74. Archim. John, upom. cit., I, 167-168.

75. See. Zadrsky theologian. journal "Truth", I, 156 et al.

Rule 27. We command a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, who beats faithful sinners, or unbelievers who have offended them, and through this to frighten those who wish to be expelled from the holy order. For the Lord did not teach us this: on the contrary, when He Himself was smitten, He did not strike, we reproached, He did not reproach one another, suffering and threatening (1 Peter 2:23)

(Dvukr. 9).

This canon contains in the form of a law the prescription of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures of the New Testament regarding the fact that a clergyman does not dare to beat anyone (Matt. 5:39; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7), and the one who does this must be deposed from the priestly rank. This canon was repeated by the Council of Constantinople, in the Church of the Holy Apostles, in 861, and in the interpretation of Canon 9 of this Council, as much as is necessary, about this vice, into which a clergyman can fall.

Rule 28. If anyone, bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who has been righteously deposed for obvious faults, dares to touch the ministry once entrusted to him, let him be completely cut off from the church

(I Ecumenical 5; II Ecumenical. 6; IV Ecumenical Synod. 29; Serdic. 14; Antiochus. 4, 12, 15; Carth. 29, 65; Basil Vel. 88).

This canon imposes the highest ecclesiastical punishment on such a clergyman who, having committed any crime proven by a court, and having been lawfully deposed from the priesthood for this, again dares to perform the sacred service that was previously entrusted to him; the canon prescribes that such a person be completely excluded from communion with the Church. This canon presupposes a proper trial of a clergyman who has committed a crime, namely: for bishops - before the court of a council (Ap. 74 and 75), for a presbyter and deacon - before the episcopal court (Ap. Canons 12, 13 and 31), and, consequently, presupposes that certain crimes were proven in court, and that the judicial sentence was pronounced in justice (ί). Everyone had the right to appeal to the court of higher instance against the judicial verdict of the lower (first) instance, who considered that he had the basis for which, among other things, the 37th Ap. canon (as well as the rules of subsequent times) to convene annually bishops' councils in each region to resolve disputes at them, and to pronounce final sentences in judicial processes. Such decisions were invariable and everyone had to unconditionally submit to them and recognize them. If a convicted clergyman did not wish to appeal to the highest court within a certain period of time after the decision of the first lawful court, the decision of the first court became invariable for him.

We speak of this already in the interpretation of the 4th canon of the Council of Antioch.

Notes:

76. Aph. Synth., II, 36.

Rule 29. If any one, bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, receives this dignity in money, let him also be expelled, and he who ordained him, and let him be cut off from communion altogether, as Simon the sorcerer was by me Peter

(IV Ecumenical 2; Trul. 22:23; VII Ecumenical. 4, 5, 15, 19; Serdic. 2; Basil Vel. 90; Gennadii Ambassador; Tarasius last).

As a pure gift of His goodness, God gave people through Jesus Christ the Holy Gospel and the grace that proceeds from it. Through this same gift, Christ called the Apostles to their high dignity of serving the gospel, providing them with the highest gifts of spirit and power to serve them in order that all might believe in the divinity of their mission. From this it was already clear in itself that the Apostles could not make the grace-filled gift of God an object of trade, but just as they themselves received it freely, they also had to distribute it freely (Matt. 10:8). When later a certain Simon wanted to buy for money the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, which the Apostles possessed, Peter answered him: "Let thy silver be with thee unto destruction, for the gift of God hast not acquired silver" (Acts 8:18-24). For this reason every action and desire reminiscent of Simon's attempt was called "simony" after this Simon. The condemnation of Ap. Peter became a terrible example for the first Christians, and not only any sale or purchase of a holy object, but even the very desire to do so was considered the most abominable deed and the greatest crime. This view of the Church on simony became the sharper the more unscrupulous people fell into this evil and vile deed in the course of time. St. The Fathers and Teachers of the Church do not find enough words in their writings to stigmatize Simony and the Simonites with the greatest disgrace. The councils of all ages have also applied to this, as we see in the parallel canons cited above. Theodoret calls simony εοεί (impia ex Christo nundinatio) [78]. Isidore Pelusiot calls the Simonite ϊά ίοόο [79]. In the singelia given to metropolitans and archbishops at consecration, they are charged with a special duty to guard their souls from ή ή ί (a Simoniaco vitio) [80].