We are aware of the supreme excellence of monastic life, and how worthy of reverence and honor those are who assume this easy and fortunate yoke. Therefore, far from blaming anyone who decides to do so, We think that he should be exempt from all censure, for the more admirable and divine anything is, the more it is entitled to respect; the dignity of the monastic profession should not be made a cloak for ingratitude and immorality; and where a slave flees from his master and devotes himself to an ascetic life, why should this be called dishonorable? For as it has been decided by Our predecessors, with reference to runaway slaves who enter monasteries, that if they should be proved to be fugitives within three years, their master will have the privilege of stripping them of their monastic habit, and regaining control of them; but where a slave remained unrecognized for three years and was afterwards found out, he could not be brought under the authority of his master, but afterwards became free in spite of him; and, as at present, innumerable slaves have seized the opportunity to escape from their masters, and enter the honorable monastic profession, whose privileges they abuse for the purpose of concealing their wicked designs (as it is very easy for a slave to remain hidden for three years and in this way obtain his freedom), We hereby order that whenever a slave becomes a monk with this end in view his master can, no matter when he finds him, have him stripped of his monastic habit and again subject him to his authority. For no one can allege that he has assumed it through motives of piety, as this is only a pretense, for he has either deserted a good master, and in this instance he is guilty of ingratitude, as well as of dishonesty, or he has abandoned a wicked master for the reason that he was not able to endure his abuse and ill treatment, and this being the case, how can he exalt that government which desires its citizens to always bear in mind the sufferings and death of Christ upon the cross?