Catholic Encyclopedia
Church Fathers
Classics Library
Church Documents
Prayer Requests
Ray of Hope
Social Doctrine

A Hstory Of The Councils Of The Church Volumes 1 to 5 by Charles Joseph Hefele D.D.



SEC. 220. The Roman Synods under Pope Symmachus, A.D. 501–504

AT the opening of the sixth century we meet with a series of Roman Synods under Pope Symmachus, with reference to the dates of which two different chronological systems have been set up, the one by Pagi in his criticisms to the Annals of Baronius (ad ann. 499, n. 3; ad ann. 500, n. 7–9; ad ann. 501, n. 2; ad ann. 502, n. 4; ad ann. 603, n. 2–11; ad ann. 504, n. 2), the other in the year 1725 by the Bollandist P. J. Bapt. Sollerius (in his Life of S. Symmachus in Acta SS. t. iv. Julii die 19 Julii, p. 639). Following preconceived opinions, Pagi has misplaced the natural order of these Synods, whilst the Bollandist held fast to Anastasius, Theodorus Lector, and other ancients, and has attained to greater accuracy. His theory was confirmed a few years later by a newly—discovered anonymous Vita Symmachi, which was composed by a contemporary of Pope Symmachus, and was published complete for the first time in the year 1732 by Joseph Blanchini, whilst somewhat earlier his uncle, Francis Blanchini, had put forth only fragments of it in the third volume of his edition of Anastasius. By this means it became possible for the learned Mansi to establish several chronological points still more accurately than the Bollandist had done, and all the learned now follow him almost unanimously. But even Mansi has left sufficient room for others to glean after him, so that in the following pages it will be seen that on many points it was necessary to depart from him and to strike out a way of our own.

First of all, we must hold fast the fact that no Roman Synod was held in the year 500. That which Pagi specifies as an act of such a Synod, namely, the removal of the submissive Antipope Lawrence to the bishopric of Nocera, was either decreed by the Synod of March 499, described above, or soon afterwards by Pope Symmachus alone. The former view has recently been maintained by Jaffé in his Regesta Pontificum (p. 62); the Bollandist, on the other hand (l.c. p. 638, n. 23), is more in favour of the other theory; and the vague manner in which the original documents state the matter would admit of either supposition. The anonymous author of the Vita Symmachi, already mentioned, represents the affair as if this Pope and his opponent Lawrence had brought their case before the royal tribunal (that of the Ostrogothic King, Theoderic the Great), and had been obliged to appear at his court, where Symmachus had prevailed through money, whilst Lawrence had been induced by threats and promises to accept the bishopric of Nocera. It must not be forgotten, in reference to this and other statements of the anonymous author, that he was a violent opponent of Symmachus and a decided adherent of Lawrence.

Unfortunately the peace of the Church was again disturbed after a short time, so that in Rome, towards the end of the year 499, and in the year 500, both parties came to violent and even to sanguinary conflicts. In this matter the friends of Lawrence peculiarly distinguished themselves by acts of violence; and at their head stood two laymen of exalted position, the Senators Festus and Probus (or Probinus), as well as the Deacon Paschasius, who from his asceticism had a reputation for holiness among the people. In their passionateness they did not disdain to bring their complaints against Symmachus before the heretical King Theoderic.

It is rather astonishing that none of the Synods, which had soon afterwards to examine the accusations against Symmachus, should communicate anything more precise on the offences which were laid against the Pope for punishment. Baronius (ad ann. 502, n. 32) thinks that this resulted from reverence for the holy see. From the apology which Ennodius († 521, bishop of Pavia) drew up on behalf of Symmachus, we see, however, that he was accused of adultery; and we learn from the anonymous Vita Symmachi that he was charged with many crimina, and, because he had not celebrated Easter with the other Christians, he was summoned to the court in order to give an account of this difference. The King is said to have ordered him to remain at Ariminum; but that here, when taking a walk, he had once seen that those women with whom he was accused of having sinned were, at the command of the King, on their way to the residence. Upon this it is said that he fled in haste to Rome, and shut himself up in S. Peter’s Church; and that his clergy had fallen away from him, and had declared to the King that Symmachus had fled without their knowledge. The clergy are also said to have accused him of squandering the property of the Church. That this last point was among the accusations against Symmachus we shall see from his own address at his fifth Synod on the 6th of November 502 (see below in this section).

His enemies, clergy and senators, now petitioned the King to send a Visitor to Rome, who should examine the accusations against Symmachus, and govern the Roman Church until the issue of the affair. Theoderic agreed to this, and nominated for this purpose Bishop Peter of Altino. We learn more particularly from a second letter of Ennodius that the Visitor, in opposition to the King’s commands, did not remain impartial, but placed himself passionately on the side of the opponents of Symmachus. We are told by the anonymous Vita Symmachi that he came to Rome at Easter, and it is added, which for our purpose is much more important, that at the command of the King a Synod was held in Rome immediately after Easter, in order to allay the strife in the Church. That the Easter of the year 501 is here meant, we learn from an edict, dated August 8, 501, addressed by the King to the bishops, who had remained in Rome after the close of this Synod.

We have seen that the first Synod for the removal of the new schism was held under Symmachus in the year 499, so that the Synod just described is to be reckoned the second, and must have been so reckoned by his contemporaries, otherwise Ennodius could not have designated that Synod for which he wrote an apology on behalf of Symmachus as the fourth (see below, in this sec.). This ancient manner of reckoning, which was forsaken by others, we will again retain. We find intelligence on this Synod (a) in the Acts of the later assembly of October 23, 501; (b) in some letters from and to King Theoderic; and (c) in the anonymous Vita Symmachi; only the latter throws together several Synods which were held soon after each other on the same matter, and treats them as only one,—a confusion which is overlooked by Mansi.

From the first of these three sources we learn that our Synod was held in the Basilica Julii at Rome, and that bishops from Liguria, Æmilia, and Venetia were present. They immediately declared that the right of convoking a Synod belonged to the Pope, and not to the King, because the precedence of the Apostle Peter had fallen to the see of Rome, and because, in accordance with the command of the Lord, the Councils had conceded to that see a peculiar distinction in the Church, so that the occupant of that see was not to be judged by his inferiors. For the pacification of the bishops the King let them know that Symmachus had also agreed to the convoking of this Synod, and he had the papal letter on the subject laid before them.

At the beginning of the business the Pope himself appeared in the assembly and explained that he was grateful to the King for its being called, that he saw in it the fulfilment of his own wish, and that he himself accorded to the Synod the authority necessary for the examination of the matter. At the same time, he hoped that the Visitor, who, in opposition to religion and the rules and ordinances of the Fathers, had been demanded by a portion of the clergy, or by some of the laity, should be immediately removed by the assembled bishops, and that there should without delay be restored to him, the Pope, all that he had lost through his enemies, and that the bishop of so exalted a city should be replaced in his previous position. Then, and not before, he would reply to the accusations brought against him. To the majority of the bishops this seemed not unfitting; but the Synod did not venture to take any resolution without the assent of the King. Theoderic, however, gave order that Symmachus must first, and before he should be reinstated in all the property of the Church, answer the accusation of his enemies. As the Pope would not agree, this Synod remained without result.

In agreement with this, although much more brief, is our third original document, the Vita Symmachi, if we rightly understand its text, which in this place is certainly somewhat corrupt, which relates that a portion of the bishops and senators (so these also were at the Synod) were unwilling to place everything in the power of Symmachus, that is, to restore immediately to him the property of the Church, which he demanded; and that (by others) it was declared, that the Roman bishop could be judged by no one, even if he were guilty of such crimes as those of which Symmachus was accused.

From the second source, finally, from the already mentioned letter of King Theoderic of August 8, 501, we see that by this time several bishops had left Rome without giving a decision, and that the rest appealed to the King, and requested him to hold a new Synod in his residence at Ravenna. In his answer, which was addressed to Lawrence of Milan, Marcellinus of Aquileia, and Peter of Ravenna, as the heads of the Synod, he praises them and their colleagues, that they had not, like the others, in a thoughtless manner, left the city without the permission of the King. He said he should bring together a new Synod on the 1st of September, by means of which the subject in suspense might be settled by general resolution, and that the Synod should be at Rome, as he had reasons for not complying with the wish of the bishops in regard to Ravenna. In case, however, peace and tranquillity should not be restored by means even of the new Synod, he would put aside all his other business and come himself to Rome.

In a second letter of VI. Kal. Sept. (August 27) of the same year, the King again required of the bishops who had been summoned to the Synod, to restore the peace of the Church in Rome. He said he had placed all things in their hands. He had also sent the royal house stewards Gudila and Bedeulphus, together with Arigernus, to Rome, in order to manage that Bishop Symmachus should appear before the Synod. They would give him adequate security to enable him to come over to the other side of the city and appear before the Synod.

As first and chief source of information respecting the new Synod, held in Rome, September 1, 501, the third under Symmachus, we employ the Acts of the following or fourth Synod, which have already proved most serviceable to us in reference to the second Synod. We learn from these that the bishops met in the Basilica of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem, called also the Basilica Sessoriana after the former owner of the place, and that the Synod was under the influence of the enemies of Symmachus, who repeatedly stirred up tumults against him. In this document a double wrong is mentioned. They had first maintained that the King himself had got to know that the Pope was guilty; but again this statement was shown to be untrue. Besides this, they had in the second place demanded that the Pope’s own servants (slaves) should be brought forward as witnesses against him, whereas there should be the same rule for ecclesiastical as for civil trials, that slaves should not be allowed to appear against their masters.

These Acts inform us further, that when the Pope appeared to defend himself, his enemies fell upon him and his attendants, so that many priests were wounded, and many would have been killed if the three royal stewards had not prevented it, and conveyed the Pope back to his residence within the walls of S. Peter’s. This occurrence was reported by the Synod to the King, and the Pope was requested to appear personally for the second time. He replied that he had humbled himself at first to clear himself, and had almost been put to death; but that now (he would appear no more and) the King might decide concerning what was right.

With this agrees our second source, a letter of the Synod to the King, thanking him for sending the three stewards. In this the bishops say: “In our second session we sent deputies to the Pope, so that he might appear for trial. But he answered: ‘At the beginning, without any hesitation I hastened into the meeting, and placed my privileges (of not being judged by others) at the will of the King, recognised the authority of the Synod, and in accordance with ecclesiastical rule demanded the restitution of the churches and the property of the Church; but instead of my request being granted, I and my clergy met with cruel ill-treatment (crudeliter mactatus sum). I therefore no longer submit myself to examination by the Synod, and it remains for God and the King to decide my case in the future.’ For this reason we sent the house-steward Arigernus to him, and he can himself acquaint you with the answer which he received from him. We can now do no more. According to the canons, all bishops have a right of appeal to the Pope; but what is to be done when the Pope himself appeals? We cannot pronounce his condemnation in his absence, nor can we declare him as guilty of obstinacy, since he (at first) presented himself before the judges, and especially as it has never yet happened that a Pope was tried by bishops. We have, besides, done all that was possible to restore peace to the Church in Rome, and have exhorted the clergy of the city to peace; but they have disregarded our wholesome exhortation, so that it now remains for the King to make provision for the peace of the Church. Finally, we ask permission to be allowed to return home.”

The nature of the wholesome admonition referred to, which was addressed by the Synod to the Roman clergy, we learn more clearly from the third source, the author of the Vita Symmachi. He says that the bishops (aliquanti episcope only according to him) repeatedly called upon the clergy who had fallen away from Symmachus to return without delay to his obedience; but that they put off, and required that Symmachus should either clear himself of the charges against him or be deposed from his spiritual office.

The King was indignant with the Synod for not having settled the controversy in hand, and for having (at the end of their letter) even passed on the matter to him. He replied therefore, on the 1st of October 501, that, if he had wished to decide the controversy, he would with God’s help have established the right, and so have given peace to the present and to the succeeding generation. But he had not regarded it as his business de ecclesiasticis negotiis aliquid censere, and that therefore he had convoked the bishops from different provinces and given over the whole matter to them for decision. It was their business to decide what seemed good to them, and not to expect from him the form of their judgment. He submitted entirely to their consideration and their conscience the question whether they would consider the offences charged against Symmachus as deserving punishment or not. They might do about this as they would, and as they would have to answer before God, only it was their business to restore peace to the Roman Church (by pronouncing which was the legitimate Pope), so that no division and disorder should remain.

It is probable that in delivering this royal missive the royal Anagnosticus (Lector) read a further communication from Theoderic to the Synod which was still assembled in Rome, which in part had the same contents with the one just quoted, but also contained a fresh exhortation to the bishops to judge justly and impartially. If, however, they should come to no definite decision, this would be a bad example to give to others and to the future.

If we rightly understand the close of this edict, the three house-stewards were in it instructed to extend every possible protection to Pope Symmachus in case he should be willing to come to the Synod; and the Synod was commanded to give over the Lateran, as well the building as the area, to him in whose favour their judgment might be given.

Upon this the bishops assembled anew on the 23rd of October 501 (where, the minutes do not say), and this is the assembly which is called by Mansi and others the third, but by the Acts, and with propriety, the fourth. Thus, e.g., Ennodius entitled his Apology, which he wrote for this Synod, as Apologeticus pro Synodo quarta Romana, and it was also called the fourth at the last Synod but one, the sixth, held under Symmachus. There, too, in some MSS. it is called the Palmaris, and is often mentioned under this name by the ancients. An examination of the meaning of this title is found in Baronius, and the most probable view is that the Synod obtained this designation from the supposed place of assembly, a porticu beati Petri Apostoli, quæ appellatur ad Palmaria, as Anastasius said. Several scholars, particularly the Bollandist and Mansi, give the title Palmaris to the following Synod, which they call the fourth and we the fifth, but in manifest contradiction to the text of the minutes of the last Synod of this series.

The Acts of our Synod (the fourth) begin with the statement that it was held by command of King Theoderic under the consulate of Rufus Magnus Faustus Avienus, by which, as has already been mentioned (p. 63), we are to understand only the one consul of the West. We must therefore read viro clarissimo consulc instead of viris clarissimis consulibus. Accordingly this Synod belongs to the year 501, and must not be removed into the following year, as Baronius has done. It is quite true that the consul for the year 502 had the same name Rufus Magnus Faustus Avienus; but when the latter is meant, Junior is added, whilst naturally, in the year 501, the elder Avienus was quoted simply and without the addition of Senior, since there was at that time no Junior as consul. But Pagi (ad ann. 503) is more astray than Baronius when he ascribes this assembly to the year 503, arbitrarily rejecting the chronological datum which, as we have said, is found in the minutes, and thus makes it later than the following Synod.

Immediately after the introduction just noticed, the Acts of the Synodus Palmaris give first a brief historical survey of the two previous assemblies of the same year, 501, i.e. of the second Synod held at Easter 501 in the Church of S. Julius, and of the third Synod held on September 1 in the Basilica of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem. We have already related the contents of this part. Next comes an extract from the letter of Theoderic of October 1, mentioned above, after which the Synod proceeds to draw up its own decrees. On account of the high consideration of Peter which had descended to his successors, they said, they had not ventured to pass judgment upon the Pope, but preferred to leave this to God, to whom all secrets were open. In regard to men, therefore, Symmachus was freed from all the charges, and all who had fallen away from him should return to his obedience, at the same time almost the whole people had remained steadfast to him. It would thus belong to Symmachus to celebrate the holy mysteries in all the churches of his jurisdiction, and everyone must receive the communion from him. The clergy, moreover, who had previously separated from him, must render him satisfaction, and then ask for forgiveness and be reinstated in their offices. Those clergy, on the contrary, who should in future venture to celebrate Mass in any sacred place in Rome without his consent should be punished as schismatics. The minutes were signed by seventy-six bishops, at the head of whom stood Lawrence of Milan and Peter of Ravenna.

When the Acts of the Synod were received in Gaul, the bishops there, being unable, in consequence of the dismemberment of the empire, to hold a Synod, commissioned Bishop Avitus of Vienne to express his judgment on this important matter in their name and in his own. Avitus therefore addressed a letter to the two senators, Faustus and Symmachus. In this letter he first complains that Christian bishops had accepted a command from the King to sit in judgment on the Pope, but commends them for having themselves seen the impropriety, and expressed their sense of it. In his double capacity of bishop and Roman senator, he adjures his senatorial colleagues to have the same care for the Roman Church as for the State, and to restore its peace.

We learn from the author of the Vita Symmachi that the resolutions of the Synodus Palmaris unfortunately did not obtain universal acceptance, but, on the contrary, those clerics and senators who belonged to the opposition presented a new memorial to the King in favour of Lawrence, who had for some time taken up his abode in the residence city of Ravenna, in order to be safe from Symmachus. They represented that it was prescribed by the canons that every bishop was bound to remain in the church for which he had been consecrated, and that therefore Lawrence should return to Rome and preside over the church for which he had been consecrated a considerable time ago. Lawrence did, in fact, return to Rome (probably at the beginning of the year 502), and remained there four years, during which time the strife of the parties went on with violence, and both sides repeatedly appealed to the King.

In this interval falls the fifth (otherwise called the fourth) Synod, assembled by Pope Symmachus on the 6th of November 502, under the consulate of the younger Avienus, in S. Peter’s Church in Rome, which, as we know, was in his hands. Baronius regards this Synod as only a new session of the Palmaris, proceeding upon the assumption already disproved, that this Synod also belonged to the year 502. Pagi, however (ad ann. 502–503), has reversed the order, and placed our fifth Synod before the Palmaris. At the very beginning of the minutes of this Synod it is mentioned that there were present eighty-one bishops, thirty-four priests, and four deacons, all Italians; whilst the subscriptions, of which Mansi gives two copies from different MSS., contain rather fewer names. These numbers were, to a large extent, the same as at the previous Synod.

First of all, Pope Symmachus addressed the assembly, and commended them for their previous resolutions (in the Synodus Palmaris). He then ordered the deacon Hormisdas to read a document which, two decades before, had been put forth by Basil, the Præfeetus Prætorio under Odoacer, at an assembly of the Roman clergy in S. Peter’s Church, and contained a command that they should not, after the death of Pope Simplicius (A.D. 483), elect a successor to him without the permission of the King. The same decree forbade every Pope to alienate any portion of the goods and ornaments of the churches under penalty of anathema to the vendor, and other penalties for the purchaser. During the reading of this passage the Synod expressed its indignation that a layman should threaten anathema to a cleric (the Pope who sold), and several bishops of distinction, particularly Lawrence of Milan, Peter of Ravenna, and Eulalius of Syracuse, immediately declared this edict as invalid, because no Pope had subscribed, and because no layman had the right to issue instructions respecting the property of the Church. Indeed, even bishops, according to the ancient canons, had no right to give decisions respecting the property of the Church without the assent of the Metropolitan or Primus (see vol. ii. sec. 113). Least of all could a layman, when no Pope, who had the primacy of the whole world, was present, make disposition of Church matters.

The whole Synod concurred in this judgment, and declared the decree in question wholly invalid, and at the same time forbade any layman, however pious or powerful, to put forth ordinances on Church property, since the care of such things was by God intrusted to the priesthood alone. In order, however, to protect the property of the Church, and to shame his enemies who had accused him of squandering it, Pope Symmachus now published the law, that henceforth no occupant of the apostolic see should finally dispose by sale or exchange of any estate, small or great, belonging to the Church, and that the proceeds of such should accrue to no others than clerics, prisoners, and strangers; only the houses of the Church in cities, the maintenance of which was very expensive, might be exchanged after a fair valuation. This law should apply not merely to the Pope, but also to the occupants of all particular churches in Rome, whether priests or not. Finally, everyone selling Church property was threatened with loss of his dignity; every buyer, and everyone who signed such a contract of sale as witness, with anathema, and the clergy were authorised to claim back all alienated Church property and its proceeds. This whole law, however, was to apply only to Rome, and not to the provinces, since there the local bishops had themselves to arrange what was suitable.

Occasion for a new Synod was given by the continued acts of enmity committed by the opposition party. In order to destroy the importance of the fourth Synod (the Palmaris), which had acquitted Symmachus, the opponents published a memorial with the title: “Contra synodum absolutionis incongruæ” (against the Synod of the improper absolution). But Ennodius, of whom we have heard, came forward with his Apologeticus pro Synodo quarta Romana. We learn from this the objections which the enemies of Symmachus brought against that Synod, namely, that all the bishops had not been summoned by the King to the assembly, that not all who were present had agreed in the decision, that they had not heard the Pope’s accusers (his own slaves), that the members of the Synod had been too old, that they had not sufficiently attended to the command of the King, and had involved themselves in a contradiction; since, on the one hand, they had maintained that the Pope could not be judged by his inferiors, and yet had brought him before them; and, moreover, that it was something new for a Pope to convoke a Council in order to defend himself against accusations.

Thereupon the sixth (otherwise the fifth) Synod under Symmachus was held at Rome after the consulate of Avienus, as the Acts say, and so in the year 503 (the month unknown), ante confessionem B. Petri, i.e. before the grave of S. Peter. At the very beginning the memorial of Ennodius, already mentioned, was publicly read, universally approved, and its preservation and introduction into the Acts of the Synod between the minutes of the fourth and fifth assemblies ordered, with which Symmachus entirely agreed. The members of the Synod then demanded that the opponents and accusers of the Pope should be punished, and saluted himself with loud shouts of joy. He, on his part, entreated that they would be gentle with them according to the word of Christ, that he who wished to be forgiven by God must also forgive his brethren. In order, however, that for the future nothing of the kind should be attempted against a Pope, there was no need, he said, for any new ordinances, since the old were sufficient, and these were now read, confirmed anew, and embodied in the minutes.

At the same time, the Synod appointed the punishment for the transgression of these laws. Again acclamations broke out in honour of Symmachus, and all the bishops present joined with him in subscribing. After the Pope came next the bishops already mentioned, Lawrence of Milan, Peter of Ravenna, and Eulalius of Syracuse. The MSS. still extant give 214 names (not 218 as in the superscription); but probably some subscriptions of earlier Councils have been added by mistake to the genuine subscriptions of this Synod, for there occur among the 214 several names of bishops who had been present at the Council of Chalcedon more than fifty years before.

The last Synod of this series is called the sixth at the beginning of the Acts, which, however, are the work of a later collector of Councils, and not of its own secretaries. As already shown, it was really the seventh, and was held under the presidency of Pope Symmachus on the 1st of October, probably in the year 504, and again in S. Peter’s Church. On the proposal of the Pope, the older laws against the embezzlers of Church property, and against the misconduct of priests, were again brought to remembrance, and confirmed with many acclamations: “Whoever possesses the property of the Church without permission of the bishop, and dares to persist in possession, and conceals the property of God from His servants, shall first be expelled from the Church by the bishop of the place. Those who do not amend are to be regarded and punished as murderers of the poor. But the punishment must be preceded by a clear admonition. Moreover, the excuse is inadmissible, that anyone possesses ecclesiastical property as a present from the King or any other secular power.” Upon this the 7th and 8th canons of Gangra in reference to the property of the Church (see vol. ii. p. 327 sqq.) were repeated and explained, that it was a gross sacrilege if Christians, and especially Christian rulers and princes, should alienate to others what someone, for his soul’s health, had presented to the Church; and all were threatened with eternal anathema who should unrighteously possess or accept Church property, or should give, lend, or bequeath it to their heirs.

The minutes of this Synod, which are drawn up at unusual length, were signed by the Pope and 103 other bishops. Some MSS. have still more subscriptions; but in these the names of the bishops as well as of their sees are given incorrectly. Immediately after the Pope, in this case, came the signature of Peter, bishop of Ravenna. But Lawrence of Milan does not appear, although he was still alive, and did not die until the year 512. We know, moreover, from Cassiodorus, that King Theoderic regarded the decisions of the Synod as valid, and recommended the restoration to the church of Milan of the property of which it had been deprived. In like manner, we have an edict from this King, dated March 11, 507, in which he declared the similar ordinance of the fifth Synod to be binding.

There is mention of another, the eighth Roman Synod under Symmachus, which anathematised the antipope and the visitator. It was discovered by Remi Ceillier (l.c. p. 649) in Anastasius. He says: “Anastase fait mention d’un Concile de Rome sous Symmaque, où il dit que ce Pape fut absous par 115 Evêques, et Pierre d’Altino, nommé Visiteur par Théoderic, condamné avec Laurent, compétiteur de Symmaque, mais Ennode n’en parle pas dans son Apologétique, ni Symmaque dans le sien. Auroient—ils oublié l’un et l’autre un jugement qui ne pouvoit que fortifier leur cause?” Remi Ceiller might, with still greater propriety, have appealed to a document of the year 506, in which the Roman deacon John, who had hitherto taken the side of the opposition, declares his submission to Symmachus in the words: “Consentiens quæ veneranda Synodus judicavit atque constituit, anathematizans Petrum Altinatem et Laurentium Romanæ ecclesiæ pervasorem schismaticum.”

It cannot be denied that another Synod, the eighth, shortly before the year 506, may have pronounced the sentence of condemnation on the visitator and the pretender to the papacy, but it is more probable that this took place at the Synodus Palmaris, or one of the Synods immediately succeeding. If Symmachus was recognised as the only genuine Pope, as was done in the Palmaris, the rejection of his opponents was the natural consequence. We must not, however, forget that the Synodus Palmaris was subscribed by only 76 bishops, whilst Anastasius assigns 115 to his Synod. Often, however, the subscriptions are not complete, or at least have not come down to us complete.

On the issue of the conflict between Pope Symmachus and his opponents, no other Council gives us any information, nor any ancient document except the anonymous Vita Symmachi. We learn here that four years after the return of the Antipope Lawrence, namely, in A.D. 505 or 506, Symmachus after many attempts succeeded in bringing the King over to his side, and this through the mediation of the Alexandrian deacon Dioscurus, whom he had sent to him for that purpose. Theoderic now commanded that all the churches in Rome should be given over to Symmachus, and that he alone must be recognised as bishop of this city. Upon this, it is said, Lawrence, in order to avoid further disturbances, had of his own accord withdrawn to an estate in the country, and ended his days here as a severe ascetic. Nevertheless the schism in the Roman Church lasted to the death of Symmachus, because he, although now victorious, had in many ways stained his good name, particularly by ordaining for money. He also caused the Church of S. Martin by S. Silvester to be built, adorned, and dedicated at the expense of Palatinus, a highly respected man; and, besides, he had several cemeteries restored, particularly that of S. Pancratius, and several new ones built. Symmachus did not die until the year 514, and during his pontificate several other Councils were held outside Rome.

SEC. 221. Byzacene Synod, A.D. 504 or 507

It is customary to assign the Byzacene Synod (in the African province of that name, south of Carthage) to the year 504. But Labbe, even in his time, thought it more correct to place it in the year 507, because Fulgentius of Ruspe was made bishop soon after the Synod, and his elevation belonged to the year 507 or 508. Moreover, he also rightly drew attention to the fact that the assembly was not properly a Council, but only a conference of some African bishops. The only source from which we draw information respecting this Council is the disciple and biographer of S. Fulgentius of Ruspe, the deacon Fulgentius Ferrandus, and he relates that at the time when the Vandal and Arian King Thrasamund exiled the largest number of the orthodox bishops of Africa, and forbade others to ordain, those who still remained had formed the resolution, in spite of this prohibition, to care for the orphaned churches, and that in consequence many priests and deacons were in all haste consecrated bishops.

SEC. 222. Synod at Agde (Agatha), A.D. 506

Of greater importance is the Concilium Agathense, which was celebrated at Agde in South Gaul, near the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, in the province of Languedoc, in September 506. There were thirty-five bishops present, and thirty-four subscribed. At their head, as is shown by the subscription, stood Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, and in a short preface to the canons the bishops state that they had met in S. Andrew’s Church at Agde with the permission of the West Gothic (Arian) King Alaric, in order to take counsel on discipline, on the ordination of clergy and bishops, and on matters useful to the Church. In the Collections of the Councils there are ordinarily seventy-one canons of this Synod published, which were regarded as genuine by Gratian, and which he received almost in their complete form into his Decretum. Besides, we find both in his works and in the older collections of Burchard of Worms and Ivo of Chartres, some other canons ascribed to this Synod. But it was pointed out by Sirmond that only forty-seven belong to it; all the others are lacking in the oldest manuscripts of the Conciliar Acts, and proceed from other Synods, although they were at an early period placed among the canons of Agde. The forty-seven genuine canons have the following content:—

1. After the reading of the earlier ordinances, De digamis non ordinandis, particularly of the 1st canon of the Synod of Valence, A.D. 374 (see vol. ii. p. 289), the Council softened the ancient harshness to the extent that those Bigami or husbands of widows who had already been ordained, should retain the title (dignity) of the presbyterate and diaconate, but that such priests should not consecrate (say Mass), and such deacons should not serve (at the altar).

2. Disobedient clerics were to be punished by the bishop. If any among them should presumptuously despise the communion (of the bishop), not attend the church, and not fulfil their office, the peregrina communion should be given to them until they return. Remi Ceillier (l.c. p. 657), under reference to the dissertation of Jacobus Dominicus, De communione peregrine, explains this expression thus: They were, like strange clergy, to communicate after the rest of the clergy, but before the laity. This explanation, however, is incorrect. The true meaning is recognised by Aubespine, and after him by Bingham, who has written a whole dissertation on this term. They remark that just as strangers, even when they have no letters of peace, were yet provided with all that was necessary, and were received into the communio benignitatis, but not to the communio altaris, so they dealt temporarily with disobedient clerics, in order to reform them, and that this temporary exclusion from the church was a much slighter punishment than the permanent removal into communio laicalis. The same explanation is given by Böhmer in his edition of the Corpus jur. can. in the note to c. 21, Dist. 50, where we find our canon of Gratian adduced.

3. If a bishop has excommunicated anyone who is innocent, or who has committed only a very slight fault, the neighbouring bishops should advise him; and if he does not comply, they should not, at the next Synod, deny the communion to the excommunicated person, so that he may not through the fault of others die without this. (In the old collection of Church ordinances of Burchard, the end of this canon runs as follows: “If the bishop will not follow his colleagues, they shall exclude him from their communion until the next Synod.”) In the Corpus jur. can. our canon is c. 8, Causa xi. q. 3.

4. Clerics and laymen who take back presents made to the Church or to a monastery by their ancestors or themselves, shall be excommunicated as murderers of the poor. See above, sec. 220; cf. c. 11, C. xiii. q. 2.

5. If a cleric has stolen anything from the church, he shall be removed into communio perigrina (cf. c. 2). In the Corpus jur. can. this canon is united with the previous one as c. 11, C. xiii. q. 2.

6. What is left or presented to a bishop, whether to him and the Church alike or to him alone, belongs, not to the bishop as personal property, but is the property of the Church; for the giver meant to care for the salvation of his soul, not for the use of the bishop. Justice also requires that, as the bishop enjoys that which is bequeathed to the Church, so the Church should have what is presented to the bishop. If, however, anything is left in trust to the bishop or to the Church, with the intention of its coming afterwards to another, the Church must not retain this as property, cf. c. 3, C. xii. q. 3. This canon was repeated in c. 20 of the Synod of Reims, A.D. 625.

7. No bishop shall alienate the buildings, slaves, or furniture belonging to the Church, because they are the property of the poor. In case of its being necessary, however, to give anything, in the interest of the Church, for sale or for usufruct, this can be done only with the consent and subscription of two or three neighbouring comprovincial bishops. Moreover, if a bishop grants their liberty to any slaves who have made themselves deserving of it, his successors must respect this act, and must also leave them that which his predecessor had presented to them in fields, vineyards, and dwelling, only that it must not exceed twenty solidi in value. If what was given is worth more, the excess must be restored after the death of the emancipator. Insignificant and less useful goods of the Church may be given to strangers and clerics for usufruct, with reservation of the Church’s right of possession. Cf. c. 1, C. x. q. 2.

8. If a cleric leaves his office and has recourse to a secular judge on account of (ecclesiastical) punishment (i.e. to escape it), then he and the judge who admits him shall be excommunicated. Cf. c. 1, C. xxi. q. 5.

9. If married deacons or priests wish to return to the nuptial couch, the ordinances of Popes Innocent and Siricius shall apply. For this reason the Ordinatio Innocentii, which also includes the older ordinance of Siricius, was appended to this canon. Both require that such incontinent clerics shall be deprived of all ecclesiastical dignities and offices. Only those who did not know that the continuance of marital intercourse was forbidden, may be allowed to retain their office, if they abstain for the future.

10. A cleric must not visit strange women nor have them in his house; and he must live only with his mother, or sister, or daughter, or niece.

11. Female slaves also and freedwomen must be removed from the service and from the house of a cleric.

12. All members of the Church must fast daily during Lent, even on Saturdays, Sundays alone being excepted. Cf. c. 9, De Consecrat. Dist. iii.

13. In all churches the sacrament of baptism is to be administered to the candidates on the same day, namely, eight days before Easter. Cf. c. 56, De Consecrat. Dist. iv.

14. The altars are not only to be anointed with chrism, but are also to be blessed. Cf. c. 32, De Consecrat. Dist. i.

15. Penitents shall receive from the priest the imposition of hands and a cilicium upon the head. If, however, they do not cut off their hair and change their clothes, they must be rejected. Young people, on account of the weakness of their age, must not lightly be admitted to penance. But the Viaticum is not to be refused to anyone who is near death. Cf. c. 63, Dist. 1.

16. The bishop must ordain no one a deacon who is not twenty-five years old. If a young married man wishes to be ordained, he must be asked whether his wife also agrees, and is willing to depart from her husband’s abode and practise continence. Cf. c. 6, Dist. lxxvii.

17. A priest or bishop must be thirty years old before being ordained. (Gratian has united this canon with the previous one in c. 6, Dist. lxxvii.)

18. Laymen who do not communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are not to be regarded as Catholics. Cf. c. 19, De Consecrat. Dist. ii.

19. Nuns (Sanctimoniales), however their morals may be approved, must not receive the veil before they are forty years old. Cf. c. 13, C. xx. q. 1.

20. If clerics are careful of their hair, it must be cut off even against their will by the archdeacon; and they must wear only becoming clothes and shoes. Cf. c. 22, Dist. xxiii.

21. Divine service may be held in oratories, but not at Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, Pentecost, the Nativity of S. John the Baptist, or other great festivals. On these days all must attend the parochial service. The ecclesiastic who says Mass on those days in an oratory is excommunicated. Cf. c. 35, De Consecrat. Dist. i.

22. Priests and clerics in towns, etc., may spend for themselves the Church property which the bishop has assigned to them, but they are not to sell it or give it away. Cf. c. 32, C. xii. q. 2.

23. A bishop must not with partiality pass over a blameless cleric and prefer a younger to him. If, however, the elder is not fitted for the archidiaconate, then the better qualified for the administration of the Church should be chosen by the bishop. Cf. c. 5, Dist. lxxiv.

24. In regard to children exposed, the ordinance of the older Council (of Vaison, c. 9, above, sec. 163) remains in force.

25. Laymen who separate themselves from their unfaithful wives without having waited for the sentence of the comprovincial bishops, in order unlawfully to enter into other unions, must be excluded from Church communion and from intercourse with the faithful. Cf. c. 1, C. xxxiii. q. 2, and c. 2 of the Council of Vannes, A.D. 465; see above, sec. 211.

26. If a cleric secretes or suppresses documents by which the Church can prove her right to a possession, or delivers them up to her opponents, he shall be excommunicated, and condemned to pay an indemnity. And the same shall be done to anyone who has tempted him to it. Cf. c. 33, C. xii. q. 2.

27. No one is allowed to build or found a new convent without permission of the bishop. Monks are not to be ordained clerics without a testimonial from their abbot; and no abbot must receive a strange monk unless his abbot gives his permission. Cf. c. 12, C. xviii. q. 2.

28. Women’s convents must not be placed in the neighbourhood of men’s convents, as well because of the cunning of Satan as because of the evil report of men. Cf. c. 23, C. xviii. q. 2.

29. The Church shall protect those who have been regularly liberated by their masters. Cf. c. 7, Dist. lxxxvii.

30. Divine service shall everywhere be held in the same manner. After the Antiphons, the Collects shall be said by the bishops or priests, the hymni matutini and vespertini be daily sung. At the close of matins and vespers (which are here called Missc, see above, sec. 219), after the hymns, chapters out of the Psalms shall be said, and the people after the vesper prayer shall be dismissed by the bishop with a blessing. Cf. c. 13, De Consecrat. Dist. v.

31. Those who for a long time have enmity with one another shall first be admonished by the priest, and if they persist, shall be excommunicated. Cf. c. 9, Dist. xl.

32. A cleric must not without permission of the bishop sue anyone before the secular judge. If he is himself sued in this manner, he may answer; but he himself must bring no charge, least of all a criminal accusation, before the secular judge. If, however, a layman has falsely accused a cleric, he shall be excluded from the Church, and from the communion of Catholics. Gratian out of this canon made two, namely, c. 17, C. xi. q. 1, and c. 8, C. v. q. 6; but he brought in non before respondeat, so as to give this meaning: “If a cleric is summoned before a secular tribunal, he must not answer.” But in all the old and good MSS. the negation is wanting, as Sirmond assures us.

33. If a bishop has no sons or grandsons, and appoints anyone save the Church his heir, then all that he has derived from the revenues of his Church and not spent for ecclesiastical purposes, and so saved, shall be deducted from what he has left. If, however, he has left sons, these shall see the Church unharmed in regard to the inheritance (by giving up a portion of it). Cf. c. 34, C. xii. q. 2.

34. If Jews wish to become Catholics, since they may so readily return to their vomit, they must remain eight months as catechumens before they can be baptized. Only if they come near to death may they receive baptism earlier. Cf. c. 93, De Consecrat. Dist. iv.

35. If the metropolitan summons the comprovincial bishops either to the ordination of a bishop or to a Synod, they must appear on the day appointed. Only serious illness or the command of the king excuses. If they do not appear, they remain, in accordance with the ancient canons, excluded from communion until the next Synod. Cf. above, sec. 113, c. 11 of the sixth Synod of Carthage; and sec. 200, note on c. 20 of the Synod of Chalcedon; also below, sec. 229, c. 6 of the Synod of Tarragona, where the idea of the excommunication here threatened is more fully discussed. In Corpus jur. can. our canon appears as c. 13, Dist. xviii.

36. All clerics who faithfully serve the Church shall be rewarded by the bishops after their deserving, and in accordance with the ordinances of the canons. Cf. c. 10, C. i. q. 2.

37. Murderers and false witnesses must be excluded from Church communion, unless they have expiated their crimes by penance and satisfaction. Compare c. 1 of the Synod of Vannes, above, sec. 211; and c. 20, C. xxiv. q. 3.

38. Clerics must not travel without the epistolæ commendatitiæ of the bishop. So also the monks; and if they do not attend to this admonition, they must be beaten. Monks are not allowed to separate from the community and occupy separate cells (huts), unless when they are under probation or in case of sickness, when the abbot may soften the stringency of the rule for them. But even then they must (in their separate cells) remain within the walls of the monastery and under the supervision of the abbot. The abbots must not have several cells or monasteries. Only in case of hostile attacks they may (outside the monastery) erect residences inside the walls of a city. The same was ordained by the Synod of Vannes, A.D. 465, in canons 5 to 8; see above sec. 211. Gratian has our canon as c. 43, C. xx. q. 4.

39. Priests, deacons, subdeacons, or others not permitted to marry, must not be present at the marriages of others, nor in companies where erotic and indecent songs are sung, etc. A repetition of c. 11 of the Council of Vannes (sec. 211), and cf. c. 19, Dist. xxxiv.

40. Clerics and laity must not participate in the meals of the Jews.—This is forbidden by the Synod of Vannes (c. 12) to the clergy alone. In Gratian this canon stands as c. 14, C. xxviii. q. 1.

41. A clergyman who gets intoxicated must, as far as his position permits, be excommunicated for thirty days, or corporally chastised. Cf. c. 13 of the Synod of Vannes, and c. 9, Dist. xxxv.

42. Clerics and laymen who meddle with the sortes sanctorum must be excluded from the church. Cf. c. 16 of the Synod of Vannes (sec. 211), and c. 2, C. xxvi. q. 5.

43. Whoever has undergone ecclesiastical penance is forbidden, in accordance with previous synodal ordinances (cf. sec. 112), to become a cleric. If he is already ordained, he shall be regarded like one who has married a second time, or a widow.—If a priest, he is not to consecrate; if a deacon, he is not to serve (see above, c. 1). Our canon is found out of place, and combined with the following one in Gratian, c. 3, C. xxvi. q. 6.

44. The priest must not bless the people and the penitents in the church. Cf. c. 3, C. xxvi. q. 6.

45. Small fields and vineyards which are of small use to the Church, and are situated at a distance, may be alienated by the bishop without consulting his brethren.—This is an abridgment of c. 7. Received by Gratian into c. 53, C. xii. q. 2.

46. Slaves also who have run away, and who, when recovered, can scarcely be retained, the bishop is at liberty to sell. Cf. c. 54, C. xii. q. 2.

47. On Sundays all laymen must be present at the whole Mass, so that they are not allowed to depart before the blessing. If, nevertheless, they do so, they shall be publicly censured by the bishop. Cf. c. 64, De Consecrat. Dist. i.

So far the genuine canons of the Synod of Agde extend. In addition, as we have remarked, there are others ascribed to this Synod, as follows:—

48. The bishop may leave to his heirs what belonged to him as private property. But what he received from the Church must remain to the Church. Cf. c. 19, C. xii. q. 1.

49. Deacons and priests who are appointed to a parish may not alienate anything of the ecclesiastical property intrusted to them. So with the sacerdotes (bishops). If, nevertheless, they do so, and if they are convicted of it in a Council, they are to be deposed, and they must make restitution. If, however, the bishops wish to give liberty to any belonging to the churches under their care (i.e. slaves which are Church property), they must in doing so follow the process prescribed by the Church. If they fail in this, they (who were freed) must return to their former service. Gratian divided this canon into two, c. 35 and c. 56, C. xii. q. 2.

50. If a bishop, priest, or deacon has committed a capital offence, has falsified a document, or given false witness, he shall be deposed, and imprisoned in a monastery, where for his whole life he shall receive only lay communion.—This is c. 22 of the Synod of Epaon (sec. 231), below, and is found in the Corpus jur. can. as c. 7, Dist. 1.

51. A bishop must not bequeath by will any Church property.—This is c. 17 of the Synod of Epaon, taken into the Corpus jur. can. as c. 5, C. xii. q. 5.

52. If a priest, or deacon, or any other cleric travels without a letter from his bishop, no one is to receive him to communion.—This is c. 6 of the Synod of Epaon.

53. If a parish priest (parochiarum presbyter) alienates any Church property, his act is invalid. Cf. c. 36, C. xii. q. 2.

54. The priest who administers a parish should allow what he purchases to be put down in the name of the Church, or he should resign the administration of the Church.—This is c. 8 of the Synod of Epaon, and is placed by Gratian as c. 3, C. xii. q. 4.

55. Bishops, priests, and deacons are not allowed to have hunting hounds and falcons. The bishop who does so shall abstain three months from the communion, the priest two months, the deacon shall be excluded for one month from all service and from the communion.—This is c. 4 of the Synod of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 2, Dist. xxxiv.

56. If an abbot sells anything without the bishop’s knowledge, it may be recovered by the bishop. Slaves who belong to monks must not be set free by the abbot; for it is unfitting that, whilst the monks daily till the ground, their servants should be idle.—This is a portion of the 8th canon of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 40, C. xvii. q. 4.

57. An abbot must not preside over two abbeys. Cf. above, c. 38 and c. 39 of Epaon; also c. 4, C. xxi q. 1.

58. New cells (small monasteries) or small congregations of monks may not be set up without the knowledge of the bishop.—This is c. 10 of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 13, C. xviii. q. 2.

59. If a cleric has possession of Church property ever so long, it does not become his private property.—This is c. 18 of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 11, C. xvi. q. 3.

60. Punishment of one who has lapsed from the Church and gone over to a heresy.—This is c. 29 of Epaon.

61. Incestuous unions are entirely prohibited. The different kinds of incest are enumerated in detail.—This is c. 30 of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 5, C. xxxv. q. 2 and 3.

62. = c. 34 of Epaon.

63. = c. 35 of Epaon.

64. If a cleric is not present in his church on the great festivals, he shall be excommunicated for three years; and so also the priest or deacon who leaves his church for three weeks. Cf. c. 29, C. vii. q. 1.

65. = c. 20 of Laodicea (in vol. ii.). In Gratian, c. 15, Dist. xciii.

66. Unordained servers must not take a place in the Diaconicum, nor touch the holy vessels. This is identical with c. 21 of Laodicea (vol. ii. p. 313); only that here the reference is only to insacratis ministris, whilst at Laodicea it is to servers (subdeacons) generally. Cf. c. 26, Dist. xxiii.

67. = c. 31 of Laodicea (vol. ii. p. 316).

68. = c. 36 of Laodicea (vol. ii. p. 318).

69. Agitators must never be ordained, nor yet usurers or such as have taken personal vengeance. Cf. c. 8, Dist. xlvi.

70. A cleric who makes a buffoon of himself, or talks obscenely must be discharged from his office. Cf. c. 6, Dist. xlvi.

71. Synods shall be held annually.

Some other canons supposed to proceed from the Synod of Agde are found in the Corpus jur. can. c. 25, Dist. lxxxvi.; c. 4, C. xiv. q. 3; and c. 12, C. ii. q. 4. Further, in the old collections of Ivo and Burchard, in Mansi, l.c. p. 338 sqq.

SEC. 223. Supposed Synod at Toulouse, Conciliabulum at Antioch, A.D. 507 and 508

Ruricius, the aged bishop of Lemovicum (Limoges), was not present at the Synod of Agde on account of bodily infirmity. From the correspondence which took place between him and the president of the Synod, Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, we learn that in the following year (507) a Synod was held at Toulouse (situated, like Agde, in the West Gothic kingdom), and that Spanish bishops also were invited to it. In consequence of this many, especially of the older historians, suppose a Synod of Toulouse to have been held A.D. 507, without giving any further information about it. But Baluze even in his time showed that such a Synod could not have been held, since at that very time the Frankish King Chlodwig overcame the Gothic King Alaric II. in war and killed him (507), so that the West Gothic kingdom, full of the noise of war, afforded no facility for peaceful discussions at Synods.

Theophanes gives us intelligence of an Antiochene Conciliabulum, A.D. 508 or 509. At the command of the Greek Emperor Anastasius, Flavian, archbishop of Antioch, had shortly before signed the infamous Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno (see vol. iii. sec. 208), and now assembled the bishops who were under him at a Synod, the decree of which, now lost, solemnly recognised the Synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, and Ephesus, but passed over that of Chalcedon in silence; pronounced anathemas over Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; and put forth four chapters (propositions), presumably the work of Acacius of Constantinople, which, in opposition to the doctrine of Chalcedon, combat the expression “in two natures.”

SEC. 224. First Synod of Orleans, A.D. 511

After Clovis (Chlodwig), king of the Franks, had conquered the portion of the West Gothic kingdom which lay in Gaul (507 and 508), he summoned a great Synod to Orleans, Aurelianensis I., on the 10th of July 511, at which there were present not only bishops of the Frankish, but also of the former West Gothic kingdom, altogether thirty two, among them five metropolitans, Cyprian of Bordeaux (probably president of the Synod), Tetradius of Bourges, Licinius of Tours, Leontius of Elusa (Eauze), and Gildared of Rouen. Many of those present had been members of the Synod of Agde, from which many canons were now repealed at Orleans. That Chlodwig had invited the bishops to the Synod is stated in the short preface which they prefixed to the minutes, and is clear also from the letter of the Synod to Chlodwig, which mentions that he had also prescribed the points on which they should take counsel, and that the bishops had asked for the confirmation of their decrees by the King. These were the thirty-one canons which followed:—

1. If murderers, adulterers, and thieves have taken refuge in the church, then, in accordance with canonical and Roman law, they are not to be taken from the porch of the church or the residence of the bishop until an assurance has been given by an oath on the Gospels that they shall be free from all punishments (de omni pænarum genere sint securi), on the condition that the guilty one shall give satisfaction to the injured party. Whoever breaks this oath shall be excluded from the Church and from all intercourse with Catholics. If, however, the offender will not agree to the demand laid down, and from fear flies from the church, then he shall not be required of the clergy of the church, that is, they shall not be held responsible for him. Gratian united this canon and the third as c. 36, C. xvii. q. 4, in his decree.

2. If anyone has ravished a woman and flies with her into the church (for asylum), then the ravished person, if she has been manifestly subjected to violence, must immediately be set at liberty. The ravisher, however, shall be secured for further punishment, and shall either be made a slave, or he must purchase his release from slavery. If, however, the maiden has either before or after the seduction consented to it, then she shall be sent back to her father if he is still alive, with an excuse (for her deed), and the ravisher must afford satisfaction to the father in the manner prescribed (i.e. become his slave, or purchase his freedom from him). In the Corpus jur. can. c. 3, C. xxxvi. q. 1.

3. If a slave has taken refuge in the church, he shall, if his master has taken the required oath (can. 1), be immediately sent back to him. If the master does not keep his oath, he shall be excluded from all intercourse with Catholics. If, however, the slave, in spite of his master having taken the oath for impunity, refuses to leave the church, then his master may remove him by force. Cf. c. 36, C. xvii. q. 4.

4. No layman is to be ordained a cleric except by command of the King, or with concurrence of the judge. Nevertheless, the sons and descendants of clerics shall remain in the power of the bishops (i.e. such may be ordained without permission from any other quarter).

5. The products of gifts and fields granted by the King to the Church, together with the immunity of the clergy, shall be expended on the repairs of churches, the maintenance of the clergy and the poor, or for the redemption of prisoners. Bishops who are negligent herein shall be publicly censured by the comprovincial bishops; and if this does not avail, they shall be excluded from the fellowships of their colleagues. (On the meaning of this expression, cf. vol. iii. p. 406, note
on can. 20 of Chalcedon).

6. Whoever makes claims upon a portion of the Church’s property, or of the bishop’s private property, but in a proper manner, without insults, is not from this circumstance alone to be excluded from Church communion. Cf. c. 20, C. ii. q. 7.

7. Abbots, priests, and all clerics and monks may not, without trial and recommendation by the bishop, solicit princes for ecclesiastical benefices. Whoever does so shall be deprived of his office and of communion until such time as he has done adequate penance.

8. If a slave, without knowledge of his master, has been ordained deacon or priest by the bishop to whom his servile condition was known, he shall remain in his clerical position, but the bishop must make double reparation for him to that master. But if the bishop was not aware of his being a slave, then the same compensation shall be made by those who gave testimony at his ordination (that he was free), or asked for his ordination. Cf. c. 19, Dist. liv.

9. If a deacon or priest has committed a capital offence, he shall be deprived of his office, and of communion at the same time. Cf. c. 14, Dist. lxxxi.

10. If heretical clerics return of their own accord to the Church, for instance, from the Arian Goths, they shall receive the clerical office of which the bishop has thought them worthy with ordination by imposition of hands; and heretical churches shall be consecrated in the same manner in which Catholic churches are wont to be reconciled (innovari).

11. Penitents (ascetics; cf. not on c. 15 of the Synod of Agde, sec. 506, above) who forget their vow and return to the secular life, shall be excluded from the communion, and from all intercourse with Catholics. Whoever eats with them is by that act excommunicated.

12. If a deacon or presbyter has entered among the penitents to do penance (see former canon), he may nevertheless, if need arises and no other clergy are at hand, baptize anyone. Cf. c. 14, Dist. lxxxi.

13. If the widow of a priest or deacon marries again, they shall both, she and her second husband, either be punished and separated, or, if they persist in their error, they shall together be excommunicated. Cf. c. 11, Dist. xxviii.

14. In accordance with the ancient canons, one-half of the oblations placed upon the altar shall belong to the bishop, the other half to the rest of the clergy. All fields, however, remain in the power (administration) of the bishop. Cf. c. 8, C. x. q. 1.

15. All that is presented to parishes in fields, vineyards, slaves, and cattle, remains, in accordance with the ancient canons, in the power (administration) of the bishop. From that which is offered on the altar, however, he receives the third part (i.e. of the offering in the parish churches he receives only the third part, of the offering in the cathedral, according to can. 14, the half). Cf. c. 7, C. x. q. 1.

16. The bishop shall give food and clothing to the poor or sick who can no longer work, as far as he can. Cf. c. 1, Dist. lxxxii

17. Churches, whether already built or yet to be built, can be recognised only with the consent of the bishop in whose diocese they lie. Cf. c. 10, C. xvi. q. 7.

18. No one may marry the widow of his brother, or the sister of his deceased wife. Cf. c. 61 of Agde.

19. Abbots are under the bishop; if they transgress, they will be punished by him; and once a year they must assemble at the place fixed by the bishop. Monks, however, owe reverent obedience to their abbot. If a monk acquires private property, the abbot shall take it from him and spend it for the convent. Monks who roam about shall, with the assistance of the bishop, be caught and brought back. The abbot who does not chastise such monks, or who receives a strange monk, is himself in fault. Cf. c. 16, C. xviii. q. 2.

20. A monk may not use an orarium (pocket-handkerchief) or shoes (tzangæ) in the monastery. Cf. c. 32, C. xxvii. q. 1.

21. If anyone has become a monk, and afterwards marries, he can never obtain an ecclesiastical office.—The second part of c. 32, C. xxvii. q. 1.

22. No monk may, without permission of the bishop and abbot, leave the monastery and build himself a cell. Cf. c. 38 of Agde, and c. 14, C. xviii. q. 2.

23. If a bishop gives any goods to clerics or monks for usufruct, there arises from this, however long it may be, no prescription. Cf. c. 59 of Agde, and c. 12, C. xvi. q. 3.

24. Before Easter there shall be kept, not a Quinquagesima, but a Quadragesima. Cf. c. 6, De Consecrat. Dist. iii.

25. No one must keep Easter, Christmas, or Pentecost in his villa unless he is sick. Cf. c. 21 of Agde, and c. 5, De Consecrat. Dist. iii.

26. The people must not leave the church before the end of Mass; and if a bishop is present, they shall first receive the blessing from him. Cf. c. 47 of Agde, and 65, De Consecrat. Dist. i.

27. All churches shall celebrate the Rogations, i.e. the Litanies before Ascension Day, so that the three days’ fast ends at the Festival of the Ascension. On these three days, all man-servants and maid-servants (slaves, male and female) shall be free from labour, so that all the people may come together (at divine service). Moreover, on these three days only such foods shall be used as are permitted in Lent. Cf. c. 3, De Consecrat. Dist. iii.

28. Clerics who do not take part in this holy work (the Rogations) shall be punished according to the judgment of the bishop. Cf. c. 5, Dist. xci.

29. In regard to intercourse with strange women, the bishops, priests, and deacons must observe the earlier canons (e.g., cc. 10 and 11 of Agde).

30. Fortune-telling, auguries, and sortes sanctorum are forbidden under pain of excommunication. Cf. c. 16 of Vannes, c. 42 of Agde, and c. 9, C. xxvi. q. 5.

31. A bishop, unless he is ill, must not fail in attendance at divine service on Sunday in the church which lies nearest to him. Cf. c. 4. De Consecrat. Dist. iii.

Besides these thirty-one genuine canons, several other doubtful ones are attributed to our Synod by Burchard, Gratian, and Ivo of Chartres, which Mansi collected, but which we have thought we might omit, as they are not found in the minutes of the Synod. Neither do we include a letter from King Chlodwig, said to have been addressed to this Synod, on the subject of the liberation of the Christians taken in the war with the West Goths. Sirmond showed long ago that this letter has no connection with our Synod, and is considerably older.

SEC. 225. Oriental Synods on the Monophysite Question

The opponents of the orthodox Chalcedonian faith carried on the conflict with greater violence at a Synod at Sidon in Palestine, A.D. 511 and 512, than at the Coneiliabulum of Antioch, recently mentioned. The well-known chronicler, Count Marcellinus, who was a contemporary, relates in his Chronicle (sub cons. Pauli et Mussiani), that, at the command of the Byzantine Emperor, Anastasius assembled about eighty unorthodox bishops at Sidon, in order to persecute the orthodox bishops. Flavian, patriarch of Antioch (who in the year 508 had shown himself weak), and John, bishop of Paltus (in Syria), because they rejected this sacrilegious assembly, were exiled into the fort of Petra, where Flavian died a confessor. John, however, was set free by Justin when he became Emperor. From another contemporary, the priest Cyril of Scythopolis, we learn that Soterichus, archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and Philoxenus Xenaias (sec. 208), bishop of Hierapolis, were the heads of this assembly, and endeavoured to bring about a rejection of the Synod of Chalcedon, and a confirmation of the doctrine of Eutyches and Dioscurus.

Soon afterwards, at another Conciliabulum of the Monophysites at Antioch, under the presidency of Xenaias, its adherent Severus (sec. 208) was chosen patriarch of Antioch. Another similar spurious Synod took place about the same time at Constantinople, in order to place in the patriarchal throne Timothy Colon or Litrobolus, who was not unfavourable to the heresy (sec. 208). In opposition to this advance of the Monophysites, the leaders of the monks in Palestine, after the orthodox Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem had been expelled by the Emperor Anastasius, held, in this city, A.D. 512, a kind of Synod for the defence of the orthodox faith.

SEC. 226. Two British Synods, A.D. 512 and 516

In the same year, 512, before the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, whilst these were involved in numerous and bloody feuds with the ancient Britons, and only the province of Wales fully retained Christianity, Bishop Dulricius of Llandaff in South Wales, at a British Synod, was elected archbishop of the Urbs Legionum on the river Isca (Caerleon on Usk), also in South Wales, and Theliaus was, in his stead, elected bishop of Llandaff.

Somewhat later, Dulricius is said to have resigned his bishopric, and gone into a convent. Thereupon, at a numerous assembly of the bishops and grandees of the kingdom, at the beginning of the reign of King Arthur, whose uncle, David, was raised to be archbishop of the Urbs Legionum, and the priest Chelian of Llandaff, with the assent of Hoel I., the British king in Armorica (Britanny in Gaul), was made bishop of Dola (S. Dol in Britanny). As the beginning of the reign of King Arthur, which, however, was only extended over particular parts of the old British kingdom, is generally placed in the year 516, so this synodus mixta (see vol. i. p. 4) would be assigned to the year 516. But the history of Arthur is too much involved in legends to enable us to assume anything here with certainty.

SEC. 227. Synod at Agaunum or S. Moritz between 515 and 523

The Arian King Gundobald of Burgundy had, as we know, become somewhat more favourably disposed to the true faith through the influence of the orthodox bishops of his kingdom, especially S. Avitus of Vienne, but was not yet entirely won over. His son and successor Sigismund had come back to the Church during his father’s lifetime, and gave evidence of his piety in various ways, but especially by restoring and enlarging the monastery of S. Moritz at Agaunum (now S. Maurice in the Swiss canton of Vallais), founded even before the times of Chlodwig (Clovis) in honour of the martyrs of the legion of the Thebaid, together with the church belonging to it. Marius Aventicensis assures us, in his Chronicle, that this building was undertaken (i.e. begun) under the consulate of Florentius and Anthemius, A.D. 515. When it was completed is unknown. In the fourth volume of Gallia Christiana, p. 12 sqq., an old document is given, frequently reprinted, the minutes of a Synod, according to which, after the completion of the building of the church in question, at Agaunum, a Synod was held in the presence of King Sigismund. In what year this took place cannot be ascertained with certainty. Remi Ceillier (l.c. p. 675) assumes that the building of the church was completed in 515, and so, that the Synod took place in the same year; but the authors of the Histoire littéraire de la France (t. iii. p. 89) the learned Benedictines, decide with preference for 517, and Pagi for 523. The latter knew, from the Chronicle of Marius Aventicensis, that King Sigismund had, in the year 522, caused Sigeric, his son by the first marriage, to be put to death at the instigation of his wicked stepmother. He read, moreover, in Gregory of Tours (Bk. iii. cc. 5 and 6) that the King, out of penitence for this deed, had withdrawn for a long time into the monastery of Agaunum, and had here instituted perpetual worship. Since, however, this perpetual worship was ordained at the Synod of which we are speaking, Pagi concluded that the holding of the Synod must be placed after this incident with Sigeric. He finds a confirmation of this supposition in the minutes of the Synod of Agaunum itself, since here almost at the beginning of the Synod, King Sigismund says to the bishops: “You must comfort me in my sorrow.” But all that the bishops bring forward has not the least reference to a sorrow of such a kind on the part of the, King but are exhortations to the Christian life generally; and the sorrow of Sigismund apparently had its ground only in this, that, after his renunciation of the Arian heresy, he had not yet come to a right knowledge of the way to please God.

But not only the date of the Synod of Agaunum is contestable, its very existence was called in question, first by the Bollandists (P. Chifflet) in the first volume of January (at January 6), and still more by Le Cointe (Annales Eccles. Francor. t. i. p. 227); but it has been defended by Mabillon (Annales Ord. Benedict. lib. i. s. 71), Pagi (ad ann. 522, n. 14 and 15), and Remi Ceillier (i.e. p. 675 sqq.). An intermediate view has been maintained by Professor Wagemann of Göttingen, who holds that the Acts of this Synod are certainly spurious, but that they contain a genuine nucleus.

The minutes consist of two parts: (a) the transactions of the bishops with the King and among themselves, and (b) a deed of gift of Sigismund, which was embodied in the minutes. At the beginning of the first part it is said that on the 30th of April the Council was held by sixty bishops and as many Comites. The conclusion, on the contrary, bears date the 15th of May, so that the Synod would have lasted sixteen days. As in the beginning of the first part, so also at the beginning of the second, the reference is made to sixty bishops and an equal number of counts; but in the subscriptions we find only three bishops and eight counts. The three bishops were Maximus of Geneva, Victor of Gratianopolis (Grenoble), and Viventiolus of Lyons. Besides these in the minutes we come upon a fourth as orator, Theodore, bishop of Sedun (Sitten or Sim in the Canton Vallais), so that it is clear the subscriptions, as we now have them, are not complete. This is clear also from the fact that they do not mention Avitus of Vienne, who, however, preached at this solemnity at Agaunum. The sermon itself is lost, but its title is found among the works of Avitus. But Le Cointe made serious objection to the number of sixty, and remarked with propriety that the whole Burgundian kingdom had for a long time not numbered so many bishops, but only twenty-seven. Consequently he brings into doubt the genuineness of our document. But it is possible that the number lx. may have been put by an error for the number ix., as Pagi thinks, or it may be supposed that a number of neighbouring bishops from other territories had come to be present at the great solemnity instituted by the King.

When all the bishops were assembled, King Sigismund was the first to speak, and expressed his conviction that this assembly would enjoy the divine assistance. At his wish the bishops set before him, through the mouth of Maximus of Geneva, the leading rules of Christian morality in the most condensed form; and after this was done, and all who were present (among whom were many of the laity) had expressed their approval of the statement made by Maximus, Bishop Theodore of Sitten proposed for discussion the question, What should be done with the bodies of the martyrs of the Thebaid, Maurice and his companions, who were buried here; that is to say, whether and how they should be removed into the new church, as it was not in their power to do according to their deserts, and build a particular church for each one? The King exclaimed: “Oh that I could only be the fellow of these saints!” The bishops, however, decided, after lengthy consultation, that only those of the martyrs whose names were known, Maurice, Exuperius, Candidus, and Victor, should be placed within the new basilica, and that the other bodies should be placed together in another secure and suitable place; that a sacred watch (of priests) should be given to them; and that, day and night, unceasingly, the office should be sung at their grave. At the same time Hymnemundus was appointed by the bishops and the King as abbot over the monastery of S. Maurice. In order to carry on the perpetual psalmody the monks were to be divided into nine bands (normæ), who should in their turn keep up the singing of the canonical Hours. The king approved of this arrangement.

This perpetual psalmody is the second reason for Le Cointe’s declaring the whole document spurious, because, as he thinks, this custom was at that time wholly unknown in the West, and was only at a later period borrowed from the Akoimetæ of the East. Mabillon, however, and after him Pagi and Remi Ceillier, showed that, in the sixth and seventh centuries, uninterrupted psalmody had been introduced into several monasteries in France, for example, into S. Denis by Dagobert the Great, and this, as the documents affirm, in imitation of the institution of Agaunum.

The institution of the perpetual psalmody rendered it necessary that a new rule should be drawn up for the monks of Agaunum, different from that of the other monasteries; for it was plain that they would be unable to discharge many of the duties and labours prescribed to the latter. The Synod, however, decided not to go into full details on the subject, but delegated this to the personal discretion of the Abbot Hymnemundus, and made only a few regulations, namely—That for each of the nine divisions of the monks a dean should be appointed; that the clothing should be adapted to the temperature of the monastery; that there should be only one dormitory, only one refectory, and only one heated chamber provided; that no monk should go out without the permission of the president; that the abbot for the time being should be sufficiently instructed in the Old and New Testaments that he might be able to edify others, and that when need required, the abbot should have recourse to the apostolic see.

The second part of the minutes, as we have remarked, contains the deed of gift of Sigismund, in which he says that he grants ad luminaria vel stipendia monachorum, i.e. for the support of the monks and for the salvation of his own soul, to the monastery of Agaunum certain goods and possessions in the districts of Lyons, Vienne, Grenoble, Aosta (in Piedmont), Geneva, Aventicum, (Avenche), Lausanne, Besançon, etc., together with all that appertained to them in houses, slaves, freedmen, forests, vineyards, etc.

SEC. 228. Synods in Illyria and Epirus, and at Lyons, in the years 515 and 516

Theophanes in his Chronicle, and after him Anastasius in his Church History, relate that in the year 515 forty bishops of Illyria and Greece assembled in a Synod and here renounced their metropolitan, the archbishop of Thessalonica, because he had gone over to the side of the Monophysites from fear of the Emperor Anastasius, and had entered into Church communion with Timothy of Constantinople (see above, sec. 225). At the same time, they sent ambassadors to the Pope, and confirmed in writing their communion with the Roman Church.

In the following year, 516, another Synod was held south from Illyria in the province of old Epirus—Epirus proper, since Epirus Nova is Illyris Græca. This Synod made over to John the metropolitan see of Nicopolis, rendered vacant by the death of Alcyson. John immediately sent the deacon Rufinus with the news of his appointment to Pope Hormisdas to Rome, and assured him in a letter, which is still extant, that he venerated the four Councils of Nicæa, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, whereas he anathematised Dioscurus, Timothy Ælurus, and other heads of the Monophysites, and perfectly conformed to the letters of Leo I. The Pope was requested to prescribe to him more fully what he should observe and from what he should keep aloof. A second letter was addressed by the collective members of the Synod (seven bishops besides the Metropolitan John) to the Pope, in which they acquaint him with the death of Alcyson and the election of John, on whose zeal for the orthodox cause, and on whose obedience to Rome, they lay special stress. In conclusion, they ask the papal recognition of John.

Hormisdas answered them, in November 516, by three letters. The first, addressed to the new Archbishop John, of date November 15, 516, exhorts generally to steadfastness in orthodoxy, and at the conclusion, for more particular instruction as to the manner in which John should receive those who should return to the Church, he remarks that an Indiculus was added. What this was composed of will be shown further on; at present the remark suffices, that many of John’s suffragans had lately taken the side of the unecclesiastical party, the Monophysites or Henoticans, as we see from the words quoted above, and from the letter of the Pope to the Synod presently to be described. In the second letter to John, of date November 19, 516, thus only a few days later, request is made that the new archbishop will obtain the subscription of all his bishops to a Libellus appended by the Pope, stating that Homisdas will send the Roman subdeacon Pulion to Nicopolis with these letters and other documents. This Libellus is in no way identical with the previously mentioned Indiculus. It is, in fact, nothing else than that confession of faith, Regula Fidei, with anathematisms over Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscurus, etc., which the bishops of Epirus, on March 18 of the following year, sent to the Pope with their subscriptions.

This confession, so well known afterwards, under the title Formula Hormisdæ, and the often quoted Regula Fidei at the latest Vatican Council, runs thus: “Prima salus est, regulam rectæ fidei custodire et a constitutis patrum nullatenus deviare. Et quia non potest Domini nostri Jesu Christi prætermitti sententia dicentis: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam, etc.; hæc quæ dicta sunt rerum probantur effectibus, QUIA IN SEDE APOSTOLICA IMMACULATA EST SEMPER SERVATA RELIGIO.

“Ab hac ergo spe et fide separari minime cupientes et patrum sequentes in omnibus constituta, anathematizamus omnes hæreticos præcipue Nestorium hæreticum qui quondam Constantinopolitanæ fuit urbis Episcopus damnatus in concilio Ephesino a Cælestino papa urbis Romæ, et a sancto Cyrillo Alexandrinæ civitatis antistite; una cum ipso anathematizantes Eutychetem et Dioscorum Alexandrinum in sancta synodo, quam sequimur et amplectimur, Chalcedonensi damnatos; his Timotheum adjicientes parricidam, Ælurum cognomento, et discipulum quoque ejus atque sequacem Petrum vel Acacium, qui in eorum communionis societate permansit; quia quorum se communioni miscuit, illorum similem meruit in damnatione sententiam; Petrum nihilominus Antiochenum damnantes cum sequacibus suis et omnium suprascriptorum. Quapropter suscipimus et approbamus omnes Epistolas Leonis papæ universas, quas de religione Christiana conscripsit.


The third letter of the Pope, like the second, dated November 19, 516, is directed to the Synod of Epirus. He expresses his pleasure that the bishops of that country, although somewhat late, had returned to the orthodox doctrine, and explains clearly that not only Eutyches, but also Dioscurus, Timothy (Ælurus), Peter, Acacius, and other later heads of the anti-ecclesiastical party (also the Henoticans) were to be rejected and to be abhorred. He could have wished that the bishops in their letters on all these people had expressed themselves as clearly as their Metropolitan John had done in his letter to the Pope. As, however, they had not done this, they were to subscribe the Libellus appended.

Finally, we have another document of Pope Hormisdas belonging to this time, the Indiculus already mentioned. It is addressed, not to Archbishop John, but to the Roman subdeacon Pulion, whom the Pope sent as his Nuntius to Epirus, and has the following content: If the archbishop of Nicopolis has received the papal letters, he should assemble the bishops of his parochia (here meaning province) and make them subscribe the Libellus appended. If, however, the archbishop should regard this as too troublesome, he could select some men who should accompany the Nuntius to the different bishops, that they might subscribe in his presence. Pulion was also to take care that the papal letters should be read before all the people, at least before the clergy.

To the same year, 516, belongs also a Synod at Lyons, of which we know nothing more than its existence, and that Avitus of Vienne and Bishop Chartenius (his see unknown) were present. And so much we owe to the twenty-eighth letter of Avitus.

SEC. 229. Synods at Tarragona, A.D. 516, and at Gerunda, A.D. 517

In the sixth year of King Theoderic, that is, when the famous East Gothic King, Theoderic the Great, acted as guardian to his grandson Amalric, the West Gothic King in Spain, then a minor under the consulate of Peter (A.D. 516), on the 6th of November the Synod of Tarragona was held in the name of Christ. So we read in the short preface to the Chapters on Canons passed by the Synod. There were present, as the subscriptions show, Archbishop John of Tarragona, the president of the Synod, and his suffragans Paul of Impuriä (Empuriä), Frontinian of Gerunda, Agritius (Agröcius) of Barcelona, Ursus of Dertosa, Camidius (or Einidius) of Ansona, and Nibridius of Egara. Besides these, there are named from other ecclesiastical provinces, Orontius of Illiberis (unless it should be Ilerdita, which lay in the province of Tarragona), Vincentius of Cæsar-Augusta (Saragossa), and Hector of Carthagina, which is mentioned as metropolis. By this is meant only its dignity as civil metropolis of the Provincia Cathaginiensis established in Spain by Diocletian; in its ecclesiastical position Carthagina belonged to the province of Toledo.

These ten bishops decreed as follows:—

1. Those clerics and monks who are allowed to support their relatives may give them what is necessary, but they must put an end to their visits to them as soon as possible, and not live with them. At these visits they must always take an approved witness with them. If a cleric acts in opposition to this command, he shall lose his office; and a monk shall be imprisoned in his cell, and do penance on bread and water.

2. No cleric shall engage in buying cheap and selling dear. Taken from Gratian, c. 3, C. xiv. q. 4.

3. If a cleric has lent money to anyone in need, on condition of being indemnified for it by wine or fruit at the time when these are wont to be sold, and the debtor has not the necessary supply, the lender shall receive back the loan without any increase. See Corpus jur. can. c. 5, C. xiv. q. 4.

4. No bishop, or presbyter, or cleric shall sit in judgment on Sunday. They may, however, settle quarrels on other days, with exception of criminal cases. Cf. c. 1, C. xv. q. 4.

5. If anyone is consecrated bishop, not in the metropolitan city, i.e. not by the metropolitan himself, but with his consent, he must present himself before the metropolitan within two months, in order to receive his more personal directions. Cf. c. 8, Dist. lxv.

6. If a bishop, notwithstanding the admonition of the metropolitan, fails to come to a Synod without being hindered by serious illness, he must be excluded from the communio charitatis with the other bishops until the next Council. See vol. iii. p. 405, not and c. 14, Dist. xviii.

7. If a priest and a deacon are appointed to a rural church (ecclesia dioecesana, cf. sec. 222, canon 54, not together with other clerics, those two shall take weeks in turn. In the one week the priest, in the other the deacon, shall provide for divine service, which must daily consist of matins and vespers. On Saturday, however, all the clerics must appear at vespers, so as to be the more certain to be present on Sunday. In some churches, in consequence of the absence of the clergy, even the lights are not provided.

8. Since it is known that many rural churches (ecclesiæ dioecesanæ) are in a bad state, the bishop, in accordance with the ancient practice, should visit these churches every year. If they are out of repair, they should be repaired, since, according to ancient custom, the bishop receives the third part (of all the oblations) from all rural churches. Cf. c. 15 of the Synod of Orleans (A.D. 511), above, and c. 10, C. x. q. 1.

9. If a lector should marry an adulteress, or continue in matrimony with her, he must be excluded from the clergy unless he leaves the adulteress. So with an ostiarius. A different translation of our canon is given by Remi Ceillier (l.c. p. 679), Richard (Analysis Concil. t. i. p. 690), and others, viz.: “If a lector or ostiarius shall marry, or continue in matrimony with his wife when she is an adulteress,” etc. This translation, in my opinion, does violence to the Latin text. It runs: “Si quis lectorum adulteræ mulieri voluerit misceri, vel adhærere consortio; aut relinquat adulteram, aut a clero habeatur extraneus. Similis sententia ostiarorum manebit scholam” (i.e. class, division. Cf. Du Cange, Glossar. s.v.).

10. No cleric may (like secular judges) accept presents for his work (as judge), except what, as freewill offering, is brought into the church. Cf. c. 1, C. xv. q. 2.

11. Monks must discharge no ecclesiastical function outside their monastery, unless at the command of the abbot. And none of them must undertake a secular employment, unless for the use of the monastery. Cf. c. 35, C. xvi. q. 1.

12. When a bishop has died, after his funeral a list of all the property he has left shall be made by the priests and deacons. Cf. c. 6, C. xii. q. 5.

13. The metropolitan should exhort his suffragans to bring with them to the Synods (provincial Synods), not only priests of the cathedral church, but also rural priests (de dioecesanis), and some laymen.

In the same ecclesiastical province of Tarragona another Synod was held in the following year, June 8, 517, in the suffraganal city of Gerunda, at which Archbishop John of Tarragona again presided, and six other bishops were present, evidently those whom we have already met as members of the previous Council: Frontinian of Gerunda, Paul of Empuriä, Agritius of Barcelona, Nibridius of Egara, Orontius (of Ilerdita), and Einielus (perhaps Einidius or Canidius) of Ausona. They drew up ten resolutions:—

1. The order of the Mass, as well as the manner of church song and of altar service, shall in the whole province be the same as in the metropolitan church.

2. After Pentecost, in the following week, on the three days from Thursday to Saturday, the first litanies (Rogations, see above, sec. 224, c. 27) shall be celebrated with fasting. Cf. the following canon.

3. The second litanies shall be said from the 1st of November (again for three days). If, however, one of these three days is Sunday, the litanies must be changed to another week. They shall begin on Thursday and end on Saturday evening after Mass (Vesper Mass, see above, secs. 219 and 222). On these days there must be abstinence from flesh and wine.

4. Catechumens are to be baptized only at Easter and Pentecost. To the sick alone baptism may be administered at any time. Taken into the Corpus jur. can. c. 15, De Consecrat. Dist. iv.

5. When newborn children are sick, as is often the case, and have no appetite for the mother’s milk, they should be baptized at once, on the same day.

6. If married men are ordained, they must, from the subdeacon to the bishop, no longer live with their wives. If they will not, however, live (alone), then they must have with them a brother as assistant, and as witness of their conduct.

7. If an unmarried man is ordained, he must not have his house managed by a woman, but by a manservant or friend, or by his mother or sister, if he has such.

8. If a layman, after his wife (i.e. after her death), has known any other woman (free or a slave), he must not afterwards be received into the clergy. Cf. c. 8, Dist. xxxiv.

9. If, in a sickness, anyone has received the benedictio pœnitentiæ, called the Viaticum, by means of the communion; and if, after recovery, he has not been required to do public penance in the church, he may be received into the clergy, if he has otherwise had no irregularity (si prohibitis vitiis non detinetur obnoxious). Remi Ceillier (l.c. p. 683) and Richard (Analysis Concil. t. i. p. 491) translate these words incorrectly, “if he is not convicted of the offence charged against him.”

10. Daily, after matins and vespers, the Lord’s Prayer is to be said by the priest (bishop). Cf. c. 14, De Consecrat. Dist. v.

SEC. 230. Two Gallican Synods between 514 and 517

About the same time two Synods were held in Gaul, of which only quite scanty information has reached us. The one must have been held in the year 514, probably at Reims. Hincmar of Reims in his Vita S. Remigii, and after him Flodoard in his History of the Church of Reims (lib. i. c. 19), relate that all the bishops present had greeted the holy archbishop, S. Remigius of Reims, at his entrance into the assembly, by reverently standing, with the exception of an insolent Arian. This man, they say, consequently, by a miracle, immediately lost his speech, and received it again through Remigius as soon as he was disposed to confess the orthodox faith.

The other Council, Cenomanicum, held at Le Mans, in France, in the year 516 or 517, confirmed the donations which a rich Christian, Harigar, with his family, had made for the building of a monastery in honorem S. Mariœ et SS. Martyrum Gervasii et Protasii, in the diocese of Le Mans.

SEC. 231. Synod at Epaon, in Burgundy, A.D. 517

We have seen (sec. 227) that King Sigismund of Burgundy, after he had returned to the orthodox faith, summoned the bishops of his kingdom to a Synod at Agaunum. A second Synod he held a short time afterwards at Epaon, evidently with the purpose of improving church discipline in his kingdom, and to bring back the earlier ecclesiastical ordinances. It began probably on September 6, 517, since for this day the bishops were summoned to Epaon, as we learn from the letter of convocation of Avitus of Vienne (see below). The meeting came to an end September 15, 517, as is expressly set forth in the subscriptions of the bishops at the end of the minutes.

At the head of the assembled bishops stood Avitus. Besides him we find, in the subscriptions, the names of the bishops Viventiolus of Lyons, Silvester of Cabillonum (Chalons on the Saone, or, if we are to read Cabilicensis, then Cavaillon, in the Department of Vaucluse), Gemellus of Vaison, Apollinaris of Valence, Valerius of Sistaricum (Sisteron), Victurius of Grenoble, Claudius of Besançon, Gregory of Langres, Pragmatius of Autun, Constantius of Octodurum (Martigni, in the Canton Vallais), Catulinus of Ebredunum (Embrun), Sanctus of Tarantasia (Moustiers, in Tarantaise, in Savoy), Maximus of Geneva, Bubuleus of Vindonissa, Sæculatius of Dea (S. Dié, in the neighbourhood of Valence), Julian of Carpentras, Constantius of Vapincum (Gap, in the Department of Hautes Alpes), Florence of Orange, a second Florence of Tricastina (Paul de trois Chateaux, in the Department of Drôme), Philagrius of Cavaillon, Venantius of the Civitas Albensium or Alba Augusta (now Viviers or Albe, in the Department of Herault), Prætextatus of Apt (Department Vaucluse), Turicianus of Nevers, and the priest Peladius of Aventicum (now Avenche), as representative of his bishop, Salutaris. Reckoning Avitus, there were thirty-four bishops and one priest. Where Epaon or Epaunum was situated, or under what name it may now be identified, we can no longer decide with certainty; and on this subject the most conflicting suggestions have been proposed, and whole dissertations written. It is most probable that Epaona is to be sought in the neighbourhood of Agaunum (S. Maurice in the Canton Vallais), and that in the year 563 it was buried by a landslip under Mons Tauretunensis, in the neighbourhood of Tarnada. Somewhat further back in the valley lies Evienna, to which the remaining inhabitants of Epaona may have withdrawn.

The Synod of Epaon was summoned by the two metropolitans of Burgundy, Avitus of Vienne and Viventiolus of Lyons, and we still possess copies of their letter of convocation to the suffragans. That of Avitus is addressed to Bishop Quintian. As, however, this bishop occupied the chair of Clermont, in Auvergne, and belonged neither to the ecclesiastical province of Vienne nor to the Burgundian kingdom, Sirmond suggested in his edition of the works of Avitus, that the direction to Quintian and the letter of convocation to the suffragans are not properly connected, but that the letter to Quintian has been lost, and that the direction of that letter has been improperly prefixed to the other document.

In this letter of invitation Avitus says: “The old canons ordain that two provincial Synods shall be held annually; but it would be well if at least one should take place every two years.” The Pope of the venerable city (Rome) had reproached him, that this institution had hitherto been so greatly neglected (in Burgundy). He therefore requested all his brethren to appear in the parochia of Epaon on the 6th of September, or if anyone were hindered by sickness, to send two approved priests as representatives, who should be able to counsel the Synod.

A similar letter was despatched by Archbishop Viventiolus of Lyons, in which he said that, besides the bishops, clerics were also required to come to the Synod, and laymen were permitted to come; and that perfect impartiality and liberty of speech should prevail.

Another document belonging to the Council of Epaon bears the title Proœmium, and is nothing but the introduction to a speech made by one of the bishops or priests present at the request of the members of the Synod, probably at the opening solemnities of the meeting. With many words there is only one thought in this speech, that the speaker was peculiarly unworthy and unfit to speak before such an assembly; but that he did so because he had been ordered, in order at least thus to edify others by obedience. This shows that the Proœmium could not possibly have been—what is suggested in the Histoire lit. de la France, l.c. p. 92—a kind of preface which the cleric intrusted with the editing of the canons had put as introduction to them. We find, however, a kind of preface in the five lines under the heading Præfatio, explaining that the bishops assembled, by the grace of God, at Epaon had drawn up the following (forty) Titles:—

1. If a metropolitan summons his suffragans to a Synod, or for the consecration of a brother, no one shall be allowed to excuse himself except in case of serious illness.

2. The apostolical prohibition, that no one married a second time, and also no one who has married a widow, should be ordained priest or deacon, must be enjoined anew.

3. One who has undergone Church penance cannot become a cleric.

4. Bishops, priests, and deacons must not keep hounds or falcons. A bishop who transgresses this prohibition must be excluded from communion for three months, a priest two, and a deacon one month. Cf. sec. 222, c. 55.

5. No priest must undertake Church services at the oratories or basilicas of another diocese, unless his own bishop has resigned him to the other bishop. If a bishop allows one of his clergy to officiate illicite in a strange diocese, he is responsible for it.

6. If a priest or deacon travelling is without a letter from his bishop, no one shall give him communion. See above, sec. 222, c. 52.

7. If a priest in a parish sells any of the Church property, this shall be invalid, and the purchaser must restore it.

8. The priest who administers a diocese (rural church, see above, sec. 222, c. 54), must have what he buys put down in the name of the Church, or resign the administration of the Church. If an abbot sells anything without the previous knowledge of the bishop, it may be demanded back by the bishop. Slaves who belong to the monks must not be set free by the abbot, for it is unreasonable that, whilst the monks daily cultivate the field, their servants should go at liberty idle. See above, sec. 222, c. 56.

9. An abbot must not have two monasteries under him. See sec. 222, c. 57.

10. New cells (small monasteries) or congregations of monks must not be set up without knowledge of the bishop. See above, sec. 222, c. 58.

11. Without permission of the bishop no cleric must begin a process in a secular court. If, however, he is himself sued, he may present himself before the secular tribunal. Cf. c. 32 of Agde, sec. 32.

12. No bishop may sell any Church property without previous knowledge of his metropolitan. Useful exchange, however, is allowed.

13. If a cleric is proved to have given false testimony, he is to be treated as a capital offender. See above, sec. 222, c. 50.

14. If a cleric has received anything from his Church, he must restore it, if he is consecrated bishop in another diocese. What, however, he has bought by deed with his property, he may retain.

15. If a higher cleric has taken part in a banquet of a heretical cleric, he must be excluded from the Church for a year. Younger clerics who do the same shall be beaten. But at the banquets of Jews, even a layman must not partake, and anyone who has done so once, may not again eat with a cleric.

16. If sick heretics are willing to be converted, their priests may grant them the chrism. If, however, the penitent recover, he must receive it from the bishop.

17. If a bishop has devised by will anything which belongs to the Church, this is invalid, unless he has given in return as much of his private property. Cf. above, sec. 222, c. 51.

18. If a cleric has in possession, however long, any Church property, even with the will of the king, it cannot by any length of time become his property if it is demonstrably the Church’s. Cf. above, c. 59 of Agde, sec. 222.

19. If an abbot has committed an offence, and will not admit the successor appointed by the bishop, the matter must come before the metropolitan.

20. It is forbidden to bishops, priests, and deacons, and to all clerics generally, to pay visits to women in the midday and evening hours. If, however, such a visit is necessary, a priest or cleric must be taken as witness.

21. The dedication of deaconesses shall be given up throughout the whole kingdom. Only the benedictio pœnitentiæ may be given to them, if they go back (i.e. lay aside the votum castitatis). On the expression benedictio pœnitentiæ, see above, sec. 229, c. 9.

22. If a bishop, priest, or deacon has committed a capital offence, he must be deposed and confined in a monastery, where, all his life, he receives only lay communion. In the text is here lacking the word laica to qualify communio, whilst it stands correctly in the pretended 50th canon of Agde. See sec. 222.

23. Anyone who has laid aside the vow of penitence, and has returned to secular business, must not at all be admitted to communion until he has returned again to his vow. Cf. c. 11 of the first Synod of Orleans, sec. 224.

24. Laymen may bring criminal accusations against clerics of every rank, if they speak the truth. Cf. c. 6 of the first Synod of Orleans, sec. 224.

25. Holy relics must not be placed in private oratories, if there are no clerics of a parish in the neighbourhood to sing psalms frequently over the sacred bones. Special clerics (for such oratories) must not, however, be appointed until sufficient has been provided for their food and clothing.

26. Altars which are not of stone are not to be dedicated with the anointing of chrism.—Received with the following canon into the Corpus jur. can. as 31; De Consecrat. Dist. i.

27. The ordering of divine service by the metropolitan shall be observed in his entire province. Cf. c. 1 of the Synod of Gerunda, sec. 229.

28. If a bishop dies before he has absolved one who has been condemned (excommunicated) by him, his successor shall do so.—The correct explanation of this canon results from what has been said in vol. i. of this history, p. 159 and 470.

29. If anyone has fallen from the Church into a heresy since the ancient stringency has been modified, he may be received back on the following conditions:—He must do penance for two years, and fast every third day during this time; he must often frequent the church, stand in the place of penitents, and leave divine service along with the catechumens. Cf. above the pretended c. 60 of Agde, sec. 222.

30. Incestuous unions are in no wise to be pardoned before they are again sundered. Besides those crimes which one does not dare to mention, there are others incestuous, such as the following unions: If anyone connects himself with his brother’s widow, or with his own dead wife’s sister, or with his stepmother, or with his consobrina or sobrina (child or grandchild of a brother or sister). Such marriages are from henceforth forbidden; but those already concluded we do not dissolve. Further, if anyone connects himself with the widow of his uncle (on the mother or father’s side), or with his stepdaughter, in such cases those who shall effect such a union must be again dissolved, and have liberty to enter upon a better marriage. Cf. c. 61 of Agde.

31. In regard to the penance of murderers who have escaped secular judgment, the canons of Ancyra (21 and 23) are valid. Cf. vol. i. p. 220 f.

32. If the widow of a priest or deacon marries again, she and her husband will be excluded from communion until they separate. Cf. c. 13 of the first Synod of Orleans, sec. 224.

33. The churches of heretics we so greatly abhor, that we consider them not even capable of being cleansed, and they must never be turned to sacred uses. Only where they have been previously Catholic churches, and have been taken from us by violence, will we reconcile them.—This ordinance stands in opposition to the last part of c. 10 of the first Synod of Orleans, sec. 224.

34. If anyone has killed his slave without permission of the judge, he must be excommunicated for two years.

35. Laymen of high descent must request benediction from the bishop at Easter and Christmas, wherever they may be (that is even in strange dioceses).

36. No sinner, if he repents and amends, is to be denied the hope of being received back. If he is sick the time of penitence may be shortened. If he recovers after reception of the Viaticum, he must complete his appointed time of penitence. Cf. c. 13 of Nicæa, vol. i. p. 419.

37. No layman may become a cleric nisi religione præmissa. Religio is not identical here with vita monastica, but with the related idea conversio, i.e. professio castitis. See above, sec. 222, c. 16, not

38. Only women of proved character and of advanced age may enter into women’s convents in order to render any kind of services there. Priests who go into such convents, in order to say Mass, must leave again directly after completing divine service. Otherwise no cleric or young monk may visit a woman in a convent, unless he is her father or her brother.

39. If a slave, who has a serious charge against him, flees into the church, he shall be preserved only against bodily punishment (death, mutilation, and the like), and no oath shall be demanded from his master that he has not condemned him to cutting hair or any other work.

40. The bishops who have subscribed these statutes, and their successors, must know that they charge themselves with great responsibility before God and their brethren if they do not carefully follow them.

Two further canons, ascribed to the Synod of Epaon, are found in Gratian, c. 11, C. xxvi. q. 6, and Egbert of York. The former says: If an excommunicated man, who has already confessed his offence, and has a good witness, suddenly dies, his relations (parentes) must bring the oblation to the altar for him, and give a contribution for the redemption of prisoners. The other is identical with c. 58 of Laodicea. See vol. ii. p. 322.

SEC. 232. Synod at Lyons, A.D. 517

Sometime after the close of the Synod of Epaon, eleven of the bishops who had been present there celebrated a Synod at Lyons, under the presidency of the Archbishop Viventiolus. Before this, at Epaon, it had been thought necessary to renew the ecclesiastical statutes with respect to incestuous marriages. The matter was practical, for Stephen, the chief fiscal in the Burgundian kingdom, had, after the death of his wife, married her sister Palladia. It was specially against him that the 30th canon of Epaon had been drawn up. The same matter came up for discussion again at Lyons. An ancient biography of S. Apollinaris of Valence, who had been at the Council of Epaon, and was a full brother of Avitus, relates that Stephen was expelled from Church communion by a Synod in the presence of Avitus and Apollinaris, on account of which the King was thrown into a violent passion. The bishops, however, had hereupon betaken themselves to the neighbourhood of Lyons, as into exile. Here in Lyons they celebrated the Synod of which we have now to speak. The Council, however, which excommunicated Stephen in the presence of Avitus and his brother, is certainly none other than that of Epaon. It is impossible here to think of our Synod at Lyons, for neither Avitus nor Apollinaris was present at this. Besides, we can see from the six canons of the Synod of Lyons, that the relations between King Sigismund and his bishops had become somewhat better, but were still uncertain. The canons run as follows:—

1. In the name of the Trinity, assembled for the second time on account of the incest of Stephen, we decided that the judgment unanimously pronounced by us at an earlier period against him, and her who was improperly united to him, should remain in undiminished force. The same shall be done to other persons who may fall into the same transgression.

2. If anyone of us must, for this reason, suffer affliction from the (secular) power, we all suffer in common with him. And if any suffers losses, the participation of his brethren will lighten them.

3. If the King (enraged with the bishops because of this matter) of his own accord separates himself from the Church and from communion with the bishops, we give him the opportunity of returning again into the bosom of his Mother. Let all the bishops speedily withdraw into the monasteries, until the King, moved by the prayers of the saints, restores peace again. And no bishop must leave his monastery until the King has restored peace to all the bishops without exception.

4. No bishop must intrude into the diocese of another, or wrest parishes away from him. And even when a bishop is travelling, another must not offer the sacrifice or take ordinations in his place.

5. As long as a bishop lives, no one shall come forward as his successor. If this should happen, and anyone be consecrated as successor, he shall suffer perpetual excommunication, and also the bishops who have consecrated him.

6. Following the view of the King, we have allowed this modification, that Stephen, together with Palladia, may remain in the church up to the prayer of the people, which is offered after the Gospel.

These canons were subscribed by Archbishop Viventiolus of Lyons, and Bishops Julian, Silvester, Apollinaris, Victurius, Claudius, Gregory, Maximus, Seculatius, Florence, and Philagrius. Some further canons were ascribed to our Synod by Burchard of Worms and Ivo, which Mansi (l.c. p. 571 sq.) has collected. Pagi remarked correctly (ad. ann. 517, n. 10) that this Synod is improperly called Lugdunensis I., and that it should more properly be called the second of Lyons, since an earlier one of A.D. 516 is known to us. Cf. sec. 228.

SEC. 233.—Synods at Constantinople, Jerusalem, Tyre, Syria, Rome, and Epirus, in connection with the Monophysites, A.D. 518–520

We have frequently met the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius as an enemy of the Chalcedonian doctrine, who endeavoured by violence to carry through the unhappy half-and-half Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, and in his later years came nearer and nearer to complete Monophysitism. Two patriarchs, Euphemius and his successor Macedonius of Constantinople, were deposed by him in the year 496 and 511 because they would not enter into his plans. But neither cunning nor violence succeeded in leading astray even the inmates of the residence, and as soon as the Emperor died, July 9, 518, and the Præfector Prætorio Justin, a man of low origin, but full of talent and insight, and devoted to orthodoxy, had been elected as his successor, the people streamed in masses into the cathedral and demanded that the Eutychians and their supporters (called by the people Manichæans), particularly Severus of Antioch, should be excommunicated; that the patriarch should publicly declare his adhesion to the Council of Chalcedon; and that the names of Pope Leo and of the two patriarchs, Euphemius and Macedonius, should be restored to the diptychs, from which Anastasius had caused them to be removed.

The Patriarch John the Cappadocian, who had recently succeeded to the heretical Timothy, although inwardly orthodox, in order to pacify the Emperor Anastasius, had rejected the Council of Chalcedon, but now found it advisable, on two days, at the repeated urgent demand of the people, to declare that he recognised the Council of Chalcedon, and would immediately appoint a solemnity in its honour (see below); that he anathematised Severus, and so forth. Moreover, on the second day he caused the names of Leo, of Euphemius, and Macedonius, as well as the titles of the first four Œcumenical Synods, to be read aloud from the diptych, at the solemn Mass. The people had also demanded the holding of a Synod, that the results now demanded from John might be confirmed in a canonical manner; and the patriarch summoned the bishops who were then present in Constantinople and in the neighbourhood, to the number of forty-three or forty-four, to a σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα a on July 20, 518. He does not himself appear to have been present; for not only did the Synod send its decrees to him in writing, but in this synodal letter it is expressly said that the patriarch’s plenipotentiary had laid the whole matter before the bishops for their consideration and decision. This synodal letter itself, as well as all the other documents belonging to it, are found in the Acts of a later Constantinopolitan Synod under the Patriarch Mennas, A.D. 536, Actio v.

Immediately after the opening of our Synod, the monks of all the monasteries of Constantinople presented a petition, and prayed that it might be read aloud, and that the points therein brought forward might be confirmed. The Synod consented, found the petitions of the monks (and of the people) right and reasonable, and decreed that they should be communicated by the patriarch to the Emperor and the Empress (Euphemia). The petitions were as follows:—1. That the names of the patriarchs who had died in exile, Euphemius and Macedonius, should be restored to the catalogue of the bishops of Constantinople, and to the diptychs, and that everything which had been done against them should be annulled. 2. That all those who had been condemned and banished on account of their adhesion to Euphemius and Macedonius should be restored. 3. That the Synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon should be inscribed in the diptychs. (In the old Latin translation of these documents the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon are omitted.) 4. That the name of Pope Leo should also be put on the diptychs with the same honour as that of S. Cyril, which already stands on the diptychs. 5. Finally, the Synod declared that in accordance with the demand of the monks and the people, anathema and deposition should be pronounced against Severus of Antioch, who had repeatedly reviled the Council of Chalcedon, and against whom a special letter of complaint from the clergy of Antioch had been presented to this Synod.—All this the Synod declared in their letter to the Patriarch John of Constantinople, which was subscribed by all present, with Archbishop Theophilus of Heraclea at their head.

Copies of these synodal decrees were sent by the Patriarch John also to other bishops of distinction, requesting their concurrence and acceptance. Two such letters from him are still extant, addressed to the Patriarch John of Jerusalem and to Archbishop Epiphanius of Tyre. Both held Synods in the the same year, that at Jerusalem on the 6th of August (with thirty-three bishops), and that at Tyre on the 16th of September, 518, who, in their still extant synodal letter to John of Constantinople and the bishops assembled around him, declare their adherence to their decrees in the most decisive manner. The Synod of Tyre, at the same time, gave here a long description of the various crimes of Severus of Antioch and his associate, the Tyrian cleric, John Mandrites, and requested that the name of the departed Flavian of Antioch should be placed on the diptychs along with that of Pope Leo. A further document appended to the synodal letter of Tyre gives an account of the proceedings which took place in the principal church there, September 16, 518, after the reading of the letters which had come from Constantinople, and before the opening of the Tyrian Synod. Here also the people demanded, with endless acclamations, that Archbishop Epiphanius of Tyre (who is here also called patriarch) and his suffragans, would anathematise the Monophysite heresy and its adherents, particularly Severus of Antioch and John Mandrites.

A similar third Synod was held by the bishops of Syria Secunda under the presidency of Bishop Cyrus of Mariamna. In their synodal letter to the “œcumenical patriarch,” John of Constantinople, they express their joy that now an orthodox Emperor is reigning, and that an end is coming to the time which has been so sad. They further declare their unconditional adhesion to the decrees of Constantinople, and inform them that they have pronounced anathema and deposition, not only upon Severus of Antioch, but upon his associate Bishop Peter of Apamea. In connection with the documents relating to the many crimes of Peter, they finally request of the patriarch of Constantinople and his Synod a confirmation of their sentence and the communication of the matter to the Emperor.

There is no doubt that about the same time, and in many other cities of the Byzantine Empire, similar Synods took place for the rejection of the Monophysite heresy and its adherents, whilst the Emperor Justin, after confirming the decrees of Constantinople, expressly demanded this. The Roman deacon Rusticus, a contemporary, also relates that, under the Emperor Justin, about 2500 Sacerdotes (bishops) had in writing declared their recognition of the Council of Chalcedon.

John of Constantinople and the bishops assembled around him determined to apply to Pope Hormisdas, in order to bring back Church communion, which for a long time (since 484) had been interrupted on account of the Henoticon. The first steps to this end they had already taken by the solemn recognition of the Council of Chalcedon, and by the reception of Leo I. into the diptychs of their Church. The Patriarch John wrote now on this subject to the Pope, communicated to him the decrees of his Synod, assured him that his (Hormisdas’) name had already been entered on the diptychs, and concluded with the wish that the Pope, in the full exercise of his holiness, would send some peaceful legates to Constantinople, which should bring the work of unity to perfection.

In accordance with the wish of the Synod of Constantinople, the Emperor Justin added to the letter of the patriarch one of his own to accompany it, dated September 1, 518, in order to support the request that the Pope would send legates to Constantinople in the interest of union. For the better advancement of the matter, the Emperor sent one of his highest officials of State, Count Gratus, with these letters to Rome. The principal business committed to him we learn from a letter which the nephew of the Emperor, afterwards the famous Justinian, addressed to Pope Hormisdas, and gave to Count Gratus to take with him. In this letter he says: “As soon as the Emperor by the will of God (Dei judicio) had received the princely fillet (infulas principales), he had given the bishops to know that the peace of the Church must be restored, and this had already in a great degree been accomplished. But in regard to Acacius, they must hear the Pope, and therefore the Emperor had sent Count Gratus to Rome with the imperial letter. Hormisdas therefore should, as soon as possible, either come personally to Constantinople, or send suitable plenipotentiaries.”

As is well known, Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, was the author of the Henoticon, and had been anathematised by Rome (above, sec. 213). On his account the separation between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople had taken place. The Patriarch John and his Synod therefore were forced to assume that the Pope would not easily be induced to enter into union with the Byzantines, unless they had first struck out from the diptychs the name of the long-departed Acacius, and had recognised the anathema pronounced upon him. But on this point they would come to no decision, since under the previous Emperor the request of the Pope in this matter had been refused, and his legates driven from Constantinople. And the new Synod of Constantinople had not said a single syllable about Acacius, and had anathematised only Severus of Antioch, whose case was certainly more grave. With the matter of Acacius, Gratus had to deal personally in Rome, and, if possible, to find a middle way.

As we learn from a note appended to the letter of John to the Pope, Gratus arrived in Rome, December 20, 518. Baronius (ad ann. 518, n. 82 and 83) mentions that Hormisdas had now held a Synod in Rome, to take counsel on this subject; but he does not mention the source from which he draws, and in the somewhat numerous letters of Hormisdas which belong to this time there is no trace of it. We learn, however, from them that the Pope sent (A.D. 519) the bishops John and Germanus, with the priest Blandus and the deacons Dioscurus and Felix, as legates to Greece, and gave them full instructions as to their line of conduct. In particular, they were to receive no bishop into Church communion unless he had first subscribed the Libellus (a confession of faith) given to them from Rome, in which the anathema over Acacius and his fellows was contained. Among these followers the Patriarchs Euphemius and Macedonius were intended, who had led on the separation from Rome, but were of the Chalcedonian party, and on account of their orthodoxy, as we know, had been forced to suffer persecution from the Emperor Anastasius. The Synod of Constantinople referred to had restored their names to the diptychs, and now the Pope demanded that they should be anathematised along with Acacius (as Schismatics), and that the legates were in no way to relinquish this demand. At the same time, Hormisdas addressed a series of letters to the Emperor, to the Empress, to Justinian, to the Patriarch John, to the clergy of Constantinople, and to several distinguished statesmen and court ladies, in order to commend his legates to them, and to ask for their co-operation in order to the restoration of Church union. In most of them he particularly urges that the anathema upon Acacius is a demand of importance, since it is impossible, on the one side, to recognise the Council of Chalcedon, and, on the other side, to retain in the Church diptychs the name of its opponent, who had sought to nullify it, and solemnly to call out his name at divine service.

The papal legates found generally a very respectful reception, and wherever they came, found the bishops willing to subscribe the Libellus. On this point we still possess the reports of the legates themselves, as well as a relation of Bishop Andrew of Prævilatana (in Illyria), which also refers to a Conciliabulum, in which the bishops of New Epirus (Illyris Græca, see above, sec. 228) were ready to comply with the demand of the Pope only in appearance, whilst their archbishop (of Dyrrhachium) could not at all be brought to the right way. The legates, however, succeeded in their mission in Constantinople. The Patriarch John subscribed, in March 519, the papal Libellus, and thus pronounced anathema, not only upon Eutyches, Dioscurus, and others, but also over Acacius and his followers (without naming them in particular), and in the presence of the legates the names of Acacius, Euphemius, and Macedonius, as well as those of the Emperor Zeno and Anastasius, were struck out of the diptychs.

Thus was the union with Constantinople again established; and the Emperor now recommended the other bishops of his kingdom to subscribe the papal Libellus, and acquainted the Pope with the same by a letter, dated April 22, 519. Additional letters were sent to Rome by the Patriarch John, the Emperor’s nephew Justinian, and many other persons, to acquaint them with what had been done at Constantinople, and to express their joy at the issue. Hormisdas, however, requested the Emperor, as well as the Patriarch John, the Prince Justinian, and others, to use their best exertions to bring about union also in Antioch and Alexandria, so that it might be brought about through the whole empire. There were many hindrances in the way of unity, and, in particular, the question raised by the Scythian monks as to whether we should say: “One of the Trinity has suffered” (see vol. iii. sec. 208). During these new controversies the Patriarch John died, A.D. 419, and a Synod held for this reason at Constantinople (at the end of 519 or in 520), consisting of ten metropolitans and as many other bishops, informed the Pope that the priest and syncellus Epiphanius had become the successor of John. The answer from Rome, addressed to the Synod, is of date so late as March 26, 521.

SEC. 234. Synods in Wales and at Tournay

We have very scanty information respecting two Synods which were held about this time in Wales, that part of Britain which had remained Christian, the one in the year 519, the other somewhat later. Occasion was given for the former by the Pelagian heresy. In order to suppress this in Wales, the bishops Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes had instituted a mission there about ninety years earlier, and with great results. But the tares had again grown rank, so that, in the year 519, the bishops of Wales (Cambria), with the abbots and many other clergy and laity of distinction, assembled in Synod at Brevi, in the district of Keretica (Cardigan). At first they could make no impression upon the heretical populace. Then one of them, Paulinus, proposed that the holy Bishop David of Menevia, who had not yet arrived, should be fetched, which was immediately done. David came, made an address accompanied by a miracle, and won their hearts to such an extent that all the heretics present renounced their error. In gratitude for this, David was raised to be metropolitan for all Wales; and this dignity, which formerly belonged to the Urbs Legionum (Caerleon on Usk), was now connected with the see of Menevia.

At the other Synod in Wales, held somewhat later at Victoria (probably A.D. 520), they confirmed the decrees of the assembly just mentioned, which is here called Synodus Menevensis, because the Regio Keretica, in which it was held, belonged to the diocese of Menevia. Besides this confirmation, there were at this Synod, as at the former, many canons passed for the regulation of Church life in Wales, but they have not come down to us.

To the year 520 is also assigned a Synod at Tournay or Doornick (Tornacum), in the ecclesiastical province of Reims (but now belonging to the kingdom of Belgium), held by the bishop of that city, S. Eleutherius, for the rooting out of heresy. As he summoned only clergy and laity of his own diocese to this Synod, as the very brief Acts relate, we have here only a diocesan Synod before us, which demands so much the less consideration, as we have no details except the speech which Eleutherius then addressed to the assembly, and in which he confessed the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Even the genuineness of this speech, like that of the alleged writings of S. Eleutherius generally, is not quite raised above suspicion.

SEC. 235. Synodal Letter of the African Bishops banished to Sardinia from the Year 523

The Vandal King Thrasamund had banished many African bishops to Sardinia, among them S. Fulgentius of Ruspe. The celebrity which these men, especially Fulgentius, gained on account of their deep theological insight, led to their being consulted by strangers, who wrote to ask their counsel on important questions, and especially by the Scythian monks of Constantinople, John Maxentius at their head. These wrote an account of the conflict then going on with the Semipelagian heresy, and especially against the writings of the late Bishop Faustus of Riez. Such a letter from them is still extant, and gave occasion for the treatise of Fulgentius, De Incarnatione et Gratia Domini nostri Jesu Christi. A second letter of these monks, still more important in its consequences, has been lost. Along with it they had sent to the African bishops in Sardinia the writings of Faustus of Riez. Fulgentius drew up, in opposition to them, three books, De Veritate Prædestinationis et gratiæ Dei, and seven books against Faustus. These are no longer extant, but the other three books are in all editions of the works of Fulgentius. This scholar and biographer says (cc. 28 and 29) that he wrote the seven books against Faustus whilst he was still in Sardinia, and the three, De Veritate Prædestinationis, in Africa again, after his deliverance from exile (after Thrasamund’s death, May 28, 523).

That letter of the monks gave occasion for a third letter, which, although also written by Fulgentius, was sent out in the name of his colleagues with him. This is the famous Epistola Synodica, which has been reproduced in several collections of the Councils. That it emanated from Fulgentius his biographer proves (c. 20) beyond question, although his name is wanting from the twelve bishops mentioned in the superscription. The letter is addressed to the priest and archimandrite John, the deacon Venerius, and their associates, and it is universally admitted that hereby John Maxentius, the abbot of the Scythian monks, and the monks themselves are meant. Whether, however, this Epistola Synodica had been decided upon at a formal Synod of these bishops must remain undecided. It was formerly thought that it was despatched from Sardinia (A.D. 521), because in sec. 2 it is said that the letter of the monks had brought the bishops comfort in exile; but Cardinal Noris showed very fully that this document might have been composed after the end of the exile in Africa, since in the last paragraph but one the seven books (of Fulgentius) against Faustus, and the three books, De Veritate Prædestinationis, are recommended to the monks for reading. As the latter of these books falls into the time after the exile, still more does the Epistola Synodica. Besides, in sec. 27 of this letter Pope Hormisdas is spoken of as already dead (beatæ memoriæ); and his death took place August 6, 523, consequently later than that of King Thrasamund. We arrive then at the result, that the exiled bishops received the letter of the monks while they were still in Sardinia, during their banishment, and answered it later on, after their return to their native country.

The principal contents of this beautiful letter are as follows:—1. All members of the Church must have a mutual care for one another. 2. We rejoice that you hold fast the right view on the grace of God; but it grieves us that, according to your information, certain brethren (Faustus of Riez and his adherents) desire to elevate human freedom too much, in opposition to divine grace. 3. This comes to pass by divine permission, that the power of grace may be more clearly seen, for it would never be recognised if it were not granted; and he who has it opposes it neither in words nor in works. 4. Grace imparted by God produces good words and good deeds and good thoughts. 5. Men must know and confess as well the egena paupertas humani arbitrii as the indificiens largitas divinæ gratiæ. Before the latter is imparted to him, man has certainly a liberum, but not a bonum arbitrium, quia non illuminatum. 6. In order, however, to come closer to the contents of your letter, you say, sec. 7: Before Esau and Jacob were born, Jacob was elected by the unmerited mercy of God (misericordia gratuita); but Esau, because infected with original sin, was rightly hated by God. Your opponents, however, maintain: In Esau figuram esse populi Judœorum, ex futuris malis operibus condemnandi; in Jacob vero figuram esse populi gentium, ex futuris operibus bonis salvandi. These two statements should be united. 8. Those two brothers are really the types of the two peoples named, but the reason of their different lots (divine election and the hatred of God) is in regard to the one the gratuita bonitas of God, in regard to the other the justa severitas of God. Certainly non sunt electa, neque dilecta in Jacob humana opera, sed dona divina. 9. Jacob was elected only through the mercy of God, not as a reward for any kind of future virtue (non pro meritis futuræ cujusquam bonæ operationis); and God knew beforehand that He would grant to him both faith and good works. Faith, however, cannot be given as a reward for any kind of good works, for these are possible only when faith has first been granted (through grace). 10. But as faith is granted, so also are works. 11. Esau was a vessel of wrath, and not unjustly: Iram juste meruit, for God is not unjust. As in Jacob God has shown the misericordia gratuitæ bonitatis, so in Esau the judicium justæ severitatis, because he, through the sacrament of circumcision, was delivered from the guilt of original sin, yet through his nequitia cordis retained the old earthly man (in hominis terreni vetustate permansit). In his person not only are those prefigured who deny the faith, but also those members of the Church who persevere in evil works. 12. They are condemned like Esau. 13. In regard to children the following is true: Parvulus qui baptizatur gratuita Dei bonitate salvatur; qui vero sine baptismate moritur propter peccatum originale damnatur. 14. On grace, he thinks wrongly who believes that it is given to all. There exist, in fact, whole nations to whom grace has not yet penetrated. 15. Further, grace is not given æqualiter to all who have received it. 16. You say: Man desires salvation only through the misericordia Dei; while they (the Semipelagians) maintain: Nisi quis propria voluntate cucurrerit et elaboraverit, salvus esse non poterit. Both must be held together: The misericordia Dei must go before, human co-operation must follow. The beginning of salvation comes only from the divine mercy, but the human will must co-operate, must be co-operatrix suæ salutis, ut misericordia Dei proveniens voluntatis humanæ dirigat cursum, et humana voluntas obediens, eadem misericordia subsequente, secundum intentionem currat ad bravium. The human will will become good, si Dei præveniatur dono, and will remain good, si ejus non destituatur auxilio. 17. The words in the Epistle to the Romans (9:18): Cujus vult, miseretur, et quem vult indurat, are to be understood in the sense that S. Paul here brings forward his own view, not the objection of another. This appears from what follows (9:21). 18. If, however, it is said that God hardens, it is not meant that He drives men to perverse conduct, but that He does not deliver from such a state, and he who is not delivered receives only his due (recipit quod meretur). 19. You refer to Phil. 2:13, Deus operatur in vobis et velle et opcrari, and on the other hand to Isa. 1:19, Si volueritis, … bona terræ comedatis. These two passages also must be taken together. God commands man to will, and also works in him to will; and He commands him to do, and works in him to do. 20. A view which is too absurd is taken by the opponents of the expression Vasa misericordiæ, when they would understand by this, those who are by God endowed with secular or spiritual places of honour, and by Vasa contumelioæ (Rom. 9:21), the lowly, monks and laymen. 21. Anyone who opposes the Prædestinatio Sanctorum (i.e. prædestinatio ad vitam) assails Holy Scripture (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5; Rom. 1:4). 22. The predestinated are those of whom God wills that they shall be blessed, and attain to the knowledge of the truth. As among these are included people of all conditions, ages, sexes, etc., it is said, He will have all men to be saved. Qui propterea omnes dicuntur, quia in utroque sexu, ex omni hominum genere, gradu, ætate, et conditione salvantur. Christ Himself says (S. John 5:21), in those, to whom HE will give eternal life, He does not wait for the human will to make a beginning, but He gives life, since He makes the will itself to be good. This is the case with adults. In the case of children, however, where the will cannot yet be made good, He works out their salvation by the operation of grace alone. 23. Freewill, which was sound in the first man before his sin, is now repressed, even in the children of God, by their own weakness, but it is restored through the still stronger grace of God. 24. The question as to the origin of souls, whether they come ex propagine, or whether for every new body a new soul is created (sive novæ singulis corporibus fiant), we will pass over in silence. The Holy Scripture does not decide this question, and it should be examined with precaution. 25. On the other hand, it is certain that the souls of children nexu peccati originales obstrictas esse; and that therefore the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all, quo dimittitur peccati originalis vinculum, et amissa in primo homine per secundum hominem recipitur adoptio filiorum. 26. Be steadfast in the faith, and pray for those who have not the right faith. 27. Especially give them the books of Augustine to read which he addressed to Prosper and Hilarius. 28. This we have in common written to you. But one of us has answered all the objections of these erring brethren, against grace and predestination, in three books, and has written seven books against Faustus, which you should read. 29. Might God grant to all who had the true faith an increase thereof, and to others the knowledge of the truth.

SEC. 236.—Synods at Junca and Sufes in Africa

To the same year, 523, Mansi assigns the Concilium Juncense (Junca) in the province of Byzacene in Africa, which was formerly assigned to the following year. We still possess a letter of the president of this Synod, the primate at that time of the province of Byzacene, Liberatus, to Archbishop Boniface of Carthage, in which he says that the peace of the Church had again been restored at this assembly. What was further necessary, he said, would be conveyed by word of mouth by the bishops who were intrusted with the letter. The peace of the Church had been disturbed, partly by the conflict of Liberatus with a monastery (see sec. 238 below), and partly because Bishop Vincentius of Girba (Girbitanus) had invaded the province of Byzacene, although he belonged to the province of Tripolis, consequently from a strange province. Ferrandus in his Breviarium Canonicum, c. 26, gives us a canon of this Synod, which runs thus: Ut in plebe aliena nullus sibi episcopus audeat vindicare. Finally, we learn from the biography of S. Fulgentius, c. 29, that he was also present at one Synod (called, by an error of the transcriber, Vincensis instead of Juncensis), and that the Synod gave him precedency over another bishop named Quodvultdeus. As the latter was hurt by this, Fulgentius himself requested at the next Council, which was held at Sufes (Sufetanum), also belonging to the province of Byzacene, that Quodvultdeus should again be given precedence of him. No more is known of the Synod of Sufes.

SEC. 237.—The Synods at Arles, Lerida, and Valencia, A.D. 524 (546)

The great East Gothic King Theoderic had, in the year 507, plundered the city of Arles, and had incorporated it, together with a part of Gallia Narbonensis, if only for a short time, into his own kingdom. Besides, as we know, he administered the Spanish West Gothic kingdom as guardian of Amalrich (see above, sec. 229). In the great domain which thus owned his sceptre, three Synods were held in the year 524, at Arles in South Gaul, and at Lerida and Valencia in Spain. The Synod at Arles, often called the third, but more properly the fourth, held on June 6, 524, numbered thirteen bishops and four representatives of absent bishops. The names of the episcopal sees are not given in the short Acts, and the president, Cæsarius, was evidently the famous Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, already frequently mentioned. In the preface to the Acts it is remarked that the dedication of the Basilica of S. Mary at Arles was the occasion of this assembly. In order, on some points, to restore the ancient Church disciple, they decreed four canons, which are essentially only renewals of more ancient ordinances:—

1. No one is to be ordained bishop before his twenty-fifth year, and no layman is to be a bishop unless his conversion has preceded, or he is thirty years old. Cf. cc. 16 and 17 of the Synod of Agde, sec. 222.

2. No layman is to be ordained bishop, priest, or deacon unless he has, for one year at least, been converted (taken the vow of continence). At an earlier period a longer period was required, but the increase in the number of the churches now makes a greater number of clerics necessary.

3. No one who has done penance, or who has married a second time, or a widow, must be ordained bishop, priest, or deacon. A bishop who, nevertheless, ordains one of these, shall not say Mass for a year; and if he does this he will be excluded ab omnium fratrum caritate (cf. sec. 200, c. 20 of Chalcedon). Received into the Corpus jur. can. as c. 2, Dist. lv.

4. If a cleric takes to flight in order to escape from Church discipline, no one (i.e. no other bishop) must receive him, still less defend him, on penalty of exclusion from Church communion.

5. Gratian, Burchard, and others ascribe to many Synods of this period (sec. 231 and sec. 232), and Worms among them, several other canons, which partly belong to other Synods and partly are of doubtful genuineness. Mansi has them collected, l.c. p. 627 sqq.

Just two months later, on August 6, 524, eight bishops, and a priest as representative of his bishop, assembled in the Church of S. Eulalia at Ilerda (Lerida) in the ecclesiastical province of Tarragona. The names of their sees are only partially given in the Acts. We learn them, however, completely from other sources, in Florez, España Sagra, t. 46, p. 99, and Ferreras, History of Spain, vol. ii. Hence we learn that Sergius, archbishop of Tarragona, was the president of this Synod; Justus, bishop of Urgelis, Casonius or Castonius, bishop of Ampurias, John, bishop of Sarragossa, Paternus, bishop of Barcelona, Maurelio, bishop of Dertosa (Tortosa), Taurus, bishop of Egara, Februarius of Lerida, and Gratus, representative of Bishop Staphylius of Gerundum. They drew up the following canons:—

1. In regard to the clergy in a beleaguered town it is ordained, that while they serve at the altar and communicate the blood of Christ and handle the vessels appointed for divine service, they must shed no human blood, not even that of their enemies. If, however, they do so, they must be excluded for two years from their office and from communion. If in these two years they have expiated their offence by watching, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, they may again be restored to office and to communion, but they may not be advanced to any higher office. If, however, they have shown themselves slothful in regard to their spiritual welfare during the time of their suspension, the bishop (sacerdos) may prolong their time of penance.—Taken into c. 36, Dist. l.

2. If anyone should seek to put to death his child begotten in adultery, whether after its birth or in its mother’s womb, he may after seven years be again admitted to communion, but must, for his whole life, remain in penitence and humility. If he is a cleric, he can never again be placed in his office, but may, after obtaining communion, only act as singer. To poisoners, however, even if they have steadfastly lamented their crime, communion may again be imparted only at the end of their life.

3. In regard to monks, the ordinance of the Synod of Agde (c. 27), or Orleans (i. 15–17), shall be confirmed; and it is only to be added that the bishop has the right, with the assent of the abbot, to ordain for the service of the Church those monks whom he has known to be qualified. But anything which has been given to the monasteries as presents is not at the disposal of the bishop. A layman who wishes to have a church built by him consecrated, must not withdraw it from the authority of the bishop under the pretext that it is a monastic church, whilst no monks are in it and no rule for it has been drawn up by the bishop. Cf. 34, C. xvi. q. 1, and C. x. q. 1.

4. Incestuous persons, so long as they remain in their criminal intercourse, must be admitted only to the Missa Catechumenorum, and none of the faithful must eat with them, in accordance with 1 Cor. 5:9 and 11. Cf. c. 9, C. xxxv. q. 2 and 3.

5. If clerics who serve at the altar have fallen into a sin of the flesh, but have done penance, it lies in the power of the bishop to suspend the deeply penitent for no great length of time, but to separate the more negligent for a longer time from the body of the Church. They may, after their restoration, receive their posts again, but they may not be advanced to higher offices. If they fall back into sin, they shall not only be deposed, but they shall no longer receive communion, unless when they draw near to death. Cf. c. 52, Dist. l., and c. 2, C. xv. q. 8.

6. If anyone has violated (vim stupri intulerit) a widow vowed to continence, or a nun (virgo religiosa), if he will not separate from her, must be excluded from the communion, and from intercourse with Christians. But if the violated woman has returned to the ascetic life (vita religiosa), then so long as he does not do public penance, the sentence above mentioned shall be confirmed.

7. If anyone pledges himself by an oath never to become reconciled with his opponent, he must, on account of this sinful oath, be excluded for a year from the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and he must blot out his fault by alms, prayers, and the severest possible fasting, and endeavour, as soon as possible, to attain to love, “which covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). Cf. c. 11, C. xxii. q. 4.

8. No cleric must take his servant or scholar out of a church to which he has fled (in order to escape punishment), or scourge him. If he does so, he must, until he does penance, be excluded from the place which he has not honoured (i.e. the Church). Cf. c. 17, C. xvii. q. 4.

9. In regard to those who have received sinful baptism (i.e. from a sect), without being constrained by compulsion or fear of martyrdom, the ordinances (c. 11) of the Synod of Nicæa on sinners (who have erred without being driven to it by necessity) shall apply to them, namely, that they must worship for seven years among the catechumens and two years among the faithful (in the fourth degree of penitence), and then, through the kindness of the bishop, again may assist at the sacrifice and the eucharist.

10. If the bishop shall order anyone, because of any kind of fault, to go out of the church, and he does not obey, he must, for his obstinacy be punished for a considerable time, and then receive pardon. Cf. c. 39, C. xi. q. 3.

11. If clerics have fallen into hostility (and have fought), they must be punished by the bishop in a manner corresponding with their degradation of their office.

12. If a bishop has, in the past, ordained clerics without proper precautions, may God and the Church forgive him. In future, however, the canonical ordinances which forbid such ordinances must come into force. Whoever shall in future be ordained in contravention of them, must be deposed; and those who have already been improperly ordained, shall not be advanced to higher dignities.

13. If a Catholic lets his children be baptized by heretics, his offering shall not be received in the Church.

14. The faithful must have no fellowship at all with the rebaptized, nor even eat with them.

15. Intercourse with strange women has been forbidden to the clergy by the ancient Fathers. Whoever, after a second warning, does not correct himself, shall be deprived of the dignity of his office so long as he perseveres in his error. When he has corrected himself, he may be restored to the sacred ministry.

16. When a bishop has died, or is near to death, no cleric must take anything from the episcopal residence, neither by violence nor by cunning. Nothing must be carried off secretly, nothing concealed; but the episcopal house must be intrusted to a (clerical) administrator, with one or two assistants, so that all may be preserved until the admission to office of the new bishop. Whoever acts otherwise must, as guilty of sacrilege, be smitten with the prolixiore anathemate (i.e. excommunicatio major): to him shall scarcely be given the communio peregrina (Reus sacrilegii prolixiori anathemate condemnetur, et vix quoque peregrina ei communio concedatur). According to the explanation given above of communio peregrine (under c. 2 of Agde, sec. 222), our passage gives this good meaning: “Such clerics shall be excluded from Church communion for a considerable time; and they shall hardly receive that amount of support which is given to travelling Christians who have no letters of peace with them.”

Other ordinances, which the mediæval collectors of canons assigned to the Synod of Lerida, are placed here by Mansi (l.c. p. 616 sqq.).

What has already been said in reference to the time of the holding of the Synod of Lerida is equally applicable to that of Valencia in Spain, a large and famous city on the coast of the Mediterranean which then belonged to the province of Toledo, but subsequently formed the metropolis of a province of its own, Valentiana. This Synod also was held in the fifteenth year either of Theoderic or of King Theudes, and on the 4th of December. The Acts are subscribed by six bishops, Celsinus, Justinus, Reparatus, Setabius, Benagius, and Ampellius, and an Archdeacon Sallustius as representative of his bishop, Marcellinus; but the sees of these bishops are not named. Ferraras suggests that the bishop named Celsinus, who stands at the head of his colleagues, is no other than Archbishop Celsus of Toledo. If this suggestion is correct, then our Synod must belong to the fifteenth year of Theoderic, and so to the year 524; for in the year 531 the celebrated Archbishop Montanus, the successor of Celsus, occupied the see of Toledo. Mansi, however, thought that by Celsinus is meant the bishop of Valencia who bore this name, who was present, in 590, at the third Council of Toledo; and in that case our Synod would have to be removed to the end of the sixth century. Entire certainty in regard to this chronological question is not attainable.

The decrees of Valencia have some affinity with those of Lerida, and thereby show that they are contemporaneous with them. As at other Synods, so at Valencia, the older ecclesiastical canons were read aloud and enforced afresh, and only six additions as special Capitula were added to the Acts:—

1. The Gospel is to be read before the oblation (ante munerum illationem), or before the dismissal of the catechumens, or after the Epistle (Apostolus), so that not only the faithful, but also the catechumens, penitents, and all others may hear the word of God and the sermon of the bishop. For it is well known that through the hearing of preaching many have been led to the faith. Cf. c. 18 of the first Synod of Orange (vol. iii. sec. 162).

2. It is peremptorily forbidden to clerics after the death of the bishop to appropriate anything which he has left behind. In accordance with the ordinance (c. 6) of the Synod of Riez (vol. iii. sec. 161), a neighbouring bishop, after the celebration of the obsequies, should take the oversight of the orphaned church, and an accurate inventory of the late bishop’s property should be drawn up and sent to the metropolitan. Afterwards an administrator of the vacant diocese should be appointed, who should pay their stipends to the clergy, and give an account to the metropolitan. Cf. c. 16 of the Synod of Lerida.

3. Even the relations of the departed bishop may not appropriate anything of what he has left without the previous knowledge of the metropolitan or of the comprovincial bishop, so that Church property may not be mixed with the private property of the testator.

4. It will no longer be allowed that the body of a departed bishop should remain too long unburied because of the absence of the episcopus commendator. Therefore the bishop on whom the burial by succession devolves shall visit his sick colleague while he lives, in order either to congratulate him on his restoration to health, or to exhort him to set his house in order. He shall give effect to his last wishes; and if he dies, he shall first offer the holy sacrifice (Sacrificium) for the departed, then bury him, and carry out what is prescribed in the foregoing canon. If, however, a bishop dies suddenly, without neighbouring bishops being able to be present, his body shall be laid out only a day and a night, surrounded by singing brothers (clerics), monks, and others. Then shall the priests lay him in a retired place, but not bury him, only continue in an honourable manner the prayers for him (honorifice commendetur), until a bishop, called in with all possible despatch, inter him solemnly and in a fitting manner.

5. If a cleric, or a deacon, or a priest does not remain steadily at the church which is intrusted to him, but goes about in an unsettled manner, he shall, as long as he continues in this fault, be deprived of the communion and his position.

6. No one may ordain a strange cleric without the concurrence of his bishop. Moreover, the bishop may not ordain anyone who has not first promised to remain in his position.

Six other canons which, in the collection of Burchard of Worms are assigned to a Concilium Valentinum, without indication whether Valencia in Spain or Valence in France is meant, are in Mansi’s collection, t. viii. p. 623.

SEC. 238. Synod at Carthage, A.D. 525

After the death of the Vandal King Thrasamund (May 28, 523) his successor Hilderic put an end to the protracted oppression of the Catholics, recalled the banished bishops, and, at the wish of the inhabitants of Carthage, gave his consent that Boniface, who became afterwards so famous, should be elected bishop and primate, and should be consecrated in the Basilica of S. Agileus the Martyr. In the sacristy of the same church Archbishop Boniface held his first Synod, which, as the Acts declare, began February 5, 525, and was attended by bishops from the most diverse dioceses of Africa. Their names, sixty in number, are found in the subscription of the minutes of the Synod, and there were also many deputies and representatives of their provinces. The bishops sat, beside and behind them stood the deacons. Boniface, as president, spoke first, expressing his great joy at the Synod taking place, and at the restoration of liberty to the Church, i.e. at the end of the persecution. Another bishop answered him (the minutes are here defective), spoke of the joy of all in having so excellent a president as Boniface, and besought him, for the advantage of the African Church, to procure for the canons their earlier respect, and to re-establish again the regulations of his lamented predecessor Aurelius. Thereupon the legitimation of the deputies sent from the different provinces took place; and Boniface first had his letter read which he had sent to the Primate Missor of Numidia, in which he requested this metropolitan, who on account of age was himself unable to appear, to send three plenipotentiaries, and himself designated those whom he wished to be sent. He also declared in this letter that it was a principal business of the Council to bring down the pride of some bishops who wished to exalt themselves over such as had precedence of them, and, as it seems, even sought to get rid of their subordination to the archbishop of Carthage. On this account it was necessary that the order of precedence among the African bishops should now be established by the Synod. He also indicated to Missor, according to ancient custom, as he said, the day for the next Easter festival (May 30, 525).

To the question of the archbishop, whether deputies from Numidia were present, and had brought with them a letter from their primate, Bishop Florentius of Vicopacatum answered, in their name, in the affirmative, and requested that Missor’s letter might be read. The primate of Numidia expressed his sorrow at the disputes about precedency which had arisen, and at the wrongs which had been done to Boniface. He praises his patience and forbearance, but points out that thereby, and because Boniface had not been willing to settle the controversy himself,—a duty which was incumbent upon him,—the insolence of some had grown greater. Boniface, he said, had indicated three Numidian bishops whom Missor was to send as deputies to the Synod; but one of these, Marianus of Tullia, before the arrival of the letter, had on his own account set off for the Synod, and therefore Bishop Florentius had been appointed as the third deputy from Numidia. As he had no doubt that Januarius (also a Numidian bishop), the consecrator of Boniface, was present at the Synod, he had written to him and requested him, with the Numidian deputies, in the impending controversies, to give assistance to the side which was in the right.

Boniface had also addressed letters of invitation to the bishops of Asia Proconsularis and the province of Tripoli, which were now read. Deputies were present from these also, and also from Mauretania Cæsariensis and Sitifensis. The Primate Liberatus of the province of Byzacene, on the contrary, in spite of repeated invitations, had not appeared, on which Boniface expressed himself very freely. On the following day the bishops requested that, in case he should not then appear, they should consult on the subject of his non-appearance, and the Numidian deputy, Bishop Felix, at the close of a very courteous speech, expressed the wish that Boniface should now settle to whom the rank next to him should belong. Appealing to the 19th canon of the Synod of Carthage of A.D. 418 (c. 127 in the Codex Ecclesiæ Africanæ), Boniface explained that, according to the ancient practice of the proconsular province (Carthage), Numidia came next, and then Byzacene, etc. Whoever should venture to disturb this order should be deposed. Hereupon he caused to be read the Creed of Nicæa, and at the request of several, also a series of such ancient canons, chiefly of African Councils, as he considered specially suitable for the instruction of the newly appointed bishops; among them, at the express wish of the Synod, those canons also which treated of the precedence and the privileges of the see of Carthage, or could be related to the subject. With this closed the session of the first day, late at night; and all the bishops present signed the minutes together with the documents, which had been read, embodied in them, the canons and the Nicene Creed.

On the next day, February 6, the bishops assembled again in the sacristy of the Church of S. Agileus, and Archbishop Boniface opened this second session with the announcement: Everything which touched the African Church in general had been brought to an end yesterday, so that they could now pass on to special business, and settle any requests and representations of particular persons. The Deacon Gaudiosus now informed them that the Abbot Peter, with some older monks from his monastery, stood at the door and asked permission to appear before the Synod. When Boniface granted the request, the Abbot Peter presented in his own name and in the name of his monks an accusation in writing against Liberatus, the primate of the province of Byzacene, who had, at the numerous Synods held by him, endeavoured to bring ruin upon their monastery, and had irregularly inflicted the heavier excommunication upon them. The assembled bishops were therefore requested to interest themselves in the monks, as they had never failed either in regard to the faith or in regard to good morals.

After the hearing of this memorial, which was embodied in the Acts, Archbishop Boniface expressed his displeasure with Liberatus, who had disquieted the monks, and had refused to recognise the privileges of the see of Carthage, and ordered the reading of all the letters relating to this controversy. The first of these, an earlier letter of Abbot Peter to Archbishop Boniface, explained the nature of the special business. So long as there was no bishop at Carthage on account of the persecution, the monks had requested the primate of the province of Byzacene, who was near to them, to ordain one of their number as an ecclesiastic for the needs of the monastery. This was done, and from this Liberatus had now inferred that the monastery was subject to him, whilst it was only in the archbishop of Carthage that they recognised their spiritual superior.

The second document was the letter from Liberatus to Archbishop Boniface of Carthage, presented at the Synod of Junca, which has been mentioned above (sec. 236), and in which the assurance is given that full ecclesiastical liberty prevailed in the province of Byzacene. On this followed, as third document, the answer which Boniface had then given to Liberatus and to the Council of Junca. After a very courteous introduction, Liberatus is exhorted to put away everything which might interrupt the peace of the Church, and then it is definitely declared that it was impossible to agree with what had been brought back, by word of mouth, by the deputies from the Synod of Junca, or to alter the old Church laws (i.e. in reference to the rights of the see of Carthage). At the close the time for the next Easter festival (for A.D. 524) is given.

The fourth document is again a letter of Abbot Peter and his monks to Archbishop Boniface, composed probably about the same time, when the Synod of Junca had sent their deputies to Carthage with verbal messages (also in reference to the monastery in question). In this letter was set forth again the wrong done by Liberatus, and the principle asserted that the monastery whose monks were born in all parts of Africa, and also in lands beyond the sea, should not be subjected to one single bishop, nor the monks be treated by him as though they were his own clergy. Besides, Abbot Peter brought forward two passages from Augustine, a letter of the earlier primate of the province of Byzacene, and the decree of the Synod of Arles of the year 455 (on the dispute about jurisdiction between Bishop Theodore of Fréjus and Abbot Faustus of Lérins) in proof that convents of monks and nuns were not subject to the nearest bishop, but had been free.

Here end the minutes of our Synod: the rest are wanting, and we know only, in addition, from a Lombardian Codex in the Vatican Library, that this decree was drawn up: That all monasteries for the future shall, as hitherto, a conditione clericorum omnibus modis, be free and independent. Some notes on the close of our Synod are also given by the universal Council of Carthage of A.D. 535. See below, sec. 248.

SEC. 239. Synod at Carpentras, A.D. 527

In the subscription of Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, the President of the Synod of Carpentoractum in Gallia Narbonensis, this assembly is expressly ascribed to the consulate of Mavortius, i.e. to the year 527 A.D. and the 6th of November. Mansi (l.c. p. 710) conjectured that it was originally put P. C. Mavortii, i.e. after the consulate of Mavortius, and then the year 528 would have been meant. His chief reasons are: (a) The Synod of Carpentras ordained that in the following year, again on November 6, a new Synod should be held at Vaison. Since this latter, as we shall see further on, decidedly belongs to the year 529, that of Carpentras must be assigned to 528. (b) Moreover, in the year 528 the 6th of November fell upon a Monday (in the year 527, on the contrary, as we add, on a Saturday), and it was the ancient practice to open Synods on a Monday and not on a Saturday (or to hold, for the Synod of Carpentras lasted scarcely longer than one day, as they drew up only one canon).

We hold these arguments to be lacking in force, since it was in no way the universal rule to open Synods on a Monday; on the contrary, the ancient ordinances on this point fix a definite day of the month, which might fall upon the most different days of the week (cf. c. 7 of the Synod of Macon, A.D. 578). Moreover, we must not forget that many ecclesiastical assemblies were held, not at the time originally fixed, but often at a considerably later time; and to suppose that this was the case at the Synod of Vaison is more probable than the violent altering of the date for that of Carpentras.

The only canon of this Synod has reference to the securing of the revenues of the rural churches, in opposition to the bishops. In this canon it is said: A complaint has been made, that some bishops give up to the parishes only little, or nothing at all, of what the faithful have contributed to them. Therefore it is decreed: If the church in the bishop’s city is sufficiently endowed, then anything which has been presented to the parishes must be expended for the clergy who serve in them, or for the repair of these churches. If however, the bishop’s church has too slender revenues, then there shall be left for the rural parishes and the maintenance of their buildings only so much as is sufficient; and the bishop may appropriate what is over for himself. Only he must not diminish the revenues (facultatula) of the clergymen (in the parish) or the service of the church (so also the number of the clergy). Finally, it was decreed that, in the following year, on November 6, a Synod should again be held, and at Vaison.

These minutes are subscribed by sixteen bishops, Cæsarius (of Arles) at their head, almost all with the addition Peccator, and without calling themselves bishops. Besides, the Synod addressed a letter to Bishop Agrœcius of Antipolis (Autibes), who had appeared neither personally nor by a plenipotentiary, although he had been required to give an account of an ordination in which he had violated the third canon of the recent Synod at Arles (sec. 237) which had been subscribed by his own representative. For this reason he must not celebrate Mass for a year in accordance with the ordinance of Arles. This letter was also subscribed by all the sixteen bishops, this time with the addition of their title, but without naming their sees.

SEC. 240. Synod at Dovin, in Armenia, A.D. 527

The Theatine Clemens Galanus, celebrated for his protracted missionary activity in the East, as well as for his Historia Armena ecclesiastica et politica (1650), in this work gives an account of an Armenian Synod which the Catholicus Nerses of Aschtarag held, in the year 536, with ten bishops in the Armenian city Thevin (more correctly Dovin). At this Synod the doctrine of one nature in Christ was declared; the Council of Chalcedon, which the Armenians hitherto had recognised was rejected, and the Armenian schism begun.

This relation of Galanus was followed by all the older scholars, particularly by Pagi (ad ann. 535, n. 13) and Mansi (t. viii. p. 871), until the famous Armenian national history by Tschamtschean appeared at Venice in the year 1785. In the second volume of this work (p. 237 sqq., and p. 527) a very complete account of our Synod is given, and a quantity of older notices relating to it collected. It is shown that the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon in question did not proceed from this Synod, but from other Armenian Synods. So early as the year 491, at the Synod held at Walarschapat under the Catholicus Babgen, the opposition of the Armenians to the Chalcedonian faith had begun; whilst the schism was not completed until the year 596 by a later Synod at Dovin under the Catholicus Abraham. Tschamtschean also removes our Synod to the year 527, and gives us the substance of thirty-eight canons there passed:—

1. Gifts for priests must be brought into the church, and not into the house of any priest.

2. The priests must receive these gifts and presents without selfishness at the sacrifice of the Mass.

3. Church property must not be given out on interest.

4. Simony is forbidden, and a layman may not exercise ecclesiastical functions.

5. Bigamous servants of the Church are to be deposed, and must receive no income from the Church.

6. Priests who do not officiate on festivals shall be deprived of their income for that day.

7. Priests must not, on account of the poverty of their Church, lessen the communion chalice.

8. Nor must they use new wine at the communion.

9. The curtain of the tabernacle must not be brought into the house of a bride or a bridegroom.

10. Priests must not give baptismal water to other people, especially not to women, for the baptism of children.

11. Among priests the oldest according to ordination has the precedence.

12. Without a priest the other servants of the Church must not celebrate divine service.

13. A priest must not wear secular clothes, particularly not the clothes of a soldier.

14. The gifts of the Church shall be distributed according to a rule. Priests shall have two parts, deacons a part and a half, the inferior servants of the Church and widows (if they are needy) one part.

15. The furniture of the church shall be preserved by the archpriest. He must live in the church.

16. Baptism is to be administered in the church, and only in case of necessity in the house.

17. At baptism, married women may not assist as deaconesses.

18. No deacon may administer baptism without necessity.

19. No priest must receive money for the sacrament of penance.

20. A priest who violates the secrecy of confession must be anathematised.

21. There must be no common place of burial in the church.

22. Priests must not take interest.

23. The Agapæ destined for the poor may not be given away by the priests at their pleasure, but must be divided immediately among the poor in the presence of the givers.

24. No one must partake of anything before communion; and if the clergy know that anyone has already done so, he must not communicate him.

25. Children must wear no garland.(?)

26. A virgin and a widow must not be garlanded together.(?)

27. Priests must not at their own pleasure select the cattle which shall be given as sacrifices of compassion (for the clergy and the poor).

28. When such animals are presented, the priests must not keep them living, but must slay them, and divide them among the poor.

29. Everyone is required to keep the Lenten fast and other fasts.

30. On the great Sabbath of the kindling of lights (Saturday in Holy Week) no one must communicate before the sacrifice of the Mass.

31. Laymen must not put forth orders in opposition to the ordinances of the priests.

32. No priest must be found intoxicated or carousing; nor may he have a female slave purchased with money, and make profit by her prostitution.

33. No woman shall visit a monastery for men, either to bake bread or to milk the cows, or for any kind of business whatever.

34. Anchorites must return to their cells before the setting of the sun.

35. Monks must not pass the night in the houses of people of the world, but, when possible, always in a monastery; and when none is accessible, with the archpriest of the place.

36. Monks must not carry on trades, nor keep houses and the like.

37. No one shall harbour heretics in his house.

38. In every month there shall be a fast-day on a Saturday.

SEC. 241. Second Synod of Toledo, A.D. 527 or 531

In many manuscripts of the old collections of canons the Synodus Toletana II. is found with the superscription: Sub die xvi. Kalendas Junias anno quinto regni domini nostri Amalarici regis æra 565. As we know, the Spanish era begins from the year 38 before Christ; and therefore the year 565 of this chronology is identical with 527 of the Dionysian. Baronius (ad ann. 531, n. 12 sqq.) and Pagi (ad ann. 531, n. 9) thought, in respect to this matter of the era, that an ancient clerical error had been made in the date of the Synod, and that we should remove it to 531, because in the superscription the fifth year of King Amalaric is expressly named. From this they assumed that the regnant years of Amalaric were numbered from the death of his grandfather and guardian; and as he, the East Gothic King Theoderic the Great, died in the year 526, the fifth year of Amalaric could be no other than 531 of our era. In opposition to this the Spanish scholars, Aguirre, Ferreras, and Florez thought they could reconcile the two statements of the superscription,—the year 565 of the Spanish era and the fifth year of Amalaric,—since Theoderic the Great laid down the guardianship of his grandson in the year 523, and therefore the regnant years of the latter must have been counted from 523. In this case his fifth year agrees with our year 527. I have no doubt that this suggestion is the correct one, and that the second Synod of Toledo ought accordingly to be assigned to May 17, 527; but one of the principal reasons which the Spanish scholars adduce is, in my judgment, quite invalid. In order to show that in Spain, in ancient times, the reign of Amalaric was actually dated from the year 523, they appeal to Ildefonsus of Toledo, who, in his treatise, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, on Archbishop Montanus of Toledo, who presided over our Synod, says: “He ruled the Church of Toledo for nine years (522–531) under King Amalaric.” Ildefonsus, however, says only: “He was famous in the time of Amalaric, and held his post for nine years,” from which we cannot draw their conclusion.

Entirely without foundation, and long ago refuted by Pagi (l.c.), was the supposition of Baronius, that the second Synod of Toledo was held, not under Amalaric, but under his successor Theudis. The latter, during the minority of Amalaric, was raised by Theoderic the Great to be Viceroy or Governor of Spain, and early showed little fidelity, so that, in great measure from dislike to him, Theoderic so soon laid down his guardianship. Soon Theudis wanted to rise higher. Amalaric had married the Frankish Princess Clothilde, but persecuted her on account of her religion to such an extent that her brother, the Merovingian King Childebert of Paris (a son of Chlodwig), made war upon his brother-in-law. Amalaric here lost his life; and as he died childless, the West Goths now elected Theudis for their king. Immediately after this elevation of Theudis, Baronius thinks, our Synod was held; but, in the first place, the accession of Theudis happened in the year 532, and besides, King Amalaric is expressly mentioned, not only in the superscription of the synodal Acts, but also in the text, after canon 5.

There were present at Toledo, under the presidency of the Metropolitan Montanus, seven other Spanish bishops: Nebridius of Egara, Justus of Urgelis, Pangarius, Cannonius, Paulus, Domitian, and Maracinus. The sees of the last five are unknown. Of Maracinus it is added, that he resided at Toledo as an exile. By whom and for what reason he was banished is not said. The assembly declared the permanent validity of the older Church ordinances, and decreed anew as follows:—

1. Those who, as children, were dedicated by their parents to the clerical office shall, soon after receiving the tonsure, or after admission to the office of lector (instead of ministerio electorum, we must certainly read lectorum), be instructed by one set over them in a building belonging to the Church, under the eyes of the bishop. If they have reached the age of eighteen, the bishop should ask them whether they wish to marry. If they choose celibacy, and vow its observance then shall they be dedicated to the sweet yoke of the Lord, at twenty years of age as subdeacons, and, if they are worthy, as deacons after the completion of their twenty-fifth year. Yet care must be taken that they do not, unmindful of their vow, contract matrimony, or practise secret cohabitation. If they do this, they must, as guilty of sacrilege, be excommunicated. If, however, at the time that the bishop asks them they declare their intention to enter into matrimony, the permission granted by the apostle (1 Cor. 7:2, 7:9) shall not be withheld from them. If in more advanced years they, as married, with the consent of the other partner, take a vow of abstinence from the works of the flesh, then they may rise to the sacred offices.—Taken into the Corpus jur. can. c. 5, Dist. xxviii.

2. If anyone is thus educated from his youth for one church, he must not go even to another, and no strange bishop must receive such an one.

3. No cleric, from a subdeacon onwards, may live along with a woman, be she free, freed, or a slave. Only a mother, or a sister, or a near relation is allowed to take care of his house. If he has no near relation, then the woman who takes care of the house must live in another house, and under no pretext enter his dwelling. Whoever acts in opposition to this shall not only lose his clerical office and the doors of the church be closed, but he shall be excluded from the communion of all Catholics, of laymen also, even from speech with them.

4. If a cleric has laid out, on ground belonging to the Church, vineyards or small fields for his own sustenance, he may retain them to the end of his life, but then they fall to the Church; and he must not dispose of them by testament to anyone, unless the bishop allows it.

5. No Christian is allowed to marry a blood-relation.

At the close, the observance of these canons is declared to be the duty even of those bishops of the province who were not present. Archbishop Montanus is requested to give early notice of each new Synod, and long life is wished to King Amalaric.

As a kind of appendix to this Synod, the Collections of Councils add two letters of Archbishop Montanus. The first, addressed to the faithful of the district of Palentia, blames the priests there, that they ventured themselves to consecrate the chrism. Such encroachments were forbidden, even in the Old Testament, and it was ordained by the synodal canons that the parochienses presbyteri (this expression occurs here for the first time) should either personally, or through the Rectores Sacrariorum, but not through less important persons, annually request the chrism from the bishop. He further complains that several of these priests had invited quite strange bishops for the consecration of churches, and that, in word and deed, they had supported the Priscillianist heresy.

The second letter of Archbishop Montanus presents several difficulties. That Theoribius, or Turibius, to whom it is addressed, was a distinguished man, is clear from the titles which Montanus gives him: Domino eximio præcipuoque Christicolæ, Domino et filio. The context of the letter also shows that formerly, as a secular person, he had held a high office, probably that of governor, and in this position he had, in his district, completely put down the still existing heathenism, and also had greatly weakened the Priscillianist sect, on which account Montanus gives him praise. Subsequently Turibius abandoned the world, as is indicated by the words in the letter: Cum adhuc floreres in seculo; and as Ferreras, in his History of Spain (vol. ii. sec. 252 sqq.), expressly asserts. He was indeed one of the principal promoters of Monasticism in Spain, and founder of the monastery of S. Toribio, on the northern coast of Spain, in the province of Burgos. The high regard in which, for this reason, he was held procured for him great influence, and this explains how Archbishop Montanus should call upon him to use his influence, as that of a Severissimus sacerdos, in order to put a stop to the irregularity of the priests in Palentia with regard to the chrism. Montanus then further discusses, in an obscure manner not quite intelligible to us, the second point of complaint against the people of Palentia in regard to the calling in of strange bishops. Turibius seems to have upheld this irregularity, on which account Montanus threatens to bring an accusation against him before the King and (the Governor) Erganes. This last part of the letter agrees little with the courtesy of the first half.

SEC. 242. Second Synod at Orange, and Synod at Valence, A.D. 529

One of the most important Synods of the sixth century was the Arausicana Secunda, which was held July 3, 529, at Orange (Arausio), in Southern Gaul. Occasion for it was given by the consecration of a church newly built at Orange by the Præfectus Prætorio for Gaul, Liberius. Under the invitation of this highly distinguished man, Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, and the Bishops Julian, Constantius, Cyprian, Eucherius, a second Eucherius, Heraclius, Principius, Philagrius, Maximus, Prætextatus, Alethius, Lupercianus, and Vindemialis assembled at Orange. The sees of these fourteen bishops are not mentioned. Cæsarius, who first subscribed the minutes, added to his subscription the following chronological note: Decio Juniore V. C. Consule. This points to the year 529, and shows that Baronius and many of the older scholars had been quite mistaken in removing our Synod to the times of Leo the Great. At that time, as we know, Hilary occupied the see of Arles, and Cæsarius was not yet born.

The inaccuracy of that earlier assertion is plain from this, that the Prætorian Prefect Liberius founded the new church at Orange, and joined in subscribing the minutes of the Synod. This man also belongs to the sixth century, and was appointed by the East Gothic King Theoderic the Great as his Viceroy over the most recently annexed parts of Gallia Narbonensis. He discharged his office also under Theoderic’s successor and grandson Amalaric, and to his kingdom Orange belonged at the time of our Synod. Felix IV. at that time sat on the papal throne. In the preface to the minutes the bishops state that they had assembled into a Synod on the occasion of the consecration of that church; and that, on account of those who did not think rightly on the subject of grace and free will (the Semipelagians), at the exhortation of the apostolic see they had received and subscribed some Capitula sent to them by this see. These were collected from the books of the holy Fathers, and were quite adopted for the instruction of the erring. Therefore it was necessary that those who hitherto had not had the true faith respecting grace and free will should, after the perusal of these Capitula, turn their heart to the Catholic faith.

Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, like Faustus of Riez and other Semipelagians, had been formerly a monk in the monastery at Lérins; but he held it for his sacred duty to oppose the Semipelagian heresy, which extended more and more after the death of Faustus (493); therefore he wrote, for the defence of the Augustinian doctrine, his once famous work, De Gratia et libero Arbitrio, a refutation of the work of Faustus with the same title. Pope Felix IV. commended the work of Cæsarius in a special brief, and endeavoured to circulate it. In spite of this it is lost. Cæsarius also acquainted the Pope with the doings of the Semipelagians in Gaul, and asked him for his assistance in suppressing the error. In his answer Pope Felix IV. sent him a number of Capitula, which were borrowed, some more, some less, literally from the writings of Augustine (and partly also of Prosper); but which were characterised by the Synod in the Præfatio as propositions of the antiqui patres, because Leo I., Pope Gelasius, Prosper of Aquitaine, and others had put forth the same statements and propositions as Augustine, often with literal uniformity.

From what books of Augustine the particular Capitula of our Synod were taken, is a question which has been examined with great industry by Binius and others, particularly the monks of S. Maur in their edition of S. Augustine (where they have also in vol. x. printed the Capitula of Orange). In almost all cases they have found the passages. In the minutes of our Synod twenty-five such Capitula are found; it must, however, remain undecided whether the whole of these in their completeness had come from Rome, or whether the Synod may have omitted anything, or added anything of its own. A Codex, formerly belonging to the Benedictine monastery of S. Maximus at Trier, contains nineteen Capitula Sancti Augustini professing to be sent from Rome, which are generally identical with those of Orange, and may possibly be a copy of the original which came from Rome.

The high importance of the Chapters of Orange makes it desirable to append the original Latin text to the outline of the contents of each number. This is done in Sirmond, Concilia Galliæ, t. i. p. 216 sqq.; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1098 sqq.; Mansi, t. viii. p. 712 sqq.: Bruns, Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 177 sqq.; and in the tenth volume of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine, ed. Migne, t. x. p. 1785 sqq., and ed. Gaume, t. x. p. 2447 sqq.

It is further to be remarked that the Council of Trent made large use of the canons of Orange in its canons De Justificatione.

1. The sin of Adam has injured not only the body, but also the soul of man.

Si quis per offensam prævaricationis Adæ non totium, id est secundum corpus et animam, in deterius dicit hominem commutatum, sed animæ libertate illæsa durante corpus tantummodo corruptioni credit obnoxium, Pelagii errore deceptus adversatur Scripturæ dicenti: Anima quæ peccaverit ipsa morietur (Ezech. 18:20); et: Nescitis quoniam cui exhibetis vos servos ad obediendum, servi estis ejus cui obeditis? (Rom. 6:16); et: A quo quis superatur, ejus et servus addieitur (2 Pet. 2:19).

The like is found in Augustine, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, lib. ii. c. 34; ed. Migne, t. x. p. 471.

2. The sin of Adam has injured not only himself but his posterity; and not merely the death of the body, but also sin, the death of the soul, has by one man come into the world.

Si quis soli Adæ prævaricationem suam, non et ejus propagini asserit nocuisse, aut certe mortem tantum corporis, quæ pœna peccati est, non autem et peccatum quod mors est animæ, per unum hominem in omne genus humanum transiisse testatur, injustitiam Deo dabit, contradicens apostolo dicenti: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransit, in quo omnes peccaverunt (Rom. 5:12).

The like is taught by Augustine, Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 4; ed. Migne, x. 612 sqq.

3. Grace is not only granted when we pray for it, but grace itself works in us to pray for it.

Si quis ad invocationem humanam gratiam Dei dicit posse conferri, non autem ipsam gratiam facere ut invocetur a nobis, contradicit Isaiæ prophetæ vel apostolo idem dicenti: Inventus sum a non quærentibus me; palam apparui his qui me non interrogabant (Isa. 65:1; Rom. 10:20).

4. God does not wait for our desire to be cleansed from sin, but HE works this desire in us Himself by means of His Spirit (cf. Kuhn, “The Natural and the Supernatural,” in the Tübing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1864, S. 293 sq.).

Si quis ut a peccato purgemur voluntatem nostram Deum exspectare contendit, non autem ut etiam purgari velimus, per Sancti Spiritus infusionem et operationem in nos fieri confitctur, resistit ipsi Spiritui Sancto per Salomonem dicenti: Præparatur voluntas a Domino, et Apostolo salubriter prædicanti: Deus est qui operatur in vobis et velle et perficere pro bona voluntate (Phil. 2:13).

5. As the growth, so also the beginning of faith, the disposition for faith, is wrought by grace, and is not in us by nature. Were this faith naturally in us, then all who are not Christians would necessarily be believers.

Si quis sicut augmentum, ita etiam initium fidei ipsumque credulitatis affectum, quo in eum credimus qui justificat impium, et ad generationem sacri baptismatis pervenimus, non per gratiæ donum, id est per inspirationem Spiritus Sancti corrigentem voluntatem nostram ab infidelitate ad fidem, ab impietate ad pietatem, sed naturaliter nobis inesse dicit, apostolicis dogmatibus adversarius approbatur, beato Paulo dicenti: Confidimus quia qui cæpit in vobis bonum opus, perfieiet usque in diem Domini nostri Jesu Christi (Phil. 1:6); et illud: Vobis datum est pro Christo non solum ut in Eum credatis, sed etiam ut pro Illo patiamini (Phil. 1:29); et: Gratia salvi facti esti per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis; Dei enim donum est (Eph. 2:8). Qui enim fidem qua in Deum credimus dicunt esse naturalem, omnes eos qui ab Ecclesia Christi alieni sunt, quodammodo fideles esse definiunt.

This is the principal content of cc. 1–9 of Augustine’s treatise, De Prædestinat. Sanctorum, ed. Migne, t. x. p. 959 sqq.

6. It is not correct to say that the divine mercy is imparted to us when we (by our own strength) believe, knock, etc. Rather it is divine grace which works in us, so that we believe, knock, etc. Grace not merely helps the humility and obedience of man, but it is the gift of grace that he is humble and obedient.

Si quis sine gratia Dei credentibus, volentibus, desiderantibus, conantibus, laborantibus, vigilantibus, studentibus, potentibus, quærentibus, pulsantibus nobis misericordiam dicit conferri divinitus, non autem ut credamus, velimus vel hæc omnia sicut oportet agere valeamus, per infusionem et inspirationem Sancti Spiritus in nobis fieri confitetur, et aut humilitati aut obedientiæ humanæ subjungit gratiæ adjutorium, nec ut obedientes et humiles simus ipsius gratiæ donum esse consentit, resistit apostolo dicenti: Quid habes quod non accepisti? et: Gratia Dei sum quod sum (1 Cor. 4:7).

Cf. Augustine, De Dono Perseverantiæ, c. 23, n. 64, ed. Migne, t. x. p. 1302; and Prosper, Contra Collatorem, c. 2, n. 6 (ib. p. 1804).

7. Without grace, and merely from natural powers, we can do nothing which belongs to eternal salvation; neither think nor will in a proper manner (ut expedit), nor consent to the preaching of the gospel.

Si quis per naturæ vigorem bonum aliquid, quod ad salutem pertinet vitæ eternæ, cogitare ut expedit aut eligere, sive salutari, id est, evangelicæ prædicationi consentire posse confirmat absque illuminatione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti, qui dat omnibus suavitatem in consentiendo et credendo veritati, hæretico fallitur spiritu, non intelligens vocem Dei in evangelio dicentis: Sine me nihil potestis facere (Joann. 15:5), et illud Apostoli: Non quod idonei simus cogitare aliquid a nobis, quasi ex nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est (2 Cor. 3:5).

Cf. Augustine, De Gratia Christi, lib. i. c. 26; ed. Migne, t. x. p. 374.

8. It is not correct to say that some attain to the grace of baptism by the mercy of God, others by their own free will, which was weakened by Adam’s sin.

Si quis alios misericordia, alios vero per liberum arbitrium, quod in omnibus qui de prævaricatione primi hominis nati sunt constat esse vitium, ad gratiam baptismi posse venire contendit, a recta fide probatur alienus. Is enim non omnium liberum arbitrium per peccatum primi hominis infirmatum, aut certe ita læsum putat, ut tamen quidam valeant sine revelatione Dei mysterium salutis æternæ per semetipsos posse conquirere. Quod quam sit contrarium ipse Dominus probat, qui non aliquos, sed neminem ad se posse venire testatur nisi quem Pater attraxerit (Joann. 6:44), sicut et Petro dicit: Beatus es, Simon Barjona, quià, caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus qui in cœlis est (Matt. 16:17); et Apostolus: Nemo potest dicere Dominum Jesum nisi in Spiritu Sancto (1 Cor. 12:3).

The like is found in Prosper, Contra Collatorem, c. 5, n. 13; c. 13, n. 38; and c. 19, n. 55, in the Responsio to the sixth Definition of Cassian (in Migne’s ed. of S. Augustine’s Works, t. x. pp. 1807, 1818, and 1829).

9. All good thoughts and works are the gift of God.

Divini est muneris cum et recte cogitamus, et pedes nostros a falsitate et injustitia continemus; quoties enim bona agimus, Deus in nobis atque nobiscum ut operemur operatur.

This is verbally identical with the twenty-second Sententia in S. Prosperi Sententiæ ex Augustino delibatæ, in the Works of St. Augustine, ed. Migne, t. x. p. 1861.

10. Even the saints need divine aid.

Adjutorium Dei etiam renatis ac sanctis semper est implorandum, ut ad finem bonum pervenire vel in bono possint opere perdurare.

Prosper maintains the like against Cassian in his treatise Contra Collatorem, c. 11, n. 31–36, especially n. 34; Migne, Opp. S. Augustini, t. x. p. 1815 sqq.

11. We can vow nothing to God but what we have first received from Him.

Nemo quidquam Domino recte voveret, nisi ab Ipso acciperet quod voveret, sicut legitur: Quæ de manu tua accepimus damus Tibi (1 Chron. 29:14).

Taken from Augustine, De Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 4, n. 7 (ed. Migne, t. vii. p. 530), and forms the 54th sentence in Prosper, see above, c. 9.

12. What in us is loved by God is God’s own gift.

Tales nos amat Deus, quales futuri sumus Ipsius dono, non quales sumus nostro merito.

This is the 56th Sentence in Prosper. See c. 9.

13. The free will weakened in Adam is restored only by the grace of baptism.

Arbitrium voluntatis in primo homine infirmatum nisi per gratiam baptismi non potest reparari; quod amissum, nisi a quo potuit dari, non potest reddi, unde Veritas ipsa dicit: Si vos filius liberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis (Joann. 8:36).

Taken from Augustine, De Civ. Dei, lib. xiv. cc. 11, n. 1 (ed. Migne, t. vii. p. 418). It is also the 152nd Sentence in Prosper. Cf. c. 9.

14. One who is unhappy can be delivered from his misery only by prevenient divine grace.

Nullus miser de quacumque miseria liberatur, nisi qui Dei misericordia prævenitur, sicut dicit Psalmista: Cito anticipent nos misericordiæ Tuæ, Domine (Ps. 78:8); et illud: Deus meus, misericordia Ejus prævenient me (Ps. 58:11).

The 211th Sentence in Prosper.

15. The condition of Adam appointed by God was changed by sin: the condition of man brought about by sin is changed in the faithful by the grace of God.

Ab eo, quod formavit Deus, mutatus est Adam, sed in pejus per iniquitatem suam; ab eo, quod operata est iniquitas, mutatur fidelis, sed in melius per gratiam Dei. Illa ergo mutatio fuit prævaricatoris primi, hæc secundum psalmistam Mutatio est dexteræ excelsi (Ps. 76:11).

From Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. lxviii. Sermo i. n. 2 (ed. Migne, t. iv. p. 841). It is also the 225th Sentence in Prosper.

16. All that we have is the gift of God. If anyone fails to recognise in any good, that he has it from God, either he has it not, or it will be taken from him.

Nemo ex eo, quod videtur habere, glorietur tanquam non acceperit, aut ideo se putet accepisse, quia litera extrinsecus vel ut legeretur apparuit, vel ut audiretur sonuit. Nam sicut Apostolus dicit: Si per legem justitia, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est (Gal. 2:11). Ascendens in altum captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus (Eph. 4:8). Inde habet quicunque habet; quisquis autem se inde habere negat, aut vere non habet, aut id quod habet aufertur ab eo.

Taken from Augustine, De Spiritu et Litera, c. 29 (Binius, Hardouin, and the Benedictines give by mistake c. 28), ed. Migne, t. x. p. 231. It is also the 259th Sentence in Prosper.

17. That which makes the heathen strong is worldly desire; that which makes Christians strong is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.

Fortitudinem gentilium mundana cupiditas, fortitudinem autem Christianorum Dei caritas facit, quæ diffusa est in cordibus nostris non per voluntatis arbitrium quod est a nobis, sed per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis.

From Augustine, Op. Imp. contra Julianum, lib. i. c. 83 (ed. Migne, t. x. p. 1104). It is also the 295th Sentence in Prosper.

18. Unmerited grace goes before the most meritorious works.

Nullis meritis gratiam prævenientibus, debetur merces bonis operibus, si fiant; sed gratia quæ non debetur præcedit ut fiant.

From Augustine, Op. Imp. contra Julianum, lib. i. c. 133 (ed. Migne, t. x. p. 1133). The 297th Sentence in Prosper.

19. Even if human nature had still the integrity in which it was created, it yet could not preserve itself without the aid of the Creator. If, however, it is unable without grace to preserve the safety which it has obtained, much less can it regain that which was lost.

Natura humana, etiamsi in illa integritate, in qua est condita, permaneret, nullo modo seipsam, creatore suo non adjuvante, servaret; unde cum sine Dei gratia non possit custodire quam accepit, quomo sine Dei gratia poterit reparare quod perdidit?

From Augustine, Epist. 186, c. 11, n. 37 (formerly Epist. 106, 11). The 308th Sentence in Prosper.

20. God works much good in man which man does not work; but man works no good the performance of which God does not enable him to do.

Multa Deus facit in homine bona, quæ non facit homo; nulla vero facit homo bona, quæ non Deus præstat ut faciat homo.

From Augustine’s treatise, Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, lib. ii. c. 9 (not 8, as the Benedictines say by mistake), n. 31 (ed. Migne, t. x. p. 586). The 312th Sentence in Prosper.

21. The law does not justify, and grace does not consist, as some maintain, in the natural dispositions of man. The law was there, and did not justify; nature was there, and did not justify. But Christ has died to fulfil the law, and to restore the nature which was ruined through Adam.

Sicut iis, qui volentes in lege justificari et a gratia exciderunt, verissime dicit apostolus: Si ex lege justitia est, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est (Gal. 2:21); sic iis qui gratiam, quam commendat et percipit fides Christi, putant esse naturam, verissime dicitur: Si per naturam justitia est, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est. Jam hic enim erat lex, et non justificabat; jam hic erat et natura, et non justificabat. Ideo Christus non gratis mortuus est, ut et lex per illum impleretur qui dixit: Non veni legem solvere, sed adimplere (Matt. 5:17); et natura per Adam perdita per illum repararetur, qui dixit venisse se, quærere et salvare quod perierat.

Taken from Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 13 (ed. Migne, t. x. p. 896). The 315th Sentence in Prosper.

22. That which man has of his own is only falsehood and sin. What he possesses in truth and righteousness he has from God.

Nemo habet de suo nisi mendacium et peccatum; si quid autem habet homo veritatis atque justitiæ, ab illo fonte est, quem debemus sitire in hac eremo, ut ex eo quasi guttis quibusdam irrorati non deficiamus in via.

From Augustine, Tractat. V. in Joann. n. 1 (Migne, t. iii. p. 1414). The 323rd Sentence in Prosper. This Capitulum seems, at first sight, to be identical with the propositions of Bajus, rejected by Pius v. and Gregory XIII., No. 25: Omnia opera infidelium sunt peccata et philosophorum virtutes sunt vitia, and No. 27: Liberum arbitrium sine gratiæ Dei adjutoria nonnisi ad peccandum valet. The Capitulum 22 of our Synod, together with the similar statements of Augustine and Prosper, has therefore become a real crux of the theologians, and for centuries not a few have exercised much acuteness in reconciling the statement of Augustine and of our Synod with the dogma: that even in fallen man freedom to do good is not entirely annihilated, and that there is a twofold moral good, the natural and the supernatural. All these attempts have been set forth and criticised of late by Johann Ernst in his treatise on “the works and virtues of the unbelieving according to S. Augustine (with an Appendix on canon 22 of Arausicanum II.), Freiburg: Herder, 1871.”

One of the most admissible hypothesis devised by Ripalda, approved by Klentgen, Berlage, Schwan, and others, goes thus: “There are in the present state of the world only two kinds of human works, the morally bad and the supernaturally good. Naturally good works, which certainly might lie between these, there are none, as the natural moral powers of man are never left by God Himself, but in every moral activity are supported by God’s grace. Where, then, the natural powers (the Suum, as the Synod says) alone of man are in play, then the product is the opposite of morality, namely, sin and falsehood.” Ernst, however, rejects also this manner of explanation, and understands the statement of Augustine and of the Synod in the following manner: “God has placed before man a supernatural goal, eternal blessedness. By the sin of Adam man is deprived of this destiny and gift which had been willed by God, died to it, and therefore nothing which fallen man can now accomplish in moral relation can have any real value before God” (p. 225), that is, it cannot gain for man eternal blessedness. These so-called naturally good works of the infideles, which are ineffectual for blessedness, are designated by Augustine and our Synod as peccata, and we can only ask whether these are merely peccata materialia (ob defectum ordinis in finem debitum et ob carentiam perfectionis debitæ), and such as could not be reckoned to the infideles as involving guilt, or whether Augustine and our Synod ascribed to them a real character of guilt, and regarded them as peccata in the full sense of the word. The former view is taken by Passaglia and Hunter, the latter by Ernst, on the ground that God makes it possible for everyone to give a higher character to his moral endeavours, and to impress upon them the stamp of the higher supernatural morality, which, however, the infideles do not will. (See Ernst, l.c. S. 130, 197–201, and 215.)

23. When man does evil, he fulfils his own will; but if he does good, he fulfils the will of God, yet with free will.

Suam voluntatem homines faciunt, non Dei, quando id agunt quod Deo displicet; quando autem id faciunt quod volunt ut divinæ serviant voluntati, quamvis volentes agant quod agunt, illius tamen voluntas est, a quo et præparatur et jubetur quod volunt.

From Augustine, Tractat. XIX. in Joann. n. 19 (ed. Migne, t. iii. p. 1555). The 338th Sentence in Prosper, not the 336th as the Benedictines say, and, after them, Migne.

24. He who has Christ in him and remains in Christ, advantages only himself thereby, and not Christ.

Ita sunt in vite palmites, ut viti nihil conferant, sed inde accipiant unde vivant; sic quippe vitis est in palmitibus, ut vitale alimentum subministrat iis, non sumet ab iis. Ac per hoc et manentem in se habere Christum et manere in Christo, discipulis prodest utrumque, non Christo. Nam præciso palmite potest de viva radice alius pullulare; qui autem præcisus est sine radice non potest vivere.

From Augustine, Tractat. LXXXI. in Joann. n. 1 (ed. Migne, t. iii. p. 1841). The 366th (not 364th) Sentence in Prosper.

25. The love of God is itself a gift of God.

Prorsus donum Dei est deligere Deum. Ipse ut deligeretur dedit, qui non dilectus diligit. Displicentes amati sumus, ut fieret in nobis unde placeremus. Diffundit enim caritatem in cordibus nostris Spiritus Patris et Filii, quem cum Patre amamus et Filio.

From Augustine, Tractat. CII. in Joann. n. 5 (ed. Migne, t. iii. p. 1898). The 370th (not 368th) Sentence in Prosper.

After drawing up these twenty-five chapters or canons, the Synod composed its own confession on the doctrine of grace in a kind of creed, which contains the five following points in opposition to the Semipelagians:—

(a) By the sin of Adam, free will is so weakened that henceforth no one can love God in a suitable manner, believe in Him, or act for God’s sake, unless grace has first come to him. Thus that glorious faith of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and other ancient Fathers, on account of which the apostle praises them, was imparted to them, not per bonum naturæ, which was, in the beginning, given to Adam, but by the grace of God. (The direct contrary of this had been taught by Faustus.)

(b) All, however, are able, after they have received grace through baptism, with the co-operation of God, to accomplish what is necessary for the salvation of their soul.

(c) It is in no way our belief that some are predestinated by God to evil (predestinarian heresy); rather, if there are any who believe a thing so evil, we, with horror, say anathema.

(d) In every good work the beginning does not come from us; but God, without any previous merits on our side, inspires us with faith and love, so that we seek for baptism, and after baptism can, with His assistance, fulfil His will.

(e) Since this doctrine of the Fathers and of the Synod is wholesome for laymen also, the distinguished members of the laity, who have been present at the solemnity, should also subscribe. In consequence of this invitation, besides the bishops, also the Præfectus Prætorio Liberius and seven other viri illustres subscribed.

From a letter of Pope Boniface II. to Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, we see that the latter, as president of the Synod of Orange, after the end of it, sent the abbot and priest Armenius to Rome, and, among other things, gave him a letter to his friend Boniface, a cleric of high position there, in order that the latter might procure from Pope Felix a definite confirmation of the Synod, as desired by Cæsarius. In the meantime, however, Felix had died, and Boniface himself had become Pope, as the second of that name. He did not fail to fulfil the desire of Cæsarius at once by means of the letter referred to. This is dated viii. Kal. Febr. Lampadio et Oreste V. C. Coss., that is, January 25, 530. As, however, Felix IV. did not die until September 18, 530, it is impossible that the date of this letter should be genuine, and as Pagi (ad ann. 530, n. 6, and 529, n. 11) supposes, must have been arbitrarily added a sciolo quopiam. Sirmond (l.c. p. 605) supposed that we ought to read, Post Consulatum Lampadii, etc., i.e. A.D. 531; but Pagi thinks, and not unreasonably, that if Boniface had been elected in September 530 (Pagi, ad ann. 530, n. 4), he could hardly have put off the answer to Cæsarius into the January of the following year, as he says himself in this letter: “Catholicum non distulimus dare responsum” (Pagi, ad ann. 529, n. 11). Accordingly, as the Benedictine editors of the Concil. Galliæ opine, instead of viii. Kal. Febr., we should read Decembres or Novembres of the year 530. Another way was taken by Cardinal Noris (Hist. Pelag. ii. 23), by the assumption that Felix IV. had died in September 529; and the Ballerini defended this view in their edition of the works of the cardinal. Noris, Opp. Omnia, t. i. p. 528, and t. iv. p. 932.

Pope Felix, in this letter, expresses himself quite decisively against the Semipelagian contention that many a man, even without the divine grace (præveniens), could of himself come to faith in Christ, and then says: Quapropter affectu congruo salutantes suprascriptam confessionem vestram consentaneam catholicis patrum regulis approbamus. There may be a question whether he meant by this the whole minutes of Orange, or only the confession of faith appended to the twenty-five chapters. In the expression confessio there lies no necessity for thinking only of the latter; for, in fact, the whole forms a kind of confession of faith, and the epilogue, which has specially this form, is by itself nothing independent, no conclusive creed, but in its very first words represents itself as belonging to the twenty-five chapters. It is quite true that the Pope, in his answer, chiefly makes reference to this epilogue, and weaves into his own letters such Bible passages as are also found in the epilogue (1 Cor. 7:25 and Phil. 1:29); but immediately afterwards he adduces the words of Christ in S. John 15:5, and indeed as quoted by the Fathers at Orange, although this is found not in the epilogue, but in chapter 7. So also he repeats the passages, Prov. 8:35, Ps. 58:11, which occur in chapters 4 and 14.

It is customary to assign the Synod of Valence to the same year (529) as that of Orange, or to the following year (530). The Acts of this Synod are lost, and we have no information respecting it but that which is contained in the life of S. Cæsarius, by his disciple, the deacon Cyprian. In this it is said: “Many stood up against the doctrine of grace taught by Cæsarius, and by a false apprehension of it there arose in Gaul an evil suspicion against the doctrine of the man of God. On this account the bishops beyond the Isére, in Valentia (Valence), came together. On account of sickness, Cæsarius was unable himself to be present, although he wished to be; but he sent some bishops, priests, and deacons as deputies, and among them, in particular, the celebrated Bishop Cyprian of Toulon. The latter showed, at the Synod, from passages of the Bible and of the holy Fathers, that no man could make progress in divine things by himself alone, and without gratia præveniens. For the perusal of the Synod, the man of God (Cæsarius afterwards) furnished the complete array of proofs from the apostolic tradition. Pope Boniface, after he had learnt of the controversy, rejected the opinions of the opponents, and confirmed, by apostolic authority, the judgment (prosecutio) of Cæsarius.”

Noris (Hist. Pelag. ii. 23), Pagi (ad ann. 529, n. 8 sqq.), and all the other writers represent the matter as though the Synod of Orange had not at once attained to full recognition in Gaul, and that Cæsarius had, for that reason, summoned a new and larger Synod at Valence. But, in the first place, the original documents say not a word of Cæsarius having summoned the Synod; on the contrary, he appears rather to have been invited to it; and this must be right, for Valentia belonged, not to the ecclesiastical province of Arles, but to that of Vienne, as we saw above (sec. 211) from the decisions of Popes Leo I. and Hilary, who assigned the suffragan bishoprics of Valence, Tarantaise, Geneva, and Grenoble to the metropolitan see of Vienne. Valence, however, lies on the boundary between the country on this side and on the other side of the Isére, and when the deacon Cyprian, who lived with Cæsarius of Arles, says that the bishops ultra Isaram had come to Valence, and also Cæsarius had sent deputies thither, the result comes out. The bishops of Gallia Viennensis and Lugdunensis, living on the other side, that is, on the north of the Isére, on account of the prevailing doctrinal controversies, determined to unite in a great Synod with the bishops on the south of the Isére, and for this purpose selected Valence, which was peculiarly suitable for such a common assembly. Ecclesiastically it belonged to the north of the Isére, the province of Vienne, but in geographical position to the south of the Isére, lying near its junction with the Rhone.

In the second place, we find in our original documents not the slightest justification of the assumption that the Synod of Valence was held after that of Orange. The deacon Cyprian does not indicate the latter (at least as Noris, Pagi, and the rest understood him); and it is a mere assumption on their part when they place the Synod of Valence after that of Orange. The reverse seems to me to be the truth, and I believe it possible to verify this by reference to the original documents. They relate that, when the doctrine of Cæsarius came into suspicion, the bishops assembled at Valence; but his doctrine was in suspicion with the Semipelagians for a considerable time before the Synod of Orange. The first thing that happened after the origin of the suspicion was the assembly at Valence. After this was ended, Cæsarius furnished the proof for the true doctrine from tradition, and Pope Boniface confirmed this. When the Synod of Orange, under the presidency of Cæsarius, verified the true doctrine from the writings of Augustine, and Pope Boniface confirmed the decrees of Orange, I suppose that the biographer Cyprian (our authority) had understood by the proof which Cæsarius furnished nothing else but the decrees of the Synod of Orange, and that this accordingly took place later than that of Valence.—After this exposition of our views, we must regard the attempt of Pagi (ad ann. 529, n. 10) to assign the Synod of Valence to the year 530 as radically a mistake.

SEC. 243. Second Synod at Vaison, A.D. 529

The Synod at Carpentras had ordained that, on November 6 of next year, a new assembly should take place at Vaison (in vico Vasensi) (see sec. 239). It was attended by eleven or twelve bishops, and on the Nones of the month of November, A.D. 529, that is, on November 5, it was opened and closed. As Vaison is an episcopal city in the province of Arles, Archbishop Cæsarius took the presidency, and this four months after the holding of the celebrated second Synod of Orange. The assembly at Vaison, as is said in the preface to. the minutes, had no other aim than to keep alive love and harmony among the bishops, and to recall back to remembrance the ancient ordinances of the Church. There was no contested matter to be decided. After the reading of the ancient canons, they were contented to draw up five new ones, from which they expected a beneficent effect on the life of the Church. They are, moreover, of different meaning. The first was very important for the future education of the clergy, the second for the improvement and the universal introduction of preaching, the fourth for the maintenance of a close union with Rome. The two others refer to special points in worship:—

1. All priests in the parishes must, as is already the very wholesome custom in all Italy, receive the younger unmarried lectors into their house, and instruct them in the singing of psalms (psalmos parare), in the Church lessons, and in the law of the Lord, so that they may have able successors. If, however, such a lector shall afterwards desire to marry, the permission must not be refused him.

2. Not only in the cities, but also in all rural churches, the priests may preach. If the priest is hindered through sickness, a deacon should read a homily by a Father of the Church.

3. As in Rome, in the East, and in Italy, so also in our churches the Kyrie Eleison must be frequently sung, for the awaking of penitence, as well at matins as at Mass and vespers. Moreover, at all Masses, as well at early Masses as at those during Lent and the Masses for the dead, the Tersanctus should be said, as in the public Masses.

4. The name of the Pope of the period should be read aloud in the churches (in the diptychs, or in the corresponding part of the liturgy).

5. As at Rome, and in the East, and in all Africa and Italy, on account of the heretics who deny the eternity of the Son of God (Arians), in all the closing forms after the Gloria there is added, Sicut erat in principio; so must it be also in all our churches.

Gratian, in his Decret. c. 15, C. xiii. q. 2, brings forward another canon belonging to the Concilium Varense or Vasense, which forbids surplus fees for funerals. This, however, certainly belongs to the Concilium Namnetense in the ninth century, and will hereafter meet us as the 6th canon of that Synod.

SEC. 244. Synods at Rome, Larissa, and Constantinople, A.D. 531

Pope Boniface II., to whom we have already frequently referred, had come into possession of the Roman see not without violent contests. After the death of his predecessor, Felix IV., two parties stood over against each other. The one chose Dioscurus, and consecrated him in the Basilica of Constantine (Lateran Church); the other elevated Boniface to the throne, and consecrated him in the Basilica Julii. Occasion for this schism was given by the endeavour of the East Gothic Arian King Athalaric, in understanding with a portion of the clergy, to get possession of the Roman see in a manner as arbitrary as his grandfather Theoderic the Great had done at the elevation of the previous Pope, Felix IV. Probably another part of the Roman clergy opposed him in this, and thus gave occasion for the schism. Whether Boniface or Dioscurus was protected by the King, cannot any longer be decided. I suppose, however, the former, since the name of his father, Sigisbold or Sigisvult, shows that he belonged to the Gothic nation, and because the King, after the death of the anti-Pope, made no attempt to put another in his place. Pagi (ad ann. 530, n. 5) shows that Felix IV. died September 18, 530, and that Boniface was elected only three days later. We have already seen that others prefer 529. The schism lasted twenty-nine days; that is, until the death of Dioscurus, on October 14, put an end to it. The latter had by simony and such like means made himself a party; for this reason the Roman Senate made a decree, that for the future every papal election should be altogether invalid, if the elect, either in his own person or by others, had made promises to anyone.

From this time Boniface was no longer annoyed by any opponent; and as the Gothic King made no endeavour to set up any other in opposition to him, but, on the contrary, spoke of him with the most respectful expressions, and did not prevent him from treating his former opponents with harshness, this is a strong proof of our supposition that Boniface had, at the beginning, been set up by the King. The pontifical book does not conceal that this Pope now went to work very violently, and zelo et dolo ductus, cum grandi amaritudine brought back the clergy to obedience. An edict, in which he pronounced anathema on his former opponent Dioscurus, was placed by him in the archives of the church, and he demanded of the whole assembled clergy the subscription of this document. According to the words of the pontifical book, which are by no means clear, none of the bishops gave their signature; in the biography of Pope Agapetus, on the contrary, the same pontifical book says that Boniface, by violence and uncanonically, extorted the anathema on Dioscurus from the bishops and priests, but that Agapetus, at his accession to office (A.D. 535), had this document burnt publicly in the church.

In the short period of the reign of Pope Boniface, there fell three Roman and several other Synods. The first Roman Synod he got together in the Basilica of S. Peter with the aim of preventing, at future papal elections, the renewal of troublesome occurrences, such as had happened at his own, perhaps also in order to take the appointment to the Roman see out of the hands of the heretical Gothic Kings. He presented here a constitutum, which granted him the right to nominate his own successor; and after the sacerdotes had subscribed it, and sworn to observe it, he declared the deacon Vigilius his successor, at the grave of S. Peter. This was in opposition to the ancient laws of the Church, and met with much opposition, undoubtedly also from the Gothic King. The Pope himself, moreover, soon regretted his action, and therefore he assembled a second Roman Synod, at which the sacerdotes, out of respect for the Holy See, quashed (cassaverunt, not censuerunt) what had been done, and Boniface in presence of the Sacerdotes (the bishops of the ecclesiæ suburbicariæ, see vol. i. p. 397), probably because he had opposed the pretensions of the East Gothic King in regard to the papal election. Both Synods undoubtedly belong to the year 531.

About the same time two Greek Synods were held at Larissa and Constantinople. After the death of the Metropolitan Proclus of Larissa in Thessaly, Stephen, hitherto a layman and a warrior, had been elected in his place by the people and clergy, and all whose assent was necessary (so he says himself). In accordance with ancient custom, there assembled at Larissa, for his ordination, a provincial Synod, at which the well-to-do burgesses of the city were also present, and all the clergy. But the priest Antonius, and the bishops Demetrius of the Island of Sciathus and Probian of Demetrias, although they had themselves subscribed the document for the ordination of Stephen, and Probian had even delivered a laudatory speech about him, immediately betook themselves to Constantinople, and made complaints before the Patriarch Epiphanius, that the ordination of Stephen was uncanonical, and that another bishop must be appointed.

The Patriarch hereupon sent an edict to Larissa, in which he ordered Stephen to lay down his office, because he had been consecrated in opposition to the canons. He offered no proof of this, nor did he invite Stephen to offer a canonical defence. On the contrary, he interdicted the bishops of Thessaly and the clergy of Larissa from Church communion with Stephen, and forbade his receiving sustentation from the property of the Church. He treated him accordingly as a person already convicted, before having first instituted an inquiry. For the publication of this sentence he commissioned a certain Andrew (a cleric of Constantinople), who met Stephen, not at Larissa, but in Thessalonica, whither he had travelled, and where he read to him the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Stephen immediately declared that he appealed to the Pope, to whom alone, if his election was to be objected to, the trial of the case belonged. But he was against his will brought to Constantinople, and would there have been kept in chains, if some persons had not become responsible for him and his appearance at the residence. In this necessity he turned, by writing, to the Pope, and besought him in a very copious letter, full of the recognition of the Roman primacy, for support and deliverance.

In a second letter to the Pope, he informs him that after his arrival in Constantinople, the Patriarch had immediately held a σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα. Before this Stephen said he had declared his appeal to Rome, with the addition that the custom which had hitherto prevailed in the province of Thessaly should not be overthrown; nor must the consideration of the apostolic see, imparted by Christ and the holy canon, and preserved per antiquam consuetudinem, be violated. The Patriarch, he said, had paid no attention to this, and his principal aim had been to set himself forth as master and judge of the Churches of Thessaly. The Synod of Constantinople had pronounced his deposition without allowing him a complete defence, and his appeal to Rome had only more increased the hatred against him. They had reproached him with having attempted to diminish the rights of the holy Church of the chief city. At the reading of the synodal sentence, however, he had declared his appeal, but was immediately conducted back to prison, and now earnestly prayed for help.

The Patriarch did all in his power to prevent the complaints of Stephen from coming to Rome; but Bishop Theodosius of Echinus, a suffragan of Larissa, succeeded in getting to Italy, and conveyed the complaints of Stephen and of other bishops, with other documents bearing upon the subject. Hereupon Boniface held his third Roman Synod, December 7, 531, in consistorio B. Andreæ apostoli. This was a building adjoining—a kind of secretarium—to S. Peter’s Church. Under the presidency of the Pope, there were present the Bishops Sabinus of Canusium, Abundantius of Demetrias, Carosus of Centumcellæ, and Felix of Numentum, with many priests and deacons. The Archdeacon Tribunus announced that Bishop Theodosius of Echinus was at the door, and prayed to be admitted. When this was granted, Theodosius handed in the documents of his Metropolitan Stephen of Larissa, which he had brought with him. After, at the command of the Pope, the first of these, directed to the Holy See, had been read, Abundantius rose, and remarked that twice in this document Probian was mentioned as bishop of Demetrias; while, in truth, he had obtained this see only by violence and deceit, and that Abundantius himself was its rightful possessor. The Pope ordered that both the letter of Stephen and the statement of Abundantius should be received into the minutes; and then permitted the reading of the second letter, also addressed to him by Stephen. We have already known this, and after it had been embodied in the Acts, the first session closed, as it was towards evening.

The second session took place on the 9th of December. Theodosius of Echinus presented a third letter, which had emanated from three of Stephen’s suffragan bishops, and in which they gave the Pope an account of all that had taken place, and earnestly besought his help. These were the Bishops Elpidius of Thebæ Phthioticæ, Timothy of Diocæsarea, and Stephen of Lamia. Thereupon Theodosius of Echinus remarked that the Bishop of Rome had by right a claim to the primacy over all Churches in the whole world, but he had specially vindicated the Churches of Illyria for his government, as was proved by a series of ancient documents which he had brought with him. The Pope ordered them to be read, and an examination to be made as to whether they agreed with those contained in the Roman archives, and were genuine. There were twenty-six letters, almost all from Popes—from Damasus, Siricius, Innocent I., Boniface I., Cœlestine I., Xystus III., and Leo the Great; besides some letters from the Emperors Honorius, Theodosius, Valentinian III., and Marcian, as well as from Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople, all from the middle of the fourth to the middle of the fifth century. All these letters are found in the minutes of the Synod; but here they end, and all the rest is so completely lost, that we do not know at all what the Synod finally decreed,

SEC. 245. The Religious Conference at Constantinople, A.D. 533, and the alleged Roman Synod under Pope John II

In the short account given above of the Monophysite heresy (sec. 208) we noticed a religious conference, which the Emperor Justinian held in the year 533 at Constantinople, between the orthodox and the Severians. The monk Severus, one of the leading opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, had, in the year 513, under the Emperor Anastasius, who was favourable to the Monophysites, been raised to the patriarchal see of Antioch. Although again deposed, after a few years, under the Emperor Justin I. he yet remained the most important man among the Monophysites, and their most copious writer, and a special division among them received from him the name of Severians. In order to bring about, if possible, a union of this party with the Church, the Emperor Justinian called together, some years after his ascension of the throne, six peculiarly able bishops of the orthodox—Hypatius of Ephesus, John of Vesina, Stephen of Seleucia, Anthimus of Trapezunt, Innocent of Maronia in Thrace, and Demetrius of Philippopolis; and, on the other side, seven leaders of the Severians—Sergius of Cyrus, Thomas of Germanicia, Philoxenus of Dulichium, Peter of Theodosiopolis, John of Constantina, and Nonnus of Ceresina,—and requested them to take counsel together, in peace and gentleness, on the points of difference in their faith. On account of sickness, Theodosius of Philippopolis was unable to appear.

As place of assembly the Emperor fixed a hall of the palace Heptatonchon Triclinion at Constantinople; and besides the bishops named there were also a good many priests and deputies of monks present. In order that he might not interrupt, the Emperor decided not to be personally present, but he appointed the high official of State, Strategius, to take his place.

We owe our knowledge of this conference to the fairly complete account which one of the orthodox members, Innocent of Maronia, gave to a friend, and which has come down to us in a Latin translation, which in many parts is faulty and defective. The conference was opened on the first day by Strategius with an address to the Orientals (so the Monophysites were called), in which he invited them to bring forward, without contentiousness, their objections to the doctrine of the Synod of Chalcedon. The Orientals replied that they had transmitted their confession of faith to the Emperor in writing. As the orthodox had read this already, they now wanted, by some questions, to give their opponents an opportunity of more fully explaining themselves. Bishop Hypatius was their mouthpiece in this. To the question: “What do you hold concerning Eutyches?” the Orientals replied decisively: “He is a heretic, even a prince of heresy.” On the other hand, they wanted to declare Dioscurus and the Robber-Synod as orthodox. In this Hypatius discerned a contradiction. The debate which arose over this question, of which our document contains but little, took up the whole session.

From the transactions of the second day, we see that the Orientals, at the close of the first, had made the admission, that it was not right that Dioscurus and his general Synod (the Robber-Synod) should have received Eutyches back into Church communion, and that, therefore, another general Synod, that of Chalcedon, had been obliged to correct that error. This the Orientals admitted also on the second day; but they reproached the Synod of Chalcedon for this innovation, that instead of ex duabus naturis, as Cyril and the old Fathers taught, they had put in duabus naturis, and had assumed the existence of two natures even after the union (of the Godhead and manhood). That, they said, was both new and erroneous. In proof of this they appealed to the writings of Cyril, Athanasius, etc., and of Dionysius the Areopagite, which had all taught only one nature after the union.

The orthodox contended, on the contrary, that these writings had been falsified by the Apollinarists, just as the letter of Athanasius to Epictetus had been by the Nestorians. The alleged writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, in particular, were certainly not genuine, as none of the ancients referred to them, although Cyril and Athanasius and the Nicene Council could easily have used them. The Orientals replied, that even if all these writings were spurious, yet the twelve anathematisms of Cyril were genuine, and in these only one nature was taught. The Council of Chalcedon, however, had not received the writing of Cyril in which these anathematisms were contained, and so had altered the doctrine. Hypatius replied: “The Synod of Chalcedon accepted on their side all the explanations of the faith approved at Ephesus in their entirety, and therefore it cannot be maintained that they had made an exception with the one in question, and had rejected it. But this one they had not quite expressly adduced, because therein Cyril speaks of two hypostases (in the sense of natures) in Christ, and they, in opposition to the Nestorians, asserted only one hypostasis in Christ (in the sense of person). In order to avoid misunderstanding, the Synod of Chalcedon had not expressly approved that writing of Cyril’s.”

The Orientals remarked that Cyril by the two hypostases had understood nothing else but the two natures, and Hypatius carried this correct view further out. But, in order to show the difference between “from two natures” and “in two natures,” the Orientals contended that only when we say “from two natures” is the one nature of the incarnate Logos maintained, whilst by “in two natures” a duality of persons is indicated. The orthodox did not agree to this, but maintained that the Synod of Chalcedon had allowed both modes of speech; and even Flavian of Constantinople, who first condemned Eutyches, had spoken of “one incarnate nature of the divine Word.” In proof, they read the confession of faith of this bishop (see vol. iii. sec. 174), and Hypatius thereupon proceeded as follows: “Although Flavian used the expression ‘from two natures,’ Dioscurus, nevertheless, so ill-treated him (at the Robber-Synod), that the Synod of Chalcedon saw from that, that not the confession of two natures would satisfy the Eutychians, but only the confusa et commixta et imaginaria vel Manichæica unius naturæ confessio. Therefore, for more exact definition, they had taught ‘one person and one substance in two natures.’ ”

The Orientals wanted to bring forward letters of Cyril in which he had expressly rejected the doctrine of two natures after the union; but Hypatius replied that, on the orthodox side only those letters of Cyril were recognised which were approved by Synods, the others were neither commended nor rejected; and from the approved letters of Cyril the proof was now brought forward, that he had taught an inconfusa et indivisa duarum naturarum unitas. As the opponents laid great weight upon other letters of Cyril, Hypatius proved that in these, as in many other patristic passages, and also in the Bible, the duality of nature was taught. The Orientals then went on to two new points, that through the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon many of the faithful had been vexed, and that Ibas and Theodoret had been, at Chalcedon, improperly restored to communion, and replaced in their offices. With the debate on this point the second session closed.

The third session was held by the Emperor himself in the presence of the Senate, after taking counsel on the subject with the Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople. When the session began, the patriarch withdrew, but the Emperor held a conference with both sides, which our document highly commends, but does not report. The Orientals had reflected on their opponents with the Emperor, as being unwilling to acknowledge that our Lord, who suffered in the flesh, was one of the Trinity, and that the miracles and the suffering of Christ belonged to one and the same person. On this point the Emperor questioned the patriarch who had now returned, and Hypatius, and in their answer they clearly explained the true doctrine of the Church, namely, that the miracles and the sufferings certainly belonged to one person but to different natures, and that the suffering Christ in His Godhead was one of the Trinity, but in His manhood one of us. On a fourth day the Emperor again convoked the orthodox bishops in the presence of the Senate, and explained that of the Orientals only Bishop Philoxenus had attained to a better conviction through the three conferences, and had returned to the Church. Our informant adds that the Emperor exercised great patience with the other Monophysite bishops, and waited long for their conversion, but none of them returned to the Church. On the other hand, many of the clergy and monks who had attended the proceedings now received the right faith.

About the same time, on March 15, 533, the Emperor Justinian promulgated a law, in which he pointed out to his subjects the true faith in the sense of the Council of Chalcedon, and particularly laid stress upon the confession that the Lord who suffered on the cross was one of the Trinity. At the same time it appeared to him necessary to obtain for this expression, then so much discussed, the papal approbation as well, particularly as the distinguished Akoimetæ monks rejected it, and even Pope Hormisdas, a short time before, had pronounced it useless and even dangerous (see vol. iii. sec. 208). Hormisdas did so, not because he found this formula erroneous in itself, but because the Monophysites then tried to shelter themselves behind it. Now, however, the state of the case was different. The formula was now opposed only by the Nestorians, and therefore it was in the interest of orthodoxy that Justinian requested its confirmation from the Pope, and John II. granted this with pleasure. Baronius and others supposed that the Pope, with a view to this approval, summoned a Roman Synod, A.D. 534; but there is no mention of this in the original documents, and even in the letter of the Pope to the Senate, to which they refer, there is no word of a Synod.

SEC. 246. Synod at Marseilles on account of Bishop Contumeliosus, A.D. 533

The Acts of a Synod at Marseilles in the year 533 were discovered some decades back by Dr. Knust in the same codex of the Darmstadt Library in which he also found the minutes of a Synod nearly a hundred and fifty years earlier at Nîmes (see vol. iii. sec. 110). Occasion for the Synod at Marseilles was given by several offences of Bishop Contumeliosus of Riez, of whom also three letters of John II. and one of Agapetus I. treat. We shall see below in what relation these four papal letters stand to our Synod. The minutes of the Synod run as follows:—

Constitutio Cæsarii Papæ in Massiliensi urbe habita episcoporum xvi

Cum ad civitatem Massiliensem, propter requirenda et discutienda ea quæ de fratre nostro Contumelioso episcopo fuerant divulgata sacerdotes Domini convenissent, residentibus Sanctis episcopis, cum grandi diligentia discussis omnibus secundum quod gesta, quæ nobis præsentibus facta sunt, continent multa turpia et inhonesta, supradictus Contumeliosus, convictus ore proprio, se confessus est perpetrasse; ita ut non solum revincere testes non potuerit, sed etiam publice, in conventu episcoporum et laicorum qui interfuerant in terram se projiciens clamaverit, se graviter in Deum et in ordine pontificali pecasse. Pro qua re, propter disciplinam catholicæ religionis, utile ac salubre omnibus visum est, ut supradictus Contumeliosus in Casensi monasterio, ad agendam pœntentiam vel ad expianda ea quæ commiserat mitteretur; quam rem studio pœnitendi et ipse libenter amplexus est. Et quia multas domus ecclesiæ Regensis absque ratione contra canonum statuta sine concilio sanctorum antistitum perpetuo jure distraxit, hoc sanctis episcopis visum est, ut quidquid supradictæ ecclesiæ constiterit injuste ab ipso alienatum, facta ratione ad vicem de ejus substantia compensetur.

Cæsarius peccator constitutionem nostram religi et subscripsi. Not. sub die viii. Kal. Junias post consulatum tertium Lampadi et Orestis. Cyprianus (bishop of Toulon) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Prætextatus (bishop of Apt) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Eucherius (bishop of Avignon) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Prosper (bishop of Vence) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Herculius (bishop of S. Paul de trois châteaux) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Rusticus (perhaps bishop of Aire) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Pontadius peccator consensi et subscripsi Maximus (bishop of Aix) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Porcianus (bishop of Digne), peccator consensi et subscripsi. Item, Eucherius peccator consensi et subscripsi. Aletius (bishop of Vaison) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Vindemialis (bishop of Orange) peccator consensi et subscripsi. Rodanius peccator consensi et subscripsi. Auxanius peccator consensi et subscripsi Valentius Abba, directus a domno meo Fylagrio (bishop of Cavaillon) consensi et subscripsi.

The president of this Synod was Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, and from his subscription it appears that the assembly took place on the 25th of May 533. Besides him there were fourteen bishops, and an abbot as the representative of his bishop, present. As far as the sees of the bishops can still be ascertained they are given. We learn from the minutes, (a) that the evil reports which were in circulation about Contumeliosus had occasioned the convoking of the Synod; and (b) that his offences were turpia (sins of the flesh), which comes out much more clearly in the appendix to the letter of the Pope to Cæsarius. (c) Moreover, he had seized Church property, (d) At the beginning of the Synod he was not prepared to confess, but he was convicted by witnesses, and now declared himself to be a great sinner (as it appears, only in general expressions), (e) The Synod condemned him to do penance in a monastery, for which he showed himself quite willing and ready. What was to happen to him after his penance was accomplished is not said. (f) For the damage which Contumeliosus had done to Church property, he was required to make return from his own property.

Let us now consider the three short letters of Pope John 2. One is addressed to Archbishop Cæsarius of Arles, the second to the Gallic bishops generally, the third to the priests and deacons of Riez. In two of these the date is given, April 7, 534; in the third, to Cæsarius, it is lacking. As, however, all the three letters have the same contents, and it is in itself probable that the Pope promulgated on one and the same day his decision to all the three parties concerned (the metropolitan, the comprovincials, and the clergy of Riez), we may assume that all the three letters were written at the same time, after the Synod of Marseilles, on April 7, 534. In all three it is said that Cæsarius and the other bishops had already given the Pope information respecting Contumeliosus. By this is undoubtedly meant the communication of the decree of their Synod. In all three letters the Pope orders, in similar terms, that the sinful bishop (a) should be banished to a monastery, (b) that he should be deposed. At the same time, (c) he names for the present supervision of the diocese of Riez a visitor, whose tenure of office should continue until the new occupancy of the see. Accordingly, the Pope goes further than the Synod had done. For if the Synod gave only one decision (with regard to the monastery), he adds two others. That these two points going beyond the Synod of Marseilles are contained also in the undated letter to Cæsarius, is a proof that we must not assume (as is done in the Freiburg Zeitschrift, l.c. s. 470), that this letter was written before our Synod, and had even occasioned its being convoked. As we know from other sources, all the bishops of the province were not agreed that Contumeliosus should be deposed for ever; they rather wished that, after the peuance had been done, he might be restored to his office. In reference to this, then, Cæsarius, who for himself, and rightly, was in favour of the severer view, allowed the decree of the Synod to be so drawn up that only the removal into a monastery was there ordered, whilst it was quite silent as to the deposition. Otherwise, perhaps, he would not have attained to unanimity. That, however, which was wanting in the synodal decree the Pope had now to complete, and he did so. He even added an appendix to his letter to Cæsarius, in which he collected a number of older canons, in order to show that in these deposition had been pronounced on unchaste clerics.

After Cæsarius received this letter, he added himself a large series of canons of similar content, the 9th of Nicæa, and several of Gallican Synods, and sent the letter of the Pope, together with these two appendices, and an address to his comprovincials, in order to convince those who had spoken in favour of a milder treatment of Contumeliosus, that on an adulterous bishop deposition must necessarily be inflicted, and that one who had done penance could not possibly be restored to his spiritual office. From a letter of the next Pope Agapetus I. to Cæsarius, dated July 18, 535, we learn that deposition was now pronounced upon Contumeliosus, but that he appealed from this sentence of the provincial Synod to the Pope, maintained his innocence, and found a protection in the Pope. The latter ordered that a new tribunal delegated by him should investigate the matter anew, but that Contumeliosus, who, after the expiration of his time of penance, had now returned to Riez, should abstain from the celebration of Mass and the administration of his diocese until the matter was finished. For his sustentation, however, he might receive what was necessary from the property of the Church. To this letter also an appendix of canons was added. The further course of the affair is unknown.

SEC. 247. Second Synod at Orleans, A.D. 533

In the preface to the minutes of their Synod, the bishops who were present at the second Synod of Orleans declare that they had come together at the command of the glorious Kings, in order to take measures for the observance of the Catholic law. By that expression they understand the yet living sons of Chlodwig (Clovis) the Great, Childebert I., Chlotar (Lothaire) I., and Theoderic I.

A still closer indication of the time is contained in the subscription of the president of the Synod, Archbishop Honoratus of Bourges (Biturica), since it bears date, Die ix. Kal. Julias anno xxii. domni Childeberti regis. This means June 23, 533, as King Chlodwig died in November 511. From what has been said it may be seen, that we have here before us a kind of Frankish national Synod, since archbishops and bishops were present from the most different kingdoms and provinces. In the whole there were twenty-six prelates, and five priests as representatives of absent bishops. Besides Archbishop Honoratus of Bourges, who presided, we meet besides the Metropolitans Injuriosus of Tours, Flavius of Rouen, Aspasius of Eauze (Elosensis), and Julian of Vienne. Another archbishop was represented by the priest Orbatus. The following bishops also subscribed:—Leontius of Orleans, Eleutherius of Auxerre, Chronopius of Perigueux (Petricorium, in the province of Bordeaux, whose metropolitan was not present), Lupicinus of Angoulême (Ecolisma or Icolisma, also in the province of Bordeaux), Agrippinus of Autun (Civitas Æduorum, in the province of Lyons, whose metropolitan was not present), Otherius of Chartres (Carnutum), Eumerius of Nantes, Amelius of Paris, Sustratius of Cahors, Perpetuus of Avranches, Præsidius of Convenæ (now S. Bertrand on the Garonne, in the province Elusa or Eauze), Passivius of Seez (Sagi), Proculcianus of Ausch (Auscii), and Lauto of Coutances (Constantia). Seven bishops: Importunus, Callistus, Marcus, Eusebius, Clarentius, Innocent, and Marcellus, did not append the names of their sees. The representatives of the absent, beside Orbatus already named, were the priests Asclepius for Bishop Adelphius of Poitiers (instead of Rauracensi we should read Ratiatensi, i.e. Pictaviensi, as Sirmond remarked), Lawrence for Bishop Gallus of Clermont in Auvergne, Eledius for Bishop Sebastius, and Præsidonius for Bishop Artemius. The sees of the last two are not named.

The Synod drew up twenty-one canons as follows:—

1. No bishop must be absent from the Council or from the consecration of a bishop (in his province).

2. A provincial Council shall be held annually.

3. No bishop must receive anything for the consecration of another bishop, or of any other cleric.

4. If anyone has obtained the priesthood for money, he must be deposed.

5. If a bishop is invited to bury a colleague, he must not seek to free himself by false subterfuges. He must demand nothing but his expenses for his trouble.

6. When he comes to the burial, he must call the priests, enter with them the church house (the bishop’s residence), take an inventory of all that is there, and intrust some responsible person with the care of it.

7. In regard to the ordination of a metropolitan, the manner which has gone out of use shall be re-established. After the metropolitan has been elected by the comprovincial bishops, the clergy (of his diocese) and (vel) the laity, he shall be ordained by all the assembled bishops.

8. If a deacon is brought into captivity, and during this time marries, he must, after his return, be deposed from all ministry in the Church. Yet, if he has done penance for his offence, he may again receive the communion.

9. No priest may, without permission of the bishop, live with people of the world. If he nevertheless does so, he must be excluded ab officii communione.

10. No one must marry his stepmother.

11. Matrimonial contracts (matrimonia contracta), if sickness happens, may not be given up at the will (of the parties).

12. If anyone has made a vow to sing, or to drink, or to do anything else improper in the church, he must not keep it; for by such vows God is rather offended than pleased by their observance.

13. Abbots, martyrarii, monks, and priests must exhibit no apostolia (letters of peace).

14. Clerics who neglect their office, and do not come to church when duty requires, must be deprived of the dignity of their office.

15. For those who are executed for any crime oblationes defunctorum may be allowed, but not for suicides.

16. No one must be ordained priest or deacon, if he has no education, or does not understand how to baptize.

17. Women who, in opposition to the canons (sec. 231), have received the benediction as deaconesses, if they marry again, must be excommunicated. If, at the admonition of the bishop, they give up such a union, they may, after undergoing penance, be admitted to communion again,

18. To no woman must henceforth the benedictio diaconalis be given, because of the weakness of the sex.

19. No Christian must marry a Jewess, and conversely. If any such union has been accomplished, it must be dissolved on pain of excommunication.

20. Catholics who return to the worship of idols or eat food offered to idols, must be dismissed from Church membership. So also with those who eat of animals which have died, or which have been killed by other animals.

21. Abbots who despise the prescriptions of the bishops, must not be allowed at communion. Bishops, however, who do not regard these canons, must know that they will be responsible before God and their brethren.

SEC. 248. Synod at Carthage, A.D. 535

The Emperor Justinian the Great had, in the year 534, sent his general Belisarius, with 600 ships and 35,000 soldiers, into Africa, to put an end to the Vandal kingdom. In consequence, being freed from the long and heavy oppression of the Arians, there met together 217 African bishops, under the presidency of Archbishop Reparatus of Carthage (successor of Boniface), in the year 535, in an African general Council in the Basilica Fausti at Carthage, which city had, in honour of the Emperor, received the surname of Justiniana. In that church, which Hunneric had previously wrested from the Catholics; there were many relics of the martyrs, and the bishops believed that it was owing to their intercession that they had been freed from their oppressors. For a hundred years, they said, there had been no African general Council held, and all the assembled bishops were now filled with joy, and full of thanks to God for this meeting. The ordinances of Nicæa were read, and the question then arose, whether those who had been Arian priests (of the Vandals) should, after reception of the orthodox doctrine, be left in their offices, or should only be taken into lay communion. All the members of the Synod inclined to the latter view; yet they would not decide, but resolved unanimously to apply to Pope John II. for guidance, not only on this matter, but on the second question, whether those who had been baptized as children of Arians might be admitted into the clerical order.

To this end they addressed a synodal letter to the Pope, and sent therewith two bishops of their number, Caius and Peter, with the Carthaginian deacon Liberatus to Rome. At the close of their letter they add, that it had often come to pass that African bishops had, in an arbitrary manner, left their churches, and betaken themselves to lands beyond the sea (Italy). The Church had tolerated this in that unhappy period (of Vandal supremacy). For the future, however, any bishop or priest, or other cleric, if he should come without a letter of peace, and could not show that he was sent for the service of the Church, ought to be regarded in the same manner as a heretic, and not received into communion by the Pope.

When the African deputies arrived in Rome, John II. was already dead. Therefore his successor, Agapetus I., answered the inquiries of the Synod, and added to his letter the ancient canons which contained the ecclesiastical rules on the points in question. This appendix is lost. In the letter itself, however, the Pope declares that (a) a converted Arian ought never to be advanced to an ecclesiastical office, whatever his age might have been (i.e. even if he were a child), when he was spotted with that plague; and that (b) their office in the Church could not be left to the converted Arian priests, but that they should receive support from the property of the Church. Finally, the Pope fully conceded the wish of the Synod in regard to the clergy travelling without leave, as it was in accordance with the canons.

Besides this, we possess a part of the minutes of the Synod of Carthage in which the relation of the monasteries to the bishops is treated. Bishop Felician of Ruspe, the successor of S. Fulgentius, brought forward that his predecessor had founded a monastery in the city of Ruspe, and he prayed now that something might be settled in the matter of monasteries. Thereupon Bishop Felix of Zactara (or Zattara), in the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, declared: “In regard to the monastery of the Abbot Peter, whose abbot is now Fortunatus, they must abide by the decisions of the Synod under Boniface (see above, sec. 238); but the other monasteries should enjoy the fullest liberty as far as the Councils allow. If they wish that clergy should be ordained or oratories consecrated, this shall be done by the bishop of the place or of the neighbourhood. In other respects, however, the monasteries are independent of the bishop, and have no duties to render to him. Moreover, the bishop must not erect a chair (cathedra) for himself in any monastery, nor must he ordain anyone without consent of the abbot. When the abbot dies, the whole society (of the monastery) shall elect a new one; and the bishop shall in no way usurp the right of election. If a dispute arises respecting the election (among the monks), other abbots shall decide; if the dispute continues, the matter shall be brought before the primate of the province. At divine service the bishop should read aloud (from the diptychs), among the others whom he has ordained, also the monks of his district whom he has ordained.” We do not know whether all of this was merely the private opinion of Bishop Felix, or whether it was made a decree by the Synod.

Finally, the Synod send an embassy to the Emperor Justinian, to entreat of him the restoration of those possessions and rights of the Churches in Africa which the Vandals had taken away. The Emperor gave consent to this request in the edict to Salomo, his Præfectus Prætorio for Africa.

SEC. 249. Synod at Clermont, in Auvergne (Concilium Arvernense), A.D. 535

With the assent of King Theodebert of Austrasia, a grandson of Chlodwig the Great, fifteen bishops assembled at a Synod in the church at Clermont, in the country of the Arverni. At the head stood Archbishop Honoratus of Bourges, whom we have already learnt to know at the second Synod of Orleans. We also meet here Bishops Flavius of Reims, Nicetius of Trêves (Trier), Hesperius of Metz, Desideratus of Verdun, Grammaticus of Vindonissa, and Domitianus Coloniensis, that is, of Cöln (Cologne), or, as other manuscripts read, Ecclesiæ Tungrorum, i.e. of Tungern. We see that Germany had here a good many representatives. As usual, the ancient canons were enjoined, and some new ones published.

1. No bishop shall bring forward at the Synod any other subject until the transactions with reference to the improvement of morals, and what concerns the salvation of the soul, are ended.

2. A bishop shall be elected by the clergy and laity, with the consent of the metropolitan. If anyone forces himself in through favour of the powerful, or through cunning, he shall be excommunicated.

3. Corpses must not be covered with palls and other church effects (ministeria divina).

4. The powerful of this world must not keep disobedient clerics.

5. If anyone allows himself to be presented by Kings with anything that belongs to the Church, he shall be excommunicated, and lose the gift.

6. The body of a sacerdos (bishop) must not be covered with the cloak which is usually placed over the Body of Christ (opertorium dominici corporis), otherwise, if this cloth is given back to the Church, the altar would be dishonoured.

7. No church furniture may be lent for the adornment of marriages.—Received into the Corpus jur. can. C. 43; De consecrat. Dist. i.

8. Jews must not be appointed as judges over a Christian population.

9. No bishop may seize the parishes of another.

10. No bishop may receive a foreign cleric without the assent of his bishop, or advance him to higher orders.

11. Incestuous marriages are forbidden.

12. If anyone is ordained deacon or priest, he must not continue matrimonial intercourse. He becomes a brother of his wife. As, however, some, inflamed by desire, have cast off the girdle of the warfare (of Christ), and have returned to matrimonial intercourse, it is ordained that such must lose their dignity for ever.

13. Whoever takes from the Church anything which has been bequeathed by writing to the Church, unless he restores it immediately at the exhortation of the bishop, must be expelled from the Christian Church.

14. If a priest or deacon does not belong to the canon (= list of the clergy) of the city or of the rural parishes, but lives in a villa and holds divine service in an oratory, he must celebrate the festivals of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and the other festivals with the bishop in his city. So also must the grown up citizens go to the bishop of the city at the festivals named, otherwise they must, at these feasts, be immediately excommunicated.

15. Bishops, priests, and deacons must have no intercourse with strange women, nor allow any nun, or strange woman, or female servant (slave) to enter their chamber. Whoever does not attend to this is excommunicated; and the bishop will be punished if he does not punish such an offence in a priest or deacon.

Some other canons, said to belong to the Synod of Clermont, are placed by Mansi in his collection, t. viii. p. 865 sqq.

Finally, the Synod addressed a letter to the Austrasian King Theodebert, praying him that he would not consent that any cleric or layman who possessed property in another Frankish kingdom than that of his residence, should be deprived of it. It should suffice that he paid tribute to the lord of his country.

SEC. 250. Synods at Constantinople and Jerusalem, A.D. 536

After the death of the Patriarch Epiphanius, to which we referred above (sec. 244), Anthimus, archbishop of Trapezont, was, through the influence of the Empress Theodora, the consort of Justinian, raised to the see of Constantinople. Like his patroness he leaned to Monophysitism, and the Emperor Justinian, in spite of his zeal for the Chalcedonian faith, was misled by Theodora and her party into the belief that Anthimus was quite orthodox. Soon after, in February 536, Pope Agapetus came to Constantinople, whither the East Gothic King Theodatus had sent him, in order to confer, in his name, with the Emperor on political affairs. In Constantinople the Pope refused to have any fellowship with the new patriarch, especially as the latter had been advanced uncanonically from one bishopric to another, and, after a violent collision with the Emperor, brought it about that Anthimus was deposed, and the priest Mennas, president of the Hospice Samson, in accordance with the wish of the Emperor, was raised to the see, March 13, 536. The Pope himself was the consecrator.

It is generally assumed, on the authority of the Byzantine historian Theophanes, that the deposition of Anthimus and the elevation of Mennas was decided at a Constantinopolitan Synod; but Mansi (l.c. p. 871 sq.) contests its existence, and seeks to show that it was not until after the deposition of Anthimus that a kind of Synod, or at least an assembly of Oriental bishops and archimandrites, took place, and forwarded a letter to the Pope, who was then still in Constantinople. They asked in this that the Pope would give Anthimus a period of time within which he must clear himself of the suspicion of heresy, or be disqualified from holding the bishopric of Trapezont. The Pope acquiesced, suspended Anthimus for the present, and, from his sickbed, forwarded the memorial in question to the Emperor. As the Pope died April 6 or 22, 536, at Constantinople, the matter could not be completed until after his death, and this by a new Synod of Constantinople, which has become famous, held in May and June 536, which has left us very numerous and comprehensive Acts. These were first edited by Severinus Binius in 1618, after a codex in the library at Heidelberg, which, however, was in many places defective, and in others erroneous and incoherent. A much better text was discovered in the same year, 1618, by the learned Jesuit Fronton le Due; but he, too, left a good deal to be gleaned by Labbe, a member of his own order. To the industry of the latter we owe the present text.

The Acts of the first session, on the 2nd of May 536, declare that the Synod was held at the command of the Emperor. All their sessions, five in number, took place in the eastern hall of S. Mary’s Church, which lay in the neighbourhood of the great church. The Patriarch Mennas was president. On his right sat five Italian bishops, who had been sent at an earlier period by the Apostolic Chair to Constantinople, and had remained there with Agapetus. They were Sabinus of Canusium, Epiphanius of Ecbanum, Asterius of Salerno, Rusticus of Fæsulæ, and Leo of Nola. Besides these, there sat on the right hand twenty-three, on the left twenty-four, metropolitans and bishops from the most different parts of the Byzantine kingdom. The most celebrated among them was Hypatius of Ephesus. Also on the left were two deacons, two notaries, and several other clerics, whom Agapetus had brought with him to Constantinople; moreover, the representatives of the absent patriarchs of Antioch (Theopolis) and Jerusalem, and of the metropolitans of Cæsarea, Ancyra, and Corinth. Finally, the clergy of Constantinople were present.

After all had taken their places, the deacon and over-notary Euphemius brought forward the following: “The priest Marinianus (Marianus), president (ἡγούμενος) of the Dalmatius monastery, also exarch of all the monasteries of Constantinople, and the monks from Antioch and Jerusalem, who are here present at the residence, have presented a petition to the Emperor, and he has, in accordance with the wish of the petitioners, commanded the reading of the petition in the present assembly, so that they may decide what is in accordance with the laws of the Church. The monks in question and the Referendar Theodore assigned to them by the Emperor now request permission to appear before the Council.”

The Patriarch Mennas granted this request. More than eighty abbots and monks from Constantinople, Antioch, and Palestine came in, and the imperial Referendar presented the document which they had addressed to Justinian. The patriarch had it immediately read by a deacon. Its principal contents are as follows: “Anthimus (the deposed archbishop of Constantinople), Severus (the previous patriarch of Antioch), Peter (of Apamea, cf. sec. 233), and Zoaras (a Eutychian monk) had stirred up dissensions, had pronounced anathemas on the saints, and even in Constantinople had erected profane altars and baptisteries over against the true altars, etc. Anthimus in particular, formerly bishop of Trapezont, had for a long time left his church, and, under the semblance of an ascetic manner of life, had united himself with the heretics (Monophysites), by whose help he attained to the see of Constantinople in a thoroughly uncanonical manner. Agapetus of Rome had, in union with the Emperor, deposed him, and advanced Mennas to his place. Somewhat later, in union with the bishops of Palestine and other Oriental countries assembled at Constantinople, we requested (the Pope), in a new memorial, that Anthimus should be required to clear himself of all suspicion of heresy and resume his see in Trapezont; and, if he could not do the first, then he should be altogether deposed from the priesthood. This request Agapetus had anticipated, had suspended Anthimus with the other previously-named heretics (Severus, etc.) from all priestly functions until they had done penance, and had presented the memorial of the monks and bishops to the Emperor. The Emperor, they prayed, would not think lightly of the judgment of this man who had died in the meantime, but would accomplish it, and free the world from the plague of Anthimus and the other heretics named.”

Upon this a report (διδασκαλικόν), addressed by the same monks to the Patriarch Mennas, was read, in which they make him acquainted with all their steps against Anthimus, and with his history, which we already know—how he had left the bishopric of Trapezont, had hypocritically begun an ascetic life, had united himself with the heretics, and had usurped the see of Constantinople. They, the monks, had repeatedly requested him to declare whether he agreed with the Council of Chalcedon and Pope Leo, and anathematised Eutyches and Dioscurus. God had now awakened Agapetus, and he drove Anthimus from the episcopal chair of Constantinople and consecrated Mennas, who had been elected by the Emperor, and the clergy of the Church, and other distinguished men. Somewhat later they had presented to the Pope the now well-known new memorial respecting Anthimus; but Agapetus had died, and they had now turned to the Emperor again, and on this account the present Synod was held.

The next document that was read was the letter which the monks, some time after the deposition of Anthimus, had addressed to the Pope. They call him there the “œcumenical patriarch,” and complain of the Acephaloi and the schismatics, who had got up mischief against the Churches, the Pope, and the Emperor. In particular, the Monophysite monks had knocked out an eye from a likeness of the Emperor; and one of them, the Persian Isaac, had struck it with a stick, and at the same time uttered insulting words against the Emperor, really against God, for whose cause he had insulted the likeness. When the stick broke, he had torn the painted linen and cast it into the fire. These heretics had also insinuated themselves into the houses of several persons of distinction, and had led astray women; had set up in their own dwellings and in the suburbs false altars and baptisteries, protected by powerful persons of the very house of the Emperor (i.e. by the Empress Theodora). This the Pope should not endure; but, as he had formerly risen against Anthimus, and driven that wolf away, so ought he now to make representations to the Emperor, and drive away the offenders. The Emperor, as was known, had forbidden these outside baptisms and services (in private oratories, etc.); but in spite of this, Zoaras (a Eutychian monk) had baptized not a few at the last Easter festival, and among them children of courtiers.

After this the story of Anthimus is told, his attaining to the see of Constantinople, and his deposition by the Pope related, and the latter adjured by the Holy Trinity and by the Apostle Peter, etc, to appoint a fixed time to Anthimus, within which he should declare his orthodoxy in writing and return to his church at Trapezont which he had left, if he did not wish even to be deposed. The Pope should also eite before him all the other numerous bishops, clergy, and archimandrites who held with Anthimus, and punish them in accordance with the canons, particularly Severus, Peter, and Zoaras. Finally, they mention that not only the Eutychians but also the Nestorians had sought to rend the Church.

A similar letter had been addressed to the Pope by the bishops of the Oriental dioceses assembled in Constantinople, together with those of Palestine and the representatives of others; and this too was read; also the letter which Agapetus, after the deposition of Anthimus, had sent to the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem and his bishops. He remarks in this that Anthimus had not only uncanonically got possession of the see of Constantinople, but, still more, that he persisted in the heresy of Eutyches, and had not allowed himself to be brought back by the Pope to the right doctrine. He had therefore declared him unworthy to be called Catholic and priest. His associates had also been condemned by the sentence of the apostolic see. The bishoprie of Constantinople, however, had been obtained by Mennas, a very excellent man, the respect for whom had been heightened by this, that the Pope himself had ordained him, a case which had not occurred since the times of the apostles. But Mennas had been elected by the Emperor, with the assent of the clergy and laity. Agapetus is surprised that Peter of Jerusalem had given no notice to the Pope of the uncanonical elevation of Anthimus to the throne of Constantinople, and had even consented to it, and he hopes that the bishops of Palestine will now receive none of those whom the Pope condemns.

Finally, Mennas declared that he intended to send a deputation of seven bishops, priests, and notaries to Anthimus, in order to inform him of the present Synod, and to invite him to appear within three days and give full assurance with regard to the points noted (that is, in regard to his orthodoxy). The first session thus terminated.

At the second session, on May 6, in the same place, the monks again petitioned to be admitted, and after they were introduced, the minutes of the first session were read in their presence, and the deputies of the Synod who had been sent to Anthimus related that they had sought him in the most different places, but had nowhere found him. The Patriarch Mennas then allowed him a further respite of three days, and commissioned seven other bishops and clerics to seek him and summons him to the Synod.

The third session, on May 10, was exactly like the second. The petition of the monks for admission was again granted, the minutes of the previous transactions were read, and the deputies related that they had not been able to find Anthimus anywhere. The Patriarch Mennas then allowed a third and last respite of ten days. If within that time he had not cleared himself of the suspicion of heresy, he would be condemned in accordance with the sentence pronounced against him by Agapetus. Again seven deputies were appointed to seek him, and the summons at the same time ordered to be publicly proclaimed. In accordance with this resolution a public letter was addressed to Anthimus. This letter occurs in the Acts of the fourth session. It is dated May 15, and sent out by the “œcumenical patriarch” Mennas and the whole Synod; and gives only a period of six days, as it was not published until the deputies had spent several days in vain inquiries after Anthimus.

After they had given a sufficient explanation of this at the fourth session, on May 21, Mennas asked both the Italian and the Greek bishops their opinion. The former, together with the Roman deacons, declared in few words that they held thoroughly to the judgment which had already been pronounced on Anthinus by Agapetus. Hypatius of Ephesus spoke as representative of the Greek bishops, and explained at greater length the offence of Anthimus, particularly that he rejected the Chalcedonian expression ἐν δύο φύσεσι; and closed with the decision that he should be deposed from the bishopric of Trapezont and all ecclesiastical dignities in accordance with the judgment of the Pope, and should be deprived of the name of Catholic. This sentence was immediately proclaimed by Mennas in a solemn address. As frequently happened, there then Broke forth numerous exclamations in honour of the Emperor and patriarch, and for the rejection of heretics.

At the same time the monks of Jerusalem presented a new memorial, and wanted, with their friends, in the general excitement to have this publicly read, and the resolution taken that the monasteries inhabited by the Eutychians, and especially by Zoaras, should be immediately suppressed. Mennas, however, pacified them with the remark, that it would be necessary first to acquaint the Emperor with this demand, since nothing could be done in the Church against his will and command (μηδὲν τῶν ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ κινουμένων παρὰ γνώμην αὐτοῦ καὶ κέλευσιν γενέσθαι). At the same time, as compensation, Mennas added: “We follow and obey the apostolic see, with which he has communion, as we also have; and whom he condems we also condemn.” At the close the minutes were signed by all the bishops present, together with the Roman deacons and the representatives of absent bishops.

Very voluminous are the Acts of the fifth session, held June 4, 536, since here numerous documents were read and embodied. The first was a memorial addressed to the Emperor by Paul of Apamea and the other bishops of Syria II., in which they set forth their own orthodoxy, pronounced anathema on all persons of Monophysite opinions, and particularly on Anthimus, Severus (of Antioch), and Peter (formerly bishop of Apamea), and besought the Emperor to banish the heretics.

The second document, also addressed to the Emperor, was a petition of the monks already mentioned of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Syria, and Palestine, requesting that the Emperor would recommend that the Patriarch Mennas and the Synod would hold a new session for the punishment of Severus, Peter, and Zoaras. Then followed the reading of the memorial, which these same monks had presented to Mennas at the end of the fourth session, as we have heard. They express therein their satisfaction that Anthimus has been condemned; but remark that Satan has still two other active assistants, Severus and Peter, who had pronounced anathema on the Synod of Chalcedon and Pope Leo, had persecuted the orthodox, had maltreated and even killed many of them, and had, in an unlawful manner, got possession of the sees of Antioch and Apamea. Severus, in particular, had formerly served demons at Berytus, and even now was not free from heathenism; for immediately after his baptism he had connected himself with the Acephaloi, and as their head had rejected the Henoticon. Later, after he had usurped the episcopal chair, he had made believe that he accepted this, and had united with the bishop of Alexandria, Peter Mongus. He had even gone so far as to inscribe his name on the diptychs of Antioch, although he had previously himself demanded his banishment from Alexandria. To increase the disorder, he had then also received Peter of Iberia, and had entered into fellowship with the other Acephaloi. He had indeed already been deposed and excommunicated along with his adherents; but they had escaped punishment by flight, and later on had ventured to lay waste the city of Constantinople. Peter of Apamea and Severus had here their conventicles and their baptisteries, had led many astray, and also had seduced many women, and all this had been proved under Pope Hormisdas at Rome. Mennas and the Synod were therefore requested to pronounce anew anathema upon Severus, Peter, and their adherents, and also on the Syrian Zoaras, who had rejected the holy Fathers, had held unauthorised Church service, and had administered baptism. Besides this, the impious books of Severus should be condemned to the fire.

At the wish of the Italian bishops and of the Roman deacons there were now two letters read of Pope Hormisdas, first in Latin, and then in a Greek translation. The one of date February 10, 518, was addressed to the priests, deacons, archimandrites, and all the orthodox of Syria II., and contained the answer to a complaint of the orthodox monks of Syria, who had been cruelly ill-treated by Severus (in the time of the Emperor Anastasius). The Pope exhorted them to endurance and loyalty to the faith, and warned them against the adherents of Eutyches, against Dioscurus, and Peter of Alexandria, against Acacius of Constantinople (the originator of the Henoticon), against Peter of Antioch, Severus, Xenaias, Peter of Apamea, etc.

Somewhat later is the second letter of Pope Hormisdas, which was addressed, March 26, 521, after the restoration of union between the Greek and Roman Churches, to the new Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople (see sec. 233), and gave him instructions as to the manner in which those who had been misguided by the Monophysites, particularly by Severus, should be reconciled to the Church.

At the command of the Patriarch Mennas the notaries of his church further read all the documents connected with this subject, which had been received and deposited in the archives of Constantinople, first, the complaint which the clergy of Antioch had addressed, in the year 518, respecting the intruder Severus, to the Patriarch John of Constantinople and the Synod assembled around him. We have already referred to this (sec. 233), and it is there told how Severus, in opposition to the canons, had got hold of the see of Antioch, had spoken blasphemies against God, rejected the holy Synods, imprisoned the orthodox, offered impious sacrifices to demons, and had carried away and appropriated to himself the gold and silver doves which hung over the altars and fonts (κολυμβήθρα), because he did not like to represent the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove.

On this followed the Acts of the just mentioned Synod of Constantinople of A.D. 518: (a) Its synodal letter to the Patriarch John, containing the decrees of the Synod in reference to the (b) petition of the monks of Constantinople. (c) The third document describes the stormy proceedings at, Constantinople, which preceded the calling of the Synod of A.D. 518, by which the people had demanded with all decision the anathema upon Severus. (d) The fourth and fifth documents are two letters of the Patriarch John of Constantinople, of the year 548, to the Bishop John of Jerusalem and Epiphanius of Tyre, in which he requested them to accede to the decrees of his Synod, and so to the anathema on Severus. (e) The sixth and seventh places were occupied by the answers of the bishops of Jerusalem and Tyre, who, in the name of the provincial Synods held by them had agreed to the sentence on Severus (A.D. 518), and fully discussed his offence. (f) The eighth document, without superscription, gives an account of the proceedings at Tyre before the opening of the Synod there (A.D. 518), at which the people had most decidedly demanded that anathema should be pronounced on Severus. (g) In accordance with the requirement of John of Constantinople the bishops of Syria II. had also held a Synod and pronounced anathema on Severus. They thought good also to suspend the same sentence over Peter of Apamea, and sent to John of Constantinople and his Synod their own synodal letter, together with a long appendix which contained all the numerous complaints, etc., received against Peter of Apamea. These documents were now also read again, A.D. 536.

Hereupon Mennas invited the Synod now to give its judgment; and after this had been done by the Latins and the other members (through an interpreter), Mennas announced, in a longer address, the decision, that Severus, Peter, Zoaras, and their adherents, and all who held conventicles and baptized without authority, together with their writings, should be smitten with anathema. This sentence was subscribed by all, and the Synod was then closed.

Two months later, August 6, 536, the Emperor Justinian published an edict directed against Anthimus, Severus, Peter of Apamea, and Zoaras, in the form of a letter to the Patriarch Mennas, in which he confirmed the ecclesiastical sentences pronounced against them, and forbade them to reside henceforth in Constantinople and its neighbourhood, or in any other large city, to disseminate their doctrine, to baptize, etc. Of Severus it was alleged, in an astonishing manner, that he sometimes defended the Nestorian and sometimes the Eutychian error, although they were as far as possible opposed. All the adherents of these men were, like them, exiled, and the books of Severus were to be burnt by everyone who possessed them. Whoever should receive the banished into his house and support them, his house and goods should be confiscated and made over to the Church. Mennas, finally, was requested to transmit this edict to the other metropolitans.

After Mennas had communicated this imperial edict to the Palestinian monks now returning to their home, and had added a letter of his own to the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem, the latter assembled, September 19, 536, the bishops of the three provinces of Palestine in a Synod in the Secretarium of his Episcopal Church. The two letters above mentioned, and, besides these, also the Acts of the five sessions of Constantinople, which had been communicated by Mennas, were read aloud, and then the assent of the Synod to the deposition of Anthimus was solemnly declared. All present, forty-nine in number, subscribed. No sentence against Severus of Antioch and Peter of Apamea is contained in the Acts of Jerusalem. Walch supposes that the silence on both has its foundation in this, that the bishops of Palestine had already condemned both. This is not so. Walch here confounds the Palestinian and the Syrian bishops. The former had pronounced judgment only over Severus, in the year 518. Compare sec. 233.

SEC. 251. Third Synod at Orleans, A.D. 538

The third Synod of Orleans, like the second, was not merely a provincial Synod, since the bishops of several ecclesiastical provinces took part in it. The president was the Metropolitan Lupus of Lyons, although the city and diocese of Orleans did not belong to his province, but to that of Sens. Besides him there were present the Metropolitans Pantagathus of Vienne, Leo of Sens, Arcadius of Bourges, and Flavius of Rouen. The archbishop of Tours, Injuriosus, was represented by a priest. The Acts were subscribed by nineteen bishops, and seven priests as representatives of absentees. In the subscription of Archbishop Lupus, the time of the holding of the Synod is given as Die Nonarum mensis tertii, quarto post consulatum Paulini junioris V. C. anno 27 regni Domini Childeberti regis. This indicates the year 538, and probably the 7th of May, since in ancient times it was common to begin the year with the 25th of March. The assembled bishops declare their aim to be the re-establishment of the old laws of the Church and the passing of new ones. This they accomplished in thirty-three canons, many of which contain several ordinances:—

1. The metropolitan must every year summon a provincial Synod. If he fails for two years, in spite of being requested by the suffragans, he must not venture to say Mass for a whole year.

2. No cleric, from a subdeacon upwards, must have connubial intercourse with his wife, whom he formerly possessed. A bishop who allows it, is to be suspended for three months.

3. Metropolitans, when possible, are to be ordained by other metropolitans, but in presence of the comprovincial bishops. But they are to be chosen, as the decrees of the apostolic see ordain, by the comprovincials, in agreement (cum consensu) with the clergy and the citizens. The ordinary bishop is to be chosen by the clergy and the citizens, with consent of the metropolitan.

4. Intercourse with strange women forbidden.

5. Whatever is left to the Churches in cities shall be in the power of the bishop, who can expend it for church repairs, or for the sustentation of the clergy ministering in the churches receiving the legacy. In regard to the property of village churches, the custom of each locality shall be observed. Cf. the canon of the Synod of Carpentras, sec. 239.

6. A layman may not be ordained until a year after his conversion (see sec. 222), nor until he has reached the proper age, twenty-five years for a deacon, and thirty for a priest. No one may become a cleric who has been married twice, or to a widow, or who has undergone ecclesiastical penance, or is semus corpore (i.e. imperfectus or mutilatus), or tormented (arreptus) by a demon. If, however, such an one should be ordained, he is to be deposed, and the bishop who ordained him suspended from clerical functions. If he still says Mass, he is to be excluded for a whole year ab omnium fratrum caritate (cf. canon 20 of the Synod of Chalcedon in vol. iii.). If anyone gives false witness at an ordination, so that an unworthy person is ordained, he is to be deprived of communion for a year.

7. If a cleric who has been willingly ordained marries after his ordination, he and his wife must be excommunicated. If he has been ordained against his will and under protest (if he marries), he loses his office, but he is not to be excommunicated. The bishop who consecrates anyone against his will, and in spite of his refusal, is to be suspended for a year from celebrating Mass. If a higher (honoratior) cleric confesses or is proved to have committed adultery, he is to be deposed, and for the rest of his life shut up in a monastery, but not deprived of the communion.—Partly received into the Corp. jur. Can. as c. 1, Dist. lxxiv., and c. 10, Dist. Ixxxi.

8. The cleric who has been guilty of a theft or of a falsehood, is to be degraded from the Ordo, but not excommunicated. A perjurer is to be excommunicated for two years.

9. Whoever, during his wife’s life, or after her death, has had intercourse with a concubine, must not be ordained. If, through ignorance of this prohibition, he is already ordained, he may remain among the clergy.

10. Incestuous marriages are forbidden. If neophytes, immediately after their baptism, and in ignorance of this prohibition, contracted such a marriage, it shall not be dissolved.

11. Clerics who will not fulfil the duties of their office, nor obey the bishop, shall not be reckoned among the canonicis clericis (that is, the clergy inscribed in the Church register), nor like these receive support from Church property.

12. Church property must not be alienated, nor burdened without necessity. If any has been alienated, it may be recovered for thirty years after.

13. If Christians are slaves to Jews, and shall do anything contrary to the Christian religion, or if their masters venture to attempt to strike them on account of any act allowed by the Church, and they flee repeatedly to the church, the bishop is not to give them up unless the value of the slave in question is paid down (as a pledge that no harm shall be done him). Christians must not marry with Jews, nor even eat with them.

14. At the principal festivals, at least, Mass is to begin at the third hour (9 A.M.), so that the priests, if the office is discharged at the proper hours, may be able to come together at vespers, for on such days the sacerdos must be present at vespers.

15. No bishop must ordain clerics or consecrate altars in strange dioceses. If he does so, those who are ordained by him are to be removed (remotis); but the consecration of the altars holds, and he (the bishop), must refrain from saying Mass for a year. No cleric must be appointed to office in a strange diocese without the consent of his bishop. No priest, deacon, or subdeacon, who travels without a letter from his bishop, may be received to communion.

16. If anyone carries off a virgin dedicated to God, or one who is vowed (has vowed the ascetic life), and does her violence, he shall be shut out from communion to the end of his life. If the woman carried off consents to intercourse with the ravisher, she must share the same excommunication. The same applies to penitents and widows who have taken a vow (see sec. 237).

17. If a cleric has received anything through the favour of a previous bishop, he must not be deprived of it by the succeeding bishop, but an exchange may be made so long as he is not injured. On the other hand, a bishop may deprive a cleric of what he has himself given, in case he is disobedient, etc.

18. If the administration of a monastery, a diocese (parochial church), or basilica is committed to a clergyman in an episcopal church, it rests with the bishop to decide whether he will allow him anything (of the income) of his previous office.

19. If any through pride neglects his office, he must be deposed (ab ordine depositus) to lay communion until he does penance (i.e. so long he shall be suspended); yet the bishop shall treat him with kindness and allow him his income.

20. If a cleric believes that he is wronged by the bishop, he may appeal to the Synod.

21. Clerics who have entered into a conspiracy, must be punished by the Synod.—Received into the Corp. jur. can. as c. 25, C. xi. q. 1.

22. Whoever takes any of the property of a Church or a bishop, must be excommunicated until he makes restitution. So also with anyone who prevents the legacies of departed persons from descending to the Church, or wants to take back what he has himself previously given to the Church.

23. No abbot, priest, etc., may alienate anything of Church property without the bishop’s permission and signature.—This is c. 41, C. xii. q. 2.

24. The benedictio pœnitentiæ (see above, secs. 222 and 231) must not be given to young people, particularly not to married people unless they are already advanced in years, and both sides are agreeable. Cf. Frank, On the Penitential Discipline of the Church, Mainz 1867, p. 679.

25. If anyone after reception of the benedictio pœnitentiæ returns to a secular life or to the militia, he may receive communion only on his deathbed.

26. No slave or farmer (colonus) must be ordained. The bishop who knowingly ordains one who is not free, must refrain from saying Mass for a year.

27. No cleric, from a deacon upwards, must lend money on interest, toil from sordid covetousness, carry on any forbidden business, etc.

28. It is a Jewish superstition that it is unlawful to ride or drive on Sunday, or do anything for the decoration of house or person. But field labours are forbidden, so that people may be able to come to church and worship. If anyone acts otherwise, he is to be punished, not by the laity, but by the bishop.

29. No layman must depart from Mass before the Lord’s Prayer. If the bishop is there he must await his blessing. No one must appear armed at Mass or vespers.

38. From Maundy Thursday for four days onwards, Jews must not appear among Christians.

31. The judge who does not punish a rebaptizer is to be excommunicated for a year.

32. No cleric may bring a layman before a secular tribunal without permission of the bishop; nor any layman a cleric without the same permission.

33. No bishop may transgress these canons.

SEC. 252. Synods at Barcelona and in the Province of Byzacene

About the year 540, Archbishop Sergius of Tarragona with his suffragans celebrated a provincial Synod at Barcelona, which gave ten quite short, but not easily intelligible, canons:—

1. Before the Canticum, Ps. 50. [51.] (Miserere) is to be said.

2. The blessing is to be given at matins as well as at vespers.—Cf. c. 30 of Agde, sec. 222.

3. No cleric may dress hair or shave the beard.

4. A deacon may not sit in the presence of a presbyter.

5. In the presence of the bishop, priests shall say prayers in proper order (orationes in ordine colligant).

6. Penitents must shave their heads, wear a monk’s frock, and dedicate their lives to fasting and prayer.

7. They must not take part in banquets.

8. If invalids request and receive penance, they must, when they are well again, live on as penitents. The laying on of hands, however (the sign of Church penance proper), must not be imparted to them. They are to be deprived of the communion until the bishop has found their life confirmed.

9. The sick shall receive the benedictio viatica (i.e. the viaticum). See sec. 229.

10. In regard to monks, the ordinances of the Synod of Chalcedon (in many of its canons) are valid.

Through two edicts of the Emperor Justinian we obtain information respecting an African Synod of the province of Byzacene, A.D. 541, under the Primate (Metropolitan) Dacian. The minutes of the Synod are not extant. The principal subject of the transactions, however, seems to have had reference to the rights and privileges of the province of Byzacene and its Synod; and the assembly sent two deputies to the Emperor in order to obtain his approbation of their decrees. Justinian gave this to the effect that in all ecclesiastical proceedings in Africa, and also with regard to Councils, and the privileges of the metropolitans of Carthage and the primates of Numidia and Byzacene, the older practice and the earlier decisions should remain.

SEC. 253. Fourth Synod at Orleans, A.D. 541

The great Frankish National Synod, which was held at Orleans under the consulate of Basil (i.e. A.D. 541), as the subscription of its president specifies, was attended by bishops from almost all the provinces of Gaul. Fleury and, after him, Remi Ceillier (t. xvi. p. 732) maintain, that all the three kingdoms into which the great Frankish kingdom was divided were here represented, and that only from Narbonensis I. was there no bishop present, because this province then belonged to the Spanish West Gothic kingdom. On the other hand, Richard (Analysis Concil. t. i. p. 531 sq.) showed that no bishop was present from the kingdom (Soissons) of Lothaire (Chlotar), nor yet from the two Germanic and the two Belgian provinces; whilst there was one from Narbonensis I., namely, Firminus of Ucetia (Uzez). The president was Archbishop Leontius of Bordeaux. Besides him there were many other metropolitans present, altogether thirty-eight bishops and twelve representatives of bishops. Among those present we find also Bishop Grammaticus of Vindonissa. The thirty-eight canons of this assembly are as follows:—

1. The Easter festival must be celebrated by all at the same time, according to the Table of Victorius (see vol. i. p. 330). As early as the Epiphany the bishop shall proclaim the day of Easter to the people. If a doubt arises as to the festival, the metropolitans shall apply to the apostolic see for a decision.

2. In all churches Lent (Quadragesima) shall be held in the same manner, and not in some a Quinquagesima or Sexagesima. Everyone who is not sick must fast also on the Saturdays of Lent; only Sunday is excepted.

3. It is not permitted to distinguished laymen to keep the Easter festival outside the episcopal city (in their oratories).

4. At the oblation of the holy chalice, only wine from the grape, mixed with water, must be used.

5. A newly-elected bishop must be consecrated in the church over which he is to preside.

6. The parochial clergy (parochiani clerici) shall receive from the bishops the canons which it is necessary for them to read.

7. Strange clergymen must not be admitted into the oratories on country estates without permission of the bishop in whose diocese the oratory lies.

8. In the case of those who have fallen into heresy after baptism, but do penance, the bishop shall decide when and how they shall be restored to communion.

9. If a bishop, in opposition to the canons, has sold or pledged any Church property, and if he leaves none of his property to the Church, it must be reclaimed for the Church. If he has bestowed their liberty on any of the slaves of the Church (to a moderate number), these shall remain free.

10. If a bishop has knowingly ordained a bigamist, or the husband of a widow, a Levite, or a priest, he must know that he is suspended for a year from all clerical function; and the unlawfully ordained shall be degraded.

11. Anything presented to abbots or monasteries or parishes does not belong to the abbots or priests themselves. If it is necessary to alienate anything, this can be done only with the signature of the bishop.

12. If a dispute arises between bishops about possessions, they must, as soon as possible, come to an understanding, or choose a court of equity. The bishop who refuses this will be excluded a caritate fratrum (can. 20 of Chalcedon).

13. A judge who compels clergymen to perform public services, must know that he has not the peace of the Church. In particular, a bishop, priest, or deacon must not be burdened with a guardianship, from which even heathen priests were free.

14. Anything bequeathed to a church or to a bishop by a valid document must not be withheld by the heirs.

15. Whoever after baptism still eats of idol sacrifices, unless he reforms on being exhorted, must be excommunicated.

16. If a Christian, in a heathenish manner, takes an oath on the head of an animal, unless he reforms on being exhorted, he must be excommunicated.

17. Sacerdotes (bishops and priests) and deacons must not have the same chamber and the same bed with their wives, so that they may not be brought into suspicion of carnal intercourse.

18. If a cleric sells Church property which he has in usufruct, this is invalid.

19. If anyone has demonstrably presented anything to the Church in goods or vineyards, even without a written document, neither he nor his heir must reclaim it from the Church, under pain of excommunication.

20. No layman may arrest, try, or punish a clergyman without permission of the bishop or other ecclesiastical superior. If the cleric is required by his ecclesiastical superior to appear before the secular judge, then he must give speech and answer there without hesitation. In a trial between a cleric and a layman the judge must make no examination except in presence of the priest or archdeacon who is the superior of the cleric. If two contending parties (a cleric and a layman) wish to carry their trial before the secular tribunal, permission to this effect may be given to the cleric.

21. The right of asylum of churches is confirmed anew.

22. No one must marry a girl against the will of her parents under pain of excommunication.

23. The servants of the Church and of the bishops must commit no acts of violence nor take anyone prisoner.

24. If a male or female slave take refuge in a church, in order to get married against the will of their master, this must be invalid, and such a union must not be defended by the clergy.

25. No cleric may possess Church property under the protection of a man of power, without the assent of the bishop.

26. If churches are found in the houses of great men, the clergy who minister there, in case of their not fulfilling their duty to the Church, must be punished by the archdeacon. If however, they are hindered by the great man or his representative from doing their duty, he must be deprived of sacred offices until his amendment.

27. Whoever does not observe the ordinances of the previous Synod of Orleans (c. 10) in regard to incestuous marriages, must be punished in accordance with the canons of Epaon (see above, sec. 231).

28. If anyone has intentionally committed a murder, even if he is freed from punishment by the prince or by the parents (of the murdered man), must have suitable penance imposed by the bishop.

29. If a woman has committed adultery with a cleric, both must be punished by the bishop, and the woman banished from the city.

30. If a Christian, who is the slave of a Jew, flees to a church or to any Christian requesting to be bought from the Jew, this shall be done, and the loss to the Jew made good according to just valuation.

31. If a Jew makes a proselyte called Advena to be a Jew, or perverts one who has been converted to Christianity to the Jewish superstition, or associates with his female Christian slave (for carnal connection), or perverts to Judaism one born of Christian parents, under the promise of freedom, he is to be punished with the loss of (all) his slaves. If one born of Christian parents has apostatised to Judaism, and has obtained his freedom on condition of remaining a Jew, this shall not be valid, for he ought not to remain free, who, being born of Christian parents, wishes to adhere to Jewish usages.

32. If descendants of slaves (of the Church), after any length of time, are met with again at the place to which their ancestors belonged, they must be demanded back by the bishop, and remain in those relations which are indicated by the departed (forefathers). If a layman, from covetousness, opposes this (retains descendants of Church slaves for himself), he must be excommunicated. This canon is differently and, as I think, incorrectly interpreted by Canon Möhler in his treatise on slavery in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1834, p. 597, and in his collected writings, vol. ii. p. 128. Different again is the translation of Remi Ceillier (t. xvi. p. 736): “Les descendans des Esclaves seront obligés au service et aux charges, sous lesquels ceux dont ils descendent ont obtenu leur liberté (there is nothing in the text of their having obtained their liberty), quoiqu’ il yait longtemps.”

33. If anyone wishes to have a diocese (parish) in his domain, before all he must provide it sufficiently with landed property and clergy.

34. If anyone has received from the bishop the usufruct of landed property for his lifetime, he must not alienate from the Church that which he has saved out of it, and his relations must appropriate no part of it.

35. It belongs to the successor to a bishopric to decide whether the last will of his predecessor, in consequence of which a cleric, during the vacancy of the see, has settled in the enjoyment of Church property, shall be held valid or not. The ordinary term of prescription has no application here.

36. If a bishop has let out ecclesiastical property to a strange cleric, it falls back after the death of this cleric to the Church again.

37. The metropolitans are annually to hold provincial Synods, that discipline and love may be maintained.

38. All bishops are required to obey these canons.

SEC. 254. Synods at Antioch and Gaza, A.D. 542

We met with the last controversy about Origen before this time, at the beginning of the fifth century, in the history of S. Chrysostom, and in the account of the Synods held on his account (see vol. iii. sec. 115). From this time onwards, for nearly a century and a half, this controversy rested; but there was growing up an ever stronger conviction of the heretical character of many of the doctrines of the great Alexandrian. Thus, for example, Pope Leo the Great assumed (Ep. 35, t. i. p. 881, ed. Ballerini) that Origen had been justly anathematised on account of his doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, and the Roman Synod of A.D. 496 blamed Eusebius because with Pamphilus he had written a defence of Origen (see above, sec. 217). Yet, it adds, “many of his books are to be read.”

About the year 520, however, a new controversy broke out about Origen, in Palestine. Four monks of the new Laura, Nonnus at their head, were zealous Origenists, and were therefore expelled by their Abbot Agapetus. His successor Mennas restored them. On the other hand, S. Sabas, the superior of the monks of Palestine, personally made a journey (A.D. 530) to Constantinople, and demanded of the Emperor Justinian the expulsion of the Origenists. Before, however, the Emperor took any steps, Sabas died in 531, and Origenism extended still more widely among the monks of Palestine, particularly through two learned monks, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas. Both immediately gained the favour of the Emperor to such an extent, that he advanced them to episcopal chairs about the year 537. Domitian became bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Theodore Ascidas, archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (as successor of the well-known Sotericus); and both of them stayed a good deal at the imperial court.

Supported by these two men, the Origenists obtained the upper hand in the Lauras, and drove out their opponents, the so-called Sabaites. Six of these, particularly Stephen and Timothy, appealed to the Patriarch Ephraim of Antioch, and he summoned, about the year 542, a Synod to deal with this question at Antioch, as is shown by the principal authority for the history of the new Origenistic controversy, the priest Cyril of Scythopolis, in the biography of his teacher S. Sabas, in the words: “Ephraim promulgated a synodal decree in which he anathematised the doctrinal propositions of Origen. The Libellus Synodicus also refers to the same Antiochene Synod with the brief remark, that Ephraim of Antioch, the archbishop of Syria, had, at a holy Synod, anathematised the defenders of Origenist doctrines who had lately arisen in Palestine. All further particulars respecting the Synod are unknown, as its Acts are lost, and we only know through Cyril that the Origenists in Palestine, in order to take revenge on Ephraim, compelled the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem to strike the name of his colleague of Antioch from the diptychs.

About the same time the Synod at Gaza in Palestine took place (541 or 542), occasioned by a matter quite different and unconnected with Origenism. The Patriarch Paul of Alexandria had fallen under suspicion, as though, at his request, the imperial commander at Alexandria, Augustalis Rhodo, had privately murdered Psoius the deacon and steward of the Alexandrian Church. On receiving intelligence of this the Emperor Justinian sent Liberius as his representative to Egypt, to examine the matter; and Rhodo declared at the examination that the Emperor had ordered him to do everything that the bishop required, and that he had murdered that deacon at the command of the bishop. Bishop Paul denied that he had given such a command to Rhodo, and it was proved that it was not the bishop, but a certain Arsenius, a distinguished resident of Alexandria, who, in connection with Rhodo, had brought about that murder. Arsenius was therefore immediately executed, but Rhodo was sent to the Emperor with the documents of the examination, and was by him condemned to death. As, however, Bishop Paul of Alexandria did not seem entirely without blame, the Emperor Justinian sent the Roman deacon Pelagius, who still remained at Constantinople as legate (Nuntius), to Antioch, in order that, in communion with Ephraim, the patriarch of that place, and other bishops of distinction, they might complete the deposition of the Alexandrian. Pelagius, Ephraim, Peter, patriarch of Jerusalem, Hypatius of Ephesus, and a good many other bishops assembled, as Liberatus relates (Breviar. c. 23, in Galland. t. xii. p. 158), at Gaza, deprived Paul of the pallium, deposed him, and ordained Zoilus in his stead.

SEC. 255. The Edict of Justinian against Origen

On the return from Gaza and Constantinople the Roman representative Pelagius fell in with monks from Jerusalem who had with them extracts from the writings of Origen, and wanted to obtain from the Emperor a sentence of condemnation against him. Pelagius and the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople upheld them in this matter, and Justinian promulgated the edict against Origen, which afterwards became so famous. This copious theological document was first published by Baronius in Latin (ad ann. 538, n. 34 sqq.). Later on Lupus made the Greek text known, and it was embodied in the Acts of the fifth Œcumenical Synod. That copy of the edict which has come to us was addressed to the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople, and the Emperor declares in it, at the very beginning, that it was his highest care to preserve the faith pure and the Church in peace. But, alas! he had been forced to learn that some ventured to defend the errors of Origen, which were similar to the heathen, Arian, and Manichæan doctrines. One who followed such a man as Origen could scarcely be still called a Christian, for he, blaspheming the Holy Trinity, had maintained that “the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son greater than the Holy Ghost: That the Son could not behold the Father, nor the Spirit the Son: That the Son and the Spirit are creatures, and that the Son is related to the Father as we to the Son.”

The Emperor further adduces the other leading errors of Origen (pre-existence, apokatastasis, plurality of worlds, etc.), and opposes to them a very thorough refutation with the insertion of many patristic passages from Gregory of Nazianzus, and of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Peter of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, etc., who had all spoken decidedly in the rejection of Origen’s teaching. As, the Emperor proceeded, he was now desirous of removing all offence from the Church, he, following the Holy Scriptures, and the Fathers who had repudiated Origen, had addressed this letter to His Holiness (Mennas), advising him to hold a Synod of the bishops present in Constantinople and the presidents of convents (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα), and procure in writing an anathema on Origen and his errors, and particularly on those propositions of his appended to the imperial decree.

Mennas was requested straightway to send copies of the Acts of this Synod to all other bishops and heads of monasteries, so that they too might subscribe the anathema on Origen and his errors. In the future, too, no one was to be ordained bishop or head of a monastery unless to the customary anathema on the heretics Sabellius, Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscurus, Timothy Ælurus, Peter Mongus, Anthimus of Trapezont (also of Constantinople), Theodosius of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, and Severus of Antioch, he should add also an anathema on Origen.

The Emperor stated that he had written the same to the Patriarch Vigilius, the Pope of Old Rome, as well as to the other holy patriarchs—namely, of Alexandria, Theophilus (of Antioch), and of Jerusalem, that they might also take precautions in this matter. So that at last all might see that the writings of Origen were heretical, he had appended only a few of his blasphemies in the appendix. These are twenty-four propositions from his book περὶ ἀρχῶν, particularly from the first and fourth. This being so, the Emperor concludes, it was reasonable that Origen should be anathematised, and in the following ten propositions:—

1. Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e. that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them had grown cold (ἀποψυγείσας), and they had therefore become souls (ψυχάς), and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.

2. If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that afterwards there was united with it God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God became like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim He was a cherub, for the seraphim a seraph; in short, like all superior powers, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will rise in spherical form and unlike our present form, let him be anathema.

6. If anyone says that the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the waters that are above the heavens, have souls, and are reasonable beings, let him be anathema.

7. If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future time will be crucified for demons as He was for men, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone says or thinks that the power of God is limited, and that HE created as much as HE was able to compass, let him be anathema.

9. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκάστασις) will take place, let him be anathema.

10. Anathema to Origen and to everyone who teaches and maintains the like doctrine.

Whether the Emperor Justinian himself drew up this edict, or the papal legate Pelagius and the Patriarch Mennas were the real authors, as Baronius (ad ann. 538, n. 32) supposed, may reasonably remain undecided. The question of ecclesiastical authority, as to whether the Emperor was entitled or not to issue an edict of this kind, belongs to another department. It seems to me that we have here before us one of those many and great, even if well-meant, Byzantine encroachments, which does not disappear even when we assume that the Emperor acted in agreement with Mennas and Pelagius. The promulgation of this decree falls after the Synod of Gaza, probably in the year 543, as the Ballerini, in their appendices to the Works of Cardinal Noris, made probable; whilst Baronius thought we should decide for the year 538, Garnier for 539 or 540.

SEC. 256. Synod at Constantinople on account of Origen, A.D. 543

Undoubtedly the Patriarch Mennas did not fail to hold without delay the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα which the Emperor had desired, probably in the same year, 543, and Justinian probably addressed to this assembly that letter, still extant, in which he derives the errors of the Palestinian monks from Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen, and briefly sums them up. On account of these dangerous errors and follies, the assembled Fathers were requested, after careful weighing of the appended exposition (probably identical with the imperial letter to Mennas), to anathematise all those propositions, and also Origen and all who agreed with him.

SEC. 257. The Fifteen Anathematisms on Origen

To this Constantinopolitan Synod of the year 543, without doubt, belong also the fifteen celebrated anathematisms on the same number of propositions of Origen, discovered, towards the end of the seventeenth century, by the celebrated librarian of Vienna, Peter Lambeck, among the ancient manuscripts of the library, and which had become incorporated in all the collections of Councils.

To these fifteen anathematisms in the Vienna Codex these words were prefixed: Τῶν ἁγίων ρξέ (= 165) πατέρων τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἁγίας πέμπτης συνόδου κανόνες. In consequence, at first there was no hesitation in assigning them to the fifth Œcumenical Synod, especially as several of the ancients declared that the latter did actually anathematise Origen. Basing upon this, even in later times, the brothers Ballerini, in particular, have ascribed the fifteen anathematisms to the fifth Œcumenical Council, whilst Cave (Historia Litteraria, ad ann. 541, p. 363, ed. Genev. 1705), Dupin (Nouvelle Bibliothéque, t. v. p. 204, ed. Mons, 1691), Walch (Ketzerhist. Bd. vii. S. 661 ff., Bd. viii. S. 281 ff.), Döllinger (Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch. i. 156, 158) assign them to the earlier Constantinopolitan Synod under Mennas (A.D. 543). Full certainty in this matter can no longer be attained; but we believe that we come near the truth in the following remarks:—

(a) It is true that a series of ancient writers suppose that the fifth Œcumenical Council also anathematised Origen; but, as we shall see later on, in the history of that Council, there is only this much credible in the statement, that, in their eleventh anathematism, they repudiated Origen among others; but that they dealt in any detailed manner with Origen, and drew up (fifteen) special propositions against him, is most probably incorrect.

(b) Whoever wishes to maintain this, can appeal only to the superscription of the codex at Vienna and to Evagrius (Hist. Eccl. iv. 38). That this superscription is of much value no one will maintain; but Evagrius also in this case is a witness of no importance. He interchanges the earlier accusations against Origen, drawn up by Sophronius and Gelasius, with the later, presented by Eulogius, Conon, etc. (cf. above, sec. 255, note
and is therefore constrained to remove the Synod which was occasioned by the earlier accusation to a later period (the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα of A.D. 543). He therefore identified it with the fifth Œcumenical Council. Of the latter he then says: “They appended to their letter to the Emperor articles containing the heresies of the Origenists.” He then gives one of these articles, the fifth, verbally, as follows: “Theodore Ascidas of Cappadocia maintained that, as the apostles and martyrs already do such miracles, and enjoy such honour, what could they desire for an apocatastasis, but to be like Christ Himself at the apocatastasis?”

This proposition we shall seek in vain among the fifteen in question. Indeed there is not one like it among them, and it is therefore clear that the passage in Evagrius contains no proof for our fifteen propositions, particularly as no mention there is made of fifteen. How it is, in other respects, important for us, we shall see further on. Evagrius further tells us of the condemnation of Origen, and of his propositions in connection with the letter of the Emperor Justinian to Mennas, Vigilius, and the other patriarchs, on which account Valesius even in his time, in his notes to this passage in Evagrius, gave expression to the supposition that he had confounded the decrees of the Synod of Constantinople under Mennas (A.D. 543, or as Valesius thought, 538) with those of the fifth Œcumenical Synod; and we agree with him in this the rather that other ancient documents, e.g. the minutes of the Constantinopolitan Synod of A.D. 536, were erroneously appended to the Acts of the fifth Œcumenical Synod. Cf. Du Pin, l.c.

(c) We certainly possess no strong and decisive proof that the fifteen anathematisms belong to the Constantinopolitan Synod of the year 543; but some probable grounds for the opinion may be adduced—

α. It is, for example, beyond doubt, and attested by Liberatus and Facundus, two contemporaries, that the edict of the Empeor Justinian to Mennas of Constantinople, Vigilius of Rome, Zoilus of Alexandria, Ephraim of Antioch, and Peter of Jerusalem, was subscribed by these patriarchs, and specially by the bishops assembled at Constantinople with Mennas, i.e. at the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα demanded by the Emperor, and at the same time anathema was pronounced upon Origen and his propositions. Facundus, in particular, says that the condemnation of Origen was repeated (iterata), i.e. as at Constantinople, so at Rome, Alexandria, etc.

β. Whilst thus demonstrably and quite in accordance with the nature of the case, anathematisms were pronounced upon Origen at the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα called on his account, it is not absolutely certain that, at the fifth Synod also, there were only transactions of a general kind on the subject of Origen. Of this there is no trace in the Acts of the Synod, except in a single passage (canon 11, sess. iv., see below), and this is critically suspicious. In this connection it is very significant that Popes Vigilius and Pelagius, who lived at that very time, and Gregory the Great, who is only a little later, speak at length of the decrees of the fifth Œcumenical Synod, but make not the least reference to a decree of that Synod against Origen.

γ. It is certainly most improbable that the fifth Œcumenical Council drew up fifteen anathematisms against Origen, since the celebrated Origenist, Theodore Ascidas, was not only present at this Council, but was of the greatest influence there, and, in fact, was the real originator of it.

δ. When, further, we compare the fifteen anathematisms against Origen with those which are found at the close of the imperial letter to Mennas and the other patriarchs, and which were recommended for acceptance, there is a visible similarity between them; and the fifteen seem to be nothing else than a more complete copy of the ten anathematisms of the Emperor, adopted by the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα (of the year 543).

ε. Certainly, if we took for granted that the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα at Constantinople had done nothing further than give a simple subscription of the imperial edict, and of the anathematisms laid before them, one could scarcely understand why they had drawn up the fifteen now in question. But the Synod went more fully into the matter, as was its duty, and censured the heresies of Origen in a more exact and complete manner. If this is in itself probable, it is also testified by Evagrius, in the passage already frequently referred to, where we find several important remarks on our Synod hitherto little regarded, that they first declared their rejection of Origen and his adherents by acclamation, and, moreover, sent a synodal letter to the Emperor, of which Evagrius gives us three fragments. The first contains, by way of introduction, the courteous address to the Emperor: “As thou dost possess a participation in the soul of the heavenly eagle, most Christian Emperor.” The second runs: “We thus flee, yea we flee from these doctrines (of Origen); for we know not any strange voice, and we have bound him, as a thief and a robber, with the bonds of anathema, and have cast him out of the sanctuary.” Finally, the third fragment says: “The contents of that which we have done, thou wilt learn from our written communication.”

It can scarcely be doubted that this synodal letter, here given by Evagrius, had the fifteen anathematisms, as the principal part of the synodal decrees, connected with it or appended to it. Evagrius, too, speaks of an appendix, which contained the errors of the Origenists, and which communicates to us the heretical utterance of Theodore Ascidas, with which we are already acquainted, as fifth proposition. That this was not found among the fifteen anathematisms has already been remarked. But how do we solve the apparent difficulty? The fifth proposition in question from Theodore Ascidas is, properly considered, no anathematism, and we may with probability assume that, as the imperial edict to Mennas (and the Synod) consisted of three parts: the letter proper, twenty-four passages from Origen, and ten anathematisms, in like manner the answer of the Synod would be in three parts: (1) the synodal letter; (2) quotations from writings and utterances of Origen and the Origenists (among them Ascidas, whom the Palestinian monks had specially denounced, and to whom the Synod had every reason for here referring, in order to weaken his influence at Court), and (3) anathematisms.—By this assumption, and the explanations already given, we think we have removed the difficulties, and brought order into the whole subject. The fifteen celebrated anathematisms are as follows:—

1. If anyone maintains the legendary pre-existence of souls and the fanciful apocastasis (restitution of all things), let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that the rational creation (παραγωγή) has arisen from merely incorporeal and immaterial spirits (νοαί) without number and name, so that an identity of all has come about by the likeness of being, power, and energy, as by their (like) unity with the Word of God, and (their like) knowledge of Him; but that they had become satiated with the vision of God, and had turned to that which was worse, everyone according to the nature of his inclination, and had assumed bodies, finer or grosser, and received names, whilst, among these powers there was a difference both of names and of bodies; so that some would be and be named cherubim, some seraphim, principalities, powers, dominions, and thrones, and angels, and however many heavenly orders there may be,—let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that the sun, the moon, and the stars belong to that unity of rational beings, and through their turning to the worse have become what they are, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that spiritual beings, in whom divine love grows cold, are covered in grosser bodies like ours and called men, whilst others who reached the summit of evil had received cold and dark bodies, and are called now demons and evil spirits, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone says that, as of angels and archangels souls are made, and from souls demons and men, so from men again angels and demons come; and every class of the heavenly powers consists either altogether of that which is above or that which is below, or from both together,—let him be anathema.

6. If anyone maintains that there are two kinds of demons, the one consisting of human souls, the other of higher, but so deeply fallen spirits, and that of the whole number of rational beings only one Spirit remained unaltered in the divine love and vision, and that this one became Christ, and King of all rational beings, and created all bodily things, the heaven and the earth, and whatever is between them; and whoever says that the world has come into existence, since it has elements in itself which are older than itself, and which consist for themselves,—namely, the dry, the moist, the warm, and the cold, and the pattern (ἰδέαν) according to which it (the world) is made,—and that not all the holy and consubstantial Trinity, but the νοῦς δημιουργός, who is older than the world, and gave it its being, has constituted it by making it become (i.e. made it out of those elements),—let him be anathema.

7. If anyone says that Christ—of whom it is said that HE appeared in the form of God, and before all times was united with God the Word, and was in these last days humbled to our humanity—did, as they say, compassionate the manifold ruin of that unity of Spirits (to which He also belonged), and in order to bring them back, passed through all orders, took different bodies and received different names, became all to all, among angels an angel, among powers a power, received among the different orders of rational beings a corresponding form, then received flesh and blood like us, and became a man for men,—whoever says this, and does not confess that God the Word humbled Himself and became man, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone does not confess that God the Word, who is of one substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and was incarnate and made man—one of the Trinity—is Christ in the proper sense, but (maintains) that HE (the Word) was named Christ only by abuse (καταχρηστικῶς) on account of the Nous (created Spirit) which humbled itself; that this was united (συνάπτω) with God the Word and is Christ in the proper sense; and that the Word, on account of this union with this Νοῦς is called Christ, and that HE, the Nous, for that reason, is called God,—whoever maintains this, let him be anathema.

9. If anyone maintains that it was not the Word of God made flesh by assumption of a flesh animated by the ψυχὴ λογική and νοερά, who went down into Hades and again returned into heaven, but says that this was done by the so-called (by them) Νοῦς, of whom they impiously assert that HE is Christ in the proper sense, and has become so through knowledge of the Unit,—let him be anathema.

10. If anyone maintains that the body of the Lord, after the resurrection, is ethereal and spherical in form, and that the other resurrection bodies will be so also, and that after Christ laid aside His true body—and so with all other men—the corporal nature passes into nothing, let him be anathema.

11. If anyone says that the future judgment brings the annihilation of the body, and that the end of the story is the immaterial φύσις, and that in future there will be nothing material, but only mere spirit, let him be anathema.

12. If anyone says that the heavenly powers and all men and the devil and evil spirits unite themselves with the Word of God in precisely the same manner as does that Nous whom they call Christ, and who bears the form of God, and, as they say, humbled Himself; and whoever maintains that the kingdom of Christ will have an end,—let him be anathema.

13. If anyone says that Christ (that Nous) is not at all different from the other rational beings, and that neither in substance, nor in respect of knowledge, nor in power and energy, exceeds all others, but that all will stand at the right hand of God, like the so-called (by them) Christ, let him be anathema.

14. If anyone maintains that one day all rational beings will again form a unit, when the individuals and the numbers are removed with the bodies; and that the destruction of the worlds and the laying aside of the bodies will follow upon the knowledge of rational things, and that the abandonment of names and an identity of knowledge and person will result; further, at the fabled apocatastasis only spirits alone will remain, as it was in the feigned pre-existence,—let him be anathema.

15. If anyone says that the life of spirits will then be like the earlier life when they had not yet descended and fallen, so that the beginning and the end will be like each other, and the end the measure for the beginning, let him be anathema.

Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com