back upon themselves, but they also deserve punishment for angrily and inconsiderately of their own will separating from the common body of the Church some of those whom the Saviour redeemed with his own precious blood, and that they are to be deposed from the episcopal chair, according to the divine canons. And if there is no allowance made for an unreasonable curse or excommunication of any common person, much less certainly is there in the case of princes and of those who have intrusted to them [that is, from God] the power of government.
CHAP. VII. — Question. Since it was said above that he who has been excommunicated by a priest, upon being loosed by the superior priest is to obtain communion, may one understand the word ‘priest’ to signify bishop and metropolitan? and in like manner the word ‘bishop’ to signify metropolitan and patriarch? or not?
Answer. The word ‘priest’ is a general name in the canons, and is used to signify both priest and bishop. For when the canons say that he who has been unjustly separated by a priest from communion is to be loosed by the superior priest, the word ‘priest’ in the first place means either a priest or a bishop, but in the second place the same word means either a bishop, or a metropolitan, or a patriarch. So also the word ‘bishop’ is used both for a bishop in the general sense and for a metropolitan and a patriarch. When the canons say, ‘If any bishop be tried on any charges, and it be so that the bishops around him do not agree,’ &c., it is understood that the bishop first named is a metropolitan or patriarch, but the bishops named afterwards are either suffragan bishops if the bishop tried be a metropolitan, or metropolitans if the bishop tried be a patriarch. And it cannot be said here that the metropolitan or that the patriarch is not subject to the synod about him, so as to be judged by the bishops who are around him [i.e. in his own province or patriarchate] because it is not said expressly by the canon ‘metropolitan’ or ‘patriarch,’ but ‘priest’ and ‘bishop.’ So then this pretext cannot be laid hold of by him who is locally the ecclesiastical primate, whether metropolitan or patriarch, nor justify him in saying that he is not subject to the judgment of the bishops who are about him. But if he were to make an appeal respecting the charges brought against him, the [final] decision must be received from the chair of Constantinople. And if the other patriarchs also be consentient, there remains no longer any room for pretending [to anything farther] respecting the charges made against him [ἐὰν δὲ περὶ ὧν ἐγκαλεῖτο ἔκκλητον καλέσῃ, ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἐκδεκτέον. In the Slav. ‘But if he who is accused of any crimes makes a presennie, relationem, translationem, of the cause i.e. appeals to the highest tribunal, this highest tribunal is the chair of Constantinople, from which the final judgment is to be awaited. And if the other patriarchs also agree with the patriarch of C.P., there remains no longer any place for any farther defence respecting the charges brought against him].
CHAP. VIII. — Question. Is the chair of Constantinople intrusted with the judgment of all causes of the other churches? and is it from that chair that every ecclesiastical question must obtain its final settlement?
Answer. This privilege belonged formerly [ἤν, but in the Slav. ‘was given’] to the Pope of Rome before he was rent off [or ‘split himself off,’ or ‘separated’] from the Catholic Church by arrogance and voluntary malice [πρὸ τοῦ διαῤῥαγῆναι τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ὑπὸ ἀλαζονείας καὶ ἐθελοκακίας. But in the Slav. ‘was separated or excommunicated (otlouchisia) from the Catholic Church on account of his proud and evil will’]. But he being now split off [διαῤῥαγέντος], all the causes of the churches are referred to the chair of Constantinople, and receive from it their decision, as that chair has equal (τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα, ‘the same or equal’) privileges, according to the canons, with those of the elder Rome. For canon iv. of the council of Sardica says: ‘If any bishop shall have been deposed by the judgment of the bishops who are in the same parts, and says that he still undertakes to defend himself, he is not otherwise to be restored to his chair than if the bishop of Rome first shall have taken cognisance of the case, and shall issue a decree to this effect.’ But that this privilege has been transferred to the oecumenical chair (the chair of C.P.) one may learn from many sources; and especially from the scholia of the great Νόμιμον (or Nomocanon), which say: ‘On the strength of this canon the Romans (ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κανόνος τὸ Ῥωμαϊκὸν ἧρται εἰς ἀλαζονίαν) have lifted themselves up to arrogance; and their (τούτων) bishops in old time putting this canon forward as if it were a canon of the Nicene council, were detected and exposed in the synod of Carthage as falsifiers (ἑάλωσαν κακοῦργοι), as the preface of that synod of Carthage of itself shows.’ And lower down: ‘Going upon this canon, the bishops of the elder Rome boast that all the appeals of the churches are committed to them.’ And, continuing, he says: ‘It does not give to him all the appeals of the bishops, but those of the eparchies subject to him, which (he says) afterwards were subjected to the bishop of Constantinople, so that it is to him that their appeals thenceforth belong.’ And from Balsamon: ‘What was decreed concerning the Pope are not peculiar and exclusive privileges of him alone, but they are to be understood to belong also to the bishop of Constantinople; and the bishop of Rome being now split off from the Catholic Church, they are to be found now only with the oecumenical chair [i.e. the chair of Constantinople. μόνον εἰς τὸν οἰκουμενικὸν ἀναφαίνονται θρόνον]. And if the rest of the patriarchs are also consentient, if so be that any cause be of great magnitude, the decision which has been pronounced will be irreversible.’
CHAP. IX. — Question. But it may be said that in consequence of the patriarchates being comprised within [the empire of infidels], and now being under the yoke [περιληφθῆναι, καὶ εἶναι ὑπὸ ζύγον, but in the Slav. ‘have been reduced to bondage by the infidels, and are now under the yoke’], they have no longer their former honour, nor authority to decree and to judge ecclesiastical causes as aforetime.
Answer. From the great Νόμιμον of the great church, according to the judgment of the divine fathers, after much else, it is thus written: ‘For this cause, as it seems, it has been prescribed (προτετύπωται) that there should be unquestionably promoted successors to all these patriarchs also who are not in possession of the most holy chairs allotted to them owing to the incursions of the heathens. For though they have been thrust out from the glory of their chairs, still the spiritual grace, according to David, shall not wax old. For our God shall come rather more manifestly, and shall not keep silence: and He shall gather together to him the saints who have kept his covenant. For it is ordered by the canons that these are to be comforted, and thought worthy of all care and acceptation (ἀποδοχῆς), but by no means [‘of derision and reviling’ in the Slav.] that they are to be dishonoured on account of the anomalous state of circumstances.’ If, then, at that time, even when they were actually excluded from their chairs, canons were made that they should be accounted worthy of all honour, and they have now by the grace of Christ recovered their chairs [or free access at least to the sites connected with them], how shall their sentence and judgment concerning every ecclesiastical matter be refused? Hence therefore it is collected by the common judgment [of us all] that those of the bishops who say that because the patriarchs are under a slavish yoke and are straitened, they have not the honour and worth and authority of the patriarchate equally as if they were free, and do not acknowledge their ecclesiastical decision made according to the canons, are to be punished, as opposers of the divine will, and living only by the senses, and understanding nothing beyond, and are to be deposed from their own ranks. One may find scattered about in one place or another very many clear testimonies to the honour of these [patriarchal chairs].
CHAP. X. — Question. Is it permitted to whoever will, whether patriarch, or metropolitan, or bishop, to give himself in writing any titles which may please him of arrogance, and to corrupt the title given canonically to him, or to style and write himself Effendi [αὐθέντης in the Greek, ‘hossoudar’ in the Slav.], when this title specially belongs to the civil rulers?
Answer. From the great Νόμιμον of the great church in s. xxx.: ‘Then when the divine and holy writings and the traditions of the fathers name the bishops of Alexandria pope, and the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem archbishop, and the bishop of Antioch alone patriarch, how is it that the church of Antioch does not feel herself wronged when she learns that the rest also are styled patriarchs? certainly it is because of the identity of the honour belonging to them all.’ And a little farther on: ‘But since some say there is nothing to prevent those also who are bishops in any other place from being thus honoured and magnified, since they too have been found worthy of the dignity of teaching, and like Moses and Aaron stand in the holy of holies, we say that by the divine and sacred canons to the patriarchs alone are divided after an honorary way the climes of the habitable world (πεφιλοτίμηται τῆς οἰκουμένης τὰ κλίματα). And hence neither can any other, of his own right, take to himself any district [ἐνορίαν, i.e. ‘parish,’ ‘eparchy,’ or ‘diocese’ in the Western sense of the word; in the Slav. it is ‘eparchy’], or any other privilege; but he sacerdotally executes that part and that part only of the ministry which has been given to him from the divine greatness of the patriarch (παρὰ τῆς πατριαρχικῆς θείας μεγαλειότητος). And, after a little: ‘Some one might ask: Wherefore is the Pope of Rome called “the oecumenical Pope” before he was split off, and in like manner the archbishop of C.P. is called “the oecumenical patriarch,” while the other patriarchs who are of the same order, vocation, and honour, have not obtained this title so as to be styled “oecumenical patriarch”? But since the Pope was by the demon of self-love separated from the company of the rest of the patriarchs, and confined to the narrowed region of the West, I do not see the patriarch of Constantinople adorned with any of the privileges of the Pope. For neither is he crowned with the λῶρον [i.e. the fillet or tiara] of the empire, nor does he parade himself (θεατρίζεται) with scarlet slippers, according to the form [‘ordered by Constantine the great,’ Slav.], nor does he use any other privilege of the elder Rome. And on this account his feet stand straight, and his head is made hoary, according to David, with all manner of wisdom, and he does not magnify his own subscriptions as “oecumenical father,” though he is so styled and glorified by us.’ And, after a little more: ‘But if they are of the divine list of bishops, alas! how can any one express or describe the condemnation which these draw upon themselves? For of what pardon will that teacher be counted worthy, who puts forward the canons, but sees not the sublimity of the canons? Certainly, of none: but he will rather hear from God: “Thou hast rejected justice, and I will reject thee from being a priest before me.”’ Hence therefore it is collected, and from many other testimonies also, that those of the bishops who seek or desire to take to themselves in writing unusual titles, and to proclaim themselves Effendis [αὐθέντας, ‘hossoudari’ in the Slav.], as gaping after the secular glory, and inflated by arrogance, appropriating to themselves privileges not awarded them by the sacred synods, or by emperors, are to be summarily punished, and incur the loss of their episcopal dignity, as not being imitators of our meek Saviour Christ, but seeking to be famed and talked of, being inflated with satanical arrogance, imitating the pride of Satan, who promised to give to the Saviour the kingdoms of the world, when they ought to style themselves ‘servants’ (δούλους) and ‘humble.’ Wherefore they shall hear from the Saviour: ‘Get thee behind me, Satan!’ and from the mouth of God: ‘Thou hast rejected justice, which forbids to seek what does not belong to thee, and I will reject thee from being priest before me.’ And what should this rejection be? What else but that such vain boasters are to be put out from the episcopal chair by deposition?
CHAP. XI. — Question. Can a metropolitan or a patriarch style himself in writing, and cause himself to be styled in common parlance, ruler (ἀρχηγὸς) of any other eparchy which is not subject to his own chair?
Answer. The divine canons are all absolutely opposed to the bishop who presumes to attempt these enormities, both those of the holy Apostles and those of the divine fathers. So canon xxxv. of the Apostles says: ‘A bishop is not to ordain out of his own bounds, nor any one from another diocese (ὑπερόρια μὴ χειροτονείτω), without the will of those in the region:’ and if any one is convicted of having done so, let him be deposed, together with him that has been ordained. But of the assumption of any improper title, there has been enough said above. It results therefore hence that the bishop who presumes [Slav. ‘to do such things and,’] to ordain out of the bounds of his own eparchy, is to be deposed together with the person ordained, and to lose the chair of his eparchy, as being a contemner of the constitutions of the fathers. For it is said, ‘Thou shalt not move the everlasting landmarks’ [in the Slav. ’Thou shalt not overstep the ancient boundaries’].
CHAP. XII. — Question. Can a bishop expend the revenues of the Church where he pleases, and found with them monasteries, or colonise lands?
Answer. Canon xxxviii. of the Apostles, and canon xxv. of the synod of Antioch, say: ‘Let the bishop administer with authority the property of the church, appropriating from it nothing to himself, nor wasting anything [καταχρώμενος, the Slavonic has ‘upotreblaioushchi,’ ‘consuming,’ or simply ‘using,’ i.e., for his own purposes] , nor giving any thing to his relations, unless they be among the poor. But if any one transgresses this canon, let him be punished by the Church.’ And canon xl. of the Apostles, and canon xxiv. of the synod of Antioch, say: ‘Let the property of the bishop and the property of the church be clearly distinguished, that so both the bishop may be able to dispose of his own, and the church may lose nothing.’
Gloss. ‘The intent of the canon is, that whatever property the bishop brings with him when he comes to the see is to be his own; but that he is not to expend the revenues of the see on his own needs and pleasures, but keep them for the poor. Hence it is collected that the local bishop has no liberty either to found monasteries or to colonise lands not depending on the church, but belonging to himself. Whence canon vii. of the First and Second council enacts that it is not lawful for any one of the bishops to found a monastery of his own, or to make any change, to the detriment of his own see. And if any one be convicted of presuming to do this, he is to incur the proper penalty; and the new property or dependence created by him [τὸ νεουργηθὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, the Slav. has ‘the building or work newly made by him’] is to be attached and secured to the see, so as to be its own direct property, as if there had never been any monastery there at all’ [the Slav. has ‘the same way as if of old it or they had not existed’]. And a little farther on: ‘And if it be within the bounds of the see, there is no room for any question; but if beyond them, the monastery, with all belonging to it that is in it, shall be subject to that see in which it is situate; but the local bishop shall have only the usual rights of the bishop over it; that is, unless the see suffered any loss [through its foundation or transformation, for which in that case, it is implied, the see is entitled to restitution].
CHAP. XIII. — Question. Can a bishop or a patriarch without danger [of punishment] become a curator of public (i.e. of civil) offices, so as to direct political affairs?
Answer. From Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch: ‘The DCXXX. holy fathers of the Fourth council, viz. that of Chalcedon, in their canon vii. inserted on this subject word for word what follows: “We ordain that they who have once been made clerks are neither to go into military service nor into secular dignities; and whoever presume to do this, and do not desist, are to be anathematised.” And canon xxiii. of the holy Apostles runs thus: “A bishop or priest or deacon who occupies himself with military affairs (στρατείᾳ σχολάζων), and seeks to exercise both at once, secular authority and the sacerdotal ministry, is to be deposed: for the things of Caesar [are proper to] Caesar, and the things of God are proper (ἁρμόττει) to God.” And canon vi. of the Apostles says that “A bishop or priest is not to take upon himself secular cares; if he does, he is to be deposed.” For it [i.e. the canon] desires these to keep themselves out of the way of clamours and confusion, and without distractions to take their part in the divine ministrations. And canon lxxxi. says: “If they will not obey, so as to desist from secular cares, in that case they are also to be deposed.” And canon lxxxiii. subjects the bishop who occupies himself with military matters and political administration to deposition: “For no man,” it says, “can serve two masters.” And the canon of the council called the First and Second says: “If he undertakes secular governments and cares [ἀρχὰς καὶ φροντίδας, the Slav. has ‘if he executes secular dignities, and occupies himself with them], he is to be expelled from his clerical rank.” And canon xvi. of the synod of Carthage enacts the same: “For no man who serves as a soldier entangles himself in the business of this life, but keeps himself free that he may please him who has enlisted him, i.e. God.” Hence, then, it results that the bishop who seeks to thrust himself into political commands and to magnify himself with secular powers, is to be deposed from the episcopate, as a contemner of the ecclesiastical lordship [ὡς καταφρονητὴν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς δεσποτίας the Slav. has ‘as being careless about the greatness of the church, or about the ecclesiastical greatness].
CHAP. XIV. — Question. Can a bishop who has put himself down to the place of the penitents claim to exercise the episcopal dignity? [can he after this again at pleasure resume the episcopal rank?]
Answer. Canon xii. of the synod held in St. Sophia says expressly: ‘Let not a bishop put himself down to the place of the penitents: but if one has put himself down, let him no more lay claim to the episcopal honour. Hence [the Slav. inserts ‘certainly’] it is collected that a bishop who has gone away (ἀποδημήσαντα), after he has abandoned his see (ἐπαρχίαν) in order to be at rest and to live in penitence, can no more return to his see, and seek episcopal honour, and lick what he has vomited up, as from a change of mind [καὶ λήχειν ὅσπερ ἐξέμασεν, ὡς ἀπὸ παλιμβουίας, the Slav. has ‘can by no means any more lay claim to that his former chair, nor return to his eparchy, and seek to have his episcopal dignity; for this would be after the likeness of him, or the dog, that licks what he once vomited out of his own will’].
CHAP. XV. — Question. If a bishop or patriarch, having rejected his chair without any compulsion, and having put off publicly the sacerdotal attire, saying that he will not any longer be bishop or patriarch, and having withdraw from his chair without the cognisance [Slav. ‘any cognisance] of the local holder of the civil authority (τοῦ κατὰ τόπον προϊσταμένου ἡγεμονικῶς] shall have gone away in order to be at rest (ἐπὶ τῷ ἡσυχάζειν), confessing himself [Slav. ‘making himself’] unworthy to act as a bishop, can he after that return to that which he has despised, and from which he has withdrawn?’ [Slav. ‘be restored to the place of which he has made little account,’ &c.]
Answer. It has been said above that the bishop who has been put down to the place of the penitents by himself, without any violence or compulsion of civil rulers [ἄνευ τονὸς βίας ἢ δυναστείας αὐθεντικῆς], has no recall open to him for the future, so as to lay claim to episcopal honour [οὐδεμίαν ἀνάκλησιν ἔχειν τοῦ λοιποῦ ἀντιποιεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ.. For no one, say the divine oracles, putteth his hand to the plough and again taketh it off. For the plough is penitence, through which we reap the fruits of salvation. And to have also put off the sacerdotal attire before many, and at the putting-off of each of the sacerdotal vestments to have said, ‘I am unworthy of this,’ left him no longer room for any pretext to put on again that attire which he had [the Slav. inserts ‘voluntarily’] put off in such a way. For as in gradually proceeding through the degrees of the priesthood he was vested one by one with the sacred vestments up to the omophorion (the pallium), by which he became a bishop, and attained that grade, so, putting off these same, beginning from this, viz. the omophorion, and going backwards, he remained at last, as he was originally, a private person and a monk [Slav. ‘a simple monk’], having himself passed sentence upon himself [αὐτὸς καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἀποφήνας] after the celebration of the sacred liturgy. Wherefore he is by no means to be received when he runs back, and again claims the episcopal dignity. For such awful matters must not be played with (τὰ φικτὰ οὐ δικαιὸν γίνεσθαι παικτὰ). This is collected also from the great Νόμινον of the great church, that he who has once contemned the episcopal ministry is not to be received any more to the episcopal honour [Slav. ‘labour’ and ‘rank’].
CHAP. XVI. — Question. But if it so happened that after this practical resignation he was invited through men of note, or even through a letter of the local ruler — it maybe even by himself personally — and that lifting himself up against this ruler, he should not have returned, what is to be done?
Answer. Can. xlvi. of the synod of Laodicea, and can. liii. Of that of Carthage, say: ‘A bishop who is called to a synod and disregards the call, except it be for some extraordinary hindrance (δι’ ἀνωμαλίαν), is to be punished. But if, farther, confiding in the multitude of his own people, he despises brotherly charity, let him be punished by the secular power (ἀρχοντικῶς παιδευέσθω). Hence, then, it is collected that there is no recall for such an accumulator of contumacy [οὐδεμίαν ἀνάκλησιν ἔχειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἀλλοπρόσαλλον ὑπερόπτην]; first, because he has despised the christian congregation committed to him; secondly, because he has been contemptuous towards the chair; thirdly, because he went off to penitence, and confessed himself unworthy of the episcopal ministry, without [Slav. inserts ‘any sort of’] compulsion; fourthly, because he hardens himself in disobedience [Slav. ‘impenitence and disobedience’] and persists in obstinacy, and has refused to yield to the entreaties of them that invited him back, it may be even of the sovereign. Wherefore not only is he not to be received back to the episcopal ministry, but he is also to be punished by the civil ruler according to the canon, as a private person.
CHAP. XVII. — Question. But suppose that, after such a practical resignation, such a one shall unblushingly presume, in the place to which he went to be at rest [ἡσυχάσαι, to be in retirement], to do the acts belonging to the episcopate, or to hold ordinations? what is to be done?
Answer. Let him be excommunicated, and punished by the civil power (ἀρχοντικῶς παιδευέσθω), according to the canon set forth above, together with him that has been ordained. For if he who ordains out of his own bounds is deposed, together with the person ordained, how much more he who, after making such a resignation both of the sacred vestments and of the ministry, has dared to stretch forth his hand to impart the Holy Ghost, whose ministry he has renounced of his own will and has gone off as a deserter into private life.’
CHAP. XVIII. — Question. Is it lawful for any bishop who pleases to leave his own eparchy, and go wheresoever he lists, without danger [of punishment]?
Answer. From § i. of the great Νόμιμον on can. cvi. of the synod of Carthage: ‘Let not bishops absent themselves, except with the consent of the first see of the country to which the bishop seeking to absent himself belongs: that is, not unless he has first obtained from the primate himself that more particular form of letter (κατεξαίρετον) which is called dimissory,’ &c. By the words ‘more particular’ is to be understood either from the greater ecclesiastical primate (παρὰ τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικῶς προϊσταμένου μείζονος), if perchance there be [such a double subordination], or from him who is first or preeminent politically. The gloss from Zonaras: ‘The bishops and rulers (προεστῶτες) of the rational flock of Christ are all absolutely required both by justice itself and by the canons, which follow [and enforce] justice, to abide in their churches, and to feed and govern the people committed to them.’ And a little farther on: ‘But if there be need to go away, it must be with the consent of the first chair, either the ecclesiastical or that of the civil ruler (μετὰ ψηφίσματος τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας, ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἢ τῆς αὐθεντικῆς). Balsamon’s gloss on the same says that ‘there is necessary for this the judgment even of all the synod of their region (τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν συνόδου), according to can. xi. of the synod of Antioch. For on this account there is added to the canon the proviso that there is required the consent of the others also, but preeminently (κατεξαίρετον) that of him who is first [or primate], the patriarch, it may be, or the civil ruler.’ (αὐθέντου. The Slav. has: ‘there is required the consent thereto of the highest in authority, or the council of all the synod, according to, &c. but preeminently that of him who holds the primacy, whether patriarch or prince,’ kniaz]. And can. lxxiii. of the synod of Carthage says: ‘Again it pleased the synod that it shall not be lawful for any bishop leaving his proper (αὐθεντικῆς αὐτοῦ καθέδρας) chair to take himself away to some church in the diocese, or busying himself beyond what is reasonable for a long time about some matter of his own, to neglect the care and the continuity [continuous occupancy] of his proper chair.’ The gloss of Zonaras: ‘The bishops are required both by justice itself, and by the exactness of the divine canons, to abide in their own episcopates, and to teach the people and govern them; and not to leave their own proper (αὐθεντικὰς) chairs, that is, I suppose, their original (πρωτοτύπους) thrones. And can. xvi. of the synod held in the church of the holy Apostles, called the First and Second, says: ‘The divine fathers (the fathers, that is, of that synod) decreed that a bishop is not to be absent more than six months from his proper episcopate; and the penalty for him who does not observe this canon is deposition.’ But can. xi. of the synod of Sardica, from the example which it introduces, seems to contract within a less space of time the allowable absence of the bishop, unless any necessity be upon him. And can. i. of the synod of Carthage says: ‘If any bishop neglect his own flock, and, not being hindered by any illness, or kept by imperial or patriarchal command, remain absent beyond the space of six months, let him be altogether deprived of the honour of a bishop.’ And can. xii. of the synod of Sardica: ‘He that goes away to possessions out of his bounds is not to tarry longer than three weeks.’ With these canons St. Cyril also agrees in ch. iii. of his epistle to Domnus: ‘For that they who serve in the priesthood,’ he says, ‘should resign their churches agrees not with the laws of the Church. For if they are worthy to minister, they ought not to resign; but if they are unworthy, let them not go out by resigning, but upon conviction of crimes laid to their charge. But if any one should have resigned his see, and left the flock committed to him, for him to claim the ministry (λειτουργίας) again after this would not be just. For it is plain that he resigns the labour and difficulty of governing, and the task of doing his best to check the tendency of this world to go on from bad to worse, and that he would retain and appropriate all that brings honour and respect, inclining more to slothfulness than to the diligent care of souls.’ And from can. xvi. of the synod called the First and Second it is shown that they are mad who opine thus, viz. that the bishops can resign their episcopates, but still retain the priesthood. For this canon decrees that ‘he who for any longer time than six months absents himself from his proper episcopate, not being prevented from returning by any necessary impediment, is to lose both the episcopate and the priesthood.’ But if he who commits the less offence is thus condemned, how much more shall not he who has at once and altogether resigned the episcopate, and despised the care of the flock for all his life, be punished for having, so far as he was concerned, abandoned to the wolves the holy flock intrusted to him by Christ the chief shepherd? to say nothing of his being allowed to take as a prize to himself the privileges of the priesthood. Of this can. x. of St. Dionysius also treats: ‘If, then, they who are called to preside over the people, if they do not obey at the first, are by the canons sentenced to excommunication, who that has any reason can accept, without making any difficulty of it, the resignation of those that are already established as pastors, and not rather punish such with the utmost severity possible?’ Besides, the name of the episcopate is expressive of act and energy. And he who has cast off voluntarily the energy has lost also the church. And not being fit to be called a bishop, how shall he lay claim to the priesthood? Or how shall he be called a hierarch who has no clergy under him, nor is an archon (ruler) of any hieromenon (priests)? And if the name of hierarchy does not belong to him, much less certainly can the energy [the active exercise] of this [i.e. of the ἰεραρχία or the episcopate, but the Slav. goes farther and says ‘on this account much less can he be competent to exercise the priesthood’]. Moreover, in the missive of the Third holy oecumenical council, concerning a certain Eustathius, it is shown to those who rightly consider the matter that such as resign their churches forfeit at once both the episcopate, and the priesthood. For this Eustathius being a bishop of Pamphylia, and having fallen into difficulties, resigned the episcopate. And to that place another had already been appointed. But he betook himself weeping to the holy synod, not contesting the see with him who held it, but seeking only the name and honour of a bishop. And the fathers, feeling both for the tears and for the advanced old age of Eustathius, and fearing lest anything should happen to him from his excessive grief, allowed him to retain the name of the episcopate, and the honour, and the communion of a bishop, so as to enter within the altar, and to communicate there. But he was neither to celebrate himself, nor to ordain. But this was done by the holy fathers not canonically, but of economy and unusual condescension, as he who reads the epistle through with attention will see. Hence, therefore, it is collected that he who has resigned his eparchy is deprived also of the honour and of the exercise of the ministry of a bishop, according to the canons.
CHAP. XIX. — Question. But if any metropolitan or patriarch, having left his original (or cathedral) chair, shall not have gone beyond the bounds of his eparchy, but should be found remaining in some place or monastery within the bounds of his eparchy above the space of six months, will he then incur this penalty?
Answer. This is even more serious (ἀτοπώτερον) than if he had gone out of the bounds of his eparchy. For if he abandons his chair, and takes not the proper care of its government, but behaves himself contemptuously as if he were its enemy, and a hireling not a shepherd, and when informed against, it may be, or even requested to return, refuses to return to his chair, such a one is stripped of the episcopal honour even more than he who remains absent beyond the bounds of his eparchy, as being wounded by harshness and passion (ὡς σκληρότητι καὶ ἐμπαθείᾳ τετρωσκόμενος, Slav. ‘by the arrow of stiffneckedness and inward passion’), and harbouring anger against his own flock, for which he ought to have been ready to expose himself to danger, and lay down his life, according to the Lord’s word.
CHAP. XX. — Question. Is it lawful, then, for the local synod to elect (χειροτονῆσαι) another bishop in this eparchy, instead of the one who is thus obnoxious to the canons (τοῦ ὑπεθύνου)?
Answer. By all means. For the Church of Christ ought not to be left deprived of her spiritual head, when he who was aforetime entitled her bishop has once (ἐισάπαξ) been split off (ἀποῤῥαγέντος καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθέντος) and rejected. For canon xxv. of the Fourth holy council says expressly: ‘Let not a church remain in widowhood longer than three months, but within this time let a bishop be appointed. If this is not done, let those who neglect to appoint one to be punished’ (ἐπιτιμηθήσονται). And the chosen vessel Paul cries aloud to Timothy: ‘What thou hast heard from us in presence of many witnesses, the same deliver thou to faithful men, who may be able to teach others also.’ But the office of teaching is not committed to others than to the bishops. Whence it results necessarily that the local synod, after making canonical election by votes [ψήφους κανονικὰς ποιησαμένην], is to establish a hierarch for that chair who seems to be blameless, that the flock of the Lord may not halt as one lame (μὴ χωλεύῃ). But if it delays to do so, it will subject itself to punishment, according to the canon of the Fourth council, [to be inflicted] not only by the superior synod, but also by God.
CHAP. XXI. — Question. If any metropolitan or patriarch being under accusation be judged by the bishops about him, when perhaps he has been some years in that eparchy, and it so be that all the bishops about him were ordained by him, can he refuse the judgment passed by them against him on the pretext that he is accounted to be their father, and they stand to him in the relation of sons?
Answer. Relation, according to those who are skilled in dialectics, is of many different kinds. One kind is essential (κατὰ τὸ εἶναι), another nominal (κατὰ τὸ λέγεσθαι), and it is understood according to the different relations of the subject spoken of. For example: A man in relation to his own offspring is said to be a parent, and has the relation of paternity. But in that he is a man (ᾖ δὲ ἄνθρωπος) according to the relation of identity, and the definition of man, if he be referred to [i.e. compared with] his offspring, he has no difference. In just the same way, if a metropolitan, it may be, or a patriarch be compared as their elder with those, the bishops around him, whom he has ordained, in respect of ordination they would be his sons; but in respect of the identity of the episcopate and the greatness of the spiritual dignity, they would be called fellow-brethren and fellow-bishops, and ministers of the same one God. Whence also the blessed Paul in his epistles at one time calls them his children, as having been enlightened by him, ‘my son Timothy,’ and ‘my son Titus,’ but at another also ‘brethren,’ as fellow-apostles. And the Lord ‘is not ashamed to call men his brethren.’ And again: ‘Behold I, and the children whom God hath given me.’ It appears therefore hence, that according to the relation of their ordination, and according to that of their order [i.e. rank and precedence], this [metropolitan or patriarch] is father to the bishops about him: but in respect of the episcopate and the spiritual power they are fellow-brethren and fellow-bishops: so that he will have no ground for saying that the bishops who have been ordained by him cannot judge him, when he has incurred penalties according to the divine canons, nor give a vote which shall be lawful against him. For fatherhood and sonship have no place in respect of justice [i.e. when the question is one of justice and right], and least of all in ecclesiastical questions, when spiritual danger is involved. For the Divine says: ‘He who is on other occasions meek, when he knows that God is being wronged becomes in very truth a warrior.’
CHAP. XXII. — Question. But if, rejecting their judgment, he has recourse to an appeal, what will be the consequence?
Answer. The judgment [the Slav. inserts ‘already’] pronounced in writing by the oecumenical chair [the chair of C.P.], and by the patriarchs ranking after it, against him, according to what appears legitimate (νόμιμον) and canonical, as has been said above (that chair having from the canons this privilege), must be of force against him, without any other pretext for farther contention being left in this matter.
CHAP. XXIII. — Question. Can such a one be deposed even by a less number than that of twelve bishops?
Answer. Matthew Blastar says: ‘But if both sides choose arbitrators, even though they be fewer than the number required in other canons, viz. than twelve bishops, he that is condemned by them cannot appeal.’
CHAP. XXIV. — Question. Can a bishop or a patriarch make innovations, and introduce into his own church unusual services (or ritual observances), and re-model the established (διατεταγμένας) holy liturgies?
Answer. Something has been said of this already above; and now we say farther that every innovation which is put forward by only a particular authority (μερικῶς προβαλλομένη) is an occasion for confusion and disorder. For those which are recognised by the holy synods are not called innovations, but ordinances (διατάξεις) for the compaction of the Christian people. But he who of a particular authority (μερικῶς) presumes to do such things, especially if he corrupts what has been put forth by holy men, and recognised by the holy fathers, and confirmed by length of time, foisting in strange things of his own, is to be cast out as a worker of confusion, and is to be anathematised together with his innovations. For the divine Paul says: ‘If any man shall preach to you aught beside that which we have preached to you, though it be an angel from heaven, let him be anathema.’ And the Saviour gives sentence (ἀποφαίνεται) that he who causes scandal is to have a millstone tied about his neck, and to be cast into the sea. Wherefore they that wish to be religious must keep all that has been put forth by the synods and by the saints unimpinged.
CHAP. XXV. — Question. If any one strike a servant of a bishop, or metropolitan, or patriarch, does the insult (ὕβρις) pass (ἀναφέρεται) to his lord? and can he of himself alone judge the insult or wrong, or not rather the civil tribunal?
Answer. Not every insult (or wrong) passes to the lord, but only that which is expressly inflicted on the lord’s account. But if the servant is doing anything disorderly, and is insulted or beaten to bring him to order [ὑβριζομένου ἢ τυπομένου ἐπὶ σωφρονισμῶ, the Sl. has ‘is beaten and barked at with dishonouring words by the chief nobles of the tsar’] by those who are set over the execution of the emperor’s commands, that insult remains upon him only who his disorderly, and does not pass to his lord. But if the lord is displeased, the judgment of such a case does not belong to him, but it shall be carried before the civil (πολιτικὸν κριτήριον) tribunal; and it is thence that the sentence shall be pronounced. But if he passes judgment for himself against the man who struck his servant (ἀυτὸς πρὸς αὐτοῦ δίκην κατὰ τοῦ τυπτήσαντος ἐξενέγκει), then, as a contemner of the superior tribunal, and as trying by disorder to correct disorder, he shall incur punishment, and shall be without excuse (ὑπεύθυνος ἔσται καὶ ἀναπολόγητος). For no man rights himself as prosecutor and judge at once, but the judgment must be referred to others, as the laws prescribe.
So there is put forth a common synodical sentence (ψῆφος) that the bishop to whom these Questions apply [τὸν ὑπεύθυνον ὄντα] is, according to these Answers, to receive punishment without any fear of wrong being done thereby, and is to be cast out from the episcopal honour and dignity; and another in lieu of him is to be elected (or ordained and instituted, κεχαιροτονῆσαι) to this eparchy lawfully and canonically, and as a matter of course. For we are fellow-workers with God, as following the footsteps of the apostles: and we ought not to allow the vineyard of God to be spoiled by deceitful foxes (ὑούλοις), nor his flock to be scattered by bloodthirsty wolves. If we do otherwise, we shall have to give an account to him in the day of judgment as having neglected the souls which he redeemed with his own blood, and the flocks (ποιμνίων) which he drew together from the ends of the world by the net of the apostles. Praying the three-sunned light of the Godhead, which is over all, to strengthen (στηρίζειν) his Church against all her visible and invisible enemies,
- I Dionysius, by the mercy of God archbishop of C.P. New Rome, and oecumenical patriarch, confirm and ratify all the above as canonical.
- I Paisius, by the mercy of God pope and patriarch of the great city of Alexandria, and oecumenical judge, confirm the above as agreeing with the ecclesiastical canons.
- I Macarius, by the mercy of God patriarch of the great city of God Antioch and of all the East, in confirmation have subscribed [subscribed by himself in Arabic, with the Greek in small character added by another hand].
- I Nectarius, by the mercy of God patriarch of the holy city of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, confirm the above as agreeing with the ecclesiastical canons.
[Annexed is the following] ‘Separate statement (ἔκθεσις, or codicil) of Nectarius patriarch of Jerusalem, with the subscription of his hand:’
‘By the present tome is judged not only a bishop, or a metropolitan, but also a patriarch. However, there is need that a synod should be assembled, and that he who is charged under these heads should be summoned once and again, and a third time. And if he obey the synod and appear, and make a defence, he is to be judged according to his defence by the synod. But if he contemn the synod, and do not appear, the synod will then condemn him, even though absent. But if any one, being a patriarch, stands out, saying that he is not amenable, nor can be called in question (ὅτι οὐκ εὐθύνεται, οὔτε ἀνακρίνεται) by bishops or metropolitans, because he is above them in honour, let such a one know that even a metropolitan may judge and depose a patriarch, when he has assembled the rest of the bishops, as many as may be [able to be] present. For Acratius the metropolitan of Caesarea deposed Macedonius the bishop of Constantinople, as Socrates relates (Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cap. 23). And the Eastern bishops deposed Pope Julius, as Sozomen relates (lib. iii. cap. 2): and the martyr bishop Cyprian opposed strenuously the then Pope, who said that heretics ought not to be rebaptised. So that every person [who is a bishop] may be judged by every person [though he be only a bishop] by the present compilation (or collection, συντάγματι), made from the holy canons. Written at Jassy, A.D. 1664, in the month of February. Nectarius, patriarch of the holy city of Jerusalem.