OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/The Life of Constantine/Book II/Chapter 4

Chapter IV.—That Constantine prepared himself for the War by Prayer: Licinius by the Practice of Divination.
He took with him also the priests of God, feeling well assured that now, if ever, he stood in need of the efficacy of prayer, and thinking it right that they should constantly be near and about his person, as most trusty guardians of the soul.
Now, as soon as the tyrant understood that Constantine’s victories over his enemies were secured to him by no other means than the cooperation of God, and that the persons above alluded to were continually with him and about his person; and besides this, that the symbol of the salutary passion preceded both the emperor himself and his whole army; he regarded these precautions with ridicule (as might be expected), at the same time mocking and reviling the emperor with blasphemous words.
On the other hand, he gathered round himself Egyptian diviners and soothsayers, with sorcerers and enchanters, and the priests and prophets of those whom he imagined to be gods. He then, after offering the sacrifices which he thought the occasion demanded, enquired how far he might reckon on a successful termination of the war. They replied with one voice, that he would unquestionably be victorious over his enemies, and triumphant in the war: and the oracles everywhere held out to him the same prospect in copious and elegant verses. The soothsayers certified him of favorable omens from the flight of birds; the priests declared the same to be indicated by the motion of the entrails of their victims. Elevated, therefore, by these fallacious assurances, he boldly advanced at the head of his army, and prepared for battle.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Soothsayers and priests. These were technically “augurs” and “haruspices.” Compare for their functions the articles Augur, Divinatio, and Haruspices, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon I

The Canons of the Holy Fathers Assembled at Gangra, Which Were Set Forth After the Council of Nice.
Canon I.
If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon I.
Anathema to him who disregards legitimate marriage.
When one considers how deeply the early church was impressed with those passages of Holy Scripture which she understood to set forth the superiority of the virgin over the married estate, it ceases to be any source of astonishment that some should have run into the error of condemning marriage as sinful. The saying of our Blessed Lord with reference to those who had become “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” and those words of St. Paul “He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better,” together with the striking passage in the Revelation of those that were “not defiled with women for they are virgins,” were considered as settling the matter for the new dispensation.  The earliest writers are filled with the praises of virginity.  Its superiority underlies the allegories of the Hermes Pastor; St. Justin Martyr speaks of “many men and women of sixty and seventy years of age who from their childhood have been the disciples of Christ, and have kept themselves uncorrupted,” and from that time on there is an ever-swelling tide of praise; the reader must be referred to SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, etc., etc. In fact the Council of Trent (it cannot be denied) only gave expression to the view of all Christian antiquity both East and West, when it condemned those who denied that “it is more blessed to remain virgin or celibate than to be joined in marriage.”
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Distinc. xxx., c. xii. (Isidore’s version), and again Dist. xxxi., c. viii. (Dionysius’s version). Gratian, however, supposes that the canon is directed against the Manichæans and refers to the marriage of priests, but in both matters he is mistaken, as the Roman Correctors and Van Espen point out.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This is the title in the Paris Edition of Zonaras. The Bodleian text simply reads “The Canons of the Synod at Gangra.”
* ↑ Matt. xix. 12.
* ↑ 1 Cor. vii. 38.
* ↑ Rev. xiv. 4.
* ↑ Hermes Pastor.  Sim. x., xj.
* ↑ Justin. M. Apol. i. 15.
* ↑ Conc. Trid.,sessio xxiv. De Matr., can. x. It is curious to note that while Eustathius and his followers held all marriage to be sinful, Luther (at least at one time) taught that it was a sin for anyone to remain unmarried who could “increase and multiply!” The Synod of Gangra in this canon sets forth the unchanging position of the Catholic Church upon this point.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon IV

Canon IV.
If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that is not lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon IV.
Anathema to him who hesitates to receive communion from presbyters joined in matrimony.
Hefele.
As is well known, the ancient Church, as now the Greek Church, allowed those clergy who married before their ordination to continue to live in matrimony. Compare what was said above in the history of the Council of Nicæa, in connection with Paphnutius, concerning the celibacy and marriage of priests in the ancient Church. Accordingly this canon speaks of those clergy who have wives and live in wedlock; and Baronius, Binius, and Mitter-Müller gave themselves useless trouble in trying to interpret it as only protecting those clergy who, though married, have since their ordination ceased to cohabit with their wives.
The so-called Codex Ecclesiæ Romanæ published by Quesnel, which, however, as was shown by the Ballerini, is of Gallican and not Roman origin, has not this canon, and consequently it only mentions nineteen canons of Gangra.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Vide their edition of Opp. S. Leonis M., Tom. III., pp. 124, 685, 755.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon IX

Canon IX.
If any one shall remain virgin, or observe continence, abstaining from marriage because he abhors it, and not on account of the beauty and holiness of virginity itself, let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon IX.
Whoso preserves virginity not on account of its beauty but because he abhors marriage, let him be anathema.
The lesson taught by this canon and that which follows is that the practice of even the highest Christian virtues, such as the preservation of virginity, if it does not spring from a worthy motive is only deserving of execration.
Zonaras.
Virginity is most beautiful of all, and continence is likewise beautiful, but only if we follow them for their own sake and because of the sanctification which comes from them. But should anyone embrace virginity, because he detests marriage as impure, and keep himself chaste, and abstains from commerce with women and marriage, because he thinks that they are in themselves wicked, he is subjected by this canon to the penalty of anathema.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. v., and again Dist. xxxi., c. ix.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon V

Canon V.
If any one shall teach that the house of God and the assemblies held therein are to be despised, let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon V.
Whoso styles the house of God contemptible, let him be anathema.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. x. The commentators find nothing to say upon the canon, and in fact the despising of the worship of God’s true church is and always has been so common a sin, that it hardly calls for comment; no one will forget that the Prophet Malachi complains how in his days there were those who deemed “the table of the Lord contemptible” and said of his worship “what a weariness is it.”  (Mal. i., 7 and 13.)
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon VI

Canon VI.
If any one shall hold private assemblies outside of the Church, and, despising the canons, shall presume to perform ecclesiastical acts, the presbyter with the consent of the bishop refusing his permission, let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
Whoso privately gathers a religious meeting let him be anathema.
Hefele.
Both these canons, [V. and VI.] forbid the existence of conventicles, and conventicle services. It already appears from the second article of the Synodal Letter of Gangra, that the Eustathians, through spiritual pride, separated themselves from the rest of the congregation, as being the pure and holy, avoided the public worship, and held private services of their own. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh articles of the Synodal Letter give us to understand that the Eustathians especially avoided the public services, when married clergy officiated. We might possibly conclude, from the words of the sixth canon: μὴ συνόντος τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, that no priest performed any part in their private services; but it is more probable that the Eustathians, who did not reject the priesthood as such, but only abhorred the married clergy, had their own unmarried clergy, and that these officiated at their separate services. And the above-mentioned words of the canon do not the least contradict this supposition, for the very addition of the words κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου indicate that the sectarian priests who performed the services of the Eustathians had received no permission to do so from the bishop of the place. Thus did the Greek commentators, Balsamon, etc., and likewise Van Espen, interpret this canon.
The meaning of this canon is very obscure. The Latin reads non conveniente presbytero, de episcopi sententia; and Lambert translates “without the presence of a priest, with consent of the bishop.” Hammond differs from this and renders thus, “without the concurrence of the presbyter and the consent of the bishop.” I have translated literally and left the obscurity of the original.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Ancyra/Title Page

The Council of Ancyra.
a.d. 314.
Emperors.—Constantine and Licinius.
Elenchus.
Historical Note.
The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Excursus to Canon XIX on Digamy.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon II

Canon II.
If any one shall condemn him who eats flesh, which is without blood and has not been offered to idols nor strangled, and is faithful and devout, as though the man were without hope [of salvation] because of his eating, let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon II.
Anathema also to him who condemns the eating of flesh, except that of a suffocated animal or that offered to idols.
Hefele.
This canon also, like the preceding one, is not directed against the Gnostics and Manicheans, but against an unenlightened hyper-asceticism, which certainly approaches the Gnostic-Manichean error as to matter being Satanic. We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days.
No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuser, like other laws.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXX., c. xiii.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons/Canon III

Canon III.
If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon III.
Anathema to him who persuades a slave to leave his master under pretence of religion.
Van Espen.
This canon is framed in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, in I. Timothy, chapter six, verse 1. “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” And again the same Apostle teaches his disciple Titus that he should “exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” (Titus ii. 9 and 10.)
These texts are likewise cited by Balsamon and Zonaras.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars. II., Causa XVII., Q. IV., c. xxxvij. in the version of Isidore, and again in c. xxxviij. from the collections of Martin Bracarensis (so says Van Espen) and assigned to a council of Pope Martin, Canon xlvii.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra
## Contents

* Title Page
* Historical Introduction
* Synodical Letter of the Council of Gangra
* Canons
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Grangra/Canons
## Contents

* Canon I
* Canon II
* Canon III
* Canon IV
* Canon V
* Canon VI
* Canon VII
* Canon VIII
* Canon IX
* Canon X
* Canon XI
* Canon XII
* Canon XIII
* Canon XIV
* Canon XV
* Canon XVI
* Canon XVII
* Canon XVIII
* Canon XIX
* Canon XX
* Epilogue
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXVII

Canon XXVII.
Neither they of the priesthood, nor clergymen, nor laymen, who are invited to a love feast, may take away their portions, for this is to cast reproach on the ecclesiastical order.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVII.
A clergyman invited to a love feast shall carry nothing away with him; for this would bring his order into shame.
Hefele.
Van Espen translates: “no one holding any office in the Church, be he cleric or layman,” and appeals to the fact that already in early times among the Greeks many held offices in the Church without being ordained, as do now our sacristans and acolytes. I do not think, however, with Van Espen, that by “they of the priesthood” is meant in general any one holding office in the Church, but only the higher ranks of the clergy, priests and deacons, as in the preceding twenty-fourth canon the presbyters and deacons alone are expressly numbered among the ἱερατικοῖς and distinguished from the other (minor) clerics. And afterwards, in canon XXX., there is a similar mention of three different grades, ἱερατικοί, κληρικοί, and ἀσκηταί.
The taking away of the remains of the agape is here forbidden, because, on the one hand, it showed covetousness, and, on the other, was perhaps considered a profanation.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XLII., c. iij.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXVIII

Canon XXVIII.
It is not permitted to hold love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord’s Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of God.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVII.
Beds shall not be set up in churches, nor shall love feasts be held there.
Hefele.
Eusebius (H. E., Lib. IX., Cap. X.) employs the expression κυριακά in the same sense as does this canon as identical with churches. The prohibition itself, however, here given, as well as the preceding canon, proves that as early as the time of the Synod of Laodicea, many irregularities had crept into the agape. For the rest, this Synod was not in a position permanently to banish the usage from the Church; for which reason the Trullan Synod in its seventy-fourth canon repeated this rule word for word.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Disk XLII., c. iv.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXXII

Canon XXXII.
It is unlawful to receive the eulogiæ of heretics, for they are rather ἀλογίαι [i.e., follies], than eulogiæ [i.e., blessings].
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXII.
The blessings of heretics are cursings.
To keep the Latin play upon the words the translator has used bene-dictiones and male-dictiones, but at the expense of the accuracy of translation.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa II., Quæst. I., Can. lxvj.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXXIV

Canon XXXIV.
No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIV.
Whoso honours an heretical pseudo-martyr let him be anathema.
Hefele.
This canon forbids the honouring of martyrs not belonging to the orthodox church. The number of Montanist martyrs of Phrygia was probably the occasion of this canon.
The phrase which I have translated “to those who formerly were heretics” has caused great difficulty to all translators and scarcely two agree. Hammond reads “those who have been reputed to have been heretics;” and with him Fulton agrees, but wrongly (as I think) by omitting the “to.” Lambert translates “to those who before were heretics” and correctly. With him agrees Van Espen, thus, vel eos qui prius heretici fuere.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXVI

Canon XXVI.
They who have not been promoted [to that office] by the bishop, ought not to adjure, either in churches or in private houses.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVI.
No one shall adjure without the bishop’s promotion to that office.
Balsamon.
Some were in the habit of “adjuring,” that is catechising the unbelievers, who had never received the imposition of the bishop’s hands for that purpose; and when they were accused of doing so, contended that as they did not do it in church but only at home, they could not be considered as deserving of any punishment. For this reason the Fathers rule that even to “adjure” (ἐφορκίζειν) is an ecclesiastical ministry, and must not be executed by anyone who shall not have been promoted thereto by a bishop. But the “Exorcist” must be excepted who has been promoted by a Chorepiscopus, for he can indeed properly catechize although not promoted by a bishop; for from Canon X. of Antioch we learn that even a Chorepiscopus can make an Exorcist.
Zonaras notes that from this canon it appears that “Chorepiscopi are considered to be in the number of bishops.”
Van Espen.
“Promoted” (προαχθέντας ) by the bishops, by which is signified a mere designation or appointment, in conformity with the Greek discipline which never counted exorcism among the orders, but among the simple ministries which were committed to certain persons by the bishops, as Morinus proves at length in his work on Orders (De Ordinationibus, Pars III., Ex. XIV., cap. ij.).
Double is the power of devils over men, the one part internal the other external. The former is when they hold the soul captive by vice and sin. The latter when they disturb the exterior and interior senses and lead anyone on to fury. Those who are subject to the interior evils are the Catechumens and Penitents, and those who are subject to the exterior are the Energumens. Whoever are occupied with the freeing from the power of the devil of either of these kinds, by prayers, exhortations, and exorcisms, are said “to exorcize” them; which seems to be what Balsamon means when he says—“‘exorcize’ that is ‘to catechize the unbelievers.’”  Vide this matter more at length in Ducange’s Glossary (Gloss., s.v. Exorcizare).
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXIX. c. ij., Isidore’s version.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXXI

Canon XXXI.
It is not lawful to make marriages with all [sorts of] heretics, nor to give our sons and daughters to them; but rather to take of them, if they promise to become Christians.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXI.
It is not right to give children in marriage to heretics, but they should be received if they promise to become Christians.
Van Espen.
By this canon the faithful are forbidden to contract marriage with heretics or to join their children in such; for, as both Balsamon and Zonaras remark, “they imbue them with their errors, and lead them to embrace their own perverse opinions.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXXIII

Canon XXXIII.
No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIII.
Thou shalt not pray with heretics or schismatics.
Van Espen.
The underlying principle of this canon is the same as the last, for as the receiving of the Eulogiæ which were sent by heretics as a sign of communion, signified a communion with them in religious matters, so the sharing with them common prayer is a declaration of the same communion, and therefore to be avoided. This is also set forth in Apostolical Canon number xlv.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/Synod of Laodicea/Canons/Canon XXV

Canon XXV.
A subdeacon must not give the Bread, nor bless the Cup.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXV.
A subdeacon may not give the bread and the cup.
Aristenus.
Subdeacons are not allowed to perform the work of presbyters and deacons. Wherefore they neither deliver the bread nor the cup to the people.
Hefele.
According to the Apostolic Constitutions, the communion was administered in the following manner: the bishop gave to each the holy bread with the words: “the Body of the Lord,” and the recipient said, “Amen.” The deacon then gave the chalice with the words: “the Blood of Christ, the chalice of life,” and the recipient again answered, “Amen.” This giving of the chalice with the words: “the Blood of Christ,” etc., is called in the canon of Laodicea a “blessing” (εὐλογεῖν).  The Greek commentator Aristenus in accordance with this, and quite rightly, gives the meaning of this canon.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Diet. XCIII., c. xix.; but reads “Deacons” instead of “Subdeacons.”  The Roman Correctors point out the error.