[The 14] General Axioms of Canon Law

Source: The Rudder of the Church: A Study of the Theory of Canon Law in the Pedalion, David Heith-Stade, doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Theology, Lund University, Sweden, 2014, pp. 108-117. Emphasis added.

 

The Pedalion clarifies its understanding of the canons by giving fourteen axioms that are said to be common to all canons. [352] The first axiom distinguishes canons from doctrinal definitions (ὅροι), imperial laws (νόμοι), and other types of ecclesiastical decrees. [353] The canons are described as internal and ecclesiastical documents that primarily deal with the good order of the church, have been enacted or ratified by a local council or an ecumenical council, and take precedence over external imperial laws. This axiom expresses the usual distinction in Eastern Orthodox theology between ὅροι (i.e., doctrinal decrees) and κανόνες (i.e., disciplinary decrees) among the decisions of the councils. [354] It should, however, be noted that all the decrees of early councils were originally called ὅροι regardless of whether they defined doctrine or discipline. [355] This distinction does not always correspond to the actual content of the canons either, since some canons define doctrine (which also the axiom in question notes in passing). [356]

The second axiom notes that not every canon prescribes a penalty for those who transgress it. [357] This is taken to mean that the local bishop has the permission to impose dispassionately a fitting penalty on offenders. The Pedalion, furthermore, refers the reader to the penitential canons attributed to John Nesteutes in this context.

The third axiom notes that different canons prescribe different lengths of penance for the same sin. [358] This is explained by the principle that the length of penance should be adapted to the repentance shown by the sinner. This axiom emphasizes that the purpose of the canons is not to punish delinquency, but to define a moral ideal and to reform sinners in accordance with this ideal.

The fourth axiom states that the canons are not enacted by a single bishop but by the community and council of bishops. [359] This axiom emphasizes the collegial character of the canons. They are not perceived as the arbitrary decisions of a single individual, but as a common witness to the faith of the church.

The fifth axiom attributes authority to everyone who speaks in accordance with the canons of the councils. [360] The sixth axiom states that people who act in accordance with the canons are safe. [361] These two axioms make the canons of the councils into criteria for determining authority in the church.

The seventh axiom states that people who transgress the canons of the councils are to be subjected to the penance prescribed by the canons. [362] It, furthermore, states that the term “the canons of the councils” not only applies to the canons of the ecumenical councils but also to the canons of local councils and the canons of the church fathers that have been received by the ecumenical councils. This axiom further emphasizes the authority of the canons, but it also relativizes the difference in authority between an ecumenical council, a local council, and individual church fathers.

The eighth axiom states that when something is not explicitly dealt with by the canons, it should be decided by analogy with the canons, or in accordance with the writings of individual church fathers, or by the judgment of right reason. [363] This means that although the canons enacted or ratified by the seven ecumenical councils are recognized as the primary sources of canon law, the Pedalion also recognizes interpretation by analogy, other patristic authorities, and right reason as secondary sources of canon law.

The ninth axiom states that exceptions from the canons because of dispensation in rare or singular circumstances (“τά σπάνια, καί οἰκονομικῶς”) or because of necessity or some bad custom (“τά ἐξ ἀνάγκης, ἤ τινος πονηρᾶς συνηθείας”) do not create a law, a rule, or an example for the church. [364] This axiom is important. It recognizes that there exist exceptions from the canons but prohibits such exceptions from becoming binding precedents. This axiom also implies a distinction between legitimate exceptions in the form of dispensation (οἰκονομία) in rare circumstances and in cases of necessity, and illegitimate exceptions in the form of bad custom.

The tenth axiom notes that the majority of the penances are grammatically stated in the third person imperative. [365] This axiom furthermore refers to an annotation to apostolic canon 3, which explains that this grammatical feature means that penance must be imposed by someone. [366] This axiom and annotation deny that there are automatic penalties (poenae latae sententiae) in canon law. [367] This is in contrast to Latin canon law, which recognizes automatic penalties. [368]

The eleventh axiom states that canons and laws are enacted about what is common instead of about what is individual, and about what usually happens instead of about what rarely occurs. [369] This axiom is central to the understanding of normativity in the Pedalion. The Pedalion does not understand norms to cover everything always, but the common and the usual. This means that the Pedalion recognizes other exceptions from norms than transgressions. There may be individual circumstances or rare circumstances that do not challenge the authority of the canons since they are by definition not covered by the canons. This definition of the normal case as the common or usual does not exclude the exceptional case as the individual or rare. This is another understanding of normativity than modern liberal legal theory, whose ideal is that the norm should cover every case instead of only the usual case (i.e., there should be no exception from the norm). [370]

The twelfth axiom states that the canons of ecumenical councils take precedence over the canons of local councils, which take precedence over the canons of individual church fathers. [371] It also notes that the canons of the local councils and individual church fathers that have been ratified by the ecumenical councils take precedence over other, unratified canons. This axiom gives the hierarchy of norms from the classic doctrine of Byzantine canon law. This is somewhat inconsistent, since the doctrine of the Pedalion otherwise relativizes the traditional hierarchy of norms by attributing equal authority to all canons enacted or ratified by an ecumenical council. The traditional hierarchy of norms attributes a higher authority to the canons actually enacted by the ecumenical councils than to the canons that are only ratified by the ecumenical councils. It should be noted that both the Pedalion and the classic Byzantine canonists neglect to mention the place of the so-called apostolic canons in the hierarchy of norms. The principle of a hierarchy of norms in the doctrine of the classic canonists (e.g., Zonaras) is based on the Roman law principle of lex posterior (Digesta 1.4.4) and the Christian principle of ius universalis. [372] The principle of lex posterior is originally connected with the political development of emperorship, which resulted in the rise of imperial legislation as a source of Roman law that took precedence over other sources (i.e., the latest enactment by the emperor was the law in force on an issue). [373] In this context it may be worth remembering that the theory of ecumenical councils in the Pedalion viewed the position of the ecumenical council in the church as analogous to the position of the emperor in the state (see the previous chapter). The principle of ius universalis is connected with the idea of catholicity or the ecclesial consensus omnium as a topos of authoritative tradition. [374] A local council is a better witness to the ius universalis than an individual church father, and an ecumenical council a better witness than a local council. But the Pedalion differs from the classic Byzantine canonists, since it does not really recognize the principle of lex posterior but only the principle of ius universalis. In fact, the Pedalion, quite contrary to the classic Byzantine canonists, also recognizes the principle of ius antiquius (i.e., the more ancient norm takes precedence over a later norm) as a method for handling conflicting norms (see below). The principle of ius antiquius is not a part of the doctrine of the classic Byzantine canonists, but was stated in Latin canon law by Isidore of Seville. [375] The principle of ius antiquius has a theological foundation in the concept of apostolicity in early Christian theology. [376] To sum up: the doctrine of the classic Byzantine canonists theoretically (although not always in practice) uses the principles of lex posterior and ius universalis in order to handle conflicting norms, which is the basis of the classic hierarchy of norms in Byzantine canon law, whereas the Pedalion does not receive the principle of lex posterior but rather uses the principles ius universalis and ius antiquius in order to handle conflicting norms, which relativizes and by this in part inverts the traditional Byzantine hierarchy of norms.

The thirteenth axiom states that when there is no canon or written law, good custom that has been tried by right reason, has existed for many years and does not contradict a written canon or a written law, is in force and has the status of a canon and a law. [377] This axiom recognizes good custom as a source of canon law. The Pedalion has a clear distinction between good custom and bad custom. The ninth axiom had stated that bad custom does not create a binding precedent. The criteria provided for determining what is good custom are that it is in accordance with right reason, has been tried for many years, and is not contrary to written law (whether canon law or secular law). Right reason was also recognized as a source of law in the eighth axiom, when handling gaps in canon law. It should be noted that the Pedalion does not define how long a custom must have existed in order to get the force of law. The Pedalion further develops these criteria for recognizing good custom in an annotation to canon 1 of Serdica. [378] This annotation first refers to Basil the Great, who granted the force of law to custom. It then quotes Byzantine legal sources in support of these criteria for determining good custom. This shows that the concept of customary law in the Pedalion is not original to canon law, but has been taken over from Byzantine law.

The fourteenth and last axiom states that everything that has been badly decided and printed and is against what is legal cannot be ratified either by a canon, by a law, by time, or by custom. [379] This axiom should probably be seen as a final moral exhortation to those who apply canon law that they have to make decisions that are legal. The previous axioms state general characteristics of the canons and principles for making correct decisions while this last axiom rejects incorrect decisions in canon law. This final axiom should probably also be understood as a rejection of other collections of canon law that are not primarily based on the corpus canonum enacted and ratified by the seven ecumenical councils.

These axioms attempt to define the general nature of canon law from the perspective of the Pedalion. In the previous chapter it was shown that the Pedalion views tradition as a charismatic phenomenon (i.e., as an effect of the Holy Spirit). The main topoi of tradition mentioned were the decrees of the councils and the writings of the church fathers. The ecumenical councils were seen as manifestations of the catholic church confessed in the Creed; therefore, they were accepted as the supreme authority for the local churches. The decrees of the ecumenical councils were said to be inspired in their meaning but not in their wordings. But canon law is viewed as both a divine and a human phenomenon in the Pedalion. The sacred canons constitute the divine aspect of canon law, but Byzantine law, good custom, and right reason are also recognized as subordinated human sources of canon law.

It should be noted that sacred scripture is not recognized as a direct source of canon law. Many of the concepts and norms defined by the sacred canons are derived from the Bible; however, the Pedalion does not state that gaps in canon law may be handled by direct reference to sacred scripture but only mentions analogy, other patristic references, and right reason. Much of patristic literature comments on the Bible, which means that it may be an indirect reference to sacred scripture as a source of canon law. The lack, nevertheless, of any direct reference to sacred scripture as a source of canon law may be interpreted as a reaction against the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. In reaction to the claims of Protestantism, the Eastern Orthodox theology of the time emphasized the established interpretation of scripture by the councils and church fathers in reaction to the individual interpretation of scripture promoted by Protestantism.

Finally, the Pedalion does not, of course, distinguish between legality and morality. The canons are not only norms regulating the institutional church but also sources of Christian morality. Christian morality is presented as a heteronomous phenomenon in the Pedalion. It should be noted that the Pedalion does not view the canons as exhaustive norms covering every case but only as norms covering the usual and common cases. Consequently, the sacred canons are seen as having exceptions by definition, which is the next topic of this chapter.

 

REFERENCES

351 See Pedalion, pp. 26-27.

352 Pedalion, p. η´: "Σημειώσαι δε, ότι δια να καταλάβη τινάς ευκολώτερα τους παρόντας κανόνας, πρέπει να ήξερη πρώτα τα κοι­νώς θεωρούμενα αξιώματα εις όλους τους κανόνας."

353 Pedalion, pp. η´-ι´: "Ότι, α´. ότι οι κανόνες διαφέρουσιν από τους όρους, από τους νόμους, από τα δέκρετα, και από τας δεκρεταλί­ας επιστολάς· διότι μεν οι κανόνες των συνόδων κυρίως περιέχουσιν, όχι τα δόγματα της πίστεως (είμη όταν η σύνοδος άλλη την της εκκλησίας ευσέβειαν και κατέστρωσε. Οι δε όροι τα δόγματα περιέχουσι μόνα της πίστεως δόγματα. Αρχαίοι και νεώτεροι κατηγορηματικώς τους κανόνας ονομάζουσιν όρους. Ως τούτο δηλοί και το δέκατον έβδομον κεφάλαιον της Διόρθωσις συνοδικόν, και μάλιστα από το εν τῇ Καρθαγ. και από τα προκείμενα, όπου λέγεται άνεγκυκλοφήσαν οι είκοσι όροι της εν Νικαίω, ήτοι αι κΓ᾽ αυτής. Διαιρούνται οι κανόνες από τους νόμους, καθόσον οι νόμοι ονομάζονται οι πολιτικοί και εξωτερικοί των βασιλέων. Οι δε όροι κανόνες εκκλησιαστικοί, και ισχυρότεροι από τους νόμους, καθόσον οι νόμοι θέλουσιν εισαγάγει εις εκκλησιαστικόν, και εναντιωθή, ακυρούται. Διαφέρουσι δε και από τα δέκρετα, καθώς και από τας δεκρεταλίας επιστολάς. Διότι, γαρ, οι κανόνες μεν, ή υπό μερικής συνόδου εκδοθέντες, ή υπό οικουμενικής οριζόμενοι, ή εβεβαιούμενοι. Οι δε δέκρετα, μόνον υπό πάπα εκδίδονται. Περισσότερον αποφαίνονται μετά της συνόδου αυθαιρέτως. Διό και περί τούτων ορίζεται εν τῇ Συναγωγή των Θείων Κανόνων: Δέκρετα δε, ή από Πάπαν, ή Παραπληρ. τούτου επιγιγνομένων παπών, διδόμενα, οικουμενικήν δύναμιν (Διοστ. Θεσ. σοφ. από της Διορθώσεως των θείων κανόνων 16.5.18)." It should be noted that the Pedalion has not used Gratian's Decretum directly, but the reference is from Posithos, who in turn has taken it from Bellarmine; see Δωδεκαβίβλος, vol. 3, pp. 382-385.

354 E.g., Alivizatos, Οἱ ἱεροὶ κανόνες, pp. 20-21.

355 On the development of the term κανών see Ohme, Kanon ekklesiastikos: Die Bedeutung des altkirchlichen Kanonbegriffs.

356 Karmiris included the "canons with doctrinal-ecclesial content" ("κανόνες δογματικοεκκλησιολογικοῦ περιεχομένου") in the standard edition of Eastern Orthodox doctrinal and creedal documents. See Karmiris, Τὰ δογματικὰ καὶ συμβολικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, vol. 1.

357 Pedalion, p. θ´: "Δεῖ. Πρέπει να ήξερη τινάς, ότι όσοι κανόνες δεν περιέχουσι σαφώς το επιτίμιον εκείνων όσοι παραβαίνουσιν αυτούς, κατά αυτουσιούργου, τούτοις έδωκε την κατά τόπον άρχιερεύς, διά να επιβάλη το δέον ποινήν εις αυτούς. Διό και εις τους τοιούτους κανόνας αναφερόμενος ό Ζωναράς φησιν· Ἐὰν δέ τινες κανόνες μη ορίζωσιν επιτίμιον, δίδοται τῷ κατά τόπον Ἐπισκόπῳ μέτρον τοῦς κανόνας τούτους, ὡς μή τι εἶναι ὅλους ἀσχέτους."

358 Pedalion, p. θ´: "ζ´. Πρέπει τινάς νὰ ἤξευρη, ὅτι ἕνα καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἁμάρτημα, ἄλλοι μὲν κανόνες ἐπιτίμια περισσότερον καιρόν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὀλιγώτερον. Ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὴν περισσότεραν, ἢ ὀλιγώτεραν μετάνοιαν τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων, οὕτω περισσότερον, ἢ ὀλιγώτερον, καὶ τὸ ἐπιτίμιον αὐτῶν διορίζεται, (περὶ οὗ ὅρα καὶ τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν τοῦ ιβ´, τῆς α´,) καὶ κατὰ τὴν περισσότεραν, ἢ ὀλιγώτεραν τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὔξησιν, καὶ κραταίωσιν, (ὅρα καὶ τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν τοῦ γ´, τοῦ Μεγάλου Βασιλείου)."

359 Pedalion, p. ι´: "Δεῖ. Πρέπει να ήξερη τινάς, ότι δεν κατά μόνον εξ. και τούτῳ τού επίσκοπου, οι κανόνες δεν εκτέθενται από ένα επίσκοπον, αλλ’ υπό της κοινωνίας, και συνόδου των επισκόπων καθόλου ὡς εἶρηται. Βασιλ. λέγει, Ὅτι εἰ τις επίσκοπος δεύτερον εὑρεθείς αμελήσας των κανόνων, καθώς εἰς ὀ τοῦ Νόσου, λέγει· Ὅτι καθ’ ἡμέρας ἐξέστησαν κανόνων ἀναξίως."

360 Pedalion, p. ι´: "ζ´. Ὅταν όποιος ὁμιλεῖ κατ’ συνοδικὸν κανόνα, ὁ λόγος του ἔχει τ’ αξίωματον, κατά τὸν ἅγ. τοῦ Νόσου."

361 Pedalion, p. ι´: "η´. Ὅταν ὁποιος κατ’ αὐτοὺς κίνηται, ἔχει τὸ ἀσφαλισμένον, κατά τὸν ἅγ. πατ. τοῦ Βασιλείου."

362 Pedalion, p. ι´: "θ´. Ὅταν ὁποιος παραβαίνη κανόνα συνοδικόν, πρέπει νὰ λαμβάνη ἀκρίβειαν· καὶ ἐπειδὴ ὁι τοιοῦτοι διεφώνουν εἰς τὰς ἐπιτιμίας, ἀλλοι μὲν ἐπέθεσαν αὐστηρότερα, ἄλλοι δὲ κουφότερα, δια τοῦτο ἐπλάτυνεν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ ἐπιτίμια, διά να ὑπολαμβάνεται ἑκάστου κατά τὴν ἰκανότητα."

363 Pedalion, p. ι´: "η´. Ὅταν εἰς τοὺς κανόνας φανερῶς οὐ γράφεται, τότε διὰ ὁμοιότητος τῶν ἑξ ἄλλοις κανόσι γεγραμμένων, πρέπει νὰ κρίνεται, καὶ νὰ ὑποσημειοῦται, καὶ διὰ τῶν ἑρμηνειῶν τῶν ἁγ. πατ., τῆς α´ καὶ διὰ τῶν συγγραμμάτων τῶν καλῶν λογίων, καὶ τῆς διακρίσεως τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου."

364 Pedalion, p. ι´: "θ´. Ὅταν πάντα τά σπάνια, καί οἰκονομικῶς, καὶ τά ἐξ ἀνάγκης, ἢ τινος πονηρᾶς συνηθείας, παραβαίνουσι τοὺς κανόνας, οὐδὲν νόμον γεννῶσιν, οὐδὲ κανόνα, οὐδὲ παράδειγμα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ οὗ, γράφονται, καθὼς τὸν ἑρμηνεύουν τοῦ Ζωναρᾶ, Βαλσαμῶνος, καὶ Ἀριστηνοῦ, πάντες οἱ τῶν κανόνων ἐξηγηταί, ὡς καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κατὰ καιρὸν, καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐπικαιρότητα, καὶ οὐχὶ πάντως, ὑποσημειοῦνται· (ὅρα καὶ τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν τοῦ ιγ´, τοῦ Μεγάλου Βασιλείου)."

365 Pedalion, p. ι´: "ι´. Ὅτι τὰ περισσότερα ἐπιτίμια, ἃ ὑπὸ τῶν κανόνων διορίζονται, τρίτου προσώπου ἐστὶν, προστακτικῷ μὴ προτρεπτικῷ, ἀλλ’ ἀξιῶντας ῥητῶς καὶ β´. προσώπου κανόν (ὑπὲρ ὃν ἡ σύνοδος ἔλαβε νὰ ἐνεργήσῃ καὶ ὁρᾷ τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν τοῦ γ´. ἀποστολικοῦ)."

366 Pedalion, pp. 4-5.

367 On the issue of automatic penalties in early and Eastern Christian canon law see Herman, "Hat die byzantinische Kirche von selbst eintretende Strafen (poenae latae sententiae) gekannt?"

368 Cf. Green, "Delicts and Penalties in General [cc. 1311-1363]."

369 Pedalion, p. ι´: "ια´. Ὅτι οἱ κανόνες νόμοι γίνονται ἐθισμένοι περὶ τῶν κοινῶν, καὶ οὐ περὶ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν, καὶ ἃ ἐκ τῶν πλειόνων συμβεβηκότων, καὶ οὐχὶ περὶ τῶν σπανίων καὶ ἰδιωτικῶν."

370 Cf. Schmitt, Politische Theologie: Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität.

371 Pedalion, p. θ´: "ιβ´. Ὅτι οἱ οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων κανόνες, μᾶλλον ἰσχύουσι τῶν τοπικῶν, καὶ οἱ τοπικοὶ μᾶλλον ἰσχύουσι τῶν κατὰ μέρος πατέρων. Καὶ μάλιστα οἱ μὴ ὑπὸ συνόδου οἰκουμενικῆς κυρωθέντες· καὶ ἀντιφάσκοντες πρῶτον τοὺς ἀποστόλους διορθοῦσι τοὺς τοπικούς, κείμενοι δὲν εἰσίν, ὑποσημειώσων τοῦ γ´, τῆς α´."

372 E.g., Zonaras: "Ὑποδούντων τῶν πάλιν δύο γραφέντων, ὅτι τὰ νεώτεραντος ἀρᾶν τὰ πρότερα, καὶ ἡ σύνοδος, καὶ σύνοδος οἰκουμενική" (Rallis and Potlis, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, vol. 4, p. 92). Cf. D.1.4.4: "Alti posteriores contrarias dispositas leges abrogant prioribus pro eo quatenus dissentiunt."

373 See Robinson, The Sources of Roman Law: Problems and Methods for Ancient Historians, pp. 12-34, 34-39.

374 On the concept of consensus in early Christian theology see Fiedrowicz, Theologie der Kirchenväter: Grundlegung frühchristlicher Glaubensreflexionen, pp. 283-322.

375 See Erdö, Storia della scienza del diritto canonico: Una introduzione, pp. 28-29.

376 Cf. Fiedrowicz, Theologie der Kirchenväter: Grundlegung frühchristlicher Glaubensreflexionen, pp. 44-46.

377 Pedalion, p. θ´: "ιγ´. Ὅταν εἶναί οὖν καὶ κοινὴ, ἡ ἔγγραφος νόμος, κρατεῖ καὶ ἡ κοινὴ συνήθεια, ἡ διὰ λόγον καὶ κριτὴς ἔχει δοκιμασθῆναι, καὶ ἡ ἔγγραφος κανών, ἡ ἄνευ ἐναντιώσεως εἶναι κανόνων καὶ νόμων ἔστηκεν, καὶ ἔρρει τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν τοῦ α´ τῆς ἐν Σαρδίκῃ."

378 Pedalion, pp. 4-11: "Ὁ δὲ Βασίλειος λέγει ὅτι θὲ νόμος ἐστίν· Κανόνι· Ὅταν τὸ ἔθος ἰσχυρὸν ὑπάρχῃ, ὡς τὸ τῶν ἐντόνων ἄγραφον παραδοχὴ· καὶ ἡ συνήθεια ὡς ἔγγραφος νόμος ἰσχύει· ὡς καὶ ὁ θεῖος Βασίλειος γράφει, ἐν τῇ ρλ´ ἐπιστ. καὶ τῇ ρλβ´· καὶ ἄρα· (βλ. Σαρδ. καν. ι´ α´.) Ὅτι δὲ καὶ αἱ συνήθειαι, καὶ ὡς ἀξιοπίστως καὶ πίστιν ἔχουσιν, ὡς ἔχοντα τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιρροὴν καὶ βεβαίωσιν ὡς ἔγγραφος· διὸ ἐκεῖνα ὅσα εἶναι ἔγγραφος νόμος, ἰσχύουσιν· καὶ ὅσα εἶναι ἄγραφοι, ἔγγραφος νόμος εἰσίν· καὶ ἐκεῖνα τὰ τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὡς νόμος καὶ κανὼν ἐστίν· καὶ ὡς τοιοῦτος ὑποσημειοῦται· ἔθος ἰσχυρὸν καὶ παλαιὸν ἔθος, ὡς νόμος κυροῦται, καὶ ἰσχύει καὶ ὡς νόμος· καὶ ὅσα τὰ τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὡς νόμος καὶ κανὼν ἔσται· καὶ τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ ἔθη· ὅρα τὴν ὑποσημείωσιν καὶ τὸν α´ κανόνα τῆς Σαρδίκης, καὶ τὸν ξ´, καὶ τὸν κζ´ τῆς α´, καὶ τὸν ξβ´, καὶ τὸν ξγ´ τῆς α´, καὶ τὸν ξζ´ τῆς Σαρδίκης· καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα ἔθη, ὡς νόμος καὶ κανὼν ἔσονται· καὶ ὡς τοιοῦτος ὑποσημειοῦται· καὶ ὡς ἔθος ἰσχυρὸν καὶ παλαιὸν· ὡς ἔχον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιρροὴν, ἔσται ὡς νόμος καὶ κανὼν· καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ ἔθη."

379 Pedalion, p. θ´: "ιδ´. Ὅτι πάντα τὰ κακῶς κριθέντα καὶ τυπωθέντα, ὑπὸ κανόνων, ὑπὸ νόμων, ὑπὸ ἔθους, οὐ συνήθεια βεβαιοῖ, κατὰ τοὺς νομοκάν."