Finding the priestly dignity received for money illegal, the canon does not consider his defrocking to be a sufficient punishment for the Simonite, because in this case only that which could not belong to him by law would be taken away from the culprit, and the crime itself would remain unpunished - the canon also prescribes to excommunicate him from church communion, i.e. imposes a double punishment: defrocking and excommunication. Exactly the same double punishment is subject to the one who sells a shrine, i.e. who ordains someone for money. This is the case when the rules depart from the principle of not imposing two punishments for one crime, as it was said in the 25th Ap. Rule; but simony surpasses all the most grievous crimes, as does the receipt of the episcopacy through the intermediary of secular authorities, as is shown by the following Ap. Rule (30). That is why the rules impose double punishments for these crimes.

The canon says: "As Simon the sorcerer was Peter by me" (ύ' εού έου). Thus we read in the Athenian Syntagma, from which we translate the canons, and we see the same in all other Greek canonical collections, as a result of which we have translated it so. In some other old collections, it is said to have been: ώ ί ά ύό ού έου, as a result of which Dionysius the Small translated: sicut Simon magus a Petro (as Simon the sorcerer Peter). It is supposed that at first there should have been ύό ού έου, but it was changed, as in our redaction, by a certain who assumed that the Apostles themselves composed these canons [81].

Notes:

77. In the Book of Rules, a note is added: "In some manuscripts: as Simon the sorcerer was Peter."

78. Theodoret., Hist. eccl. I,4 [Migne, s.g., t.82, col.909-913].

79. Isid. Pelusiot. lib. I, ep. 315 [Migne, s.g., t.78, col.365]. Cf. Hieron. in Mat. 12, 32 [Migne, s.l, t.26, col.81]. Gregor. Magn. epist. lib. V, indict XIII, epist. LIII [Migne, s.l., t.77, col.782-785].

80. Aph. Synth., V, 547. Cm. "The Rite of Bishop's Confession". Moscow, 1867. In the Syntagma of Vlastar, X, 28, we read the following: "With regard to the 'tax' (εί οοϋ) and what is given according to custom for ordination, the chrysobull of the ever-memorable king Isaac Comnenus determines, among other things, the following: with regard to the tax, at the ordination of priests, my royal authority prescribes that the former institution should be kept in force, and the bishop, when ordaining them, should not take more than seven gold coins (nomism = ducat = approx. 3 rubles): one - at the ordination to the reader, three - at the ordination to the deacon and the other three - at the ordination to the priesthood. This is also confirmed by the synodal definition of Patriarch Michael the Philosopher. - In the same way, regarding the tax on the fruits that the laity must give to the priests, it is decreed: each village of 30 dyms must give one gold nomism (ducat), two silver thalers, one ram, 6 quarters (είου) of barley, 9 buckets (έ) of wine, 6 quarters of flour and 30 chickens. Under Pat. Another synodal decree was issued, "commanding that according to this chrysobull a tax should be given from the fruits and for the consecration" (Aph. Sint., VI, 513-514).

81. Bevegegii, E. sive Pandectae, II, Annot. in h. can., p.26. Drey, proving that this rule is only an extract from the 2 Hulk. rules, looks at the words about Ap. Peter, as a later addition made by the collector of these canons in order to show the apostolic origin of this (29) canon (op. cit., pp. 356, 411). What is said about Peter in our redaction of this canon would agree most of all with the opinion of Thurian, already mentioned by us, that all these Ap. the canons were set forth by the Apostles themselves at the Council of Jerusalem in 45 (?) A.D.

Rule 30. If a bishop, having used secular leaders, through them receives episcopal authority in the church, let him be expelled and excommunicated, and all those who communicate with him

(I Ecumenical 4; VII Ecumenical. 3; Laodicus. 13).

The right to elect and consecrate a bishop always belonged, according to the canons, exclusively to the council of bishops. Secular power began to influence this only in later centuries, beginning with the fourth century, when some of the Greco-Roman emperors became Christians, but even then the influence of the secular, or more precisely, state power in the consecration of bishops was regulated in accordance with the canonical prescriptions of the Church and, consequently, was accepted and recognized by the Church only within certain limits.

This will be discussed later in the interpretation of one of the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, namely the 3rd canon.

The present (30) rule has in mind such cases. In the early days of the Church of Christ, there were found, both among individual Roman sovereigns and among the lower representatives of state power, those who were not hostile to the Christian Church and were not its persecutors. It was to these that some presbyters turned and, becoming bishops with their help, received one or another church in their administration [82]. Against such presbyters this is directed by Ap. A canon which, considering this crime to be equal to simony, since in essence it is simony, only of a different kind, prescribes to the culprit the same punishment as for simony, namely, the expulsion from the episcopal dignity illegally obtained, and excommunication from ecclesiastical communion, consequently a double punishment as for simony.

This canon mentions only the bishop who receives the episcopacy through the intermediary of secular power, and in the 29th Ap. A bishop, a presbyter and a deacon who acquire spiritual dignity for money are mentioned, and all those who sin against the prescription of the canon are subject to expulsion and excommunication. In interpreting these canons, Balsamon asks the question: what is to be done with one who, through the intermediary of secular power, becomes a presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, or reader, or, having given money, becomes a subdeacon or reader? And he answers: and they are all subject to expulsion or excommunication on the basis of the last words of the 30th Ap. canons, where it is said that not only the main perpetrators of evil are expelled and excommunicated, but also their accomplices [84].