OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLII

Canon XLII.
Those who are called Eremites and are clothed in black robes, and with long hair go about cities and associate with the worldly both men and women and bring odium upon their profession—we decree that if they will receive the habit of other monks and wear their hair cut short, they may be shut up in a monastery and numbered among the brothers; but if they do not choose to do this, they are to be expelled from the cities and forced to live in the desert (ἐρήμους) from whence also they derive their name.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLII.
An eremite dressed in black vesture and not having his hair cut, unless he has his hair cut shall be expelled the city and be shut up in his monastery.
It may not be irreverent to remark that this species of impostors always has been common in the East, and many examples will be found of the dervishes in the Arabian Nights and other Eastern tales. The “vagabond” monks of the West also became a great nuisance as well as a scandal in the Middle Ages. The reader will find interesting instances of Spanish deceivers of the same sort in “Gil Blas” and other Spanish romances.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XCVII

Canon XCVII.
Those who have commerce with a wife or in any other manner without regard thereto make sacred places common, and treat them with contempt and thus remain in them, we order all such to be expelled, even from the dwellings of the catechumens which are in the venerable temples. And if any one shall not observe these directions, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XCVII.
Whoever in a temple has commerce with his wife and remains there out of contempt, shall be expelled even from the Catechumens. If any one shall not observe this he shall be deposed or cut off.
Zonaras.
In the name of holy places, not the church itself but the adjoining and dependent buildings are intended such as those which are called the “Catechumena.” For no one would be audacious enough to wish to cohabit with his wife in the very temple itself.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XIV

Canon XIV.
Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty.  In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.
A presbyter thirty years of age, a deacon twenty-five, and a deaconess forty.
Compare Canon XI. of Neocæsarea.
It may be interesting to note here that by the law of the Roman Communion the canonical ages are as follows:
A subdeacon must have completed his twenty-first year, a deacon his twenty-second, a priest his twenty-fourth, and a bishop his thirtieth. None of the inferior clergy can hold a simple benefice before he has begun his fourteenth year. Ecclesiastical dignities, such as Cathedral canonries, cannot be conferred on any who have not finished the twenty-second year. A benefice to which is attached a cure of souls can be given only to one who is over twenty-four, and a diocese only to one who has completed his thirtieth year. (Vide Ferraris, Bibliotheca Prompta.)
In the Anglican Communion the ages are, in England, for a bishop “fully thirty years of age,” for a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-three: and in the United States, for a bishop thirty years of age, for a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-one.

## Footnotes

* ↑ A faculty is allowed for earlier ordination, but since 1804 only to be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This limitation is, however, only of Parliamentary sanction (44 Geo. III., ch. 43).
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XCVIII

Canon XCVIII.
He who brings to the intercourse of marriage a woman who is betrothed to another man who is still alive, is to lie under the charge of adultery.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XCVIII.
He is an adulterer who takes one espoused to some one else.
Aristenus’s commentary on this canon is Σαφής. A more extraordinary estimate of it could hardly be made. So far from the meaning being “perspicuous,” as the Latin translation has it, the meaning seems to be past finding out; for, as Van Espen remarks, a man who sins with a betrothed woman is certainly not an “adulterer.” He tries therefore to introduce the idea that though he is not an adulterer, yet he is to be punished as if he were. But the Greek hardly seems patient of this meaning, and the Ancient Epitome says in so many words that he is an adulterer.
On account of this difficulty some have supposed that the espousals here mentioned were not de futuro but de prœsenti, and that therefore it was the case of stealing a real wife of another man. But this explanation also is involved in many difficulties.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XI

Canon XI.
Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XI.
Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused. Whoever even calls in Jews as physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed.
Van Espen.
Theodore Balsamon is of opinion that this canon does not forbid the eating of unleavened bread; but that what is intended is the keeping of feasts in a Jewish fashion, or in sacrifices to use unleavened bread (azymes), and this, says Balsamon, on account of the Latins who celebrate their feasts with azymes.
Canon lxix. [i.e., lxx.] of those commonly called Apostolic forbids the observance of festivals with the Jews; and declares it to be unlawful to receive manuscula from them, but by this canon all familiar intercourse with them is forbidden.
While there can be no doubt that in all the Trullan canons there is an undercurrent of hostility to the West, yet in this canon I can see no such spirit, and I think it has been read into it by the greater bitterness of later times. This seems the more certain from the fact that there is nothing new whatever in the provision with respect to the passover bread, vide canons of Laodicea xxxvij. and xxxviij.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa xxviij., can. xiii.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Van Espen says that in his copy of Gratian this canon is assigned to the VIIth Synod. Such is not the case in the edition in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, where the reference is given as ex VI. Synodo. c. II., and Judæorum is found in the text instead of the eorum of which Van Espen complains.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XIX

Canon XIX.
It behoves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord’s days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIX.
The prelates of the Church, especially upon Lord’s days, shall teach doctrine.
Van Espen.
How great an obligation of preaching rests upon bishops, the successors of the Apostles, is evident from the words of St. Paul, “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach” (1 Cor. i. 17), and his chief adjuration to Timothy though Jesus Christ and his coming, was “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. ii. 4.). For this reason the fathers formerly called the episcopate the preaching-office (officium predicationis), as is evident from the profession of Adelbert Morinensis, and the form of profession of a future Archbishop.  Both of these will be found in Labbe, appendix to Tom. VIII., of his Concilia.
Council of Trent.
(Sess. V., c. 2.)
The preaching of the Gospel is the chief work of bishops.
Convocation of Canterbury, a.d. 1571.
(Cardwell. Synodalia, Vol. I., p. 126.)
The clergy will be careful to teach nothing in their sermons to be religiously held and believed by the people except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and Ancient Bishops have collected out of the same.
Council of Trent.
(Sess. IV.)
No one shall dare to interpret the Holy Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

## Footnotes

* ↑ I have followed the reading ἀπείρως.
* ↑ It is not generally known that this evident citation of Canon XIX. of the Quinisext Council forms part of the action enforcing the XXXIX. Articles of the Church of England.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 2/Canons/Canon XLI

Canon XLI.
Those who in town or in villages wish to go away into cloisters, and take heed for themselves apart, before they enter a monastery and practise the anchorite’s life, should for the space of three years in the fear of God submit to the Superior of the house, and fulfil obedience in all things, as is right, thus shewing forth their choice of this life and that they embrace it willingly and with their whole hearts; they are then to be examined by the superior (προέδρος) of the place; and then to bear bravely outside the cloister one year more, so that their purpose may be fully manifested. For by this they will shew fully and perfectly that they are not catching at vain glory, but that they are pursuing the life of solitude because of its inherent beauty and honour. After the completion of such a period, if they remain in the same intention in their choice of the life, they are to be enclosed, and no longer is it lawful for them to go out of such a house when they so desire, unless they be induced to do so for the common advantage, or other pressing necessity urging on to death; and then only with the blessing of the bishop of that place.
And those who, without the above-mentioned causes, venture forth of their convents, are first of all to be shut up in the said convent even against their wills, and then are to cure themselves with fasting and other afflictions, knowing how it is written that “no one who has put his hand to the plough and has looked back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven.”
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XLI.
Whoever is about to enter a cloister, let him live for three years in a monastery, and before he is shut up let him spend one year more, and so let him be shut up. And he shall not then go forth unless death or the common good demands.
Van Espen.
This canon, so far as it sets forth the necessity of probation before admission to the Anchorite life, synods in after-years frequently approved, taught as they were by experience how perilous a matter it is to admit without sufficient probation to this solitary life and state of separation from the common intercourse with his fellow men. Vide the Synod of Vannes (about a.d. 465) canon vij., of Agde chap. lxxviij., of Orleans the First can. xxij., of Frankfort can. xij., of Toledo the Seventh can. v., and the Capitular of Charlemagne To monks, Chap. ij.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Latin adds, “That is, separate and remote from others.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part I/Chapter 22

§22. The image cannot represent the true form of God, else God would be corruptible.
For if the reason of their being thus fashioned is, that the Deity is of human form, why do they invest it also with the forms of irrational creatures? Or if the form of it is that of the latter, why do they embody it also in the images of rational creatures? Or if it be both at once, and they conceive God to be of the two combined, namely, that He has the forms both of rational and of irrational, why do they separate what is joined together, and separate the images of brutes and of men, instead of always carving it of both kinds, such as are the fictions in the myths, Scylla, Charybdis, the Hippocentaur, and the dog-headed Anubis of the Egyptians? For they ought either to represent them solely of two natures in this way, or, if they have a single form, not to falsely represent them in the other as well. 2. And again, if their forms are male, why do they also invest them with female shapes? Or if they are of the latter, why do they also falsify their forms as though they were males? Or if again they are a mixture of both, they ought not to be divided, but both ought to be combined, and follow the type of the so-called hermaphrodites, so that their superstition should furnish beholders with a spectacle not only of impiety and calumny, but of ridicule as well. 2. And generally, if they conceive the Deity to be corporeal, so that they contrive for it and represent belly and hands and feet, and neck also, and breasts and the other organs that go to make man, see to what impiety and godlessness their mind has come down, to have such ideas of the Deity. For it follows that it must be capable of all other bodily casualties as well, of being cut and divided, and even of perishing altogether. But these and like things are not properties of God, but rather of earthly bodies. 3. For while God is incorporeal and incorruptible, and immortal, needing nothing for any purpose, these are both corruptible, and are shapes of bodies, and need bodily ministrations, as we said before. For often we see images which have grown old renewed, and those which time, or rain, or some or other of the animals of the earth have spoiled, restored. In which connexion one must condemn their folly, in that they proclaim as gods things of which they themselves are the makers, and themselves ask salvation of objects which they themselves adorn with their arts to preserve them from corruption, and beg that their own wants may be supplied by beings which they well know need attention from themselves, and are not ashamed to call lords of heaven and all the earth creatures whom they shut up in small chambers.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Supra xiii. 3.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part I/Chapter 15

§15. The details about the gods conveyed in the representations of them by poets and artists shew that they are without life, and that they are not gods, nor even decent men and women.
For would that the artist would fashion the gods even without shape, so that they might not be open to so manifest an exposure of their lack of sense. For they might have cajoled the perception of simple folk to think the idols had senses, were it not that they possess the symbols of the senses, eyes for example and noses and ears and hands and mouth, without any gesture of actual perception and grasp of the objects of sense. But as a matter of fact they have these things and have them not, stand and stand not, sit and sit not. For they have not the real action of these things, but as their fashioner pleased, so they remain stationary, giving no sign of a god, but evidently mere inanimate objects, set there by man’s art. 2. Or would that the heralds and prophets of these false gods, poets I mean and writers, had simply written that they were gods, and not also recounted their actions as an exposure of their godlessness and scandalous life. For by the mere name of godhead they might have filched away the truth, or rather have caused the mass of men to err from the truth. But as it is, by narrating the loves and immoralities of Zeus, and the corruptions of youths by the other gods, and the voluptuous jealousies of the females, and the fears and acts of cowardice and other wickednesses, they merely convict themselves of narrating not merely about no gods, but not even about respectable men, but on the contrary, of telling tales about shameful persons far removed from what is honourable.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part I/Chapter 17

§17. The truth probably is, that the scandalous tales are true, while the divine attributes ascribed to them are due to the flattery of the poets.
What inference then is left to us, save that while the panegyrics are false and flattering, the actions told of them are true? And the truth of this one can ascertain by common practice. For nobody who pronounces a panegyric upon anyone accuses his conduct at the same time, but rather, if men’s actions are disgraceful, they praise them up with panegyrics, on account of the scandal they cause, so that by extravagant praise they may impose upon their hearers, and hide the misconduct of the others. 2. Just as if a man who has to pronounce a panegyric upon someone cannot find material for it in their conduct or in any personal qualities, on account of the scandal attaching to these, he praises them up in another manner, flattering them with what does not belong to them, so have their marvellous poets, put out of countenance by the scandalous actions of their so-called gods, attached to them the superhuman title, not knowing that they cannot by their superhuman fancies veil their human actions, but that they will rather succeed in shewing, by their human shortcomings, that the attributes of God do not fit them. 3. And I am disposed to think that they have recounted the passions and the actions of the gods even in spite of themselves. For since they were endeavouring to invest with what Scripture calls the incommunicable name and honour of God them that are no gods but mortal men, and since this venture of theirs was great and impious, for this reason even against their will they were forced by truth to set forth the passions of these persons, so that their passions recorded in the writings concerning them might be in evidence for all posterity as a proof that they were no gods.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Wisd. xiv. 21. Cf. Isa. xlii. 8, and xlviii. 11
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Against the Heathen/Contra Gentes. (Against the Heathen.)/Part I/Chapter 18

§18. Heathen defence continued. (2) ‘The gods are worshipped for having invented the Arts of Life.’ But this is a human and natural, not a divine, achievement. And why, on this principle, are not all inventors deified?
What defence, then, what proof that these are real gods, can they offer who hold this superstition? For, by what has been said just above, our argument has demonstrated them to be men, and not respectable men. But perhaps they will turn to another argument, and proudly appeal to the things useful to life discovered by them, saying that the reason why they regard them as gods is their having been of use to mankind. For Zeus is said to have possessed the plastic art, Poseidon that of the pilot, Hephæstus the smith’s, Athena that of weaving, Apollo that of music, Artemis that of hunting, Hera dressmaking, Demeter agriculture, and others other arts, as those who inform us about them have related. 2. But men ought to ascribe them and such like arts not to the gods alone but to the common nature of mankind, for by observing nature men discover the arts. For even common parlance calls art an imitation of nature. If then they have been skilled in the arts they pursued, that is no reason for thinking them gods, but rather for thinking them men; for the arts were not their creation, but in them they, like others, imitated nature. 3. For men having a natural capacity for knowledge according to the definition laid down concerning them, there is nothing to surprise us if by human intelligence, and by looking of themselves at their own nature and coming to know it, they have hit upon the arts. Or if they say that the discovery of the arts entitles them to be proclaimed as gods, it is high time to proclaim as gods the discoverers of the other arts on the same grounds as the former were thought worthy of such a title. For the Phœnicians invented letters, Homer epic poetry, Zeno of Elea dialectic, Corax of Syracuse rhetoric, Aristæus bee-keeping, Triptolemus the sowing of corn, Lycurgus of Sparta and Solon of Athens laws; while Palamedes discovered the arrangement of letters, and numbers, and measures and weights. And others imparted various other things useful for the life of mankind, according to the testimony of our historians. 4. If then the arts make gods, and because of them carved gods exist, it follows, on their shewing, that those who at a later date discovered the other arts must be gods. Or if they do not deem these worthy of divine honour, but recognise that they are men, it were but consistent not to give even the name of gods to Zeus, Hera, and the others, but to believe that they too have been human beings, and all the more so, inasmuch as they were not even respectable in their day; just as by the very fact of sculpturing their form in statues they shew that they are nothing else but men.

## Footnotes

* ↑ φύσις is here used in a double sense.
* ↑ By Aristotle, Top. V. ii.–iv. where man is defined as ζῶον ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν: compare Metaph. I. i. ‘All men by nature desire to know.’