HOME CHAT NAB PRAYERS FORUMS COMMUNITY RCIA MAGAZINE CATECHISM LINKS CONTACT
 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC SAINTS INDEX  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC DICTIONARY  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Home
 
Bible
 
Catechism
 
Chat
 
Catholic Encyclopedia
 
Church Fathers
 
Classics Library
 
Church Documents
 
Discussion
 
Mysticism
 
Prayer
 
Prayer Requests
 
RCIA
 
Vocations
 
Ray of Hope
 
Saints
 
Social Doctrine
 
Links
 
Contact
 







A Manual Of Councils Of The Holy Catholic Church -Rev. Edward H. Landon. M.A.

ABERDEEN (1788). [Concilium Aberdonense.] An assembly of the bishops of the Church in Scotland was held at Aberdeen, April 24, 1788, to take into consideration the state of the Church. In this synod it was unanimously agreed to comply with and submit to the government of the house of Hanover; and to testify this compliance by uniformly praying for George III., by name, at public worship. This resolution was duly intimated to the clergy and laity of their respective dioceses, the clergy being required to make public notification to their respective congregations on the 18th of the following month, that on the succeeding Lord’s-day, a prayer for the king would be authoritatively introduced, and from that time continued in all the religious assemblies of the Church; finally, they exhorted all persons in their communion to receive cordially this determination of their spiritual fathers.—Skinner’s Eccl. Hist. Scotland, vol. ii. p. 689.

ADANA (1316). [Concilium Adanense.] Held in 1316 by the Armenian Catholic at Adana in Cilicia, Oscinus, the king, being present.

AFRICA (217). [Concilium Africanum.] Held in 217, by Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, and attended by seventy bishops of Africa and Numidia. In this council it was declared, that those who have received the form of baptism out of the Church, may not be admitted into it without being baptised.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 607.

AFRICA (or CARTHAGE) (251). Held in 251, upon the case of those who had relapsed into idolatry during the persecution. The circumstances which led to the assembling of this council were as follows: Novatus, a priest of the Church of Carthage, in order to avoid the just punishment of his crimes, joined, together with five other priests, the party of Felicissimus, a deacon of the same church, who had set himself up against his bishop (then absent on account of the persecution), from motives similar to those which actuated Novatus. The pretext for their conduct was, chiefly, that St Cyprian was too rigid with those who, having relapsed during the persecution, sought to be admitted to penance.

In 251, Novatus, having forsaken the communion of Cyprian, and originated a new party, promised absolution, without penance, to all the relapsed who would join him, and went to Rome, where he met with Novatian, another turbulent and ambitious priest, who, disappointed at seeing Cornelius preferred to the see of Rome instead of himself, caused a schism in that Church, contriving, with the help of Novatus, to get himself also consecrated as bishop of Rome, by three bishops fetched from a distant part of Italy. To this schism he added heresy, teaching, amongst other things, that absolution is not to be given to those who have committed mortal sin after baptism, whatever the nature of the sin may be. He would have them only exhorted to repentance; and asserted that there exists in the Church no power to absolve from mortal sin, nay, he even went so far as to hold that no hope of salvation remained for those who had relapsed in time of persecution, even though they had sealed their subsequent repentance by martyrdom. In order to draw over others to his errors, he wrote letters to all the Churches, and circulated falsehoods and calumnies in the name of some confessors at Rome whom he had succeeded in bringing over to his party.

Cornelius, at the same time, was not idle in defence of the truth. He, too, wrote letters to all the bishops; and, in consequence of these exertions, several councils were held upon the subject, and particularly that of which we are at present speaking. St Cyprian, who had now returned to his post, in order to appease the troubles that had arisen, convoked this council.

First, to remove the doubts of those who had been influenced by the false statements of Novatian and his party, with respect to the conduct and consecration of Cornelius, the council resolved to obtain the testimonial of those who were present at his consecration, and to send deputies to Rome to inquire into the matter. This precautionary step did not, however, hinder St Cyprian from at once recognising the election of Cornelius.

When the deputies of Novatian arrived at Carthage, they required that the bishops should examine their accusations against Cornelius; to which the fathers in council answered, that they would not suffer the reputation of their brother to be attacked, after he had been elected by so many votes, and consecrated; and that a bishop having been once recognised by his fellow-bishops, it was a sin to consecrate another to the same see; and further, the council addressed a synodal letter to Cornelius upon the subject.

Then they proceeded to inquire into the case of Felicissimus, and the five priests who had followed him: these men they condemned and excommunicated. And further, seeing that the two sects, viz., that of Felicissimus and Novatus on the one hand, and of Novatian on the other, virtually destroyed penance by the opposite extremes to which they endeavoured to bring it; the former abolishing it in fact, by admitting at once to communion all those who had fallen into sin, whilst the others altogether refused to acknowledge its efficacy; they proceeded to consider the case of the relapsed. It was decreed that the Libellatici, who, immediately after the commission of their fault, began a course of penance, should be thenceforward admitted to communion: that those who had actually sacrificed should be treated more severely, yet so as not to take from them the hope of forgiveness; that they should be for a long period kept to a course of penance, in order that they might thus seek with tears and repentance to obtain God’s pardon for their sin. It was further decreed that the different circumstances of the sin of each individual ought to be inquired into, in order that the duration of their course of penitence might be regulated accordingly, that those who had for a long time resisted the violence of the torture should be treated with more lenity; and they judged that three years of penitence ought to suffice in order to render these admissible to communion.

At this council several articles or canons were drawn up, and afterwards forwarded in writing to every bishop. Baronius thinks that these were the same as those afterwards styled the “Penitential Canons.”

With respect to bishops and others of the clergy who had either sacrificed or had received certificates of having done so, it was determined that they might be admitted to penance; but that they should be for ever excluded from the priesthood, and from all exercise of their office, or of any ecclesiastical function. It was also determined that the communion ought to be administered to persons who might be visited with mortal sickness during the course of their term of penance.

Novatus and Felicissimus were both condemned in this council, which continued sitting for a long time.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 714.

AFRICA (348). Held in the year 348, under Gratus, bishop of Carthage. Fourteen canons relating to discipline were here drawn up.—See C. CARTHAGE, A.D. 348.

AFRICA (or HIPPO) (393). [Concilium Hipponense.] A general council held at Hippo on the 8th October 393; Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, presided; and Megatos, primate of Numidia, and all the other primates of the provinces of Africa were present. Cecilianus and Theodorus spoke in the name of the other bishops. We may perceive from this council how highly St Augustine was already esteemed, although at the time only in priest’s orders. At the request of the bishops assembled, he made a discourse before them upon the subject of faith, and upon the Creed; particularly combating the errors of the Manichæans, of which he had himself been a follower. One fragment alone remains of the acts of this council: it was ruled, that the bishop of Carthage should every year give notice to the primate of each province, of the day on which Easter was to be celebrated in the year following, in order that the latter might inform his suffragans. It was also ordered, that a general African council should be held annually, either at Carthage or in some one of the provinces; which practice continued until the year 407. In this council forty-one canons were agreed to, which were taken as the model for after-councils.—Cod. Afric. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1149.

AFRICA (398). Held at Carthage on the 28th of August 398, called the third council of Carthage. The bishop Aurelius presided, at the head of forty-four bishops.—See C. CARTHAGE, A.D. 398.

AFRICA (401). Held on the 13th September 401, to consult upon the best method of acting towards the Donatists. It was resolved to treat them with lenity; and to bring them, as far as possible, to a sense of their miserable condition, in the hope that God might be pleased to open their eyes. And further, it was agreed that those of the Donatist clergy who desired to resume their ministerial functions in the Church, should be received. Afterwards the council drew up certain rules of discipline:

1st. The canon made in the council of Carthage, A.D. 390, which forbids the marriage of bishops, priests, and deacons, was confirmed, and its observance enforced under pain of deposition. In the case of other ecclesiastics, it was ruled that each Church should follow its own custom in the matter.

2ndly. It was forbidden to any bishop to change the place of his see, or to absent himself from it for long together.

3rdly. It was ordered, that whenever it became necessary to convoke a general council, all the bishops of each province should assemble previously, in two or three classes, from each of which deputies should be chosen, who should be obliged to proceed forthwith to the council, or to communicate the cause of their absence.

4thly. That such of the clergy as should be refused communion and deposed, on account of any crime committed, should be allowed the space of one year wherein to justify themselves; which not being done within the year, they should never be received again.

5thly. That if any bishop should make any strangers, not his relatives, or even his relatives, if they were heretics or heathens, his heirs, in preference to the Church, he should be anathematised after his death. This is to be understood of that property only which the eighth canon of the council of Hippo permitted them to dispose of by will; viz., his patrimony and property which had been given to him.

6thly. In order to prevent superstition, it was resolved to allow of no altar or chapel in honour of a martyr, except his body was actually there buried, or except he had lived or had suffered there; and that all altars should be destroyed which had been erected upon the strength of pretended revelations.

It is not known what bishops were present in this council, but there is good reason to believe that the number was large, and that Alypius, St Augustine, and St Euodius, were of the number.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1242.

AFRICA (403). Held at Carthage on the 25th August 403; at which Alypius, St Augustine, and Possidius, were present; what other bishops were there, is unknown. At this council the Donatists were invited to a conference, but they rejected the offer with contempt, pretending that they could not enter upon a conference with sinners: the fathers in council were obliged in consequence, through their legates, the bishops Euodius and Theasius, to require from the emperor Honorius that laws should be enacted against the Donatists.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1331.

AFRICA (405). Held at Carthage on the 23rd August 405. It was resolved that letters should be written to the governors of the provinces, begging them to labour to effect union throughout Africa: also a letter to the emperor was agreed upon, thanking him for the expulsion of the Donatists.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1333.

AFRICA (407). Held at Carthage in 407. At this council deputies were present from every province in Africa. By common consent it was agreed to annul the canon of Hippo, which decreed that a general African council should be held annually, because the difficulty of getting to the council was too much for the bishops. It was further ruled, that when any circumstance arose affecting the whole Church of Africa, the matter should be communicated in writing to the bishop of Carthage, who should thereupon convoke a council, in which it might be determined what should be done: that other matters should be considered and determined in their own province. That in case of an appeal, each party should name their own judges, from whose decision there should be no further appeal. In order to prevent the bishops from going to the emperor’s court more than was absolutely necessary, the council ordered that the cause should be specified in the letter to the Roman Church, given to every bishop journeying to Rome, and that when at Rome, a letter for the court should be given to him. That if any bishop, having received a commendatory letter for his voyage to Rome, without saying that he intended to go to the court, should nevertheless go thither, he should be separated from communion. It was also ruled, that no new see should be erected without the consent of the bishop out of whose diocese it was to be formed, and that of the primate and whole council of the province. Rules were also laid down concerning the converted Donatists; the council further deputed the bishops Vincentius and Fortunatianus to attend the emperor in the name of the whole African Church, and to defend the cause of the Church in the conference with the Donatists, and also to demand of the emperor five advocates to defend the interests of the Church.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1333.

AFRICA (418). Held at Carthage on the 1st May 418; composed of two hundred and seventeen or two hundred and fourteen bishops. Here nine doctrinal articles, drawn up by St Augustine, were agreed to against the Pelagians. These nine articles or canons have come down to our time, and are dated May 1, 418. The three last definitively declare that no man can be said to be without sin, and anathematise those who should deny it. Besides these eight canons, the oldest Roman code adds another, by which the council condemns with anathema those who hold that infants dying without baptism enjoy a happy existence, without the kingdom of heaven. Photius, who, as Tillemont observes, we must believe to have had the use of good MSS., recognises this canon; and, as a further proof of its genuineness, St Augustine in his letter to Bonifacius says, that both councils and popes have condemned the heresy of the Pelagians, who maintain that infants not baptised enjoy a place of salvation and repose out of heaven.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1576. Aug. ad Bon. l. 2. c. 12. p. 492. 1. d.

In this same council ten other canons were agreed to, relative to the Donatists. It was determined, that in places containing both Catholics and Donatists, each party recognising a different diocesan, the Donatists, at whatever period they might have been converted, should belong to the bishopric which the original Catholics of the place recognised. That if a Donatist bishop should be converted, those parishes where the Donatists had been under his jurisdiction, and the Catholics under the bishop of some other city, should be equally divided between the two bishops, the oldest to make the division, and the other to have the choice. The same council determined by another remarkable canon, that if the priests and other inferior clergy had any complaint to make against the judgment of their bishop, their case might be judged by the neighbouring bishops, from whose decision they might appeal either to the primate or to the council of Africa; but if they pretended to appeal to any authority beyond the sea, all persons in Africa were forbidden to communicate with them. It also gave permission to a virgin to take the veil and the vows before the age of twenty-five, in cases where her chastity was endangered by the power of those who sought her in marriage, provided also that those upon whom she was dependent made the demand as well as herself.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1576.

AFRICA (or CARTHAGE) (419). Held at Carthage, 15th May 419, in the Basilica of Faustus; convoked by Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, assisted by Valentinus, the primate of Numidia; Faustinus, the legate of the pope, had the third place; bishops or their deputies from the different provinces of Africa, viz.: from Numidia, Byzacena, Mauritania Cæsariensis, Mauritania Tingitana, Tripoli, and the proconsular province were present, making in all two hundred and seventeen bishops; Aurelius presiding. St Augustine was present.

At the first sitting, the pope’s instructions to his legate were read, and also the canon, which he brought forward in order to show the right of appeal to the pope. St Alypius represented, that as this canon did not appear in the Greek copies of the acts of the council of Nicea, which they possessed, and which Cœcilianus had brought to Carthage, it was necessary that Aurelius should send to Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, where the genuine canons were kept, to procure an authentic copy of them. It was, however, agreed, that in order not to give offence to the pope’s legate, they should content themselves with writing upon the subject to Zosimus. Secondly, all that the pope had written relating to the case of appeals was read, and St Augustine promised that it should be observed, until they had received more authentic copies of the council of Nicea. Thirdly, the Nicene Creed was read, together with the canons and regulations made by the African councils held under Aurelius. Fourthly, the affair of Apiarius was discussed; this man was a priest of Sicca, in the province of Mauritania; having been guilty of most immoral conduct, he had been deposed and excommunicated by his bishop, Urban, from whose judgment he appealed to the pope, although that step was forbidden by several African councils, and although the council of Nicea had determined that the affairs of the clergy should be settled in their own province without any external appeal. Nevertheless, Zosimus, according to Baronius, received the appeal of Apiarius, and re-admitted him to communion. The African bishops refused to admit this pretension of the pope with regard to the right of appeal to Rome, and great contentions arose upon the subject.

Since, therefore, the African bishops had complained that Zosimus had violated ecclesiastical discipline by receiving the appeal of Apiarius, they were not a little surprised to hear the legate Faustinus justify the act of Zosimus, upon the authority of the canons of the council of Nicea. They maintained, that the canons cited under the name of Nicene, in order to justify the pretension of Zosimus, were not to be found in any copy, either Greek or Latin, but that they were, in fact, made in the council of Sardica, A.D. 347.

The bishops further desired, that the clergy should make complaint of judgments passed upon them to the primate or council of the province, and not to the bishops of the neighbouring provinces. Before the close of the year, Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople, delivered to the priests deputed by the council, faithful copies of the acts of the council of Nicea, made from the originals preserved amongst the archives of their Churches. These transcripts were inspected by the council (which seems to have continued its sessions), and no appearance of the canons alluded to by Zosimus being found, the fathers immediately despatched the delegates, who came out of the East, to Bonifacius, with the records which they had brought from thence.

It is worthy of remark that Alypius, bishop of Tagaste, addressed Aurelius, in this council, as “sancte papa,” and that the bishops repeatedly speak of the Roman pontiff as “consacerdos noster.”—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1589. Bar. 419, § 60.

AFRICA (424). Held in the year 424, upon the business of Apiarius, mentioned in the account of the preceding council. After having been re-established, he was again guilty of great enormities, and, accordingly, a second time excommunicated, and driven out of Trabuca, a city in the proconsulate of Africa, whence he fled to Rome. The pope, Celestinus, giving credit to every thing that he was pleased to pretend in the way of justification, re-admitted him to communion, and added further, a letter to the bishops of Africa. This conduct on the part of the pope caused the whole of the African bishops to assemble at Carthage, and to hold there a general council. Out of the whole number present, the names of fifteen only have come down to us. Amongst them are those of Aurelius of Carthage, Servus-Dei, who was a confessor, Fortunatianus, &c.

Apiarius appeared at the council with Faustinus, who came thither rather in the character of his advocate than his judge; he even wished to exact from them a promise that they would receive Apiarius into communion with them. The fathers in council, however, judged that they ought, in the first place, to examine into his criminal conduct, in which he tried to justify himself by his usual artifices; but Apiarius, unable to endure the tortures of his conscience, confessed, almost in spite of himself, the crimes of which he had been guilty. Faustinus gave way to this evidence of the truth; and Apiarius was cut off from the body of the Church.

As the fathers in council had now received an answer from the east, and had been thus certified that the canons cited by Zosimus were not in truth amongst those enacted by the council of Nicea, they wrote to pope Celestinus a letter, in which, after having complained of his conduct in absolving Apiarius, they begged of him in future not to listen so easily to those who came to him from Africa, and not to receive into communion those whom they had excommunicated, since, by doing so, he violated the canons of Nicea, which direct that cases of this kind shall be settled in the province in which they arise, so that they could not be carried elsewhere without the especial decision of the Church. They added, that the aid and illumination of the Holy Spirit might as reasonably be hoped for several bishops assembled freely in each province, as for one in particular; that to judge of affairs in the place where they have arisen, and where information and witnesses are at hand, is more natural than to remove them beyond sea. Lastly, they begged of the pope to send no more legates to execute his judgments, lest, said they, the pride of the world be introduced into the Church of Christ, which ought to hold forth the light of simplicity and the brightness of humility to all who seek God.

The Church of Africa kept possession of the right of judging her priests, definitively and without appeal, till the time of Gregory the Great.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1638.

AFRICA (or CARTHAGE) (525). Held in 525, at Carthage, under the primate Bonifacius, in order to restore the discipline of the Church. On this occasion an abridgment of the canons made under Aurelius was read. The last three forbid all appeals beyond the sea absolutely, without making any distinction between bishops and others.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1628.

AFRICA (535). Held in 535; composed of two hundred and seventeen bishops; convoked to Carthage by Reparatus, bishop of that city. A demand was made of the emperor Justinian to restore the rights and property of the Church, which had been usurped by the Vandals, which request was granted, by a law bearing date the 1st of August in the same year.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1784.

AFRICA (645). In the year 645, a conference was held between Pyrrhus, bishop of Constantinople, the chief of the Monothelites, and the abbot, St Maximus, in the presence of the patrician Gregory, and several bishops. Maximus there showed that there were two wills (duæ voluntates) and two operations in Jesus Christ. Pyrrhus yielded to his proofs, and went afterwards to Rome, where he retracted what he had formerly taught, and was received into communion; subsequently, however, he returned to his errors.

AFRICA (646). Held in the year 646. Several councils were held in Africa during this year, against the Monothelites: one in Numidia, another in Byzacena, a third in Mauritania, and a fourth at Carthage (sixty-eight bishops present), in the proconsular province.

AGAUNE (or ST MAURICE EN VALAIS) (523). [Concilium Agaunense.] Held on the 14th May 523; nine bishops were present. The continual psalmody established in this monastery was here confirmed by Sigismond, king of Burgundy, “upon the system of the Acæmetian monks at Constantinople. According to Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, who wrote ‘The Acts of the Martyrdom of the Soldiers of the Theban Legion,’ this psalmody was first instituted here in 351, in honour of the martyrs, forty-nine years after the event, and whilst their bones still lay scattered about.”

AGDE (506). [Concilium Agathense.] Held on the 11th September 506. Twenty-four bishops were present, and ten deputies of absent bishops, from different provinces of Gaul, which at this time was under the dominion of the Visigoths. Cesarius, bishop of Arles, presided. In this council the discipline of the Church was treated of, and forty-seven canons were drawn up, confirming the discipline already established in many other councils.

Of these, the 1st forbids the ordination of those who had been married twice since their baptism.

The 2nd directs that clerks who neglect their duty shall be deprived of their share in the distributions, and have their names erased from the Matricula.

The 12th enjoins fasting every day in Lent, Sundays excepted.

The 15th forbids to refuse the viaticum or Holy Eucharist to the dying in any case.

The 16th forbids the making any person deacon under the age of twenty-five years; and if married, without the consent of his wife, and a promise of continence.

The 17th forbids the ordination of bishops or priests under thirty years of age.

The 18th orders all lay persons to communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide.

The 19th forbids any woman to take the veil under forty years of age, however holy and exemplary her previous life had been.

The 20th forbids the clergy to wear long hair, and orders the archdeacon to cause that of the disobedient to be cut.

The 27th forbids the establishment of any monastery without the consent of the bishop; also forbids the bishop to ordain any monk without the consent of his abbot first had.

The 31st orders that those persons who, having been at variance for a long time, refuse to be reconciled, shall be excommunicated.

The 34th orders that converted Jews shall remain eight months in the rank of catechumens before they are baptised.

The 39th forbids persons in holy orders to attend wedding festivities.

The 44th forbids a priest to bless the people or a penitent in Church.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1381.

AGNANI. (1160). [Concilium Agnanium.] Held on the 24th March 1160. Pope Alexander III., assisted by certain bishops and cardinals, in this council solemnly excommunicated the emperor Frederic, and absolved all his subjects from their oath of fidelity to him. However, as Fleury remarks, it does not seem that Frederic was at all the less obeyed or the less recognised as emperor after this excommunication than he was before.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (799). [Concilium Aquisgranense.] Held in 799. At this council Felix d’Urgel was heard in his defence before Charlemagne. He was answered and refuted by Alcuin, originally deacon of the Church of York, and abbot of the monastery of Canterbury, whom Charles had induced to come over to France. On account of his frequent relapses, Felix was deposed, but he returned into the bosom of the Church, having sincerely abjured his errors, which he did in the form of a letter addressed to the clergy and people of Urgel; he was nevertheless banished to Lyons, where he died in the following year. See C. NAIONNE, 791; C. FRANKFORT, 794; C. RATISBON, 792; C. ROME, 792, and C. URGEL, 799.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1151.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. Held in the month of October, in the year 802, by order of Charlemagne; it was a numerous council. The bishops, with the priests, read the canons, and the abbots, with the monks, the rule of St Benedict; in order that both parties might thenceforth live in conformity to the law which was prescribed for them. At that time there were no monks or religious persons who followed any other rule than that of St Benedict. There remains to us of this council a capitular of seven articles: the most important are those which relate to the chorepiscopi; it was determined that they had no power to perform any episcopal function, and should be considered simply as priests. This discipline agrees with that of the ancient councils of Ancyra and Neocesarea.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (809). Held in December 809, upon the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which had been first raised by John, a monk of Jerusalem. In order to decide it, the emperor sent as deputies to pope Leo III. two bishops, Bernarius and Jesse, and the abbot Adelhard, who held a long conference upon the use of the words “Filioque,” chanted in the creed by the Churches of France and Spain, but not by the Church of Rome. The pope expressed his regret that the same caution had not been used elsewhere: and without condemning those who in chanting the creed added the words “Filioque” and allowing that the words expressed the true faith, he refused to give his sanction to the introduction of the words into the creed, respecting the decision of those councils which had forbidden any addition to be made.—Fleury. See C. TOLEDO, A.D. 447, and ROME, 809. Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1194.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (816). Held in September 816. In it a rule was composed for canons, containing one hundred and forty-five articles; another was also drawn up for nuns, which contained twenty-eight articles. Both rules are of great length, and are said to have been mainly composed by Amalry, deacon of Metz.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1307.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (817). Held in July 817. Here eighty chapters were drawn up concerning the rule of St Benedict, which the emperor Louis confirmed, and by his authority put into execution.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1505.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (825). Held in the year 825. This council, held upon the subject of images, was a continuation of one held at Paris in the same year. The bishops wrote on the 6th of December a letter to the emperor at Aix-la-Chapelle, containing their decision; the whole matter was then sent to the pope by the hands of two bishops. What was the result of the negotiation between the pope and the bishops is not known; the French, however, maintained, for some time after, that images are neither to be broken nor to be adored, rejecting the second council of Nicea, although the pope had approved it.—Fleury. See C. PARIS, A.D. 825.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (836). Held on the 6th of February 836. The acts of this council are divided into three parts:

Part I. refers to the life and doctrine of bishops, and contains twelve canons, the third of which makes it imperative upon all bishops to have some poor persons always at their table when they eat, or to have them, at least, somewhere within sight, and to send them food.

Part II. relates to the morals, and conversation, and degree of knowledge to be required in other ecclesiastics, and contains twenty-eight canons.

Part III. treats of the virtues and duties required from the emperor and his children, principally in those matters which affect ecclesiastical affairs. This part contains twenty-five canons.

A very long address was also drawn up to Pepin, king of Aquitaine, requiring him to restore the property of the Church.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1700.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (1165). Held in 1165. This was a plenary court of the emperor Frederic, assembled for the canonisation of Charlemagne, which was performed on the 29th December. Although this canonisation was the act of schismatics, and had the sanction only of an antipope, no pope has ever refused to recognise it.—Fleury.

AIX (1585). [Concilium Aquense.] Held in September 1585, by Alexander Canigianus, archbishop of Aix, assisted by the bishops of Apt, Gap, Riez, and Sisteron, his suffragans, together with the grand vicar of the bishop of Frejus. Several useful regulations were drawn up relating to the discipline of the Church and the reformation of morals, similar to those of Bourges in the preceding year.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1119.

ALBI (1254). [Concilium Albiense.] Held in 1254, by order of St Louis, who had lately returned from the Holy Land; bishops from the provinces of Narbonne, Bourges, and Bourdeaux attended, Zoen, bishop of Avignon, presiding. Seventy-one canons were published; part of them relate to the extirpation of heresy, and part to the reformation of the clergy, &c. The first twenty-eight are taken from the canons of Toulouse, A.D. 1229.

1. Orders that persons be duly appointed to search after heretics.

2. Grants a silver mark to every one taking a heretic.

5. Deprives of their land persons who allow heretics to harbour there.

6. Orders the destruction of the houses of heretics.

11, 12. Enact that all persons arrived at the age of puberty shall abjure heresy, and take an oath of fidelity to the Roman Church.

18. Orders that all boys above seven years of age shall be brought to Church by their parents, to be instructed by the curate in the Catholic faith, and to be taught the Credo, Pater Noster, and Salutation of the Blessed Virgin.

21–23. Relate to the papers, &c., of the Inquisition.

24. Orders the construction of prisons for the condemned heretics, where they shall be detained and supported (as the bishop shall direct) out of their confiscated property.

25. Orders that the bones of those who have died in heresy and have been buried, shall be taken up and publicly burnt.

29. Renews the canon “Omnis utriusque sexus.”

31–36. Relate to excommunications.

37. Orders that every will shall be made in the presence of a priest.

41. Forbids to harbour any suspicious woman within the precincts of the Church.

42. Orders silver chalices to be used in all churches of which the revenues amount to 15 livres tournois.

46. Forbids regulars to have any of their horse harness, &c., of silver or gold; orders them to use saddles of white or black, or polished saddles (rasæ).

48. Forbids clerks to gamble; orders them to have their hair so cut all round as to leave the ears altogether uncovered.

50, 51. Forbid them to hunt and hawk and tilt, in game, with shield and lance.

55. Orders two regular canons, at least, in every prison.

56. Orders all collators to benefices to present without any previous agreement with their nominee or diminution of revenue.

57–60. Of the visitations of bishops.

62, 63. Of usurers and Jews.

64, 65. Order that Jews shall have a distinctive dress, and shall constantly wear a large wheel figured on their breast.

66–70. Of Jews.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 720.

ALCALA BE HENARES (1326). [Concilium Complutense.] Held in 1326 by Juan of Arragon, archbishop of Toledo and primate of Spain; three bishops and three deputies were present. Two canons only were published:

1. Of the consecration of suffragans.

2. On the defence of the rights and property of the Church.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1771.

ALEXANDRIA (230). [Concilium Alexandrinum.] Held in 230, under the bishop Demetrius, in which Origen was deposed from the priesthood, but not without opposition.

ALEXANDRIA (306). Held in 306, under Peter, bishop of Alexandria (martyr). Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, was deposed here, being convicted of having sacrificed to idols, and of having committed many other crimes. In revenge, Meletius began a schism which lasted for upwards of fifty years. His disciples were called Meletians.

ALEXANDRIA (321). Held in 321, by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, attended by all his clergy, on account of the heresy of Arius, which had spread through all Egypt, Lybia, and upper Thebais. Nearly one hundred bishops attended from Egypt and Lybia, and anathematized his errors and deposed him (Schoans). Socr. i. 6, in p. 101. Arius, who held a Church in Alexandria, was a man of very considerable talent, with all the external appearance of inward excellence. Jealousy at seeing Alexander promoted to the throne of Alexandria, betrayed him into heresy, and the unimpeachable life of his bishop affording him no handle for attacking his character, he determined to accuse him on the score of doctrine; and as Alexander taught, according to the faith of the Church, that our Saviour Jesus Christ is truly God, Arius dared, first in private conversation, and afterwards publicly, to assert that the bishop was in error, and had fallen into the heresy of Sabellius; that our Lord was but a creature, however exalted.

Alexander having sent for Arius, endeavoured to win him back by mildness, advising and exhorting him to open his eyes to the enormity of his error. He even held conferences with his clergy in the presence of Arius; but the latter persisted in his opinions, and maintained with insolence all that he had advanced. At last this council was convoked early in the year 321, in which Arius and nine other of the clergy of Alexandria were condemned and deprived. Also a synodical letter was addressed by Alexander to his brother-bishop, Alexander of Byzantium, which Theodoret gives, l. i. c. 4.—Cave’s Apostolici, p. 349.

ALEXANDRIA (321). Held later in the same year, by Alexander, composed of one hundred Egyptian bishops, exclusive of the priests who were present. Arius was here questioned concerning his faith, and the heresy of which he was accused. He maintained his error with boldness; and the bishops, having heard his blasphemies from his own mouth, proceeded to anathematize him and twelve of his followers, both priests and deacons; also two bishops, Secundus and Theona; and to pass censure upon Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Arius retired into Palestine, where he had already gathered many followers. The most considerable of his disciples was the above-mentioned Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, the city in which the emperors of the east resided. This Eusebius enjoyed great reputation at the court, and was in high favour with Constantia, the wife of Licinius, and the sister of Constantine. It may indeed be justly said, that amongst all the followers of Arius, no one has been more celebrated, or has done more mischief to the Church.—Tillemont; Epiph. Hæres, 69.

ALEXANDRIA (324). Held in the year 324, by the celebrated Hosius, bishop of Cordova, sent by Constantine to appease the troubles to which the heresies of Arius, and the schism of Meletius, had given rise, and to restore the peace of the Church. Hosius conducted himself in the business with fidelity and care, worthy of his piety and of the confidence placed in him. In this council everything relating to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to the condemnation of the heresy of Sabellius, who denied the distinction of persons in the sacred Trinity, was thoroughly discussed. Very little else is known of what passed here.—Tillemont; Socrates, l. iii. c. 7. Tom. i. Conc. p. 1493.

ALEXANDRIA (326). A council was held April 16, 326, in which Athanasius was ordained patriarch of Alexandria. Complaint was made of the continued persecution of Athanasius by the Eusebians. They, it was said, had exiled him and had sent to the emperors a letter filled with fresh calumnies against him. The father justified his conduct; they went back to the origin of the persecutions which Athanasius had suffered; they showed that his ordination was strictly according to rule; they observed, that Eusebius of Nicomedia had changed his see several times, forgetting that he who is once bound to a Church by the episcopate may not seek to change, lest he be found guilty of adultery according to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. They showed, further, that the proceedings of the council of Tyre were invalid, both because the party of Eusebius was dominant there, and because the secular power prevented all freedom of action; they again exonerated Athanasius from the murder of Arsenius, alluded afresh to the irregularity of the proceedings in the Mareotis, accused the Eusebians of dividing the Church by menaces and terror, and, finally, exhorted the bishops to give no credit to anything written against Athanasius.—See Tyre, 335. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 532, p. 129.

ALEXANDRIA (362). Held in the year 362, by St Athanasius, in concert with St Eusebius of Vercelli, to deliberate with him and the other bishops upon the affairs of the Church, and particularly upon the means to be adopted for restoring peace and union to the Church of Antioch, where the orthodox Christians, who for some time had communicated with the Arians, having at last, in 361, separated from them, and united themselves to Meletius (elected bishop in the council of Antioch, A.D. 360), could not induce the Eustathians (who were the original Catholics of the city) to unite with them.

Besides St Athanasius and St Eusebius, we find in Arabia, Paphnucius, of Saïs, and about twenty others. They applied themselves with great industry to discover the most advisable methods for restoring order in the Church, agitated as it had been by such a tempest of heresy. Constantius, the great patron of the Arians, was now dead.

The council settled that those who had been leaders or defenders of the heresy should be admitted to penance, but that they could not be permitted to retain any clerical office; while those who had been led away by the violence of others should be allowed to retain their rank, provided they subscribed the acts of the council of Nicea.—Bar. A.D. 362, § 235.

In the next place, the affairs of the Church of Antioch were discussed, where the Eustathians refused to submit to Meletius, who had been in communion with the heretics, by whom also he had been consecrated bishop. The bishops in council requested Eusebius and Asterius to proceed to Antioch in the name of the council; and, further, wrote a letter to the three bishops, Luciferus, Cymatius, and Anatolius, in which they expressed their joy that the Meletians were willing to unite with the followers of Paulinus, i.e., with the Eustathians; they exhorted them to require nothing further from those who desired to return from Arianism, in order to union, than that, 1st, they should confess the faith of the council of Nicea; 2nd, they should anathematize the heresy of the Arians, and also that which teaches that the Holy Spirit is a mere creature, and not of the same substance with the Father and the Son. This was a necessary precaution to be taken against the new sect of the Macedonians; against whom it had already been decreed, by this same council, that it is necessary to believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance, and equally God with the Father and the Son; and that in the sacred Trinity, no one of the divine persons is either created, or inferior to other, or of later existence than another; lastly, they exhorted them to require that they should anathematize the impieties of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Valentinus, Basilides, and the Manicheans, and that having so done, the Meletians ought to be received without suspicion, and that the followers of Paulinus should require nothing more. In this council a discussion was also raised upon the use of the term ὑπόστασις, which subject at that time greatly agitated the whole Church; the Latins understanding by the term the actual “substance,” were accordingly unwilling to allow more than one ὑπόστασις in God, and accused those of Arianism who recognised three. The Greeks, on the contrary, using the word in the sense of “person,” maintained that it was necessary to admit three, to avoid the error of Sabellianism. St Athanasius, therefore, in order to compose these differences, required from each party a definition of what they believed; and finding from their answers that they, in fact, held precisely the same doctrine, in nothing differing from the catholic faith, he permitted to each party the use of the term ὑπόστασις, and bound them to receive the definitions of the Nicene council, without confusing themselves with new questions. However, notwithstanding the pains and judicious conduct of Athanasius, the Church was, for a long time, sorely troubled about the use of this word. Another act of this council was a complete declaration of the doctrine of the Incarnation, in opposition to the heresy of Apollinarius, who already, not openly, but in secret, had begun to teach contrary to this truth. It was defined that Jesus Christ was born of Mary; that He was “very man” as to the flesh, and that He did not take to Himself a body only without a soul or mind.

The pains, however, which the council, and Athanasius in particular, had taken to procure peace to the Church of Antioch failed, owing to the intemperate behaviour of Luciferus, who, having first consecrated Paulinus, the chief of the Eustathians, withdrew, first from communion with Athanasius, and afterwards from that of the Church: whence arose the schism of the Luciferians, which lasted forty years.—Cave’s Apostolici, p. 444. Tom. ii. Conc. pp. 97. 808.

ALEXANDRIA (363). Held in 363, consisting of all the bishops in Egypt, called together by St Athanasius, in order to fulfil the request of the emperor Jovian, that he would send him an exposition of the true faith. In the synodical answer, Athanasius exhorted the emperor to adhere to the declaration of faith settled at Nicea.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 823.

ALEXANDRIA (399). Held in the year 399. In this council the writings of Origen were condemned, as they had already been in the West. Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who there presided, condemned also the four Great Brothers—Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Enthymus—so called from their great size, their crime consisting in sheltering the priest Isidorus from the fury of Theophilus. Many other councils were held this year in the East against the writings of Origen.—See Jerusalem, Cyprus. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1219.

ALEXANDRIA (430). Convoked by St Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, in the month of November, 430, to communicate a letter received by him from the Pope Celestine, and another, which the same pope had written to Nestorius.

The council determined that another letter should be written to Nestorius, warning him, both in the name of this council and of that of Rome, to renounce his errors and embrace the Catholic faith; and to signify to him, that, if he refused, they should no longer hold communion with him, or recognize him as bishop This letter is divided into three parts: one containing an exposition of the faith, beginning with the Nicene creed; then follow the twelve celebrated anathemas of Cyril; and lastly, the announcement of the sentence passed against Nestorius by Celestine, in August, A.D. 430. See Rome, 430.

These anathemas referred to the twelve principal heads of the Nestorian heresy.—Tom. iii. Conc. p. 395; Conc. Eph. c. 26.

ALNE (709). Held by Berthwald, archbishop of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York, to inquire into the case of Egwin, who had been elevated to the see of Worcester, and subsequently deposed. He went to Rome, laid his case before Constantinus Syrus, the pope, and returned with letters in support of his claim. The land of Evesham, near Worcester, was granted to him by the king, and he was confirmed in his possession by the present council. He founded a monastery of Benedictine monks upon the spot, which was consecrated by Wilfrid in the following year.

ALTINO (802). [Concilium Altinense]. Held 802; where St Paulinus of Aquilea implored the help of Charlemagne against John, duke of Venice, who had thrown down from the top of a tower John, patriarch of Grado.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1187.

AMIDA, DIARBEKIR, or KARA AMID (c. 1600) in Armenia. Catholicos of the Nestorians held a synod here, about 1600, where he renounced the errors of Nestorianism.

ANAZARBA (435). [Concilium Anazarbicum]. Held in 435. In this council many bishops, following the example of Theodoret, put themselves in communion with John of Antioch.

ANCYRA (314). [Concilium Ancyranum]. Held about Easter, 314. Eighteen bishops only were present, from Asia Minor, Cappadocia, Pontus, Armenia, Cilicia, and Syria, amongst whom were Vitalis of Antioch, who presided, Marcellus of Ancyra, well known in the history of St Athanasius, Lupus of Tarsus, Amphion of Epiphania, and Basilius of Amasia in Pontus, and St Leontius of Cesarea in Cappadocia.

Twenty-four canons were drawn up, chiefly relating to the case of those who had relapsed during the persecution of Maximinus.

1. Orders that priests who, after their fall, have sincerely repented, shall be permitted to retain their rank, but excluded from all exercise of their office.

2. Orders the same concerning deacons.

3. Orders that those who have been forcibly made to sacrifice, shall be admitted to communion; and that laymen should not, by such violence, be incapacitated from receiving holy orders.

6. Orders that those who have been induced to sacrifice by threats, &c., shall, upon repentance, be received as hearers from the time of holding this synod to the great day (Easter): after this, as prostrators for three years, and for two years more as communicants without offering. In case of sickness and danger, they might be received under limitation.

8. Orders that those who have sacrificed two or three times, even under violence, shall fulfil a penance of six years.

9. Enjoins a penance of ten years upon those who have led away their brethren.

10. Allows those persons who, at the time of their being made deacons, declared their intention to marry, to do so, and to remain in the ministry; those who did not so declare their purpose, but were ordained professing continence, to be deposed if they afterwards marry.

12. Allows the ordination of those who sacrificed to idols before baptism.

13. Forbids the chorepiscopi to ordain priests or deacons without the permission of the bishop in writing.

14. Deprives those of the clergy who obstinately, through superstition, refuse to touch meat, and vegetables cooked with meat.

15. Enacts that Church property unlawfully sold by priests during a vacancy in the bishopric, shall be reclaimed.

16. Casts out, amongst the Hyemantes, those guilty of unnatural sins.

18. Excommunicates those who, having been appointed bishops, and refused by the persons in the parish to which they have been appointed, wish to invade other parishes.

20. Enjoins seven years’ penance for adultery.

24. Enjoins five years of penance to those who use soothsaying, and follow the customs of the Gentiles.—Tom. i. Conc. pp. 1456, 1480.

ANCYRA (358). Held in 358, by certain semi-Arian bishops, headed by Basil of Ancyra, and George of Laodicea; twelve only signed, but more may have been present. They condemned the grosser blasphemies of the Arians. The pure Arians taught that the Son of God is but a mere creature, but the semi-Arians believed Him to be more than a created being, and even like to the Father, but not of the same substance with Him, nor equal to Him. The Eusebians favoured this latter notion, and at the same time condemned the notion of Eudoxius of Antioch, who held that the Son is “unlike in substance.” It was to oppose this Eudoxian heresy that this council was chiefly called, and drew up a long exposition of the faith, which they presented to the bishops: in which they maintained that the Son is of like substance with the Father, and at first anathematized the term consubstantial, but afterwards withdrew the anathema. The semi-Arians sent a deputation to Constantius, and obtained the suppression of the second confession or formulary of Sirmium, made by the pure Arians in 357.—See Sirmium, 357. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 789. Sozomen, l. iv. c. 13. Epiph. Hær. lxxii.

ANGERS (453). [Concilium Andegavense]. Held in 453, in order to consecrate a bishop to the see of Angers; Leo, archbishop of Bourges, presided. The council, before separating, made twelve canons for the better maintenance of discipline. The first is to the effect, that since the emperor had granted to the bishops the power of trying civil causes, the clergy should, in every case of difference amongst themselves, apply to them instead of to the lay authorities; and that in case of dispute arising between any of the clergy and the laity, they should still require to be judged by their bishop; but if the other contending party would not agree to this, then they should first obtain permission of their diocesan to go before the secular judge. Further, the clergy were forbidden to occupy themselves with any secular business. Wandering monks were to be excommunicated. Assaults and mutilation were forbidden: showing what disorders were caused by the incursions of the barbarians who then ravished Gaul. The fourth canon also deprives those of the clergy who would not abstain from intercourse with all “strange” women, i.e., all who were not near relations.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1020.

ANGERS (1062). Held about the year 1062, against Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, born at Tours in the beginning of the eleventh century. Having studied in the school of St Martin, and subsequently at Chartres, under the famous Fulbert (afterwards bishop of Chartres), he was chosen to teach in the public school of St Martin at Tours; here it was that he first maintained that the body and blood of our Lord are not really present in the Eucharist, but only in a figure. He was condemned in twelve councils, among them Bordeaux, Brionne, Paris, Placenza, and two at Rome. He is said, also, to have maintained that the baptism of children is null and void, and that marriage is inexpedient, and promiscuous concubinage lawful.

ANGERS (1279). Held on the 22nd October 1279, by John de Monsoreau, archbishop of Tours. Five canons were made, one of which punished excommunicated clergy with the loss of the profits of their benefices as long as the period of excommunication lasted. This shows that the clergy themselves, by their own example, led the people to make light of the sentence of excommunication, and that it was no longer regarded as the extreme canonical punishment; also the second canon forbids the bishop’s officials to require any fee for sealing letters of orders, under pain of suspension or excommunication.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1074.

ANGERS (1365). Held on the 12th of March 1365, by Simon Renoul, archbishop of Tours, and seven of his suffragans. Thirty-four articles were drawn up, the first of which relates to proceedings at law; other articles relate to the immunities of the Church, and a few tend directly to the correction of morals.—Fleury. Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1939.

ANGERS (1448). A provincial council of Touraine was held at Angers in July 1448, by John, archbishop of Tours, with his suffragans. Seventeen regulations were made for the reformation of abuses. The third orders all priests to say the office for the dead, with three lessons at least, every day that was not an holy-day. The fourth forbids the giving the daily distribution to those of the clergy who were not present at the holy office. The fifth forbids all talking in the choir.

The council orders, in canon seven, that the Word of God should be preached only in Churches and with becoming dignity; and forbids the preacher to make use of loud cries or extravagant gestures: it also forbids clandestine marriages, and the silly tumult and noise made in derision, when any are married a second or third time, commonly called “charivari.”—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1352.

ANGERS (1583). Held in 1583, being a continuation of one held at Tours in the same year, which, on account of the plague, which had broken out in that city, was transferred to Angers. Several regulations were made: First, upon the subject of holy baptism, directions were given as to the choice of god-parents; it was also forbidden to re-baptize, even conditionally, in cases where that sacrament had been administered by heretics, provided the matter and form of words and intention had been preserved. Secondly, confirmation, the holy eucharist, the sacrifice of the mass, marriage, orders, the celebration of the festivals, and the worship of relics were treated of. Thirdly, the subjects of reform, ecclesiastical discipline, the duty of bishops, canons, curates, &c., were discussed; amongst other regulations, the monks were ordered to preserve the tonsure large and distinct, and to shave their beards. Fourthly, a rigid abstinence from meat every Wednesday and during all Advent was enjoined them. With respect to nuns, it was forbidden to appoint any one to be abbess or prioress under forty years of age, and eight of profession.

Matters concerning the burial of the dead, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, visitations, the preservation of ecclesiastical property, seminaries, schools, and universities, were also discussed in this council, and the regulations agreed upon were confirmed by a bull of Gregory XIII. of the same year, and published by order of the king, Henry III.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1001.

ANSE (990). [Concilium Ansænum.] Held in 990. Burchardus, archbishop of Lyons, Teubaldus, archbishop of Vienne, and nine bishops being present. Odilon, abbot of Clugny, with a large body of his monks, appeared before the council and solicited the confirmation of the privileges of the monastery, which was done, “sub anathematis terribili vinculo.” Certain canons were also enacted, some of which are lost, but nine remain.

1. Forbids any one but a priest to carry the Host to the sick.

3. Orders persons to attend at vigils and to stand with groans and sighs, without chattering and scurrility.

4. Forbids clerks to hunt, “abeo sciat, quem irridet, esse damnandum.”

5. Orders priests to abstain from their wives; otherwise to desist from celebrating the holy mystery and to lose their benefices.

7. Forbids all work on the evening of the Sabbath after the hour of noon, and permits no buying and selling on Sundays.

8. Orders all lay persons to abstain from flesh on Wednesdays and to fast on Fridays, if they can do so, and give alms to the poor. Also, if they can do so, to hear mass on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

9. Contains a blessing and a curse upon those who break or respect the privileges granted to the monastery.—Mart. Thes.: Anec. tom. 4, col. 73.

ANSE (1025). Held in 1025, at Anse near Lyons. Gaustin de Maçon complained against Bouchard or Burchard, archbishop of Vienne, for having ordained certain monks of Clugny, although that monastery was in the diocese of Maçon. Odilon, the abbot, exhibited the pope’s privilege, which exempted the monks of Clugny from the jurisdiction of their own bishop, and gave permission that they might be ordained by any bishop whom the abbot chose. However, the council having caused the canons to be read, which order that in every country all abbeys and monasteries shall be subject to their proper bishop, declared the privilege to be null and void, being plainly contrary to those canons.—Fleury. Tom. ix. Conc. p. 859.

ANSE (1100). Held in 1100. Five archbishops, of whom Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, was one, and nine bishops, were present. Hugo, archbishop of Lyons, demanded a subsidy to defray the expenses of a voyage which he was obliged to make to Jerusalem.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 726.

ANTIOCH (264 and 269). [Concilium Antiochenum.] Held in 64, against the errors of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, whose life was, in other respects, little suited to the sanctity of his office; his evil course of life caused him to lose sight of the truth. He taught, as Sabellius had done in 255, that the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were but One Person; that the Word and the Spirit were in the Father without a real and personal existence, and merely as reason is in man; so that, in fact, there was neither Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit, but simply One God. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the Father produced the Word, but only in order that He might operate out of Himself; in which he differed from Sabellius. His error upon the subject of the Incarnation was equally fatal; he would not allow that the Son of God came down from heaven; he maintained that Jesus Christ was of the earth, a mere man, having, by nature, nothing above other men; he confessed that the Word, Wisdom, and Eternal Light were in Him, but only as dwelling in Him, not by a personal union.

Hence he recognised in Jesus Christ two ὑποστάσεις, two Persons, two Christs, and two Sons, one of whom was the Son of God by nature, and co-eternal with the Father, being no other, according to his showing, than the Father Himself; whilst the other, who was the Son of David and the Son of the Virgin Mary, was Christ only in an improper sense, having had no existence before His birth of the Virgin, and being called the Son of God only because He was the abode of the True Son. So that Jesus Christ was righteous, not because righteousness was an attribute essential to Him as God, but merely by the practice of virtue and righteousness; not by His union, but by His communication with the Divine Word.

In order to give the most complete check to so great an evil, the eastern bishops flocked to Antioch from all parts in great numbers, and amongst them were found some of great note, viz., Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neocesarea, Helenus of Tarsus in Cilicia, Hymenæus of Jerusalem, Theoctenus of Cesarea in Palestine, and Maximus of Bostra: there was also a large assemblage of priests and deacons. When they were assembled, a letter was read from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was too ill to be present, animating their zeal for the defence of the truth. What passed in this council is not exactly known; but it seems that two at least were held upon this subject, one in this year, 264, and a second in 269, which was continued in the year following. It is certain that Paul did every thing in his power to conceal the venom of his heresy, that the bishops declared the true faith with the utmost clearness, and earnestly besought Paul to renounce his heresy, and that he protested that he had never held the errors imputed to him. It would seem that it was in the first council, which assembled A.D. 264, that Firmilian condemned the errors of Paul, who then promised to recant. Subsequent events, however, showed that he had been merely deceiving the bishops, and accordingly the second council was called, where the prelates assembled to the number of seventy, according to St Athanasius, or eighty as St Hilary asserts. In this last synod Paul so craftily hid his real views that he would probably have again deceived the bishops but for the presence of Malchion, “an eloquent man, the head of the Greek School of dialectic at Antioch, who, for the exceeding purity of his faith, had been counted worthy of the Presbytery in the church there. He, pressing upon Paul his enquiry, was alone of all able to detect the crafty man.” Malchion for this eminent service, was allowed by the bishops to join his name to theirs. Then, after having used exhortations and entreaties with Paul, they clearly and unequivocally asserted the union of the Divine and human natures in the One Person of Jesus Christ, and the Personal distinction between the Father and the Son, in one and the same substance. Paul being thus convicted of all his errors, and especially of holding that Jesus Christ was merely man, was unanimously deposed and excommunicated, which judgment of the council was announced in a Synodical Epistle to Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria and to the whole Catholic Church, and was received and confirmed by all the bishops of the whole Church. Domnus was in the same council elected to succeed Paul on the throne of Antioch. Euseb. l. vii. c. 28. Tom. i. Conc. pp. 843 and 893. 901.

ANTIOCH (330). [Pseudo council.] Held in 330, by the Arians against Eustathius, the patriarch of Antioch, a strenuous defender of the Nicene faith; him Eusebius of Nicomedia and other Arians accused of Sabellianism and adultery, on which false charges he was unjustly condemned and deposed and banished into Illyricum. Soz. lib. 2. c. 19.

ANTIOCH (340). Held about the year 340; about ninety bishops were present. The Eusebians, hearing that St Athanasius had proceeded to Rome, became alarmed, fearing lest their falsehoods and artifices should be exposed by his presence. The fathers of the second council testify that St Firmilius had at that time come a second time to Antioch on this matter. He died on his way home. In order, therefore, to prevent, as far as lay in their power, what they dreaded, they, too, constituted themselves judges in their own cause, and held a council, in which they declared that any bishop, who, after having been deposed should take upon himself the exercise of his episcopal office, without the authority of a new council, should never be restored. Then they proceeded to set up at Alexandria a bishop of their own sect, Gregory of Cappadocia, an acknowledged Arian, whose intrusion was accompanied by every possible irregularity and violence, even so far as the employment of military force and heathenish cruelties.—Tillemont. Tom. ii. Conc. pp. 89. 558.

ANTIOCH (341). Held in 341, by the Eusebians, on the occasion of the dedication of the “Golden” Church at Antioch. The emperor Constantine commenced this work in a style of magnificence worthy of his piety, and Constantius had just completed it; and as Eusebius of Nicomedia lost no opportunity of advancing his schemes, he so managed matters, that under the pretext of dedicating the new church, he assembled a council, of which the real object was to condemn belief in the consubstantiality of the Son. Ninety-seven bishops, of whom thirty-six or forty were acknowledged Arians, were present. They came chiefly from the following provinces: Syria, Phenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Isauria, Cappadocia, Bithynia, and Thrace. The principal men amongst them were Eusebius, who had usurped the see of Constantinople, Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias, Macedonius of Mopsuestia, Marsis of Macedonia, Acacius Cæsarea, Eudoxius, afterwards of Constantinople, George of Laodicea, and Theophronius of Tyana, in Cappadocia. Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem, refused to attend, not forgetting how he had been, upon a former occasion (in the Synod of Tyre), surprised into subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius. Placillus, patriarch of Antioch, presided.

No bishop from the west was present at the council, nor any one on the part of the pope. The Emperor Constantius, however, who saw only with the eyes of the Arians, attended in person. The sole object of the Eusebians was to crush Athanasius, and accordingly they brought forward again the accusations which had been urged against him in the council of Tyre, and had been repeatedly refuted. Moreover, they alleged against him, on the present occasion, certain murders which had been committed on his return to Alexandria, which they maintained had been resisted by the people to whom it was very displeasing. In the end he was condemned without a hearing; and Gregory, an Arian, was appointed to succeed him.

Three creeds were then drawn up. In the first they spoke with great reserve of the Son, making use neither of the terms “substance” nor “consubstantial.” In the second they said that He was immutably possessed of the divinity, or, as Socrates and St Hilary explain their meaning to be, that He was incapable of mutability or change; that He was Begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Whole of Whole, &c.; the image of the Father’s Godhead, substance, power, and glory; that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three in hypostasis, or subsistence, but one in consent, reducing the Unity to a mere unity of will. They seem, also, to have admitted in the Divine Persons a glory peculiar to each; and whilst they denied the Son to be a mere creature, they added, as though He had been no more than this (just as they expressed themselves when speaking of His divinity), that He was the first-born of all creatures. (S. Hil. de Synodis, c. 29.)

The second formulary was styled the “Formulary of Antioch, or the Creed of the Dedication;” and had been approved by the semi-Arians, at the council of Seleucia, in 359.

These canons were rejected by Pope Innocent I., as “composed by heretics,” but received by the Council of Chalcedon (c. 4.) as “the righteous rules of the Fathers,” and were placed on the codex of the Canons of the Universal Church.—This goes to prove Pagi’s theory of the council; the pope views it in respect to its latter end, the council to its orthodox character (i.e., the majority) at its commencement. (See Schram. P., p. 129.)

The third formulary does not materially differ from the last; it was drawn up by Theophronius, Bishop of Tyana.

In this council, moreover, various regulations were made; and for many ages, twenty-five canons were attributed to it, which have come down to us. It is Tillemont’s opinion that these twenty-five canons, which are excellent, and of great celebrity in the Church, may have been made at a more ancient council, held at Antioch under St Eustachius. However this may be, although absolutely rejected by Pope Innocentius and St Chrysostom, as having been the work of heretics, they were received without difficulty into the code of Church canons, which was confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon, although they are not styled canons of the Council of Antioch.

1. Excommunicates those of the laity who set aside the decree of Nicea concerning the festival of Easter; deposes, and deprives, and declares to be aliens from the Church, any bishops, priests, or deacons guilty of so doing.

2. Orders that all those who come to church only to hear the sacred Scriptures, and do not communicate in prayer, or who turn away from the holy Eucharist, shall be cast out of the Church. Forbids intercourse with the excommunicated.

3. Forbids priests and deacons to absent themselves from their churches.

4. Deprives of all hope of restoration a bishop deposed by the synod, or a priest or deacon by his own bishop who shall nevertheless dare to perform any part of divine service. (See C. ANTIOCH, 340.)

5. Enacts that if any presbyter or deacon, despising his own bishop, has separated himself from the Church, and collected a private congregation, and refused to attend and submit upon a first and second summons from his bishop, he shall be utterly deprived, without remedy. And that if he persists in troubling and disturbing the Church, he shall be corrected by the secular power.

6. Forbids a bishop to receive any one excommunicated by another bishop.

7. Strangers not to be received without letters of peace.

9. Orders all the bishops of a province to obey the metropolitan, and to give him precedence.

10. Permits the chorepiscopi to ordain readers, subdeacons, and exorcists; forbids them to dare to ordain either priests or deacons without the bishop.

11. No bishop or priest to go to the emperor without the consent, in writing, of the bishops of the province and the metropolitan, and without letters from them.

12. Deprives of all hope of restoration a deposed priest or deacon, who shall carry his complaint to the emperor instead of the synod of bishops.

13. Deposes a bishop who presumes to ordain in another province.

14. Orders that if the bishops in synod, when sitting in judgment upon the conduct of any bishop, cannot agree in their verdict, the metropolitan shall call in some from a neighbouring province.

15. No appeal to be allowed from the unanimous decision of the provincial synod.

16. A bishop not chosen in a perfect synod, i.e., where the metropolitan is present, to be cast out, even though elected by all the people.

17. Excommunicates a bishop, who, after consecration, refuses to exercise his office.

19. Forbids to consecrate a bishop without a synod: the appointment to be made with the consent of, at least, the majority of the bishops of the province.

20. Two provincial synods to be held annually: one, three weeks after Easter, and the other on the ides of October. All who think themselves aggrieved may come for redress.

21. Forbids translations of bishops from one see to another.

22. Forbids bishops to interfere in the church of another bishop.

23. Forbids a bishop to appoint his own successor. Such appointments to be void.

24. Declares that Church property ought to be preserved with the utmost care, and administered by the bishop. Allows bishops to leave by will their own private property, but not that of the Church.

25. Gives the bishop power over the possessions of the Church; permits him to partake of what he requires for his own necessary use, and for purposes of hospitality; forbids him to pervert the Church revenue to his own family purposes.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 89. Fleury. (Hammond’s Canons of the Church, p. 153.)

ANTIOCH (344 or 345). Held by the Arian bishops about 344, in which they drew up a long explication of their faith, inclining somewhat more to orthodoxy than its predecessors, but maintaining creation of the Son and His inferiority to the Father, commonly known as the “Macrostich” (μακρόστιχος), or large confession, containing, first, the formulary of Antioch, mentioned in the preceding council, to which they added a prolix explication of the principal articles, and opposed the heresies of Paul of Samosata, Photinus, Sabellius, and others. This formulary was sent by the hand of four bishops, to the western bishops, assembled at Milan. (See C. MILAN, 346. Socr. Lib. 2. c. 19. P. p. 132.)

ANTIOCH (360). Held in 360. A large synod, Meletius, bishop of Sebastia, was unanimously elected patriarch of Antioch, the Arian party flattering themselves that he would support their views; but in the council, although violence was used to prevent him, he testified boldly before the emperor, in defence of the Catholic faith upon the subject of the nature of the Son. The Arians, enraged by his discourse, so prejudiced the mind of the emperor against him, that in a council held in the following year, at which Constantius himself was present, he was accused of Sabellianism, and banished. The Arians, at the same time, published a new formulary of faith, in which they departed even further from the true faith, the word “like” was omitted, and it was declared the Son was in all things, Substance and Will, unlike the Father. (See SELEUCIA, 359.)—Sozom. iv. 28. Theod. ii. 31. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 96. 807.

ANTIOCH. Held by Euzoius, the Arian bishop of Antioch, and nine bishops, to absolve Aetius from his condemnation at Constantinople, 359. Eunomius, with four Arian bishops, who had been amongst those who refused to condemn him, then consecrated him bishop at Constantinople.

ANTIOCH (363). Held in 363, under Jovian. Acacius of Cæsarea and his party, seeing the good opinion which this prince had conceived of Meletius, entered upon a conference with him, which was the cause of this council. Twenty-seven bishops attended from different provinces; of these the principal were, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, and Acacius of Cæsarea, Pelagius of Laodicea, Irenio of Gaza, Athanasius of Ancyra, &c. They unanimously agreed upon a letter to the emperor, in which they confessed the doctrine of consubstantiality, and agreed to the faith as settled at Nicea, inserting in the letter the Nicene creed, which they received as the exposition of the true faith; especially admitting the term “consubstantial” as expressing that the Son is of the same substance with the Father.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 825. Socr. l. iii. c. 25.

ANTIOCH (378). Held in the year 378, and every bishop subscribed it. The whole Eastern Church having held a council at Antioch, the letter of Pope Damasus, “to the catholic bishops throughout the East” (see Alexandria, 372), was read, and the bishops present [163 or 146] received the faith therein contained, and set their hands to the epistle as confirming it, amongst others, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, Eulogius of Edessa, &c. This letter of the pope authoritatively set forth the faith of the Catholic Church upon the subjects of the blessed Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the errors of Apollinarius.—Tillemont. Cave, Hist. Litt. t. i. p. 363.

ANTIOCH (379). [See SCHRAM, i. 287.] In this council, moreover, a scheme was devised for putting an end to the long schism which had existed amongst the Catholics of Antioch who were divided into Eustathians and followers of Meletius. (See note, Council of ALEXANDRIA, 362.) It was agreed that Paulinus and Meletius should both admit that whichever of the two survived the other should be sole patriarch of Antioch, and the same thing was insisted upon, upon oath, from Flavianus and Theodorus, who were regarded as their most probable successors. Flavianus subsequently violated his promise.

ANTIOCH (391). Held about the year 391. Flavianus, the bishop, assisted by several priests and deacons, condemned and anathematized the errors of the Massalians, who regarded the sacraments as useless, and made Christian perfection to consist in prayer alone.

ANTIOCH (421). Held between 421 and 424, under Theodotus of Antioch, Praylius, the successor of John in the see of Jerusalem, being present. Heros and Lazarus again accused Pelagius of heresy, who had been acquitted in the council of Diospolis by the influence of John of Jerusalem; he was condemned, and letters to that effect were written to the pope. The acts and letters of the council have perished.—Marii Mercatoris Opera, Studio Garnerii, Disser. ii. de Synodis, &c., p. 207. Tillemont.

ANTIOCH (431). Held in 445 or 444, in which Athanasius, bishop of Perrha, was suspended. Domnus the patriarch presided. The acts of this synod were read in the fourteenth action of Chalcedon.

ANTIOCH (433). Held in 433, by order of the Emperor Theodosius. In this council the heresy of Nestorius was condemned by John of Antioch, and this last named prelate was reconciled to St Cyril, as the emperor had commanded.—Tom. iii. Conc. p. 1265.

ANTIOCH (435). A general eastern council, held in the year 435. Three Synodal letters were written by this council, to the emperor, to Proclus, and to St Cyril, respectively. In the last, the memory of Theodorus of Mopsuestia (whom certain monks of Constantinople had required should be anathematized, and his writings condemned) was defended; the bishops, speaking of his “Extracts,” express themselves thus: “We allow that there are doubtful passages, which may be understood in a sense differing from that intended by the writer; but there are many abundantly clear. And as to those which appear obscure, we find similar passages in the ancient writers; so that if we condemn the former we also cast a reflection upon the latter. What endless confusion will it not lead us into, if we allow the opinions of the fathers who are dead to be combated! It is one thing not to approve entirely of some few of their opinions, and another to anathematize them; especially if the anathema be extended to themselves personally.… May not Theodore have been compelled to express himself thus, in order to contend effectually with the heresies which he, as the common defender of the East, opposed?”

In their letter to Proclus, the same bishops wrote: “It is not our office to judge those who have died in the faith; that belongs to God alone, who is the judge of the living and of the dead.” St Cyril, however, made a reply to the council, in which he said, that he implored them not to attribute to the holy fathers, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, and others, the infamous opinions of such men as Diodorus and Theodorus, who openly impeached the glory of Jesus Christ, lest by so doing they should give occasion to scandal.—Fleury, Col. Baluz., p. 943.

APT (1365). Held in the choir of the Cathedral Church of Apt on the 14th of May 1365, there being present the Archbishops of Arles, Embrun, and Aix, Philip the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, John of Orange, John of Carpentras, George of Marseilles, John of Vaison, James of St Paul-Trois-Châteaux (Tricastinensis), Stephen of Venice, Laurentius of Nica, Raymond of Apt, and the Bishops of Toulon, Digne, Senez, Sisteron, and Riez, besides proctors of absent bishops, and chapters. Thirty canons were published.

1. Orders prayer to be made for the pope.

2. Grants indulgences of twenty days to those who kneel at the words, “Qui propter nos homines,” in the Creed, and the “Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro,” and to those saying or hearing the mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

7. Forbids clerks to have players or buffoons, or sporting dogs or hawks, lest they be led away by such amusements.

13. Forbids fairs and markets to be held on Sundays or festivals.

17. Against those of the religious orders who neglect their proper habit.—Mart., Thes. Anec., p. 4. col. 881.

AQUILEIA (381). [Concilium Aquileiense.] Held in 381, under Valerian of Aquileia and St Ambrose of Milan. Palladius, Bishop of Illyria, and Secundianus, having been accused of Arianism, in order to justify themselves, demanded of the Emperor Gratian to be tried by a general council of the Eastern Church. Gratian acceded to this request, so far as to permit any bishop who might desire it to come to Aquileia, but without compelling any. Bishops from most of the provinces of Italy attended, and the bishops of Orange and Marseilles, acting as deputies for Gaul; two bishops, also, from Africa; and Annemius, the bishop of Sirmium, the capital of Illyria; in all, thirty-two bishops. But if this number was small, the eminent qualities of those who were present (viz., St Ambrose, St Valerian of Aquileia, Eusebius of Bologna, Justus of Lyons, &c.) compensated for the want of numbers. Palladius and Secundianus were the only Arian bishops present.

The bishops assembled on the 3rd September, when Palladius and Secundianus endeavoured in vain to prevent the question from being brought forward. The impiety of Palladius appearing clearly by his answers and his conduct, he was pronounced unworthy of the priestly office, and deposed from the episcopate, as was Secundianus. The decrees of the council were then transmitted to the Emperors Theodosius and Gratian, together with an entreaty that they would support them by their authority. The council further requested, that in order to remove the schism which had divided the Church of Antioch since the year 362, one party being formed under Meletius, supported by the whole Eastern Church, and another under Paulinus, who was favoured by the West, a council should be called at Alexandria, to be composed of all Catholic bishops, in order that it might be settled to whom communion should be granted and refused. This gave rise to the Council of Rome, in the year following, viz., in 382.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 978.

AQUILEIA (between 538 and 555). Held in the time of Pope Vigilius against those who maintained that He who was born of the Blessed Virgin was not God-Man, but man only. It was decreed that the title of Θεοτοκος was rightly applied to the Virgin, for that her offspring was True God as well as true man.—Gesta Epis. Leod. Mart. Vet. Scrip., tom. 4. col. 349.

AQUILEIA (558). In 558, according to the suggestion of Pagi, Paulinus of Aquileia held a synod in which the Council of Chalcedon was condemned. For this Pope Pelagius anathematized him, and hence arose the schism which for so long a time divided the churches of Rome and Aquileia. Paulinus fled to Grado, and assumed the title of patriarch. Some writers maintain that this council was held by Macedonius, the predecessor of Paulinus, in 553 or 554.—Ughel., Ital. Sacr.

AQUILEIA (791). Held in 791, by St Paulinus of Aquileia. Fourteen canons were published. 1. Against simony. 3. Against drunkenness. 4. Forbids to the clergy worldly pleasures, such as dancing, music, &c. 7. Forbids the suffragans of the diocese to condemn a priest without first consulting the Metropolitan of Aquileia. 10. Forbids parties separated on account of adultery to remarry. 13. Orders that the observation of Sunday should begin at vespers on Saturday.

AQUILEIA (1409). Held in 1409, near Udine, in the diocese of Aquileia, by Gregory XII., whilst endeavours were being made at Pisa to depose him. He held the first session on the 6th of June, but he put off the second until the 22nd, on account of the small number of bishops who attended. He here pronounced sentence against Pedro of Luna (Benedict XIII.) and Alexander V.; he declared them to be schismatical, and their elections null, void, and sacrilegious. And further, in the last session, on the 5th September, he agreed to resign the pontificate, if his two competitors would promise to resign their alleged claims to it also; however, he added a condition to this promise which seems to show that his real object was to hinder concord.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 2012. (See C. PISA.)

AQUILEIA (1594). Held in 1594, under the patriarch Francis Barbaro. Sixteen canons of faith and discipline, formed upon those of Trent, were published.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1471.

ARCA (431). A council was held soon after the year 431 at Arca, a monastery in Persia, in which Dadjesus, the Chaldee Catholic, who, by the wicked machinations of certain simoniacal bishops, had been deposed by King Beheramus and imprisoned, was restored.

ARENDA (1473). [Concilium Arendense.] Held in December 1473, at Arenda, in Spain, in order that some remedy might be applied to correct the ignorance and immorality of the clergy. Alphonso, Archbishop of Toledo, with his suffragans, made there twenty-nine rules of discipline, amongst which are the following: viz., that no one shall be admitted to holy orders who is not acquainted with Latin; that the clergy shall not wear mourning; that bishops shall not appear in public without the rochette; that they shall never wear any garment made of silk; that they shall cause the Holy Scriptures to be read at their table, &c. The other canons relate to such cases as fornication amongst the clergy, clandestine marriages, simony, shows and dramatic representations held in churches, sports forbidden to clerks, duels, rapes, &c. This is the same with the Council of Toledo of the same year.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1448.

ARIMINUM (359). [Concilium Ariminense.] Held in 359, by order of the Emperor Constantius, at Ariminum in Romania. All the bishops of the West were summoned, the emperor promising to supply them with the means of travelling and subsistence. The whole number present was about four hundred, collected from Italy, Illyria, Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Of this number eighty were Arians, headed by Ursacius and Valens. Neither Liberius of Rome, nor Vincentius of Capua were present.

The Catholic bishops, amongst whom was Restitutus of Carthage, wished, at the very outset, to anathematize the Arian and all other heresies, but this was opposed by Ursacius and Valens, who objected to the use of the word “consubstantial,” maintaining that it was far better to use the expression “like to the Father in all things,” than to employ new words, which only served to create divisions, and which, moreover, were not to be found in Scripture; and they then presented to the assembly a new formulary of faith, which they had privately drawn up. The orthodox bishops answered, that they had no need of any new formulary—that they had met together there not to learn what they ought to believe, but to oppose those who set themselves against the truth, and who introduced novelties; that it was necessary to condemn the doctrine of Arius, and, without disguise, to receive that of Nicea. Then they declared the formulary of Valens and Ursacius to be utterly at variance with the true faith, and confirmed the acts of Nicea, asserting that nothing whatever should be added to them. See Esp. Sacr., 12. p. 117. It is there said that the Arians deluded the orthodox into agreeing with this expression, and that both parties boasted of the victory.

As Valens and his party refused to acquiesce in this decision, the council proceeded to declare them heretics, and excommunicated and deposed them. This decree was signed by three hundred and twenty bishops; and the doctrine of Arius, as well as that of Photinus and Sabellius, was anathematized.

Up to this point, therefore, that is, whilst the fathers of the council had liberty of action granted to them, the Catholic faith was triumphant in the Council of Ariminum.

But, after this decision, both parties made their representation of the matter to the emperor. The Catholics, by the ten deputies whom they sent, declared that they could decide upon no step better calculated to confirm the true faith than to keep close to the Creed of Nicea, which they highly eulogized, without adding to or taking from it. They then alluded to the opposition made by Valens and his party, and showed that they had been forced by their conduct to excommunicate them.

The Arians, on the other hand, by the deputies whom they sent to the emperor, prejudiced his mind against the Catholics; and showed him their formulary of faith, which the latter had rejected, but with which the emperor found no fault. Thus, when the Catholic deputies arrived at Constantinople, they were refused an audience, and were for a long time, upon one pretext or other, kept without any answer; the emperor delaying matters, with the hope that the bishops, wearied out, and separated from their churches, would at last yield to his wishes, and give up the terms “substance” and “consubstantial.”

Further, the Arians having compelled the ten deputies of the council, in spite of themselves, to come to Nice in Thrace, and having intimidated them by threats, and worn them out by violence and ill-usage, obliged them at last to consent to abandon the two obnoxious expressions, and to receive a confession conformable to that drawn up at Sirmium two years before; in fact, they obliged them to become parties to an act of union with the Arians, and to renounce all that had been done at Ariminum.

The emperor, in the meantime, sent orders to the prefect, Taurus, not to suffer the council to separate until this confession, which entirely suppressed the words οὐσία and ὁμοούσιος, had been subscribed by all the bishops. All of them, with the exception of twenty, gave way to the violence and ill-usage to which they were subjected, and signed this confession of faith, known as the formulary of Nice or Ariminum. In order to induce them the more readily to comply, the Arians endeavoured to persuade them that they could not, without wrong, reject a scheme of faith produced, as they falsely pretended, by the Oriental bishops; and added, that if the formulary, in some parts, appeared not sufficiently clear to them, they were at liberty to make what additions they pleased. The Catholic bishops joyfully availed themselves of this seeming door of escape, and quickly drew up certain propositions containing a condemnation of Arius, and declaring the equality of the Son to the Father, and His existence from all eternity; but when they were completed, Valens craftily persuaded them to add that the Son was not a creature like other creatures; thus, in fact, inducing the simple bishops, who intended nothing less, to acknowledge Him to be but a creature. When this triumph over the truth was completed, a deputation, headed by Valens and Ursacius, was sent to Constantius; and the formulary, thus shamefully signed, was circulated throughout the eastern part of the empire, with orders to exile all who should refuse to sign it: and in this way the signatures of a large number of bishops were obtained, some sooner, some later, either through fear, or ignorance, or bribery.

But although the number of signatures thus obtained was very great, it by no means appears that the majority of bishops in the Church signed it; amongst those who made a noble stand in defence of the true faith, were Liberius of Rome, Vincentius of Capua, Gregory of Elvira, St Athanasius, St Hilary of Poitiers, and Luciferus of Cagliari. Most of those bishops, moreover, who had fallen into the snare laid for them by the Arians, quickly acknowledged their fault, when their eyes were opened. St Hilary says, that the acts of the Council of Ariminum were annulled throughout the world, and the Pope Liberius assured the whole East, that they who had been deceived or overcome at Ariminum, had since returned to the truth, and that they had anathematized the confession agreed to in that council, and had subscribed the Nicene Creed.—Tom. ii. Conc. pp. 791–801.

ARLES (314). [Concilium Arelatense.] A general council of the West, called by St Augustine, “a plenary council of the whole world,” convened in 314, by the Emperor Constantine, upon the subject of the Donatists. The emperor, in order to get rid of the importunities of these schismatics, who were dissatisfied with the Council of Rome in the preceding year, granted them a fresh hearing, which gave rise to this council. The number of bishops present was very large, from Africa, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and, above all, from the Gauls. Amongst the names subscribed we find those of the bishops of Arles (the Bishop of Arles presided; Pope Melchiades sent his legates, who were honoured with the second place), Lyons, Vienne, Marseilles, Autun, Aquileia, Rheims, Cologne, Rouen, and Bordeaux. Pope Sylvester sent two priests and two deacons, and three bishops and a deacon appeared from the British Church.

It appears that the matter was examined with even greater care than at Rome in the preceding year; Cecilianus was acquitted, and his accusers condemned. It was also ruled by this council, in opposition to the general practice before this time in the African Church, that persons who have received the form of baptism at the hand of heretics, ought not to be re-baptized, and that if it shall appear from their answer, that they have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it shall be enough, that they be confirmed in order to receive the Holy Ghost.

Here were also composed the twenty-two celebrated canons of discipline, which bear the name of this council.

1. That Easter be celebrated on one day and at one time everywhere.

2. That everyone should remain where he was ordained.

3. That those who, in peace, throw away their arms, be excommunicated.

4. That charioteers, while they continue their calling, be separated from communion.

5. That performers in the theatre, while they continue to act, be likewise separated.

6. That those who are converted in sickness receive imposition of hands.

7. Concerning the faithful, when they hold public offices in the State.

8. Concerning the baptism of those that are converted from heresy.

9. Orders that those who bear letters of confessors shall receive letters of communion instead of them.

10. Forbids one whose wife has been guilty of adultery to take another wife during her lifetime.

11. Orders young women who have married heathens to be excommunicated for a time.

12. Orders that those clergy who are guilty of usury be excommunicated.

13. Concerning those who are said to have delivered up the Holy Scriptures, the sacred vessels, or the names of the brethren.

14. Orders those who falsely accuse their brethren, to be excommunicated even to their death.

15. Forbids deacons to offer, as in many places had been allowed.

16. Orders that a man shall be received into communion again in the same place where he was excommunicated.

17. Forbids one bishop to trample upon another.

18. Concerning the deacons of cities, repressing their presumption, and forbidding them to do anything without the knowledge of the presbyters.

19. Orders that a place for offering be afforded to bishops from other parts, who come to a city.

20. Forbids the ordination of any bishop except by seven other bishops; or, if this be impossible, by three at the very least.

21. Orders that presbyters or deacons who remove themselves to another place to which they were not ordained, be deposed.

22. Concerning apostates, who, in sickness, seek restoration to Church communion.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 1421.

ARLES (353). Held in 353, by Constantius, the emperor. This prince happening to be in Arles, lent himself to everything that the Eusebians suggested to him. Already they had invited the Pope Liberius to attend the council, who, however, sent Vincentius, the aged bishop of Capua, the pope’s legate at Nicæa, and Marcellus, a Campanian bishop, to demand of Constantius, that the place of rendezvous should be Aquileia instead of Arles. Many other bishops also came to Arles to request the same thing; but reasonable as the request was, Constantius took offence at it. In the council the first thing which the Arians required was the condemnation of St Athanasius. As Vincentius, on his part, insisted that the true faith should be set forth and defended; but Valens and his accomplices persisted in requiring, that before anything else was done, the legates should renounce communion with Athanasius; which they, carried away by the example of others, and, it may be, induced by threats, did, promising no more to communicate with him. When, however, the council had gained this point, they refused to condemn Arius.

Photinus of Sirmium, Marcellus of Ancyra, and St Athanasius were condemned here.

The fall of Vincentius and the other legate overwhelmed the pope with grief; and Vincentius himself appears to have felt most deeply the sin he had committed, declaring that he desired nothing else than to die for the sake of Christ, whom he had thus calumniated, and the truth of whose Gospel he had violated: so he expresses himself in a letter which he wrote to Hosius, from which St Hilary has preserved an extract. He returned to the orthodox faith, and by his after conduct effaced the disgrace which was attached to him on account of his fall. It ought, however, to be said, that the disgraceful cowardice of the orthodox at this council was not universal: Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, maintained the true faith with a constancy worthy of an apostolic man, and drew upon himself the punishment of exile, on account of the horror which he testified of the Arians, and of the determination which he showed not to participate in the oppression of an innocent man, by signing the calumnious accusation which they had drawn up against Athanasius. Constantius tried to wear out his patience by changing his place of exile, and by banishing him to places where the name of Christ was not worshipped, and which were infected with the heresy of Montanus and of Maximilian; he, however, continued firm to the day of his death.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 770.

ARLES (428 or 429). In the year 428 or 429, a numerous council of the French bishops was held either at Arles or Troyes, at which deputies from the English Church were present, seeking help against the heresy of Pelagius, which was spreading rapidly in that kingdom. Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, were deputed by the council, with the pope’s approbation, to proceed to England, in order that, “having confounded the heretics, they might lead back the Britons to the Catholic faith.” Baronius gives 429 as the date of this council. For the reasons for preferring 428, and for assigning Arles for its place of meeting, see “Marii Mercatoris Opera, Studio J. Garnerii,” Dissert, ii. p. 231.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1686.

ARLES (442). Held about the year 442. This seems to have been a council gathered from several ecclesiastical provinces, since it speaks of the obligation of the metropolitans to submit to its decrees, and gives to itself the title of great council. It was assembled by St Hilary, the bishop of Arles; during its sitting, fifty-six canons were drawn up, almost entirely compiled from those of the first council of Arles, in 314, those of Nicea, Orange, and Vaison. Amongst other regulations, it was forbidden to raise to the rank of sub-deacon, any one who had married a widow, agreeably to the decree of the Council of Valence in 374. According to Pagi, this council gave occasion of offence to St Leo against St Hilary, who assumed to himself the right of assembling councils in Gaul.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1010.

ARLES (451). See GAUL.

ARLES (455). Held in 455, under Ravennius, Bishop of Arles, owing to a dispute between Faustus, abbot of the monastery of Lerins, and Theodore, bishop of Frejus, concerning the jurisdiction of the latter over the monastery. Thirteen bishops were present; and it was determined that ordinations should be celebrated by the Bishop of Frejus alone, and that no clerk, not belonging to the monastery, should be received into communion or to minister without the bishop’s licence. Theodore, on his part, leaving the care of the lay portion of the monastery in the hands of the abbot.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1023.

ARLES (475). Held about the year 475. The errors of Lucidus, a priest, having excited the zeal of Faustus, Bishop of Riez, he endeavoured in several conferences to bring him back to the true faith. From the letters of Faustus, we learn what were the errors of Lucidus, for all his exhortations having proved useless, he at last wrote to the latter a letter, containing six articles, which he desired him to anathematize: 1st, the errors of Pelagius, viz., that man is born without sin, that he is able to save himself by his own works, and to be delivered without the grace of God. 2ndly, That which teaches that he who falls after baptism perishes in original sin. 3rdly, That man is made subject to damnation by the foreknowledge of God. 4thly, That those who shall perish have no power to save themselves, including those who have been baptized, and the heathen who might have believed but would not. 5thly, That a “vessel of dishonour” cannot become a “vessel of honour.” 6thly, That Jesus Christ did not die for all men, and does not will that all should be saved. This letter was signed by eleven other bishops, but the see of one only of them is known, viz., Patiens, Bishop of Lyons. Whilst, therefore, Lucidus delayed making his recantation, this council was assembled at Arles, composed of thirty bishops. The ground for supposing that Arles was the place of assembly is this, that the name of Leontius, who was then bishop of that see, occurs first upon the list, and after his the names of Euphremius, Mamertius, Patiens, Eutropius, Faustus, Basil, &c. According to Faustus, they spoke strongly upon the subject of predestination, condemned the opinions which Lucidus had advanced upon the subject, and further insisted that he should himself condemn them. Lucidus obeyed, and addressed a letter to the bishops composing the council, in which he retracted his errors; which, however, are not identical with the propositions contained in the letter of Faustus.

Some imagine that Faustus himself drew up this recantation of Lucidus. Du Pin asserts that there are many things in it which savour strongly of Pelagianism. The condemnation of the errors of Lucidus, in this council, forms one of the proofs brought forward to show the existence of a sect of Predestinarians. The reader may see long dissertations upon the subject by Cardinal Norris, Pagi, and Alexander: the last shows that the errors of the Predestinarians were the same with those of which the priests of Marseilles accused St Augustine and his disciples. He allows, nevertheless, that the number of those comprising the sect of Predestinarians was very small, and proves such to have been the case, by the wording of this 25th canon of Orange: “Not only do we not believe that some men are predestinated by the Divine power to evil, but further, we, with the utmost detestation, anathematize those, if there be any (si qui sunt), who are willing to believe so grievous a thing.” Upon which words, Alexander remarks, “The fathers used this form of speaking, ‘si qui sunt,’ because the followers and disciples of Lucidus were few and of no repute.”

But to return to Faustus, he adds, after having related what passed in the council, that Leontius gave him a charge to collect together all that had been said upon the subject of Predestination, which he did, in two books upon Grace and Free-will, addressed to Leontius; but, according to Fleury, he erred in the opposite extreme, making too much of man’s natural strength.

The learned Benedictine, Dom. Maur, in his list of certain and known councils, speaks in express terms concerning those of Arles and Lyons; that they are only known to us through the writings of Faustus of Riez,—writings, he adds, which savour strongly of semi-Pelagianism, and which, as such, were ranked amongst apocryphal books by the Council of Pope Gelasius, in 496.—Tom. iv. Conc. p 1041.

ARLES (524). Held in 524, under Cæsarius, Bishop of Arles. Sixteen bishops were present, and four canons were drawn up relating to ordinations, one of which enacts that no man be made deacon under twenty-five years of age.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1622.

ARLES (554) Held in 554, under Sapaudus, Archbishop of Arles. Here seven canons were drawn up, the second and fifth of which are to the effect that monasteries, whether for men or women, should be placed under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 779.

ARLES (813). Held in May 813. Convoked by order of Charlemagne, for the correction of abuses and the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline. The number of canons made was twenty-six. Amongst other things it was ruled, that bishops ought to be well-instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in the canons of the Church, and that their sole occupation should consist in preaching and instructing others. 2. That all shall pray for the king and his family. 15. Orders just weights and measures everywhere. 17. Enjoins that bishops shall visit their dioceses annually. 19. That parents should instruct their children, and god-parents those for whom they had answered at the font. The 21st orders, that with regard to burials in churches, the ancient canons shall be observed.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1231.

ARLES (1234). Held on the 8th July 1234, under John Baussan, Archbishop of Arles. Twenty-four canons were enacted, chiefly directed against the Albigenses and Waldenses, enforcing those of Lateran in 1215, and of Toulouse in 1229. Bishops are directed to preach the Catholic faith frequently, both themselves and by means of others. All confraternities are forbidden, except those which have the sanction of the bishop. Bishops are directed to apply themselves diligently to the correction of morals, especially amongst the clergy; and for that purpose they are enjoined to have spies in every diocese. No one was permitted to make a will save in the presence of the curate of his parish.

The reason given for this last injunction, which is very common in the acts of councils about this time, is, that persons who favoured the opinions of the heretics, might be thereby prevented from assisting them with legacies.—Tom. xi. Conc. Append, p. 2339.

ARLES (1261). Held in 1261, or subsequently, by Florentine, Archbishop of Arles, with his suffragans, against the extravagances of the Joachimites, who said that the Father had operated from the creation until the coming of Jesus Christ; that from that time to the year 1260, Jesus Christ had operated; and that from 1260 unto the end of the world, the Holy Spirit would operate. That under the operation of the Father, men lived after the flesh; under that of the Son, they lived partly after the flesh and partly after the Spirit; but that during the third period, they would live more entirely after the Spirit.

Seventeen canons were also drawn up, in the third of which it is enjoined that confirmation shall be administered and received fasting except in the case of infants at the breast. This shows that the confirmation of little children was at this time still practised in the western Church. The fifth canon orders, that in all parish churches belonging to the religious, curates taken from the community, or perpetual vicars, shall be appointed, with a suitable provision out of the proceeds of the benefice. And further, it forbids the regulars to receive the people to the holy office in the churches attached to their priories, &c., on Sundays or other holydays, or to preach during those hours in which mass was said in the parish church, in order that the laity might not be drawn away from the instruction of their own parochial minister. The seventh canon forbids the use of wooden candles painted to look like wax, in churches, processions, &c.—Tom. xi. Conc. Append, p. 2359.

ARLES (1275). Held about the year 1275, by Bertrand de St Martin, Archbishop of Arles. Twenty-two canons were drawn up, of which the first are lost.

7. Forbids to sell or pawn the chalices, books, and other ornaments of the Church, under pain of excommunication.

12 and 13. Of cases to be reserved to the bishop or pope.

14. Forbids all persons in holy orders to buy corn or wine for the purpose of selling it again.

16. Orders silver chalices in churches.—Tom. xi. Conc. Append, p. 2369.

ARMAGH (1171). [Concilium Armachianum.] Held in 1171, ordered that all the English who had been kept in a state of slavery in Ireland, should be set free. The council acknowledged that the Irish were subject to the authority of England.

This appears to be the same with the Council of Water ford, A.D. 1158, in Labbe, Tom. x. Conc. p. 1183.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1452; Wilkins, Conc. vol. i. p. 471.

ARMENIA (1342). [Concilium Armenorum] Leo, King of the Armenians, being oppressed by the Saracens, sent ambassadors to Pope Benedict XII., to implore assistance. The latter, however, replied that he need expect no help from the Roman See until the Armenian Church was purged from all its errors. Of these errors imputed to the Armenians he made a summary, and forwarded it in 1341 to Leo and the Armenian Catholic, or Patriarch, Mekquitar (or Consolator), bidding them convoke a general council of the whole Armenian Church and bring the matter before it for deliberation. Consequently, in the year 1342, the council met, the Catholic, six archbishops, fifteen diocesan bishops, four titular bishops (Episcopi nullatenses), four bishops of the court of the Catholic, ten abbots, and others being present.

When all were assembled, the Book containing the errors imputed to them, was read. It contained one hundred and sixteen Articles, to each of which the Synod drew up a reply, in which they evidence a plain desire to assimilate their doctrine as far as possible to that of Rome, but seemingly without complete success, for Martene, in his preface to the account of the Synod, says, “Etsi purgare se Armeni tentaverunt, non omnino tamen apparet illorum fides in omnibus illibata.” It is impossible, in a work like the present, to do more than notice briefly the most important of these Articles and the replies of the Council.

Art. 1. That although many early teachers in the Armenian Church had held the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and the Son, the prelates and others of the Church of Armenia major had ceased to teach it, and in a Synod held some time previously, had condemned those teachers.

Answer. Denied, and it is urged in proof that they used annually at Pentecost a prayer manifestly containing the Latin doctrine of the Procession.

Art. 2. Amongst other things, that they condemned the Council of Chalcedon.

Answer. Some only of the Armenians had done so from an ungrounded belief that the Council of Chalcedon favoured the heresy of Nestorius.

Art. 3. That in the Synod of Manasgarde they had condemned the doctrine of one Person in two Natures defined at Chalcedon.

Answer. As above, also that two Synods were held at Sis, 1307, and Adana, 1316, in opposition to that of Manasgarde, in which the Catholic doctrine was received.

Art. 4. That they taught that Adam’s descendants, up to the time of Christ’s Passion, were all damned, not because of original sin (for that children had no taint of sin), but because of the personal sin of Adam; also that since Christ’s death children are not born in a state of damnation.

Answer. Totally denied, and the doctrine of the Armenian Church shown to be that no one can enter into Life who is not cleansed from sin by the regeneration of Baptism.

Art. 7. That they taught that the souls of adults, after death, go to some place appointed by God (not Paradise), and there abide the day of judgment.

Answer. Totally denied, and proof given from their Offices that they believe that the souls of the just go into eternal life (advitam eternam), and behold the Everlasting Light.

Art. 17. That they denied a Purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead.

Answer. This is denied, and extracts given from their Offices to show that they had always held this doctrine, though not by the name of Purgatory. They, however, hardly show that they held the present Roman doctrine in its full extent, and they add, themselves, that it was not till they came to the notice of the Roman Church, that they received the name of Purgatory, “verba purgatorii sicut præmemorata Ecclesia.”

Art. 21 That they held a conversion of the human nature of Christ into the divine.

Answer. Denied.

Art. 27. That they taught that the Lord rose from the dead at the sixth hour on Saturday, according to a tradition of Gregory, one of their Catholics, and therefore kept their Easter on the Saturday.

Answer. Denied.

Art. 34. That they taught that they (the Armenians of Armenia major) are the Catholic and Apostolic Church, because they have the Catholic and hold the Apostolic faith.

Answer. That they had never heard of the Armenians claiming to be the Catholic Church, because they had the Catholic; that they hold themselves to be true and Apostolical because they held the true faith.

Art. 34—continued. That they denied the Greek Church to be Catholic and Apostolical because they mixed water with the wine. Asserted two natures in Christ, and kept the festival of the Nativity on the 25th of December. Also that they denied the Roman Church to be such for the same reasons, and because they had corrupted the Christian faith by receiving the decrees of Chalcedon.

Answer. States that the Greeks, after receiving from Rome the custom of mixing water with the wine and keeping Christmas on the 25th December instead of January 6th, which the Armenians did not, began to quarrel with them about it. Allows that some amongst the Armenians still differed with the Roman Church about the Synod of Chalcedon.

Art. 36. That they taught that the Catholic Church is with them only because they only have true baptism, the one Faith, and Holy Spirit, and the one Lord God, which others have not.

Answer. Grants that they have such high gifts, but denies that they teach as stated, and in proof states that they do not re-baptise those who come to them from other Churches.

Art. 37. That since the time of the Emperor Evaclius, there were three Catholics in Armenia, each one holding a different faith and different baptism, viz., some in water and some in wine.

Answer. Allows that the Archbishop of Archamard or Aghtamar had assumed the style of Catholic, and that there was a Catholic of Armenia Minor, but denies that they have or had different faiths or baptisms, and declares that the people of each diocese (answer to Art. 39) were in mutual Communion, except that the Catholic of Armenia having excommunicated the archbishop of Archamara and his suffragans, for his assumption of the title of Catholic, &c., they could not be admitted to communion.

Art. 40. That they taught that the bishops and priests of Armenia profit nothing towards the remission of sins, neither principaliter, nor ministerialiter. That God alone does so, wherefore they use the form, “Ego dimitto tibi peccata tua in terra et Deus dimittat tibi in cœlis.”

Answer. Denies the charge, and states that after their recognition by the Roman Church they had adopted her form of absolution.

Art. 42. That they teach that the passion of God alone, without any other gift of God, even without that of grace, suffices for the remission of sins.

Answer. Denies this, and shows that they required penitence and all graces.

Art. 44. That they did not pray for the present but the future rest of the dead; and (2) that they Judaized in slaying a victim, having first put salt (blessed) into its mouth, at the door of the Church upon the death of any person.

Answer. Denies the first; admits the second as to the fact, but denies the motive, and states that the custom was built upon a tradition of St Gregory.

Arts. 66 and 67. Relate to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and transubstantiation.

Answer. In their reply they endeavour to prove that they hold the doctrine of transubstantiation by an extract from the Canon of the Mass in use amongst them which plainly only recognize the doctrine of the Real Presence, viz., “Spiritum Sanctum, per Quem panem benedictum Corpus veraciter efficiens Domini nostri et Salvatoris Jesu Christi.” This indeed quite rebuts the objection of the Romans that they held the bread to be not the “verum corpus Christi sed exemplar et similitudo Ejus,” but it says nothing to imply faith in transubstantiation.

Art. 71. That in the Synod of Manasgarde they had decreed that water should not be mixed with the wine.

Answer. That they did not receive the said council.

Art. 74. That the Church of Armenia Major did not admit of the use of the crucifix nor of images.

Answer. Admits that there had been some disputes amongst them on the subject of images, but states that they had never been synodically rejected [a prælatis numquam sunt abjectæ]. Also that the cause of there being so few images in their churches arose from their fear of the persecution of the Saracens.

Art. 80. That (1) during Lent (which with them began on Quinquagesima) they celebrated Mass only on Saturdays and Sundays, and (2) the same in other weeks which they fasted, moreover (3) that they celebrated the Festivals which happened to fall during a fast week on the Saturday in that week (except 3).

Answer. Allows the first, except with respect to the palace of the king, where Mass was celebrated in the chapel every day in Lent. Declares (2) to be false, except as regarded the week before Septuagesima. Allows (3) that some Festivals, when they occurred towards the end of a fast week, were celebrated on the Saturday.

Art. 84. That they taught that the Catholic bishops and priests of Armenia had the same and equal power of binding and loosing as St Peter himself.

Answer. According to the Canon and Civil Law, the successor has the same authority as his predecessors: therefore the Pope has the authority of St Peter, and the Catholic, as the successor of St Thaddeus, has the same authority with St Thaddeus. In the Nicene Council, indeed, the Fathers gave sentence that the Roman Church is the head of all other Churches, and her head is the Pope. Therefore the Catholic and all other Patriarchs are under his power, and less than him: truly our archbishops are less than the Catholic as to rank and not equal in the sense of the above Article, and no one amongst us is ignorant that the Catholic has greater power than the bishops and the bishops than the priests.

Nevertheless, if this seems to you to be unsuitable, we are ready to act as you direct us.

Art. 87. That they taught that up to the period of the Nicene Council the Pope had no greater power than the other Patriarchs, and that in that Synod it was ordered that the Roman Pontiff should have authority over the other Patriarchs, which authority they retained until the Synod of Chalcedon, when, owing to the definition of faith enacted, viz., that in Christ are two Natures and One Person, the Pope lost that power, and all those who consented to that definition also lost the power of binding and loosing, which henceforth remained in the Armenian Church alone.

Answer. If the Church of Rome, before the Council of Nicea, had greater authority than the other Patriarchs, we say nothing against it, but whatever the Sacred Council of Nicea determined, we hold: and the Roman Pontiff is greater in authority than the other Patriarchs, as we said in Answer to Art. 84.

Art. 89. That the king of Armenia minor elected their bishops and priests, and that for money—and that the persons he elected were afterwards sent to the Catholic and bishops for consecration or ordination.

Answer. Allows that the king had the election of bishops for reasons stated; denies the general accusation of bribery, and that the election of priests belongs to him.

Art. 91. That they taught that the general power over the whole Church was not given to Peter or his successors by Christ, but by the Council of Nicea, which power the popes had afterwards lost.

Answer. That the Church of Rome is the head of all other Churches, and the pope more excellent than other Pontiffs, and that they (the Armenians) taught this not only because of the decision of Nicea, but because our Lord said to Peter, “Feed My sheep.”

Art. 92. That they had but three orders, viz., acolyths, deacons, and priests.

Answer. That they had acolyths (or ostiarii), sub-deacons, deacons, and priests,—a brief account of the form of ordination of each is also given.

Art. 93. That they allowed their deacons to marry virgins and nevertheless to continue in the exercise of their office, and even to be promoted to the priesthood.

Answer. That they allowed acolyths to be married before ordination, who might be promoted to the sub-deaconate and deaconate, but if the deacon married again, he could not be made priest.

Art. 94. That the Book of the Gospels was not put upon the head and shoulders of the bishop at consecration, nor was his head anointed according to the Roman form.

Answer. That the Gospel was so placed in Armenia Minor.

Art. 98. That they consecrated bishops in Armenia Minor, by placing upon their heads the arm and hand of St Gregory, and that they regarded no other as bishops who had not been so ordained.

Answer. Allows that they do so place the hand of St Gregory upon those who are ordained bishops, but denies that they refuse to regard others as bishops who have not been so ordained. States that they even regard the bishops made by the schismatical bishops of Alnana and Achtamar as true bishops, although they refused to communicate with them.

Arts. 102 and 103. That they allowed married persons who disliked each other to separate and marry others, and that often one man was allowed to have two wives living.

Answer. Denies that the latter was ever done lawfully, but admits that the former had been often the case, and still was done in Armenia Major.

Art. 110. That the following books of the Armenians contain many errors.—

(1.) Tonapachaz: against the Roman and Greek festivals

(2.) Anadoarmat, i.e., Radix fidei.

(3.) Johannes Mandagonensis.

(4.) Johannes Offinensis.

(5.) Myastosuruy, i.e., “unius locutiones.”

(6.) Michael Patriarchæ Antiocheni.

(7.) Paulus Taronenski.

(8.) Occenensis (or Octavensis).

(9.) Mattheus.

(10.) Canonum Apostolorum, in which all the errors of the Armenians are contained.

(11) Sergius.

(12.) Marocha.

(13.) Vanam; an exposition of the Gospel of St John.

(14.) Ignadius, of St Luke.

(15.) Guanazan, i.e., liber virgarum.

(16.) Neginus Pataraquin: an exposition of the Mass.

(17.) Teytorgunt, i.e., liber epularum.

(18.) Aismavort, i.e., martyrologium.

And others.

Answer. That, of some of the above-mentioned books they knew nothing; some which they did not in any manner receive, and some which, so far as they contained anything contrary to the truth and their union with the Church of Rome, they rejected.

Art. 105. That, in the time of Ethon, King of Armenia, a Synod was held to consider of a union with the Church of Rome, in which they held a disputation with the papal Legate, by which the king was persuaded of the errors of the Armenians, but that the masters and princes of the Armenians thought otherwise; and a book was written by Varcham of Nigromonte, against the Roman Church, in which the pope was called a proud Pharaoh, drowned with his people in a sea of heresy, and it is stated that the Roman Church was deceived in many things, &c.: which book the Armenian bishops, priests, &c., venerate like the Apostolical Canons.

Answer. That the pope did send a Legate in the time of King Ethimy, who was honourably entertained by him and the Catholic Constantine. As to the book of Varcham, that it was universally reprobated by them, and burnt wherever it was found.

Art. 116. Accuses them of holding a fallen faith, and various other lies.

In answer, they give the creed which they held and had received from St Gregory, Illuminator, which we give at length.

“Credimus in unum deum Patrem Omnipotentem, Factorem cœli et terræ, visibilium et invisibilium, et unum Dominum J. C. Filium Dei unigenitum, a Deo Patre genitum, sciticet ex essentiâ Patris. Deum de Deo, lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, eundem ipsum de natura Patris, per quem omnia facta sunt in cœlo et in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de cœlis, incarnatus est, humanatus est, natus est perfecte ex Maria Virgine per Spiritum Sanctum, per quem accepit corpus, animam, mentem et omnia quæ veraciter sunt in homine, indubitanter passus est, crucifixus est, sepultus est, tertiâ die resurrexit, ascendit in cœlum, sedet in dexteram Patris, venturus est eodem corpore et gloria Patris judicare vivos et mortuos, cujus regni non erit finis. Credimus et in Spiritum S. increatum et perfectum qui ex Patre Filioque emanat, qui cum Patre et Filio adoratur et glorificatur qui locutus est per prophetas in lege et in prophetis et in Evangelio. Qui descendit in Jordanem, prædicavit in Apostolis et habitavit in sanctis Credit in his sola universalis et Apostolica Ecclesia, in unum Baptisma pœnitentiæ in propitionem et remissionem peccatorum, et in Resurrectionem mortuorum, in judicium æternale animarum et corporum, in regnum cœlorum et in vitam æternam.”

The above is a very imperfect analysis of the Articles and their answers. It is plain to see that the answers of the Synod to the charges brought against them were studiously framed to meet the wishes of the Roman Court, and considering their need of help from that quarter, it may be doubted whether they fully and freely express the sense of the Armenian Church at the period.—Martene, Vet. Scrip. Coll. Tom. 7, col. 310. Rayraldus, ad ann.: 1346, No. vi.

ARRAGON (1062). [Concilium Arragonense.] Held in 1062, when it was decided that the bishops of Arragon should be chosen from the monks of the monastery of St Jago de Pegna.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1173.

ARRIS (1025). [Concilium Attrebatense.] Held in the year 1025, chiefly upon the subject of the holy sacraments, against certain heretics who had come from Italy, seventeen chapters were published. D. Achery, Spicil, t. 1.

ATTIGNI-SUR-AISNE (765). [Concilium Attiniacense.] Held in the year 765, Chodegrand of Metz presided, assisted by twenty-seven bishops and seventeen abbots. All that remains to us of their acts is the promise, which they made amongst themselves, that when any one of them died, each of the rest should each cause the psalter to be chanted a hundred times, and a hundred masses to be said by the priests, and should himself say thirty. Such promises are not unfrequent in the councils of this period.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1702.

ATTIGNI (822). Held in 822. In this council Louis le Débonnaire, by the advice of his bishops and lords, was reconciled to his three younger brothers, Hugues, Drogon, and Theodoric, upon whom he had forcibly imposed the tonsure. He made open confession of this act, and of his rigour towards his nephew, Bernard, King of Italy, and towards the abbot Adelhardus, and Wala his brother. He then performed penance openly, in imitation of the Emperor Theodosius. He at the same time evinced a desire to rectify the abuses which had been introduced through the neglect of the bishops and great lords. He also confirmed the rules for canons and monks, which had been made at Aix-la-Chapelle.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1529.

ATTIGNI (870). Held in May 870, thirty bishops attending from ten provinces. The king, Charles the Bald, was present; in it he brought to judgment his son Carloman. Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, accused of disobedience to the king, was compelled to promise fidelity to him, and also to Hincmar, his uncle, archbishop of Rheims; but he afterwards withdrew, and wrote to the pope, complaining of the conduct of the king and the archbishop, which was the cause of a quarrel between the pope and the king, the former taking part with Hincmar of Laon, who had all along supported the papal encroachments in opposition to his uncle.—Tom. viii. Conc. p. 1537.

AUCH (1068). [Concilium Aucense.] A council of the province called by Hugo the White, legate. It was ordered that all the churches of Gascony should pay a quarter of a tithe to the cathedral. St Orens and a few others being exempted.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1195.

AUGSBURG (952). [Concilium Augustanum.] Held on the 7th August 952. Twenty-four bishops from Germany and Lombardy were present at it, amongst whom Uldaric, Bishop of Augsburg, was the most illustrious. They made eleven canons. It was forbidden to all the clergy, from the bishop to the sub-deacon, to marry, or to have women in their houses, or to keep dogs or birds for sporting, or to play at any game of chance. The sixth canon orders that all monks shall submit to the bishop of the diocese, and receive his correction.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 635.

AUGSBURG (1548). Held on the 12th November 1548, by Cardinal Otho, bishop of Augsburg, at Dillenghen upon the Danube. Thirty-three regulations were drawn up relating to discipline and morality. Amongst other things it was ordered, that open sinners should be proceeded against canonically, and that those who were found incorrigible should be handed over to the grand vicar: that the deans of chapters should watch over the conduct of the canons, and be careful to punish those who were guilty of drunkenness, gaming, debauchery, fornication, &c.; that those who were possessed of many benefices should resign all but one within a year; that those of the monks who neglected their rule, and were guilty of drunkenness or immodest conduct, or who were suspected of heresy, should be corrected; that nuns and other female religious should not leave their monasteries, nor suffer any man to enter them, unless from some absolute necessity; that preachers should not advance anything untrue or doubtful; that they should accommodate their sermons to the capacity of their hearers; that they should avoid all obscure and perplexing subjects; that one uniform order should be observed in the administration of the sacraments, and no money be taken for the same, according to the apostolical traditions, the ancient canons, laws, and usages; that none but serious tunes should be played upon organs; that everything profane should be entirely done away with in all solemn processions.—Tom. xiv. Conc. p. 567.

AUGUSTINE’S OAK, ON THE SEVERN. Two Councils were held here in 601. See Collier, vol. i. p. 75. Churton, p. 42. Bramhall, i. p. 163.

AUTUN (677). [Concilium Augustodunense.] Held in the year 677. Six canons made in this council have come down to us, one of which orders that all priests and others of the clergy shall commit to memory the creed called the Creed of St Athanasius. This is supposed to be the first time that this creed was spoken of in France under the name of St Athanasius.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 535.

AUTUN (1065). Held in the matter of Robert, Duke of Burgundy, whom Hugo, Abbot of Clugny, brought before the council, and induced to make satisfaction to Haganon, Bishop of Autun, and others, whom he had plundered and otherwise injured.—Richard., Dict. Univ., vol. i. p. 464. Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1183.

AUTUN (1077). Held by order of Pope Gregory VII. by his legate, Hugo, Bishop of Die, in 1077. Several French and Burgundian bishops and abbots attended. Manasses of Rheims, who, having been cited, refused to appear, was suspended from the exercise of his office, having been accused of simony, and of usurping that archbishopric. Certain other French bishops were brought to judgment at the same time.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 360.

AUTUN (1094). Held on the 16th October 1094, by Hugo, Archbishop of Lyons; and legate, assisted by thirty-two bishops and several abbots. They renewed the sentence of excommunication against the Emperor Henry and the anti-pope Guibert; also, they excommunicated for the first time Philip of France, for marrying Bertrade during the lifetime of his lawful wife; but Philip, by a deputation to the pope, averted the storm for awhile, and obtained a delay in the execution of the sentence until the feast of All-Saints, in the following year.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 499.

AUVERGNE (533). [Concilium Arvernense.] Held in 533, with the consent of King Theodebert; Honoratus of Bourges presiding. Sixteen canons were published.

3. Forbids to wrap the bodies of the dead in the consecrated cloths. “Ne pallis vel ministeriis divinis.…”

6. Forbids marriage between Christians and Jews.

7. Forbids to place the coverlet (commonly known as the corporal; Lat. opertorium), used to be laid over the body of the Lord upon the corpse of a priest.

12. Of incestuous marriages.

15. Orders the country priests to celebrate the feasts of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide with their bishops in the city.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1804.

AUXERRE (585). [Concilium Autissiodorense]. Held about the year 585, under the Bishop Aunacairius, with seven abbots and thirty-four priests of his diocese. Forty-five canons were enacted, which, however, appear to have been made solely to enforce the execution of those of the Council of Mâçon in this year.

9. Forbids dances, singing of women, and feasting within churches.

10. Forbids two masses to be said at the same altar in one day.

12. Forbids to give the holy eucharist or the kiss to the dead.

13. Forbids the deacon to wear a pall or veil (velum) over his shoulders.

14. Forbids burials in the baptistery.

15. Forbids to bury one corpse upon another.

16. Forbids work on Sundays.

17. Forbids to receive the oblations of suicides.

18. Forbids to baptise any except at Easter, unless persons in danger of death, whom it styles Grabatarii.

17. Forbids priests, deacons, and sub-deacons, after having broken their fast, even to be present in church during mass.

26. Forbids a woman to receive the eucharist with her hand bare.

40. Forbids a priest to dance or sing at feasts.

42. Orders every woman who communicates to have her Dominical. This was a linen cloth, so called because being spread upon her hand; the body of the Lord was placed upon it, whereas the men received it on the bare hand.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 956.

AVIGNON (1060). [Concilium Avenionense.] Held in the year 1060, by the Cardinal Hugo, Abbot of Clugny, legate. Achardus, who had usurped the see of Arles, was deposed, and Gibelinus elected in his place. Lantelme was also elected to the see of Embrun; Hugo to that of Grenoble; Desiderius to that of Cavaillon.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 390.

AVIGNON (1209). Held on the 6th of September 1209, by Hugo, Archbishop of Riez, composed of two legates, four archbishops, twenty bishops, and several abbots. Twenty-one canons were made. The first recommends to bishops to preach more frequently in their dioceses than they had lately done, and attributes the prevailing heresies and corruption of morals to their neglect. The second relates to the extermination of heresies. The preface to the acts of this council states, that charity had become exceeding cold, that corruptions abounded on all sides to such a degree, that nearly all men were plunged into an abyss of vice and wickedness, and that the intention of the council was to remedy these evils and to renew the ancient laws.

In a council held the following year, or in this, as Mansi thinks, the inhabitants of Toulouse were excommunicated, because they had not driven out the Albigenses according to order. The Count of Toulouse also was excommunicated, although conditionally.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 41.

AVIGNON (1279). Held on the 27th of May 1279, by Pierre (or, according to some, Bernard) de Languissel, Archbishop of Arles. They drew up a decree containing fifteen articles, for the most part setting forth the usurpations and invasions of ecclesiastical property which were made, the violence committed upon the clergy, and the disregard of excommunications.

However, they provided no other means of opposing these evils than the passing fresh censures.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1050.

AVIGNON (1282). Held in 1282, by Bertrand Amauri, Archbishop of Arles, together with his suffragans. Of the canons published ten only are extant, which amongst other things enjoined the faithful to attend their own parish churches, which in many places were disregarded, and to go there, at least, on every Sunday and holy day.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1174.

AVIGNON (1326). Held on the 18th of June 1326. Three archbishops, eleven bishops, and the deputies of several others, who were absent, attended. They drew up fifty-nine articles, chiefly relating to the temporalities of the Church and its jurisdiction. They assume, generally, as an incontrovertible maxim, that the laity have no authority over persons or property ecclesiastical. Moreover, they complain bitterly of various abuses proceeding from the hatred which the laity bore towards the clergy; but it does not appear that they took any steps to lessen the grounds of this hatred, unless it were by an accumulation of censures and temporal penalties.

1. Orders that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin be celebrated once a week.

3. Grants an indulgence to those who pray to God for the pope.

4. Grants an indulgence of ten days to those who devoutly bow the head at the name of Jesus.

14. Orders the secular powers to forward a captured clerk to his own judge free of expense.

17, 18. Against administering poisonous drugs, and against the use of poisons or drugs to procure abortion.

19. Of proceedings against the exempt.

44. Forbids, under pain of excommunication, all abusive conversations in the houses of bishops, or in the presence of their officials.

46. Permits both archbishops and bishops travelling in dioceses not their own, to bless the people.

51. Relates to the condition in which benefices ought to be left by those who vacate them.—Tom. xi. Conc. pp. 1717 and 2476. Fleury.

AVIGNON (1337). Held on the 3rd of September 1337, by three archbishops and seventeen bishops. They published a decree containing sixty-nine articles, being chiefly a repetition of those drawn up in the preceding council. Amongst other things, it is enacted, that parishioners shall receive the eucharist at Easter only at the hands of their proper curate. By canon five, it is ordered, that incumbents and all persons in holy orders shall abstain from eating meat on Saturdays, in honour of the Virgin, that by so doing they may set a good example to the laity. This injunction to fast on Saturdays had been made three hundred years before, upon occasion of the “Treve de Dieu,” but had not yet, it seems, been universally established; the other regulations of the council relate chiefly to the usurpations of Church property and acts of violence committed on the persons of the clergy.—Gall. Christ. Tom. i. p. 322. Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1850.

AVIGNON (1457). Held on the 7th of September 1457, by the Cardinal Pierre de Foix, Archbishop of Arles, and legate, assisted by thirteen bishops. One purpose of this council was to confirm the canon of Basle, relating to the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. It was forbidden (canon 9), under pain of excommunication, to preach anything contrary to this doctrine, or to dispute concerning it in public. All curates were enjoined to make known this decree, that no one might plead ignorance. The council, at the conclusion of this session, was, by common consent, prorogued to the second Sunday in Lent, and met again in fact March 23rd, 1458. In the two sessions twenty-eight canons were published.

13. Relates to the observance of Sundays and holy days; permits the bishops, in time of harvest and vintage, to remit the strictness of this observance, if necessary, Mass, however, being first completed.

15. Declares that infants are capable of receiving confirmation, the bishop’s consent being first had.

20. “Also, since certain of the delegates of the Apostolic See often abuse their powers, we enact that the ordinaries, to whom, of right, recourse is to be had, shall provide for this.” “Ordinarii, ad quos de jure potest haberi recursus.”—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1403. Martene, Thes. Anec.—Tom. iv. col. 379.

AVIGNON (1509). Held in October 1509, by Antonio Flores, Archbishop of Avignon, assisted by the proctors of his suffragans. Thirty-five canons were published. 20. Orders all curates to keep a register of the names of those who die in his parish.—Mart., Thes. Anec. Tom. 4. col. 385.

AVIGNON (1594). Held in 1594, Francis Marin, Archbishop of Avignon. Sixty-four canons were published, relating chiefly to the same subjects treated of in the synods held in various parts of France, &c., after the Council of Trent. 8. Provides for teaching the rudiments of the faith to adults as well as children. 9. Orders sermons on all Sundays, and every day in Lent and Advent. 11–21. Of the sacraments. 14. Orders that the baptismal water be renewed only on Holy Saturday and the eve of Whit-Sunday, unless need require; and that a silver vessel be used to pour it into the font. 25 and 26. Of relics and images. 28. Of behaviour in church. 44. Of Lent. 46. Of processions. 56. Of legacies, wills, &c. 57. Of medical men. 60. Against duelling. 62. Of Jews: orders them to keep in their houses on Easter-eve and Easter-day.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1434.

AVIGNON (1725). Summoned by Goutier, the archbishop, in conjunction with the bishops of Carpentras, Cavaillon, and Vaison, and a number of distinguished theologians. Fifty-one canons were drawn up relating to local ordinances.

AVRANCHES (1172). [Concilium Avrincatense.] Held on the 22nd of May 1172, the cardinal legates, Theodinus and Albert, presided. Henry the Second of England, having taken the oath which the pope’s legates required of him, and annulled all the unlawful customs which had been established in his time, and done penance, was absolved from his participation in the assassination of Becket. Amongst other things, Henry engaged, 1st, not to withdraw from the obedience of the Pope Alexander III. or of his successors, so long as they continued to acknowledge him as Catholic king of England. 2ndly, That he would not hinder appeals to Rome. 3rdly, He promised, at the coming Christmas, to take the cross for three years, and in the year following to set out for Jerusalem; unless the pope should grant a dispensation, and unless he was obliged to go to Spain to oppose the Saracens.

This was rather an assembly than a council. The real council of Avranches, in this year, was not held until the 27th or 28th of September. The king then renewed his oath, adding to it some expressions of attachment and obedience to Alexander.

Twelve canons were then drawn up, enacting, amongst other matters, that it should not be lawful to appoint infants to benefices with cure of souls; that the incumbents of parishes, who could afford it, should be compelled to have an assisting priest; that it should not be lawful for a husband or wife to enter upon a monastic life whilst the other continued in the world. Abstinence and fasting during Advent were recommended to all who could bear it, and especially to the clergy.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1457








Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com