INTRODUCTION.

SEC. 1. ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS.

THE two synonymous expressions, concilium and su>nodov signify primarily any kind of assembly, even a secular one; but in the more restricted sense of a Church assembly, i.e. of a regularly convoked meeting of the rulers of the Church for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical business, the word concilium is found for the first time in Tertullian, and su>nodov in the Apostolical Canons ; while the Apostolical Constitutions designate even the ordinary meetings of Christians for divine service by the name of su>nodov .

That the origin of councils is derived from the Apostolic Synod held at Jerusalem about the year 52, is undoubted; but theologians are not agreed as to whether they were instituted by divine or by human authority. The true answer to this question is as follows: They are an apostolical institution; but the apostles, when they instituted them, acted under the commission which they received from Christ, otherwise they could not have published the decisions of their synod with the words, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” They must have been convinced that the Lord of the Church had promised and had granted His Spirit to the assemblies of the Church.

Later synods have acted and spoken in the same conviction, that the Holy Ghost governed the assemblies of the Church; and Cyprian in his time wrote, in the name of the Council over which he presided, A.D. 252, to Pope Cornelius: “It seemed good to us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit “ (Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente ). To the same effect the Synod of Aries, A.D. 314, expressed itself: “It seemed good, therefore, in the presence of the Holy Spirit and His angels” (Placuit ergo, praesente Spiritu Sancto et angelis ejus : Hardouin, Collect. Concil . t. i.p. 262). And it was this conviction, which was so universal, that led the Emperor Constantine the Great to call the decree of the Synod of Arles a heavenly judgment (coeleste judicium ); and he added, that the judgment of the priests ought to lie so received as though the Lord Himself sat and judged (sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ae si ipse DOMINUS residens judicet ). Twenty years later he again publicly expressed the same belief, at the close of the first Oecumenical council at Nicaea, in these words: “What seemed good to the three hundred holy bishops (that is, the members of the Nicene Synod) is no otherwise to be thought of than as the judgment of the only Son of God” (Qued trecentis sanctis episcopis visum est, non est aliud putandum, quam solius Filii Dei sententia ). In perfect agreement with this are the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers, Greek as well as Latin, of Athanasius as of Augustine and Gregory the Great, the latter of whom goes so far as to compare the authority of the first four general councils with the importance of the four holy Gospels. f7 The earliest synods known to us were held about the middle of the second Christian century in Asia Minor: they were occasioned by the rise of Montanism. It is, however, not improbable that such assemblies were held earlier in the Greek Church, perhaps on account of the Gnostics, inasmuch as the Greeks from the earliest times had more inclination, and also greater need, for synods, than those of the Western Church.

SEC. 2. DIFFERENT KINDS OF SYNODS.

It has been customary, in dealing with ecclesiastical statistics, to divide the councils into four classes; but they may be more accurately divided into eight, since there have actually been ecclesiastical assemblies of the kinds described under the following numbers, — two, five, seven, and eight.

Foremost of all stand, — 1 . The Universal or Oecumenical Councils , at which the bishops and other privileged persons from all the ecclesiastical provinces of the world are summoned to be present under the presidency of the Pope or his legates, and are bound to attend, unless in case of reasonable hindrance; and whose decisions are then received by the whole Church, and have the force of law for all the faithful. Hence it is clear that a council may possibly be intended to be oecumenical, and be summoned as such, and yet not receive the rank of an oecumenical synod, — as when its progress is stopped, or when it does not accomplish its object, or becomes divided, and the like; and for such reasons does not receive the approval of the whole Church, and particularly of the Pope. So it was with the so-called Latrocinium or Robber-Synod at Ephesus, A.D. 449. The bishops of all provinces were summoned, and the papal legates were present; but violence was used which prevented free discussion, so that error prevailed: and this Synod, instead of being recorded with honor, is marked with a brand on the page of history. 2 . The second rank is given to General Councils or Synods of the Latin or Greek Church, at which were present the bishops and other privileged persons either of the whole Latin or of the whole Greek Church, and thus only the representatives of one-half of the whole Church. Thus, in the first instance, the Synod held at Constantinople,A.D. 381, was only a Greek or Eastern general council, at which were present all the four Patriarchs of the East, — those of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, with many other metropolitans and bishops. As, however, this Synod was afterwards received by the West, it acquired the rank of an Oecumenical council. 3 . When the bishops of only one patriarchate or primacy (i.e . of a diocese, in the ancient sense of the word), or of only one kingdom or nation, assembled under the presidency of the patriarch, or primate, or first metropolitan, then we have respectively a national , or patriarchal , or primatial council, which frequently received the name of universal or plenary (universale or plenarium ). The bishops of the Latin Church in Africa, for instance, metropolitans and suffragans, often assembled in synods of this kind under the Primate of Carthage; and in the same way the archbishops and bishops of all Spain under their primate, the Archbishop of Toledo. In still earlier times, the metropolitans and bishops of Syria assembled under the Archbishop of Antioch, their supreme metropolitan, afterwards called by the name of Patriarch. 4 . A Provincial Synod is considerably smaller, and is formed by the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province, with his suffragan bishops and other privileged persons. 5 . Intermediate between the third and fourth classes are those synods, which are not uncommon in the history of the Church, in which the bishops of several contiguous ecclesiastical provinces united for the discussion of subjects of common interest. They may be called the Councils of several United provinces ; and they rank lower than the national or primatial synod in this respect, that it is not the complete provinces of a nation or of a primacy which are represented in them. 6 . By Diocesan Synods we understand those ecclesiastical assemblies which the bishop holds with his clergy, and over which he presides either personally or by his vicar-general. 7 . Councils of a peculiar and even abnormal character, and known as su>nodoi ejndhmou~sai (Synods of Residents ), were often held at Constantinople, when the Patriarch not unfrequently assembled around him bishops who happened to be staying (ejndhmou~ntev ) at Constantinople on private or other business, from provinces and patriarchates the most widely separated, for the discussion of important subjects, particularly for the decision of contests between the bishops themselves. We shall have occasion to adduce more on this subject when we come to discuss the ninth and twenty-eighth canons of Chalcedon. 8 . Last of all, there appear in history not a few Mixed Councils (concilia mixta) ; assemblies in which the ecclesiastical and civil rulers of a kingdom meet together in order to take counsel on the affairs of Church and State.

We come across them particularly in the beginning of the middle ages, — not infrequently in France, in Germany, in England, in Spain, and in Italy.

Of this character are the fourth to the seventh Synods of Toledo, many synods held under Pepin, under Charles the Great [Charlemagne] and his successors, among others the Synod of Mainz, A.D. 852, and that held in the year 876 in the Palatium apud Ticinum , at which the election of Charles the Fat was approved by the bishops and princes of Italy. We shall further on meet with several English mixed councils, at which even abbesses were present. All such assemblies were naturally summoned by the King, who presided and brought forward the points which had to be discussed. The discussion was either carried on in common, or the clergy and the nobility separated, and formed different chambers, — a chamber of nobles, and a chamber of bishops, — the latter discussing only ecclesiastical questions. The decisions were often promulgated in the form of royal decrees. f13 Six grounds for the convocation of great councils, particularly oecmnenical councils, are generally enumerated: 1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen. 2. When two Popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful which is the true one. 3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some great and universal undertaking against the enemies of the Christian name. 4. When the Pope is suspected of heresy or of other serious faults. 5. When the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to undertake the election of a Pope. 6. When it is a question of the reformation of the Church, in its head and members.

Besides these, there may be many other kinds of reasons for the convocation of smaller synods; but all must have reference to the one supreme aim of all councils — “the promotion of the well-being of the Church through the mutual consultation of its pastors.” In the ancient Church there were very many synods assembled, in order to resolve the contests of the bishops with one another, and to examine the charges brought against some of their number.

SEC. 3. BY WHOM ARE SYNODS CONVOKED?

If it is asked who convokes councils, there can be no controversy with regard to the greatest number of the eight kinds just specified. It is undoubted, that the ecclesiastical head of the diocese, the bishop, has to summon the diocesan synod; the ecclesiastical head of the province, the metropolitan, the provincial synod; the ecclesiastical head of a nation, a patriarchate, etc., the patriarch or primate, either at his own instance or at the wish of another, as of the sovereign, calls a national or primatial synod.

It is equally clear, that when several provinces meet in a combined synod, the right of convocation belongs to the most distinguished among the metropolitans who meet. At the su>nodov ejndhmou~sa , it was, of course, naturally exercised by the Bishop of Constantinople. Consequently, and from the very nature of the case, the summons to an oecumenical council must go forth from the oecumenical head of the Church, the Pope; except in the case, which is hardly an exception, in which, instead of the Pope, the temporal protector of the Church, the Emperor, with the previous or subsequent approval and consent of the Pope, summons a council of this kind. The case is similar with the other synods, particularly national synods.

In the case of these, too, the temporal protector of the Church has occasionally issued the summons instead of the ecclesiastical ruler; and this not merely in ancient times in the Graeco-Roman Church, but also later in the German and Roman States. Thus, e.g., Constantine the Great convoked the Synod of Arles in 314, and Theodosius the Great the Synod of Constantinople (already mentioned) in 381, in concert with the four Eastern patriarchs; Childebert, king of the Franks, a national synod at Orleans in the year 549; and Charles the Great, in the year 794, the great Synod of Frankfurt. Even the Arian sovereign, Theodoric the Great, at the beginning of the sixth century, gave orders for the discontinuance of several orthodox synods at Rome. Further examples are noted by Hardouin. f16 Among those councils which were called by the emperors, the latter undertook many kinds of expenses, particularly the expense of travelling incurred by the numerous bishops, for whom they ordered houses and carriages to be put at their disposal at the public expense. This was done by Constantine the Great at the calling of the Synods of Arles and Nicaea.

They also provided for the entertainment of the bishops during the sitting of those assemblies. At the later councils those of Florence and Trent, for example — many of the expenses were borne by the Popes, the Christian princes, and the cities in which the synods were held.

Bellarmin endeavored to prove, that it was formally recognised in the ancient Church that the calling of synods belonged to the hierarchical chiefs, and the summoning of Oecumenical councils in particular to the Pope; but several of the passages which he adduces in proof are from the Pseudo-Isidore, and therefore destitute of all importance, while others rest upon an incorrect explanation of the words referred to. Thus, Bellarmin appeals above all to the legates of Leo I., who at the fourth Oecumenical Council — that of Chalcedon in 451 — had demanded the deposition of the Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria, because he had ventured to call an Oecumenical council without permission from Rome.

Their words are: su>nodon ejtolmhse poih~sai ejpitroph~v di>>ca tou~ ajpostolikou~ qro>nou . In their obvious meaning, these words bear the sense indicated, and they are generally so explained. As, however, Pope Leo the Great had, by sending his legates, recognised and confirmed the summoning of the Latrocinium , or Robber-Synod — for it is to this that the reference is made — we are under the necessity of understanding that Dioscurus was accused at Chalcedon of thrusting the papal legates into the background, and taking the direction and presidency of the Council into his own hands. This is the way in which it is understood by the Ballerini and by Arendt. At the same time, it must not be overlooked that the general nature of the expression of which the papal legates made choice at Chalcedon, certainly involves the other side of the papal claim, and implies not only the right to preside over synods, but to convoke them.

Bellarmin appeals further to the seventh Oecumenical Council, which in its sixth session, rejected the iconoclastic Synod of 754, and refused to recognize it as oecumenical, for this very reason, that the summons for its assembling did not go forth from the Pope. What the Synod does in fact say, however, is, that “this Synod had not the Roman Pope as its cooperator” (oujk e]sce sunergown pa>pan ). There is nothing said in particular of the Pope's taking part or not in the summoning of the Synod.

On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that, according to Socrates, f24 Julius I., even in his time, about the year 341, expressed the opinion that it was an ecclesiastical canon, mh< dei~n para< gnw>mhn tou~ ejpisko>pou JRw>mhs kanoni>zein taav ; and there can be no doubt, if these words are impartially considered, that they mean that it was “not lawful to pass canons of universal obligation at synods without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” The question which is here to be decided, however, is this: Who, as a matter of fact, called or co-operated in calling the oecumenical synods? And the answer is: The first eight oecemenical synods were convoked by the Emperors, all later ones by the Popes; but even in the case of the early synods, there is a certain participation of the Pope in convoking them, which in individual cases is more or less clearly seen. 1 . The fact that the summons to the first Oecumenical Synod proceeded from the Emperor Constantine the Great, cannot be disputed. As, however, none of the letters have come down to us, we cannot tell whether they referred to any consultation with the Pope. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the sixth Oecumenical Synod in 680 expressly asserted f26 that the Synod of Nicaea was summoned by the Emperor and Pope Sylvester ( Kwnstanti~nov oJ ajeioebe>statov kai< Silbestrov oJ ajoi>dimov tha| mega>lnh te kai< peri> blepton sune>legon sunodon ). The same is stated in the ancient Liber Pontificalis f28 attributed to Pope Damasus; and if this authority be considered of slight value, the importance of the former must be admitted. Had the sixth Oecumenical Council been held in the West, or at Rome itself its testimony might perhaps seem partial; but as it took: place at Constantinople, and at a time when the bishops of that place had already appeared as rivals of the Bishop of Rome, and moreover the Greeks formed by far the greater number present at the Synod, their testimony for Rome must be regarded as of great importance. Hence even Rufinus, in his continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusobius, says that the Emperor summoned the Synod of Nicaea at the suggestion of the priests (ex sententia saccrdotum ); and certainly, if several bishops were consulted on the subject, among them must have been the chief of them all, the Bishop of Rome. 2 . With regard to the second Oecumenical Synod, it is commonly asserted, that the bishops who composed it themselves declared that they were assembled at Constantinople in accordance with a letter of Pope Damasus to the Emperor Theodosius the Great. But the document which has been relied upon as authority, refers not to the Synod of the year 381, the second Oecumenical, but, as we shall show further on in the history of this Council, to the Synod of the year 382, which actually did meet in accordance with the wish of Pope Damasus and the Western Synod at Aquileia, but was not Oecumenical. It is without effect, moreover, that Baronins appeals to the sixth Oecumenical Council to prove that Pope Damasus had a part in the calling of the second Oecumenical Synod. For what the Council says is this: “When Macedonius spread abroad a false doctrine respecting the Holy Spirit, Theodosius and Damasus immediately opposed him, and Gregory of Nazianzus and Nectarius (his successor in the See of Constantinople) assembled a synod in this royal city.” This passage is obviously too vague and indefinite to afford grounds for concluding that Pope Damasus co-operated in the summoning of the Synod. Nay more, the words, “Gregory of Nazianzus and Nectarius assembled a synod,” rather exclude than include the co-operation of Damasus. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Synod in question; held A.D. 381, as we have already remarked, was not originally regarded as Oecumenical, and obtained this rank at a later period on its being received by the West. It was summoned as a general council of the Greek or Eastern Church; and if the Pope had no share in convoking it, no inference cart be drawn from this fact unfavorable to his claim to summon oecumenical synods. 3 . The third Oecumenical Council at Ephesus, in the year 431, was summoned, as the Acts prove, by the Emperor Theodosius, in union with his Western colleague Valentinian III. It is clear, however, that the Pope Celestine I. concurred, from his letter to Theodosius, dated May 15, 431, in which he says that he cannot personally be present at the Synod, but will send his representatives. Still more distinct is his letter to the Council itself, dated May 8, 431, in which he sets before the assembled bishops their duty to protect the orthodox faith, expresses his expectation that they will agree to the sentence which he has already pronounced upon Nestorius, and adds that he has sent his legates, in order that they may give effect to this sentence at Ephesus. The members of the Synod themselves saw and acknowledged that there was here not merely an assent to the convocation of the Synod, but also directions for their guidance, inasmuch as they declare, in their most solemn act, the sentence of condemnation against Nestorius: “Compelled by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, Bishop of Rome, we have come to this sad sentence of condemnation upon Nestorius.” They expressed the same when they said that “the letter of the Apostolic See (to Cyril; which he had communicated to the Synod of Ephesus) had already set forth the sentence and rule to be followed (yh~fon kai< tu>pon ) in the case of Nestorius; and they, the assembled bishops, had, in accordance with this judgment, followed up this rule.” It is herein clearly acknowledged that the Pope had not simply, like other bishops, so to speak, passively agreed, to the convocation of the Synod by the Emperor, but had actively prescribed to the Synod rules for their guidance; and had thus, not in the literal sense, but in a sense higher and more real, called them to their work. 4 . The manner in which the fourth Oecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, A.D. 451, met together, we learn from several letters of Pope Leo I., and of the Emperors Theodosius II. and Marcian. Immediately after the end of the unhappy Robber-Synod, Pope Leo requested the Emperor Theodosius II. (October 13, 449) to bring together a greater council, assembled from all parts of the world, which might best meet in Italy. He repeated this request at Christmas in the same year, and besought the Emperor of the West also, Valentinian III., together with his wife and mother, to support his request at the Byzantine Court. Leo renewed his petition on the 16th of July 450, but at the same time expressed the opinion that the Council would not be necessary, if the bishops without it would subscribe an orthodox confession of faith. About this time Theodosius II. died, and was succeeded by his sister S. Pulcheria and her husband Marcian. Both of them intimated immediately to the Pope their disposition to call the Synod which had been desired, and Marcian in particular asked the Pope to write and inform him whether he would attend personally or by legates, so that the necessary invitations might be issued to the Eastern bishops. But Pope Leo now wished at least for a postponement of the Council. He went even so far as to say that it was no longer necessary; a change in his views which has often been made a ground of reproach to him, but which will be thoroughly discussed and justified at the proper place in this History of the Councils . We will only point out, at present, that what Leo had mentioned in his 69th letter, during the lifetime of Theodosius II., as a reason for dispensing with the Council, had actually taken place under Marcian and Pulcheria, inasmuch as nearly all the bishops who had taken part in the Robber-Synod had repented of their error, and in conjunction with their orthodox colleagues had signed the epistola dogmatica of Leo to Flavian, which was, in the highest sense, an orthodox confession of faith.

Moreover, the incursions of the Huns in the West had made it then impossible for the Latin bishops to leave their homes in any great number, and to travel to the distant Chalcedon; whilst Leo naturally wished, in the interest of orthodoxy, that many of the Latins should be present at the Synod. Other motives contributed to the same desire; among these the fear, which the result proved to be well grounded, that the Synod might be used for the purpose of altering the hierarchical position of the Bishop of Constantinople. As, however, the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the Synod, the Pope gave his consent to its assembling, appointed legates, and wrote to the Synod describing their duties and business. And thus he could say with justice, in his later epistle, addressed to the bishops assembled at Chalcedon, that the Council was assembled “by the command of the Christian princes, and with the consent of the Apostolic See” (ex praecepto Christianorum principum et ex consensu apostolicae sedis ); as, on the other hand, the Emperor at an earlier period wrote to the Pope, “The Synod is to be held te auctore .” The Pope's share in convoking the Council of Chalcedon was, moreover, so universally acknowledged, that, soon after, the Bishop of Maesia said, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo: “Many bishops are assembled at Chalcedon by the order of Leo the Roman Pontiff, who is truly the head of the bishops” (per jussionem Leonis Romani Pontifficis, qui vere caput episco, porum ). f47 5 . There can be no doubt that the fifth Oecumenical Synod in the year 553, like the first four, was convoked by the Emperor (Justinian I.); but it is also certain that it was not without consultation with the Pope. Vigilius says himself that he had agreed with the Emperor Justinian, in the presence of the Archbishop Mennas of Constantinople and other ecclesiastical and civil rulers, that a great synod should be held, and that the controversy over the three chapters should rest until this synod should decide it. Vigilius expressed his desire for such a synod in a second letter ad universam ecclesiam , whilst he strongly disapproved of the Emperor's intention of putting an end to the controversy by an imperial edict, and was for that reason obliged to take to flight. When they had become reconciled, Yigilius again expressed his desire for the holding of a synod which should decide the controversy; and the deputies of the fifth Council afterwards declared that he had promised to be present at the Synod. What is certain is, that Vigilius had desired the postponement of the opening, in order to wait for the arrival of several Latin bishops; and in consequence, notwithstanding repeated and most respectful invitations, he took no part in the sessions of the Synod. The breach was widened when, on the 14th of May 553, the Pope published his Constitutum , declaring that he could not agree with the anathematizing of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret. At the suggestion of the Emperor, the Synod at its seventh session, May 26, 553, decided that the name of Vigilius should be struck out of the diptychs, which was done, so that the Pope and the Council were now in open antagonism. In his decree to Eutychius of Constantinople, however, dated December 8, 553, and in his second Constitutum of February 23, 554, Vigilius approved of the decrees of the fifth Synod, and pronounced the bishops who had put them forth — that is, the members of the Synod — to be his brethren and his fellow-priests. f54 6 . The case of the sixth Oecumenical Synod, A.D. 680, is quite the same as that of the third. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus convoked it, and requested the Pope to send legates to it. Pope Agatho, however, not only did this, which involves an assent to the imperial convocation of the Synod; but he sent to the Emperor, and thus also to the Council, a complete exposition of the orthodox faith, and thus prescribed to it a rule and directions for its proceedings; and the Synod acknowledged this, as the Synod of Ephesus had done, inasmuch as they say, in their letter to Agatho, “Through that letter from thee we have overcome the heresy . . . and have eradicated the guilty by the sentence previously brought concerning them through your sacred letter” (ex sententia per sacras vestras literas de iis prius lata ). f57 7 . The seventh Oecumenical Synod — the second of Nicaea, in the year 787 — was suggested to the Empress Irene by the Patriarch Tarasins of Constantinople, who endeavored to restore the reverence for images and union with Rome. The Empress and her son, the Emperor Constantine, approved of this; but before the imperial letters of convocation were issued, they sent an ambassador to Pope Hadrian I. with a letter, in which they requested him to be present at the projected Oecumenical Synod, either personally or at least by his representatives. In the October of the following year, Hadrian I. sent an answer to the Emperor and Empress, as well as to the Patriarch, and promised to send his legates to the intended Synod, which he afterwards did, and thereby practically declared his consent to its convocation. Nay more, in his letter to Charles the Great, he goes so far as to say, “And thus they held that Synod according to our appointment” (et sic synodum islam secundum. nostram ordinationem ); and thereby ascribes to himself a still closer participation in the holding of this Synod. f59 8 . The last synod which was convoked by an emperor was the eighth oecumenical, which was held at Constantinople in the year 867. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian had dethroned his former colleague Michael III., or The Drunken, and deposed his creature, the schismatical Photius, from the patriarchal chair, replacing the unlawfully deposed Ignatius, and thereby restoring the union of the Greek and Latin Churches.

As, however, Photius still had followers, the Emperor considered it necessary to arrange the ecclesiastical relations by means of a new Oecumenical council, and for that purpose sent an embassy to Pope Nicolas I., requesting him to send his representatives to the intended Council. In the meantime Nicolas died; but his successor, Hadrian II., not only received the imperial message, but sent the legates, as it had been wished, to the Council, and thereby gave his consent to the convocation of this Oecumenical Synod. f60 All the subsequent oecumenical synods were held in the West, and summoned directly by the Popes, from the first of Lateran, the ninth Oecumenical Synod, to the holy Synod of Trent, while smaller synods were still convoked by Kings and Emperors; and Pope Leo X. declared in the most decided way, at the eleventh session of the fifth Lateran Synod, with a polemical reference to the so-called propositions of Constance, that the Pope had the right to convoke, to transfer, and to dissolve oecumenical synods. f62 SEC. 4. MEMBERS OF COUNCILS.

In considering the further question, who has a right to be a member of a synod, it is necessary first to distinguish between the diocesan and other synods. For whilst in the latter either the only members or at least the chief members are bishops, the diocesan synod, with the exception of the president, is made up of the other clergy; and whilst the privileged members of the other synods have a votum decisivum , a vote in determining the decrees of the synod, those of the diocesan synod have only a vetum consultativum , a right to be present and speak, but not to vote on the decrees. Here the bishop alone decides, the others are only his counsellors, and the decision is pronounced in his name. The members of the diocesan synod are divided into three classes. 1 . Those whom the bishop is bound to summon , and who are bound to appear . To this class belong deans, archpresbyters, vicarii foranci , the vicar-general, the parochial clergy by deputies; and, according to more recent law and custom, the canons of cathedral churches, the provost and canons of collegiate churches, and the abbates saeculares . f64 2 . Those whom the bishop may , but need not summon, but who are bound to come when he summons them; for example, the prebendaries of cathedrals who are not canons. 3 . Lastly, those who in general are not bound to appear, as the clerici simplices . But if the synod has for its special purpose to introduce an improvement in the morals of the Clergy, or to impart to them the decisions of a provincial synod, these must also appear when they are summoned.

With respect to the members of other kinds of synods, ancient Church history gives us the following results: — 1 . The earliest synods were those held in Asia Minor about the middle of the second century, on the occasion of Montanism. Eusebius does not say who were present at them; but the libellus synodicus informs us that one, of these synods was held at Hierapolis by Bishop Apollinaris with twenty-six other bishops, and a second at Anchiahs by Bishop Sotas and twelve other bishops. f66 2 . The next synods in order were those which were held respecting the celebration of Easter, in the second half of the second century. With reference to these, Polycrates of Ephesus tells us that Pope Victor had requested him to convoke in a synod the bishops who were subordinate to him, that he did so, and that many bishops had assembled with him in synod. In the chapters of Eusebius in which these two classes of councils are spoken of, only bishops are mentioned as members of the Synod. And, in the same way, the libellus synodicus gives the number of bishops present at each council of this time, without referring to any other members. 3 . The letters of convocation for an oecumenical synod were directed to the metropolitans, and to some of the more eminent bishops; and the metropolitans were charged to give notice to their suffragans. So it was, e.g., at the convocation of the third Oecumenical Synod, for which an invitation was sent to Augustine, who was already dead. The invitation to appear at the synod was sometimes addressed to the bishops collectively, and sometimes it was simply required that the metropolitans should personally appear, and bring' merely the most able of their suffragans with them. The latter was the case, e.g., in the summoning of the third and fourth Councils; to Nicaea, on the contrary, the bishops seem to have been invited without distinction. Sometimes those bishops who did not attend, or who arrived too late, were threatened with penalties, as well by the Emperors, e.g. by Theodosius II., as by earlier and later ecclesiastical canons. f71 4 . The chorepiscopi (cwrepi>skopoi ), or bishops of country places, seem to have been considered in ancient times as quite on a par with the other bishops, as far as their position in synods was concerned. We meet with them at the Councils of Neoceasarea in the year 314, of Nicaea in 325, of Ephesus in 431. On the other hand, among the 600 bishops of the fourth Oecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, there is no chorepiscopus present, for by this time the office had been abolished; but in the middle ages we again meet with chorepiscopi of a new kind at Western councils, particularly at those of the French Church, at Langres in 830, at Mainz in 847, at Pontion in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871. Bishops without a diocese have a certain resemblance to these; and such we meet with at synods, as in the year 585 at Macon in France. It is disputed whether those who are merely titular bishops have a right to vote at a council; and it has generally been decided in this way, that there is no obligation to summon such, but when they are summoned they have a right to vote. f77 5 . Towards the middle of the third century we find a departure from this ancient practice of having only bishops as members of synods, first in Africa, when Cyprian assembled, at those synods which he held with reference to the restoration of the lapsed , besides the bishops of his province and his clergy, confessores et laicos stantes , i.e. those laymen who lay under no ecclesiastical penance. So there were present at the Synod held by S. Cyprian on the subject of baptism by heretics, on the 1st of September (probably A.D. 250), besides eighty-seven bishops, very many priests and deacons, and MAXIMA PARS PLEBIS, And the Roman clergy, in their letter to Cyprian on the subject, request that the, bishops will take counsel in synods, in common with the priests, deacons, and laicis stantibus . It must not be overlooked, however, that Cyprian makes a difference between the membership of the bishops and of others. We learn from his thirteenth letter, that the bishops come together with the clergy, and the laity are only present (praeositi cum clero convenientes, praesente etiam stantium plebe ); from his sixty-sixth letter, that the priests, etc., were the assessors of the bishops (compresbyteri, qui nobis assidebant ). In other places Cyprian speaks only of the bishops as members of the synod, and from other passages it comes out that the bishops had at these synods taken the advice and opinion of the laity as well as the clergy. It is never, however, in the least degree indicated that either the clergy or the laity had a vetum decisivum ; but the contrary is evident, namely, that in the Synod of Cyprian referred to, which was held September 1, 256, only bishops were voters. f84 6 . Euscbius relates that a great number of bishops of Asia assembled in synod at Antioch in the year 264 or 265, on the subject of Paul of Samesata, and he adds that their priests and deacons came with them. In the following chapter Eusebius gives an account of the Synod at Antioch in 269, and makes special reference to the priest of Antioch, Malchion, who was present at the Synod, and by his logical ability compelled Paul of Samesata, who wanted to conceal his false doctrine, to explain himself clearly. In addition to this, Eusebius gives in the thirtieth chapter the circular letter which this Synod, after pronouncing the deposition of Paul, addressed to the rest of the Church. And this letter is sent forth not in the name of the bishops only, but of the other clergy who were present as well; and among these Malchion is named in the superscription, whilst the names of many of the bishops — and according to Athanasius there were seventy present — are wanting. We see, then, that priests and deacons were members of several synods; but we cannot determine from the original documents how far their rights extended, and whether they had more than a mere consultative voice in the acts of the synod. As far as analogy can guide us, it would appear they had no more. 7 . In the two Arabian Synods which were held on the subject of Beryllus and the Hypnopsychites, Origen held a place similar to that which had been occupied by Malchion. The bishops summoned him to the Synod, so as to render his learning and ability serviceable to the Church; but it was the bishops themselves who held the Synod. 8 . In many synods of the following centuries, besides the bishops, priests and deacons were present. So it was at Elvira, at Arles, at Carthage in 397, at Toledo in 400, etc. The bishops and priests had seats, but the deacons had to stand. The decrees of the ancient synods were for the most part signed only by the bishops. It was so at the Councils of Ancyra, of Neocaesarea — although in this case the subscriptions are somewhat doubtful; at the first and second Oecumenical Councils, those of Nicaea and Constantinople; at the Councils of Antioch in 341, of Sardica, etc.

Sometimes also the priests and deacons subscribed the decrees, and then either immediately after the name of their own bishop, as at Arles, or else after the names of all the bishops. It was, however, not so common for 'the priests and deacons to join in the subscription, and it did not occur in the fourth or tilth century: for we find that, even in the case of synods at which we know that priests and deacons were present, only bishops subscribed; as at Nicaea, at Carthage in 397, 389, 401, at Toledo in 400, and at the Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. At a later period we meet again, at some synods, with signatures of priests and deacons, as at Lyons in 830. The difference between the rights of the priests and those of the bishops is 'made clear by the signatures of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian in 448. The deposition of Eutyches which was there pronounced was subscribed by the bishops with the formula, oJri>sav uJpe>graya , and afterwards by twenty-three archiman-drites, or superiors of convents, merely with the word uJpe>lgaya without oJri>sav . At the Robber-Synod of Ephesus, on the contrary, along with other anomalies, we find the Archimandrite Barsumas of Syria signing, as a fully privileged member of the Synod, with the word oJri>sav , and that because the Emperor Theodosius II. had summoned him expressly. 9 . It is easily understood, and it is shown by the ancient acts of councils, that priests and deacons, when they were the representatives of their bishops, had a right to give, like them, a votum decisivum , and subscribed the acts of the synod with the formula oJri>sav . And this is expressed at a much later period by the Synods of Rouen in 1581, and of Bordeaux in 1583, — by the latter with the limitation, that only priests should be sent as the representatives of the bishops. f101 10 . Other clergymen, deacons in particular, were employed at synods, as secretaries, notaries, and the like — at Ephesus and Chalcedon, for instance; and they had often no insignificant influence, particularly their head, the primicerius notariorum , although they had no vote. Some of these notaries were official, and were the servants of the synod; but besides these, each bishop could bring his own notary or secretary with him, and employ him to make notes and minutes of the sessions: for it was only at the Robber-Synod that the violent Dioscurus allowed no other notaries than his own, and those of some of his friends. From the nature of the case, there is nothing to prevent even laymen from being employed in such work; and we are informed distinctly by Aeneas Sylvius that he performed such duties, as a layman, at the Synod of Basle. It is, moreover, not at all improbable that the secretarii divini consistorii , who were present at some of the ancient synods — at Chalcedon, for instance — were secretaries of the Imperial Council, and consequently laymen. f103 11 . Besides the bishops, other ecclesiastics have always been brought in at councils, Oecumenical as well as inferior, for the purpose of consultation, particularly doctors of theology and of canon law, as well as deputies of chapters and superiors of monasteries; and bishops were even requested to bring such assistants and counsellors with them to the synod. So it was at the Spanish Council at Tarragona in 516. But, at the same time, the fundamental principle is undoubted, that the vote for the decision of a question belonged to the bishops, as to those whom the Holy Ghost has appointed to rule the Church of God, and to all others only a consultative voice; and this was distinctly recognised by the Synods of Rouen in 1581, and Bordeaux in 1583 and 1684, partly in the most general way, in part specifically with reference to the deputies of chapters, titular and commendatory abbots. There has been a doubt with respect to abbots, whether they held a place similar to that of the bishops or not; and a different practice seems to have prevailed at different places and times. We have already seen that in the ancient Church the archimandrites had no vote, even when they were priests. On the other hand, a Synod at London, under the famous Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1075, declares: “Besides the bishops and abbots, no one must address the Synod without the permission of the archbishop.” The abbots are here plainly assigned a place of equality with the bishops as members of the Synod; and they subscribed the acts of this Synod like the bishops. In the same way the abbots subscribed at other synods, e.g. at Pontion in France, A.D. 876, at the Council held in the Palatium Ticinum, at Cavaillon, and elsewhere; f109 but, on the other hand, at many other councils of the same time, as well as at those of an earlier and later period, the bishops alone, or their representatives, signed the decrees. So it was at Epaon in 517, at Lyons in 517, at Ilerda and Valencia in Spain in 524, at Aries in 524, at Carthage in 525, at Orange in 529, at Toledo in 531, at Orleans in 533; so also at Cavaillon in 875, at Beauvais in 875, at Ravenna in 877, at Tribur in 895. The archdeacons seem to have been regarded very much in the same way as the abbots, inasmuch as they appeared at synods not merely as the representatives of their bishops; but sometimes they signed the acts of the council, even when their bishop was personally present. So it was at the Synod of London already mentioned. At the end of the middle ages it was the common view that abbots and cardinal priests and cardinal deacons as well had a votum decisivum at the synods, — a fact which is expressly stated, as far as regards the abbots, by the historian of the Synod of Basle, Augustinus Patricius, a Piccolomini of the fifteenth century. He adds, that only the Council of Basle allowed the anomaly, and conceded to other ecclesiastics the right of voting. But we must remark that, according to the statement of the famous Cardinal D'Ailly, even so early as at the Synod at Pisa in 1409, the doctors of divinity and of canon law had a votum decisivum ; and that the Council of Constance extended this right, by adopting the division of the Council into nations. These were, however, anomalies; and after this stormy period had passed by, the ancient ecclesiastical order was restored, that only bishops, cardinals, and abbots should have the votum decisivum . A place of equality with the abbots was naturally assigned to the generals of those widespread orders, which had a central authority. This was done at the Council of Trent. With regard to the abbots, a distinction was made between those who possessed real jurisdiction, and those who were only titular or commendatory, To these last there was conceded no more than the volum consultativum ; e.g. in the Synod at Rouen in 1581, and Bordeaux in 1583. The former went so far as to refuse to acknowledge any such right as belonging to the abbots; and a later synod at Bordeaux, in the year 1624, plainly declared that it was an error (erronea opinio ) to affirm that any others besides bishops had a decisive voice in a provincial synod (praeter episcopos quosdam alios habere vocem decisivam in concilio provinciali ). In practice, however, abbots were still admitted, only with the distinction that the bishops were members of the synod “by divine right” (jure divino ), and the abbots only “by ecclesiastical appointment” (institutione ecclesiastiea ). 12 . We have already seen, that in the time of Cyprian, both in Africa and in Italy, laymen were allowed to be present at synods. This custom was continued to later times. Thus, e.g., the Spanish Synod at Tarragona, in 516, ordained that the bishops should bring to the Synod with them, besides the clergy, their faithful sons of the laity. Viventiolus Archbishop of Lyons, in the letter by which he summoned a synod at Epaon in 517, says: “Laicos permittimus interesse, ut quae a solis pontificibus ordinanda sunt et populus possit agnoscere.” [We permit the laity to be present, that the people may know those things which are ordained by the priests alone.] Moreover, the laity had the power of bringing forward their complaints with reference to the conduct of the clergy, inasmuch as they had a right to ask for priests of good character. The fourth Synod of Toledo, in 633, says expressly, that laymen also should be invited to the synods So, in fact, we meet with distinguished laymen at the eighth Synod of Toledo in 653, and at the second of Orange in 529. In English synods we find even abbesses were present.

Thus the Abbess Hilda was at the Collatio Pharensis, or Synod of Whitby, in 664, where the question of Easter and of the tonsure, and other questions, were discussed; and the Abbess Aelfleda, the successor of Hilda, at the somewhat later Synod on the Nith in Northumberland. This presence of abbesses of the royal family is, however, exceptional, even when these assemblies were nothing else than concilia mixta , as Salmon, i.e ., explains them to be. That, however, distinguished and well-instructed laymen should be introduced without delay into provincial synods, was expressly decided by the Gongregatio interpret. concil , by a decree of April 22, 1598; and the Caeremoniale episcoporum refers to the same, when it speaks of the seats which were to be prepared at provincial synods for the laity who were present. Pignatelli recommends the bishops to be prudent in issuing such invitations to the laity; but we still find in 1736 a great many laymen of distinction present at the great Maronite Council which was held by Simon Assemani as papal legate. At many synods the laity present signed the acts; but at others, and these by far the most numerous, they did not sign. At the Maronite Council just mentioned, and at the second of Orange, they did sign. It is clear from the passage already adduced, referring to the Synod of Epaon, that these laymen were admitted only as witnesses and advisers, or as complainants. It is remarkable that the laity who were present at Orange signed with the very same formula as the bishops, — namely, consentiens subscripsi ; whilst in other cases the bishops made use of the words definiens subscripsi ; and the priests, deacons, and laymen simply used the word subscripsi . As was natural, the position of the laity at the concilia mixta was different: from the very character of these, it followed that temporal princes appeared as fully qualified members, side by side with the prelates of the Church. 13 . Among the laity whom we find at synods, the Emperors and Kings are prominent. After the Roman Emperors embraced Christianity, they, either personally or by their representatives and commissaries, attended the great synods, and particularly those which were oecumenical. Thus, Constantine the Great was personally present at the first Oecumenical Council; f126 Theodosius II. sent his representatives to the third, and the Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth; and besides, at a later period, he was personally present, with his wife Pulcheria, at the sixth session of this Council of Chalcedon. So the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus attended at the sixth Oecumenical Council; at the seventh, on the other hand, Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus were present; only by deputies; whilst at the eighth the Emperor Basil the Macedonian took part, sometimes personally and sometimes by representatives. Only in the case of the second and fifth Oecumenical Synods we find neither the Emperors nor their representatives present; but the Emperors (Theodosius the Great and Justinian) were at the time present in the city of Constantinople, where those councils were held, and in constant communication with the Synod.

It was, as we perceive, simply at the oecumenical synods that the Emperors were present. To this fact Pope Nicholas I. expressly appeals in his letter to the Emperor Michael, A.D. 865, and infers from it that all other synods ought to be held without the presence of the Emperor or his representatives. In agreement with this Pope, a few years later the eighth Oecumenical Council declared, that it was false to maintain that no synod should be held without the presence of the Emperor; that, on the contrary, the Emperors had been present only at the oecumenical councils; and, moreover, that it was not proper for temporal princes to be present at provincial synods, etc., for the condemnation of the clergy. They might have added, that so early as the fourth century the bishops complained loudly when Constantine the Great sent an imperial commissioner to the Synod of Tyre in 335. f132 In the West, on the contrary, the Kings were present even at national synods. Thus, Sisenand, the Spanish King of the West Goths, was present at the fourth Council of Toledo in the year 633, and King Chintilan at the fifth of Toledo in 638; Charles the Great at the Council of Frankfurt in 794, and two Anglo-Saxon Kings at the Collatio Pharensis , already mentioned, in 664. We find royal commissaries at the eighth and ninth Synods of Toledo in 653 and 655. In later times the opinion gradually gained ground, that princes had a right to be present, either personally or by representatives, only at the oecumenical councils. Thus we find King Philip le Bel of France at the fifteenth Oecumenical Synod at Vienne in 1311, the Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance, and the representatives (oratores ) of several princes at the last Oecumenical Synod at Trent. Pius IV. and Pius V. forbid the presence of a royal commissary at the Provincial Synod of Toledo; but the prohibition came too late. When, however, a second Provincial Synod was held at Toledo in 1582, in the presence of a royal commissary, Rome, i.e. the Congregatio Concilii , delayed the confirmation of the decrees until the name of the commissary was erased from the acts of the Synod. The Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Quiroga, maintained that such commissaries had been present at the ancient Spanish synods; but Rome held fast by the principle, that except in oecumenical synods, ubi agitur de fide, reformatione, et pace (which treated of faith, reformation, and peace), no commissaries of princes had a right to be present. At the later oecumenical synods, this presence of princes or of their representatives beyond all doubt had no other significance than to ensure protection to the synods, to increase their authority, and to bring before them the special wishes of the different states and countries. The celebrated Cardinal D'Ailly long ago expressed this judgment clearly; and, as a matter of fact, there was never conceded to a prince or his orator the right to vote, unless he was also a bishop. In reference to the most ancient oecumenical synods, it has even been maintained that the Emperors were their presidents; and this leads us to the further question of the presidency of the synods.

SEC. 5. THE PRESIDENCY OF COUNCILS.

As the presidency of a diocesan synod belongs to the bishop, of a provincial synod to the metropolitan, of a national to the primate or patriarch, so, in the nature of the case, the presidency of an oecumenical council belongs to the supreme ruler of the whole Church — to the Pope; and this is so clear, that the most violent partisans of the episcopal system, who assign to the Pope only a primacy of honor (primatus honoris ), yet do not in the least impugn his right to preside at oecumenical synods. The Pope may, however, exercise this presidency in person, or he may be represented, as has frequently been the case, by his legates. Against this papal right of presidency at oecumenical synods the Reformers brought forward the objection, that the history of the Church showed clearly that the Emperors had presided at some of the first eight councils. There was, indeed, no difficulty in bringing forward proof in support of their assertion, since Pope Stephen V. himself writes that the Emperor Constantine presided at the first Council of Nicaea, and the ancient acts of the synods frequently refer to a presidency of the Emperor or his representatives. But all such objections, however dangerous they may at first seem to be to our position, lose their power when we come to consider more closely the state of things in connection with the ancient councils, and are willing to discuss the matter impartially.

Let us begin with the eighth Oecumenical Synod, as the last of those which here come into question — that is to say, the last of the Oriental Synods — and from this ascend back to the first. 1 . Pope Hadrian II. sent his legates to the eighth Oecumenical Synod, on the express written condition, addressed to the Emperor Basil, that they should preside. The legates, Donatus Bishop of Ostia, Stephen Bishop of Nepesina, and Marinus a deacon of Rome, read this letter before the Synod, without the slightest objection being brought forward. On the contrary, their names were always placed first in the minutes; the duration of the sessions was decided by them; and they gave permission for addresses, for the reading of the acts of the Synod, and for the introduction of other members of the Synod; and appointed the questions for discussion. In short, they appear in the first five sessions without dispute as the presidents of the Synod. At the sixth and following sessions the Emperor Basil was present, with his sons Constantine and Leo; and he obtained the presidency, as the acts relate. But these acts clearly distinguish the Emperor and his sons from the Synod; for, after naming them, they add, “the holy and oecumenical Synod agreeing” (conveniente sancta ac universali synodo ). Thus we perceive that: the Emperor and his sons are not reckoned among the members of the Synod, whilst the papal legates are constantly placed first among the members. It is the legates, too, who in these later sessions decide the subjects which shall be brought forward: they also are the first who sign the acts of the Synod, and that expressly as presidents (praesidentes ); whilst the Emperor gave a clear proof that he did not regard himself as the real president, by wishing to sign them after all the bishops. The papal legates, on the other hand, entreated him to place his own and his sons' names at the top; but he decidedly refused this, and at last consented to sign after the representatives of the Pope and the Oriental bishops, and before the other bishops. In perfect agreement with this, Pope Hadrian II., in his letter to the Emperor, commended him for having been present at this Synod, not as judge (judex ), but as witness and protector (conscius et obsecundator ) Still less than the Emperors themselves had the imperial commissaries who were present at synods a right of presidency, since their names were placed, in all minutes of the sessions, immediately after the representatives of the patriarchs, but before the other bishops, and they did not subscribe the acts at all. On the other hand, it may be said that the patriarchs of the East — Ignatius of Constantinople, and the representatives of the others — in some measure participated in the presidency, since they are always named along with the Roman legates, and are carefully distinguished from the other metropolitans and bishops. They form, together with the Roman legates, so to speak, the board of direction, deciding in common with them the order of the business, regulating with them the rule of admission to the synod.

They subscribe, like the legates, before the Emperor, and are named in the minutes and in the separate sessions before the imperial commissaries. But, all this being granted, the papal legates still take undeniably the first place, inasmuch as they are always the first named, and first subscribe the acts of the Synod, and, what is particularly to be observed, at the last subscription make use of the formula, “presiding over this holy and oecumenical synod” (huic sancfae et universali synodo praesidens ); whilst Ignatius of Constantinople and the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency, but subscribe simply with the words, “As receiving this holy and oecumenical synod, and agreeing with all things which it has decided, and which are written here, and as defining them, I subscribe” (sanctam havoc et universalem synodum suscipiens, et omnibus quae ab ea judicata et scripta sunt concordans, et deflations subscripsi ). Moreover, as we find a remarkable difference between them and the papal legates, so there is also, on the other side, a considerable difference between their signature and that of the other bishops. The latter, like the Emperor, have simply used the words, suscipiens subscripsi , without the addition of definiens , by which the vetum decisivum was usually indicated. f148 2 . At all the sessions of the seventh Oecumenical Synod, the papal legates, the Archpresbyter Peter and the Abbot Peter, came first; after them Tarasius Archbishop of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other patriarchs; next to them the other bishops; and, last of all, the imperial commissaries. The decrees were signed in the same order, only that the imperial commissaries took no part in the subscription. The Empress Irene and her son were present at the eighth and last session of the Council as honorary presidents, and signed the decrees of the first seven sessions, which had been already signed by the bishops. f151 According, to a Latin translation of the acts of this Synod, it was only the papal legates, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, who on this occasion made use of the word definiens in subscribing the decrees, just as at the eighth Council; but the Greek version of the acts has the word oJri>sav in connection with the signature of the other bishops. Besides, we must not omit to state that, notwithstanding the presidency of the papal legates, Tarasius Archbishop of Constantinople had the real management of the business at this Synod. f154 3 . At the sixth Oecumenical Synod the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus was present in person, together with several high officials of the state. The minutes of the sessions name him as president, and give the names of his officials immediately after his own. They next proceed to the enumeration of the proper members of the Synod, with the formula, “the holy and oecumenical Synod being assembled” (sunelqou>shv de< kai< th~v aJgi>av kai< oiJkoumenikh~v suno>dou ), — thereby distinguishing, as in the case already mentioned, the Emperor and his officials from the Synod proper; and name as its first members the papal legates, the priests Theodore and George, and the deacon John. So these legates are the first to subscribe the acts of the Council; and the Emperor signed at the end, after all the bishops, and, as is expressly stated, to give more authority to the decrees of the Synod, and to confirm them with the formula, “We have read and consented” (legimus et consensimus). He thus made a distinction between himself and the Synod proper; whilst it cannot, however, be denied that the Emperor and his plenipotentiaries often conducted the business of the Synod. f157 4 . At the fifth Oecumenical Council, as has been already pointed out, f158 neither the Emperor (Justinian) nor yet the Pope or his legate was present.

It was Eutychius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, who presided. f159 5 . The fourth Oecumenical Council is of more importance for the question now before us. So early as on the 24th of June 451, Pope Leo the Great wrote to the Emperor Marcinn that he had named Pasehasinus Bishop of Lilybaeum as his legate (praedictum fratrem et coepiscopum meum vice men synodo convenit praesidere ). This legate, Paschasinus, in the name of himself and his colleagues (for Leo associated with him two other legates — the Bishop Lucentius and the Priest Boniface), at the third session of Chalcedon, issued the announcement that Pope Leo had commanded them, insignificant as they were, to preside in his place over this holy synod (nostram parvitatem huic sancto concilio pro se praesidere praecpit ); and soon after, Pope Leo wrote to the bishops of Gaul, speaking of his legates, in the following terms: “My brothers who presided in my stead over the Eastern Synod” (Fratres mei, qui vice mea orientali synodo praesederunt ). Pope Vigilius afterwards asserted the same, when, in a circular letter addressed to the whole Church, he says, “over which our predecessor of holy memory, Pope Leo, presided by his legates and vicars” (cui sanetae recordationis decessor noster papa Leo per legatos suos vicariosque praesedit ), Of still greater importance is it that the Council of Chalcedon itself, in its synodal letter to Pope Leo, expressly says, w=n (i.e. the assembled bishops) su< meneuev ejn toi~v thxin ejpe>cousi ; that is to say, “Thou, by thy representatives, hast taken the lead among the members of the Synod, as the head among the members of the body.” These testimonies — especially the last — are of so much weight, that they would seem to leave no room for doubt. And yet, on the other hand, it is a matter of fact that imperial commissaries had the place of honor at the Synod of Chalcedon, in the midst, before the rails of the altar; they are the first named in the minutes; they took the votes, arranged the order of the business, closed the sessions, and thus discharged those functions which belong to the president of an assembly. In the sixth session the Emperor Marcian was himself present, proposed the questions, and conducted the business, In these acts the Emperor and his commissaries also appear as the presidents, and the papal legates only as first among the voters. How, then, can we reconcile the contradiction which apparently exists between these facts and the statements already made? and how could the Council of Chalcedon say that, by sending his legates, the Pope had taken the lead among the members of the Synod? The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the same synodical letter written by the Pope to the Synod. It reads thus: “Faithful Emperors have used the presidency for the better preservation of order” ( Basilei~v de< pistoi< proan ejxh~rcon ). In fact, this presidency which was granted to the imperial commissaries referred only to the outward working — to the material conducting of the business of the synod. They were not connected with the internal work, and left the decisions of the synods without interference, gave no vote in the determination of questions concerning the faith, and repeatedly distinguished between themselves and the council. The acts of Chalcedon also show the same distinction. After having mentioned the imperial commissaries, they add these words, “the holy Synod assembled,” etc. We may add also, that neither the Emperor nor his commissaries signed the acts of the Council of Chalcedon: it was the Pope's legate who always signed first, and repeatedly added to his name, even when the Emperor was present, the title of synodo praesidens . f172 We are thus gradually able to explain the double relations existing between the papal legates and the imperial commissaries, quite analogous to that expressed in the words of Constantine the Great: “And I am a bishop. You are bishops for the interior business of the Church” (tw~n ei]sw th~v ejkklhsi>av ); “I am the bishop chosen by God to conduct the exterior business of the Church”(ejgw< de< tw~n ejktonov ). The official conduct of business, so to speak, the direction tw~n e]xw as well as the seat of honor, was reserved for the imperial commissaries. The Pope's legates, although only having the first place among the voters, had the presidency, kata< ta< ei]sw , of the synod, that is, of the assembly of the bishops in specie ; and when the imperial commissaries were absent, as was the case during the third session, they had also the direction of the business. f174 6 . The Emperor Theodosius II. nominated the Comes Candidian as his representative at the third Oecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431. In a letter addressed to the assembled fathers, the Emperor himself clearly determined the situation of Candidian towards the Council. He says: “I have sent Candidian to your Synod as Comes sacrorum domesticorum ; but he is to take no part in discussions on doctrine, since it is not allowable to any one, unless enrolled among the most holy bishops, to intermeddle in ecclesiastical discussions” (ajqe>miton gagou tw~n aJgiwta>Twn ejpisko>twn tugca>nonta toi~v ejkklhsiastikoi~v ske>mmasin . . . ejpimi>gnusqai ).

The Emperor then positively indicates what were to be the duties of Candidian: namely, that he was to send away the laity and the monks, if they repaired in too great numbers to Ephesus; he was to provide for the tranquillity of the city and the safety of the Synod; he was to take care that differences of opinion that might arise between the members of the Synod should not degenerate into passionate controversies, but that each might express his opinion without fear or hindrance, in order that, whether after quiet or noisy discussions upon each point, the bishops might arrive at a unanimous decision. Finally, he was to prevent any one from leaving the Synod without cause, and also to see that no other theological discussion should be entered into than that which had occasioned the assembling of the Synod, or that no private business should be brought up or discussed. f175 Pope Celestine I. on his side had appointed the two bishops Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, as his legates, and had instructed them to act according to the advice of Cyril, and to maintain the prerogatives of the Apostolic See. The Pope had before nominated Cyril as his representative in the Nestorian matter, and in his letter of 10th of August 430 he invested him with full apostolic power. It is known that from the beginning Candidian showed himself very partial to the friends of Nestorius, and tried to postpone the opening of the Council.

When, however, Cyril held the first sitting on the 24th June 431, the Count was not present, and so his name does not appear in the minutes. On the contrary, at the head of the list of the bishops present is found the name of Cyril, with this significant observation, “that he took the place of Celestine, the most holy Archbishop of Rome.” Cyril also directed the order of the business, either in person, as when he explained the chief object of the deliberations, or else through Peter, one of his priests, whom he made primicerius notariorum , Cyril was also the first to sign the acts of the first session, and the sentence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius. f181 In consequence of this deposition, Count Candidian became the open opponent of the Synod, and the protector of the party of Antioch, who held an unlawful council of their own under John of Antioch. Cyril notwithstanding fixed the 10th July 431 for the second session, and he presided; and the minutes mention him again as the representative of Rome. The other papal legates, who had not arrived in time for the first, were present at this second session; and they shared the presidency with Cyril, who continued to be called in the accounts the representative of the Pope. Cyril was the first to sign; after him came the legate Arcadius; then Juvenal of Jerusalem; next, the second legate Projectus; then came Flavian bishop of Philippi; and after him the third legate, the priest Philip. All the ancient documents are unanimous in affirming that Cyril presided over the Council in the name of Pope Celestine. Evagrius f185 says the same; so Pope Vigilius in the profession of faith which he signed; and Mansuetus Bishop of Milan, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. In other documents Pope Celestine and Cyril are indiscriminately called presidents of the third Oecumenical Council; the acts of the fourth assert this several times, as well as the Emperor Marcian and in the fifth century the Armenian bishops in their letter to the Emperor Leo. f190 7 . When we pass on to the second Oecumenical Council, it is perfectly well known and allowed that it was not presided over either by the Pope Damasus or his legate; for, as has been already said, this Council was not at first considered oecumenical, but only a general council of the Eastern Church. The first sessions were presided over by Meletius Archbishop of Antioch, who was the chief of all the bishops present, as the Archbishop of Alexandria had not arrived at the beginning. After the death of Meletius, which happened soon after the opening of the Council, it was not the Archbishop of Alexandria, but the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus, who was the president, and after his resignation his successor Nectarius. This took place through the decision of the Council, which in its third session had assigned to the Bishop of new Rome — that is, Constantinople — the precedency immediately after the Bishop of old Rome. 8 . The solution of the question respecting the presidency of the first Oecumenical Council is not without difficulty; and the greatest acumen has been displayed, and the most venturesome conjectures have been made, in order to prove that in the first Council, at any rate, the Pope was not the president. They have endeavored to prove that the presidency belonged to the Emperor, who in a solemn discourse opened the series of the principal sessions, and took part in them, seated in the place of honor. But Eusebius, who was an eye-witness of the Council, and pays the greatest possible respect to the Emperor, says most explicitly: “After that (meaning after the opening discourse by the Emperor) the Emperor made way for the presidents of the Synod ” (paredi>dou togon toi~v th~v suno>dou proe>droiv ). These words prove that Constantine was simply the honorary president, as the Emperor Marcian was subsequently in the sixth session of the Council of Chalcedon; and, as a matter of course, he left to the ecclesiastical presidents the conducting of the theological discussions.

In addition to the testimony of the eye-witness Eusebins, we have to the same effect the following documents: — (a.) The acts of the Council of Nicaea, as far as they exist, contain the signatures of the bishops, but not that of the Emperor. And if that is true which the Emperor Basil the Macedonian said at the eighth Oecumenical Council, that “Constantine the Great had signed at Nicaea after all the bishops,” this proves conclusively that Constantine did not consider himself, as the president proper of the Council. (b.) Besides, the Emperor was not present in person at the commencement of the Synod. It must, however, have had its presidents before the Emperor arrived; and a short sentence in Eusebius alludes to these presidents: paredi>dou ... toi~v proe>droiv ; that is, “He left the management of the continuation with those who had before presided.” (c.) When several complaints of the bishops against each other were presented to him, the Emperor had them all burnt, and declared that it was not becoming for him to give judgment upon