Ancyra - Canon 25

One who had betrothed a maiden, corrupted her sister, so that she conceived.  After that he married his betrothed, but she who had been corrupted hanged herself.  The parties to this affair were ordered to be received among the co-standers after ten years [of penance] according to the prescribed degrees.

The recounted sins in this canon were many: adultery, suicide, and murder in one scenario.  A betrothed man slept with his future sister-in-law.  He went on to marry his fiancée, but the sister-in-law found herself pregnant and disgrace, so she decided to end both her life that of the unborn child.

Why would an unwed pregnant woman consider ending her life and that of her child?  Rome had no social welfare system to care for widows, orphans, unwed mothers, poor, etc. except for the extended family.  If none was available, the situation was hopeless.  Based on that condition and lack of prospects, we can understand why the woman would choose to end her life rather than face the harsh future.

Those involved in were to be prevented from full fellowship for ten years.  The man was complicit in the death of the woman though not an active agent in carrying it out. 

Lastly, lest we think the Roman empire was overly harsh in this regard, note that our Bibles say the same thing: the family is to care for its own.  The responsibility for social justice is squarely on the individual.  Within the Mosaic covenant were laws given to care for those who could not care for themselves.  Most were directed to toward to what the individual family units were obligated to do (Lev 23:22; Deut 24:19), though every three years the tithe was set aside for the Levite, orphan, and widow in their towns (Deut 14:28-29).

Ancyra - Canon 24

They who practice divination, and follow the customs of the heathen, or who take men to their houses for the invention of sorceries, or for lustrations, fall under the canon of five years’ [penance], according to the prescribed degrees; that is, three years as prostrators, and two of prayer without oblation.

Any who had fallen into practicing divination or attempting to bring in those who might bless a house or family through charms and incantations were separated from full communion for a five-year period.  Such a person was seen as seeking help from idols or demons rather than from the one true God who could perform above and beyond all that could be asked or thought.

Ancyra - Canon 23

Concerning involuntary homicides, a former decree directs that they be received to full communion after seven years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees; but this second one, that they fulfill a term of five years.

Part three of those canons involved with manslaughter on some level, this concerned involuntary cases.  From a modern, American perspective this seems unusually harsh.  The first question to arise might be: why would anyone need to do penance for an involuntary act?  The answer may be found in understanding our cultural laxity toward the sanctity of life.  The biblical response to involuntary manslaughter (Num 35:22-29) was two-fold: 1) the victim's family had the right of blood vengeance; and 2) the perpetrator was not guilty of blood as long as he remained in one of the six cities of refuge¹ that had been established or until the high priest's death.²  This canon, in the same way, addressed both the seriousness of what happened with its due consequence of justice and the mercy to be extended by virtue of its involuntary nature.


¹ I presume this included the surrounding lands attached to the city as well.
² Upon the high priest's death, the shedder of blood was free from his "house arrest" without fear of reprisal from the victim's family.

Ancyra - Canon 22

Concerning willful murderers let them remain prostrators; but at the end of life let them be indulged with full communion.

This is a continuation of the previous canon but directed to those who murdered those born into the world.  Full communion was barred until their final hour was near.

One might ask how the differentiation could be made between the unborn and born to allow mercy for murdering the first but not the second.  There was and is a common conception that life does not begin until the first breath outside the womb.  Only at that point does the breath of life enter the baby.  This position was confronted by Tertullian.

Those who profess the truth care nothing about their opponents, especially such of them as begin by maintaining that the soul is not conceived in the womb, nor is formed and produced at the time that the flesh is molded, but is impressed from without upon the infant before his complete vitality, but after the process of parturition.  They say, moreover, that the human seed having been duly deposited ex concubiterin the womb, and having been by natural impulse quickened, it becomes condensed into the mere substance of the flesh, which is in due time born, warm from the furnace of the womb, and then released from its heat.  (This flesh) resembles the case of hot iron, which is in that state plunged into cold water; for, being smitten by the cold air (into which it is born), it at once receives the power of animation, and utters vocal sound.  This view is entertained by the Stoics, along with Ænesidemus, and occasionally by Plato himself, when he tells us that the soul, being quite a separate formation, originating elsewhere and externally to the womb, is inhaled when the new-born infant first draws breath, and by and by exhaled with the man’s latest breath.¹

While we may not agree with the consequences meted out, we can appreciate cultural issues in dealing with the different types of cases before them and coming to a just solution.


¹ ANF 3:205.

Ancyra - Canon 21

Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented.  Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater leniency, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees.


Abortions were well-known in the Roman empire.  Tertullian, near the end of the second century, described the practice and utensils in "A Treatise on the Soul" as one sometimes considered necessary by the populace:

But sometimes by a cruel necessity, whilst yet in the womb, an infant is put to death, when lying awry in the orifice of the womb he impedes parturition, and kills his mother, if he is not to die himself.  Accordingly, among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fœtus is extracted by a violent delivery.  There is also (another instrument in the shape of) a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of ἐμβρυοσφάκτης , the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive.  Such apparatus was possessed both by Hippocrates, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus, and Herophilus, that dissector of even adults, and the milder Soranus himself, who all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive.¹

Elsewhere, in "The Apology" he demonstrated the blood-thirstiness of the pagans as opposed to Christians.

How many, think you, of those crowding around and gaping for Christian blood,—how many even of your rulers, notable for their justice to you and for their severe measures against us, may I charge in their own consciences with the sin of putting their offspring to death?  As to any difference in the kind of murder, it is certainly the more cruel way to kill by drowning, or by exposure to cold and hunger and dogs.  A maturer age has always preferred death by the sword.  In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.  To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth.  That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.²

Rightly, the early church denounced this behavior.  In the "Epistle of Barnabas," the author instructed believers:

Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born.³

With this back drop, this canon is understandable in condemning those who took part in abortions though they be Christians now.  Former decrees had been given to separate the wrongdoers from the body for the remainder of their lives thus demonstrating the severity of the grievous sin.  The noteworthy concession of shortening this time to seven years demonstrates the great difference from the world of the grace and mercy from those who had the truth and used it rightly.


¹ ANF 3:206
² ANF 3:25
³ ANF 1:148

Ancyra - Canon 20

If the wife of anyone has committed adultery or if any man commit adultery it seems fit that he shall be restored to full communion after seven years passed in the prescribed degrees [of penance].

While adultery was and is a grievous sin before God, such is forgivable before God and the church after an examination of penance.  That adultery carries a lesser penance than idol worship is surprising on a natural level, since another person is directly wronged.  Yet, idolatry is whoring after other gods, and the Lord of Hosts is the one agrieved by the infraction, ergo the more severe penalty.

Ancyra - Canon 19

If any persons who profess virginity shall disregard their profession, let them fulfill the term of digamists.  And, moreover, we prohibit women who are virgins from living with men as sisters.

Digamy is defined as "a second marriage, after the death or divorce of the first husband or wife; deuterogamy."¹  The early church largely discouraged remarriage after losing a spouse; promoting the blessings of living as a single person dedicated to the Lord rather than being concerned with a spouse (1 Cor 7:27-28).

For any who had bound themselves to celibacy (i.e., perpetual virginity) but turned back, they were to take the same place as digamists for a time, since they had figuratively already married God but now physically sought to marry another.  And for any who declared their virginity, those of the opposite sex were not to live together as a brother and sister would.  This was simply a matter of preventing temptation before it started.


¹ digamy.  Dictionary.com.  Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/digamy (accessed: December 13, 2010).

Ancyra - Canon 18

If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion.  But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honor.  But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honor of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.

There was a two-fold problem being addressed here.  First, the issue of duly appointed overseers not being recognized by the congregants.  Something was wrong with the appointing group, the overseer himself, the church body, or some of each.  Without particulars we have no way to intelligently speculate.  What we do know is that churches were expected to welcome the appointed since, according to Nicene canons, the overseer was to be from that church, and if none were qualified, one was appointed from the outside.  In either case, if something was discovered making the overseer unwelcome, the church evidently rejected him to find another.

Second, the overseer was going to another church with an established leadership and began interfering with and undermining authority.  With this in mind, we can see why the first church might have rejected him.  In any event, such an individual was to be stripped of any position and excommunicated.  As I noted previously of Nicaea - Canon 16, a leader is rejected for a reason, and the new church has every right and responsibility to investigate.

As to a rejected overseer, if he takes a place amongst the elders and serves in humility in that role, so much the better for all involved. The spiritually mature man will be able to serve, and the body will have the benefit of additional wise counsel.

Ancyra - Canon 17

Defilers of themselves with beasts, being also leprous, who have infected others,¹ the holy Synod commands to pray among the hiemantes.

Those who had engaged in bestiality and coerced others to do the same—spreading sin as one spreads leprous diseases—were left out with the weepers (Προσκλαίοντες, flentes; also called χειμάζοντες, hiemantes): those "who prostrated themselves at the church doors in mourning garments and implored restoration from the clergy and the people."²

Christians largely misunderstand the sinfulness of sin.  Planning or committing the act is grievous enough and are to be confessed before God for his cleansing righteousness (1 John 1:9).  When we engage in sin so that others are caught up in the same sin because of our actions, how much greater is the gravity of the situation.  The consequences of our sin can be harsh.  Though we are forgiven before the Lord, more individual care is needed to ensure a consistent walk by faith from true repentance.


¹ With the leprosy of this crime
² Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol 2, accessed at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.xvii.html.

Ancyra - Canon 16

Let those who have been or who are guilty of bestial lusts, if they have sinned while under twenty years of age, be prostrators fifteen years, and afterwards communicate in prayers; then, having passed five years in this communion, let them have a share in the oblation.  But let their life as prostrators be examined, and so let them receive indulgence; and if any have been insatiable in their crimes, then let their time of prostration be prolonged.  And if any who have passed this age and had wives, have fallen into this sin, let them be prostrators twenty-five years, and then communicate in prayers; and, after they have been five years in the communion of prayers, let them share the oblation.  And if any married men of more than fifty years of age have so sinned, let them be admitted to communion only at the point of death.

There were those who at some point had engaged in bestiality. Those teenagers that did so in the thralls of raging hormones were to be held back from full fellowship for twenty years.  If the person was more mature, the time was thirty years.  Lastly, if over fifty years, no communion was allowed until death was imminent.  During these probationary periods, penance could be shortened or elongated based on their conduct in relation to their past sinful practice.  Clearly, this sin was considered more grievous than any of the aforementioned worship of false gods, probably because it struck at the heart of something that should obviously separate Christians from pagans.

Ancyra - Canon 15

Concerning things belonging to the church, which presbyters may have sold when there was no bishop, it is decreed that the Church property shall be reclaimed; and it shall be in the discretion of the bishop whether it is better to receive the purchase price, or not; for oftentimes the revenue of the things sold might yield them the greater value.

If a church was without an overseer, an elder was not allowed to sell church property.  If he should, the overseer could reclaim it for the church unless he determined that the sale yielded more value than retaining the property.

And here I thought the current Presbyterian Church (USA) issues with church property was something new.

Ancyra - Canon 14

It is decreed that among the clergy, presbyters and deacons who abstain from flesh shall taste of it, and afterwards, if they shall so please, may abstain.  But if they disdain it, and will not even eat herbs served with flesh, but disobey the canon, let them be removed from their order.

Some elders and deacons had begun to abstain from meat.  When presented food with meat, they were to taste it then beg from eating.  However, if they took the more extreme approach of not even eating vegetables that were served with meat, they were to be deposed.  Such conduct was considered beyond what was proper drawing attention to the person when humility was in order.

There are workers of the church today who conduct themselves much as the Pharisee and say, "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get," thinking that they can be exalted by their works.  When in fact the correct way is for him to "not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'" (Luke 18:11-13)

May our prayer be like Peter's:

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.  To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever.  Amen. (1 Peter 4:10-11)

Ancyra - Canon 13

It is not lawful for Chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons, and most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the bishop given in writing, in another parish.

What is a chorepiscopus?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he is an overseer

whose jurisdiction was confined to rural districts.  The earliest chorepiscopus of whom we have any knowledge was Zoticus, whom Eusebius designates as bishop of the village Cumana in Phrygia in the latter half of the second century.  In the beginning the chorepiscopi seem to have exercised all episcopal functions in their rural districts, but from the second half of the third century they were subject to the city bishops.¹

These country preachers (using modern parlance) were allowed to fully function within their regions in the same capacity as the overseer in a major metropolitan area—Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.—yet being subject to the oversight of the nearest metropolitan.

What is the canon addressing?
The first part of the canon is clear in that the chorepiscopus was not to ordain certain elders or deacons without consent.  There has been some difficulty through history with the second part of the canon in knowing to what circumstances the Greek text and the English translation are referring.  The translation above appears to say that no chorepiscopus may not ordain someone in a different locale unless the city overseer from that other locale had given written approval.  In other words, someone from a region attached to Ancyra could not ordain someone in the jurisdiction of Antioch unless someone from Antioch with sufficient authority had given written permission.  Others will say it refers to separate regions under the jurisdiction of the same city.  The fine distinction is irrelevant as the outcome is the same.


¹ Michael Ott, "Chorepiscopi," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 16 (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1914), accessed at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16024c.htm.

Ancyra - Canon 12

It is decreed that they who have offered sacrifice before their baptism, and were afterwards baptized, may be promoted to orders, inasmuch as they have been cleansed.

The patristic understanding of baptism included an actual washing away of sin.  This canon could refer either to the new believer in Christ or to catechumens who went through a period of up to three years between their initial following and baptism into full fellowship.  In either case all sin was considered washed away at that point.

Ancyra - Canon 11

It is decreed that virgins who have been betrothed, and who have afterwards been carried off by others, shall be restored to those to whom they had formerly been betrothed, even though they may have suffered violence from the ravisher.

It was not outside the bounds of pagan behavior to abscond with a Christian girl who was betrothed and make sport of her.  Had the girl been a willing participant in such an action, discipline for sin would have been enacted.  Here though, being unwilling, the girl was free to return to her fiancé without further incident.  A corollary understanding to this was that the man was willing to take her back.  If not, they were free to go separate ways.

This seems to be one of those situations that should be obvious, but the early church was highly sensitive to every appearance of evil.  O, that today's believers would be of the same mind without going to extreme strictures of Christian liberty.

Ancyra - Canon 10

They who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was conceded to them by the bishop.  But if any were silent on this matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.

Celibacy had made inroads so that even deacons were greatly encouraged to follow this lifestyle.  The canon addresses what to do if single men came forward to be ordained.  If he stated forthrightly that he was unwilling to remain celibate, he could be ordained.  If he acknowledged his intention of celibacy and was ordained but married later, he was to be removed from his position. The difference between the two cases is demonstrated in their character.  The former was honest, knowing himself enough to come forward with his intentions.  The latter was caught up in pride acceding to a commitment with its spiritual prestige welling inside and in the eyes of the other believers.

The latter's action was identical to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) who made a donation under false pretenses to receive honor from others for giving.  In both that incident and this canon, the decision was fully under the perpetrator's control.  Both could withhold something with the Lord's full approval without being considered somehow less spiritual or dedicated (Acts 5:3-4).  Yet because of spiritual pride perceived in the dedicatory act, they both sought the glory for themselves and were left to the consequences of their decisions.

Ancyra - Canon 9

As many as have not merely apostatized, but have risen against their brethren and forced them [to apostatize], and have been guilty of their being forced, let these for three years take the place of hearers, and for another term of six years that of prostrators, and for another year let them communicate without oblation, in order that, when they have fulfilled the space of ten years, they may partake of the communion; but during this time the rest of their life must also be inquired into.

As with a previous post, I have trouble understanding how a Christian can go to these lengths.  Perhaps initially they were not, but took part of God's word and the working of the Holy Spirit with them into apostasy as they even forced other believers into the same. But here they are returning in repentance to the church and seeking absolution for their great sin.  At this point we can assume these are now true, faithful believers willing to endure the ten-year wait for full communion.  And in this and every prior case, the overseer could alter the time based on the individual and his circumstance.  This way justice and mercy could walk together.

Note on the first nine canons
As I was reaching the end of this set of those who forsook the faith in various degrees and coupling that with the disciplinary actions documented in the canons of Nicaea, I was impressed by the technical clarity of each description and the appropriate consequence for acceptance into fellowship.  The matter was clear and settled.  No sudden appeal for mercy could assuage the spiritual leadership.  Only a walk of faith over an extended period would suffice for a measure of leniency.  These canons were not inventing a sin to discipline, as the Pharisees were wont to do, but seeking to correctly acknowledge what was already known as sin and addressing it properly.

Perhaps modern church bodies are missing out on something here.  I do not know of any that so fully and clearly outlines what should happen to those who fall away and wish to return.  The appeal to unique, individual circumstances is effective in overriding systems of governance both in jurisprudence and the church.  And I can understand that to a point, but maybe we should be taking the trouble to specify to some degree what is expected to enter back into full fellowship, then use it consistently.  Both matters, appropriateness and consistency, are difficult to define and enact.  And does this line of reasoning cross a line stepping away from grace, and if so, to what degree?  I am still working through this one.

Ancyra - Canon 8

Let those who have twice or thrice sacrificed under compulsion, be prostrators four years, and communicate without oblation two years, and the seventh year they shall be received to full communion.

Sinning once under compulsion was grievous; doing the same multiple times incurred greater discipline.  The penance and probation was to correspond to the sin.

Ancyra - Canon 7

Concerning those who have partaken at a heathen feast in a place appointed for heathens, but who have brought and eaten their own meats, it is decreed that they be received after they have been prostrators two years; but whether with oblation, every bishop must determine after he has made examination into the rest of their life.

Karl von Hefele gives an excellent commentary on this canon:

Several Christians tried with worldly prudence, to take a middle course.  On the one hand, hoping to escape persecution, they were present at the feasts of the heathen sacrifices, which were held in the buildings adjoining the temples; and on the other, in order to appease their consciences, they took their own food, and touched nothing that had been offered to the gods.  These Christians forgot that St. Paul had ordered that meats sacrificed to the gods should be avoided, not because they were tainted in themselves, as the idols were nothing, but from another, and in fact a twofold reason: 1st, Because, in partaking of them, some had still the idols in their hearts, that is to say, were still attached to the worship of idols, and thereby sinned; and 2dly, Because others scandalized their brethren, and sinned in that way.  To these two reasons a third may be added, namely, the hypocrisy and the duplicity of those Christians who wished to appear heathens, and nevertheless to remain Christians.  The Synod punished them with two years of penance in the third degree, and gave to each bishop the right, at the expiration of this time, either to admit them to communion, or to make them remain some time longer in the fourth degree.¹

The remarkable hypocrisy demonstrated here brings genuine faith in Christ into question.  We can understand the extreme duress and desire to avoid pain and conflict, but where is the line drawn?  When Christ says in Matt 16:24-26,

If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.  For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?  Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

then we must rightly assume he means that our lives are nothing compared to the surpassing value of knowing him. (Phil 3:8).  Perhaps there is a Christian who does not understand that completely, but in what does he or she believe?  What is the thing in which they trust—the gospel or vain philosophy of man's invention?

This does not preclude a true repentance and turning to Christ.  Certainly those mentioned in this and the previous canons can have believed on the finished work with salvation full and free but were possibly weak in faith.  In the end we do not know.  We simply must guard against those who easily stumble or practice deceit to save themselves or their reputations, yet desire to have full fellowship with the local body.


¹ Karl J. von Hefele, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, (NPNF² 14:66).

Ancyra - Canon 6

Concerning those who have yielded merely upon threat of penalties and of the confiscation of their goods, or of banishment, and have sacrificed, and who till this present time have not repented nor been converted, but who now, at the time of this synod, have approached with a purpose of conversion, it is decreed that they be received as hearers till the Great Day,¹ and that after the Great Day they be prostrators for three years, and for two years more communicate without oblation, and then come to full communion, so as to complete the period of six full years.  And if any have been admitted to penance before this synod, let the beginning of the six years be reckoned to them from that time.  Nevertheless, if there should be any danger or prospect of death whether from disease or any other cause, let them be received, but under limitation.

There were some in the church who fell away and sacrificed to idols because of the threat of torture, and this they continued to do but now have repented of these acts.  These are to be allowed to hear the meeting until Easter, then go through a six-year progression to be brought back fully into communion with penance served prior to Easter to be allowed toward the entire time.  If because of possible imminent death for the person, he or she may be allowed in with limitations.

At this point one questions whether or not those who fell so easily were true believers.  That is a legitimate concern and may be a chief reason for lengthy time period for full reinstatement.



¹ EasterDay – Wm. A. Hammond states, "The great reverence which the Primitive Church from the earliest ages felt for the holy festival of Easter is manifested by the application of the epithet Great, to everything connected with it."  (NPNF² 14:66).