From the Council of Compiegne, celebrated in a General Assembly of the People, A.D. 756

Canon I. If they are found joined in the fourth progeny, we do not separate them; but if they are found in the third, let them be separated. And those who pertain to each other, one in the fourth, the other in the third, and are found joined, we separate.

Cf. Canon I of Vermerie and what was said after the epistles of Gregory the Great, and the following canon of the Council of Mainz, A.D. 813.

Canon II. If two persons pertain to each other in the third place, whether man or woman, or one in the third and the other in the fourth, after one has died, it is not lawful for the other to accept his wife; and if they have been found, let them be separated. There is one law concerning men and women.

Namely, the third and fourth degree of affinity from legitimate nuptials impedes and dirimently invalidates marriage, according to the prescription of these Fathers.

Canon III. If a woman without the permission (commiato, licenza) of her husband has put a veil on her head, if it has pleased the husband, let him receive her again into marriage.

There is no religious profession of a spouse (understand: after consummated marriage) when the other does not consent.

Canon IV. If anyone has given his free stepdaughter, against her own will and that of her mother and parents, to a freeborn man or a slave or an ecclesiastic, and she has been unwilling to have him and has left him, her parents have power to give her another husband; and if she herself has another whom she afterward accepted, let them not be separated.

Namely, consent ought to be free, and the consent of those who contract suffices.

Canon V. If a free man accepted a woman and hoped that she was freeborn, and afterward finds that she is not freeborn, let him dismiss her, if he wishes, and accept another. Similarly, if a freeborn woman accepted a slave and then knew that he was a slave, let her have him in the meantime while he lives. There is one law for men and women.

The condition of servitude, when it is unknown, is an impediment.

Canon VII. If anyone, after accepting a wife, finds her contaminated by his brother, after dismissing her he accepted another and found this one also contaminated: that wife (this second one) is his legitimate wife, because he himself also was not a virgin at that time. But if afterward he has accepted a third, let him return to the middle one, and let that later woman have power to join herself to another man.

The first woman, contaminated by the brother, cannot be his wife because of affinity. The second is indeed supposed to be contaminated, but not by a blood-relative. But the reason which is brought forward so that this second one be retained has this bearing only: that it satisfies the complaint of the man who was saying that he was deceived when he thought his wife was a virgin; for he himself also was no longer a virgin. Therefore there is no reason why he should blame this defect in the wife.

Canon VIII. If any man has a legitimate woman, and his brother has adulterated her, that brother or that woman who perpetrated the adultery, in the meantime while they live, shall never have marriage. He whose wife she was, if he wishes, has power to accept another.

These words can rightly be taken of the power of accepting another after the death of the former, which power is denied to the adulterers. Cf. the canons of Vermerie II and V.

Canon X. If a father has violated the betrothed of his son, and afterward the son has accepted her, his father shall afterward not have a wife, and that woman shall not have a husband, because he did not say that his father had remained with her. But that son, who did this unknowingly, may accept a legitimate woman.

"May accept a legitimate woman": for he could not lead her whom his father had violated, because of affinity. The father is punished with perpetual prohibition of nuptials; since the same penalty is imposed also on the woman, she is supposed to have been violated willingly, not unwillingly.

Canon XII. If anyone has held his stepson or stepdaughter before the Bishop for confirmation, let him be separated from his wife and not accept another. Similarly, let a woman (who has admitted the same thing) not accept another.

Cf. Response IV of Pope Stephen III.

Canon XIII. If any man has dismissed his woman and has given permission for the sake of religion to serve God within a monastery, or outside a monastery has given license, as we said, to be veiled for God's sake, let the husband of that woman accept a legitimate woman. Similarly, let a woman (who has dismissed her husband for the same cause) do. George, the Roman Bishop, consented.

This George is the bishop legate of the Roman Pontiff Stephen to Pepin. From the consent of this man, who could not have been ignorant of the doctrine of Stephen (cf. his Response V) and of the Roman See, it is lawful to understand the sense of the canon; although it was expressed in more general words, from the circumstances it could have had a more determinate sense: namely, the matter concerned the religious profession of a spouse before the marriage had been consummated.

Canon XIV. If anyone remained in adultery with a mother and daughter, the mother not knowing that he had remained with her daughter, and similarly the daughter not knowing that he was with her mother: afterward, if that man has accepted a woman, let him dismiss her; up to the day of his death let him not have a wife. And let that woman whom he has left accept a man. And let that mother and daughter, with whom he remained in adultery, both not knowing that he had remained with mother and daughter, have husbands. For if this crime comes to their knowledge, let them dismiss their husbands and do penance. And let their later husbands accept women.

Because of the gravity of the crime, the Fathers prohibit any nuptials to disgraceful persons of this sort and invalidate them.

Canon XV. Similarly also concerning two sisters: he who remained in adultery with one and accepted the other in public shall not have a woman up to the day of death. And if those two sisters did not know, let them have husbands. And if it comes to their knowledge, let them observe the above form.

Cf. Canon II of Neocaesarea and what was said at the preceding canon.

Canon XVI. If a leprous man has a healthy woman, if he wishes to give her permission to accept a man, that woman, if she wishes, may accept; and similarly the man.

Unless you understand this of a marriage not yet consummated but only ratified, whose dissolution the Fathers (with the Roman Pontiff also consenting, whose legate was present at the Council) concede, the canon departs from Catholic doctrine. Since therefore the legate of the Roman See does not seem to have permitted so abnormal a decree to be established, it is lawful for us to interpret the canon in the manner which we have said. But notice that it is not added to this canon, as it is to certain others, that George, namely the legate of the Holy See, consented.

Canon XVII. If anyone accepted a woman and had her for some time, and that woman says that he had not remained with her, and that man says that he did so, let the truth stand with the man, because he is the head of the woman.

The man is to be believed before the woman, if proofs are lacking. Something similar is reported in the decretals, Book IV, Title XV, chapter 1.

Canon XVIII. If any persons, because of a faida (feide, open hostility by which someone declares war on one or several persons; see Du Cange), flee into another fatherland and leave their wives, neither those men nor those women shall accept marriage. George consented.

Cf. Response V of Stephen II.