The exact meaning of the canon is obscure, a lot of different interpretations have been proposed. The 18th-century scholar, J.F. Masdeu (1792: 375) understood this canon as a prohibition directed to the "procurator of the treasury" who shall not claim the slaves of the treasury that were donated for the service of God by the king, and that their churches shall pay the tribute for them. Similarly, Tejada (1861: 232) believed that the prohibition is more universal (that nobody, not only a procurator of the treasury, shall claim those slaves). E. Florez (1859: 143), admitting, however, that this canon is a most difficult to understand, thought that it forbids clerics from appropriating goods donated by the king for the service of God. Something else was proposed by Perez Pujol (1896: 264) – according to his interpretation the king is donating his slaves to the Church, but he still has the right to claim the poll-tax (capitatio humana) for them. However, after clerical ordination slaves become free in the eyes of the Church, and thus not obligated to pay tax. In this situation the fiscal magistrates are trying to revoke the donation, because the treasury not only loses a slave (effect of the donation), but also the tax revenue. The canon thus decides that the representatives of the treasury cannot reclaim a former slave who became a cleric as long as he pays the poll-tax for himself. Perez Pujol's interpretation was the main inspiration for the translation proposed above. P.D. King (2006: 68, n. 3) argues that the last part of the canon cannot be translated "Let them serve the church, for administrare takes the accusative". But administrare takes accusative in the meaning "to administer, manage (an estate)", but it takes dative in the meaning "to give attention, to minister" (Glare 1982, s.v. administro).