BOOK 13

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

The Synods Of The First Half Of The Sixth Century To The Outbreak Of The Controversy Of The Three Chapters.

SEC. 220. THE ROMAN SYNODS UNDER POPE SYMMACHUS, A.D. 501-504.

AT the opening of the sixth century we meet with a series of Roman Synods under Pope Symmachus, with reference to the dates of which two different chronological systems have been set up, the one by Pagi in his criticisms to the Annals of Baronius (ad ann . 499, n. 3; ad ann . 500, n. 7- 9; ad ann . 501, n. 2; ad ann . 502, n. 4; ad ann . 603, n. 2-11; ad ann . 504, n. 2), the other in the year 1725 by the Bollandist P. J. Bapt. Sollerius (in his Life of S. Symmachus in Acta SS . t. 4 Julii die 19 Julii, page 639).

Following preconceived opinions, Pagi has misplaced the natural order of these Synods, whilst the Bollandist held fast to Anastasius, Theodorus Lector, and other ancients, and has attained to greater accuracy. His theory was confirmed a few years later by a newly-discovered anonymous Vita Symmachi , which was composed by a contemporary of Pope Symmachus, and was published complete for the first time in the year 1732 by Joseph Blanchini, whilst somewhat earlier his uncle, Francis Blanchini, had put forth only fragments of it in the third volume of his edition of Anastasius.

By this means it became possible for the learned Mansi to establish f158 several chronological points still more accurately than the Bollandist had done, and all the learned now follow him almost unanimously. But even Mansi has left sufficient room for others to glean after him, so that in the following pages it will be seen that on many points it was necessary to depart from him and to strike out a way of our own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the beginning of the business the Pope himself appeared in the assembly and explained that he was grateful to the King for its being called, that he saw in it the fulfillment of his own wish, and that he himself accorded to the Synod the authority necessary for the examination of the matter. At the same time, he hoped that the Visitor, who, in opposition to religion and the rules and ordinances of the Fathers, had been demanded by a portion of the clergy, or by some of the laity, should be immediately removed by the assembled bishops, and that there should without delay be restored to him, the Pope, all that he had lost through his enemies, and that the bishop of so exalted a city should be replaced in his previous position. Then, and not before, he would reply to the accusations brought against him. To the majority of the bishops this seemed not unfitting; but the Synod did not venture to take any resolution without the assent of the King. Theoderic, however, gave order that Symmachus must first, and before he should be reinstated in all the property of the Church, answer the accusation of his enemies. As the Pope would not agree, this Synod remained without result. f161 In agreement with this, although much more brief, is our third original document, the Vita Symmachi , if we rightly understand its text, which in this place is certainly somewhat corrupt, which relates that a portion of the bishops and senators (so these also were at the Synod) were unwilling to place everything in the power of Symmachus, that is, to restore immediately to him the property of the Church, which he demanded; and that (by others) it was declared, that the Roman bishop could be judged by no one, even if he were guilty of such crimes as those of which Symmachus was accused. f162 From the second source, finally, from the already mentioned letter of King Theoderic of August 8, 501, we see that by this time several bishops had left Rome without giving a decision, and that the rest appealed to the King, and requested him to hold a new Synod in his residence at Ravenna. In his answer, which was addressed to Lawrence of Milan, Marcellinus of Aquileia, and Peter of Ravenna, as the heads of the Synod, he praises them and their colleagues, that they had not, like the others, in a thoughtless manner, left the city without the permission of the King. He said he should bring together a new Synod on the 1st of September, by means of which the subject in suspense might be settled by general resolution, and that the Synod should be at Rome, as he had reasons for not complying with the wish of the bishops in regard to Ravenna. In case, however, peace and tranquillity should not be restored by means even of the new Synod, he would put aside all his other business and come himself to Rome. f163 In a second letter of VI. Kal. Sept. (August 27) of the same year, the King again required of the bishops who had been summoned to the Synod, to restore the peace of the Church in Rome. He said he had placed all things in their hands. He had also sent the royal house stewards Gudila and Bedeulphus, together with Arigernus, to Rome, in order to manage that Bishop Symmachus should appear before the Synod. They would give him adequate security to enable him to come over to the other side of the city and appear before the Synod. f166 As first and chief source of information respecting the new Synod, held in Rome, September 1,501, the third under Symmachus, we employ the Acts of the following or fourth Synod, which have already proved most serviceable to us in reference to the second Synod. We learn from these that the bishops met in the Basilica of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem, called also the Basilica Sessoriana after the former owner of the place, and that the Synod was under the influence of the enemies of Symmachus, who repeatedly stirred up tumults against him. In this document a double wrong is mentioned. They had first maintained that the King himself had got to know that the Pope was guilty; but again this statement was shown to be untrue. Besides this, they had in the second place demanded that the Pope’s own servants (slaves) should be brought forward as witnesses against him, whereas there should be the same rule for ecclesiastical as for civil trials, that slaves should not be allowed to appear against their masters.

These Acts inform us further, that when the Pope appeared to defend himself, his enemies fell upon him and his attendants, so that many priests were wounded, and many would have been killed if the three royal stewards had not prevented it, and conveyed the Pope back to his residence within the walls of S. Peter’s. This occurrence was reported by the Synod to the King, and the Pope was requested to appear personally for the second time. He replied that he had humbled himself at first to clear himself, and had almost been put to death; but that now (he would appear no more and) the King might decide concerning what was right. f168 With this agrees our second source, a letter of the Synod to the King, thanking him for sending the three stewards. In this the bishops say: “In our second session we sent deputies to the Pope, so that he might appear for trial. But he answered: ‘At the beginning, without any hesitation I hastened into the meeting, and placed my privileges (of not being judged by others) at the will of the King, recognised the authority of the Synod, and in accordance with ecclesiastical rule demanded the restitution of the churches and the property of the Church; but instead of my request being granted, I and my clergy met with cruel ill-treatment (crudeliter mactatus sum ). I therefore no longer submit myself to examination by the Synod, and it remains for God and the King to decide my case in the future.’ For this reason we sent the house-steward Arigernus to him, and he can himself acquaint you with the answer which he received from him. We can now do no more. According to the canons, all bishops have a right of appeal to the Pope; but what is to be done when the Pope himself appeals? We cannot pronounce his condemnation in his absence, nor can we declare him as guilty of obstinacy, since he (at first) presented himself before the judges, and especially as it has never yet happened that a Pope was tried by bishops. We have, besides, done all that was possible to restore peace to the Church in Rome, and have exhorted the clergy of the city to peace; but they have disregarded our wholesome exhortation, so that it now remains for the King to make provision for the peace of the Church. Finally, we ask permission to be allowed to return home.” f170 The nature of the wholesome admonition referred to, which was addressed by the Synod to the Roman clergy, we learn more clearly from the third source, the author of the Vita Symmachi . He says that the bishops (aliquanti episcopi only according to him) repeatedly called upon the clergy who had fallen away from Symmachus to return without delay to his obedience; but that they put off, and required that Symmachus should either clear himself of the charges against him or be deposed from his spiritual office. f171 The King was indignant with the Synod for not having settled the controversy in hand, and for having (at the end of their letter) even passed on the matter to him. He replied therefore, on the 1st of October 501, that, if he had wished to decide the controversy, he would with God’s help have established the right, and so have given peace to the present and to the succeeding generation. But he had not regarded it as his business de ecclesiasticis negotiis aliquid censere , and that therefore he had convoked the bishops from different provinces and given over the whole matter to them for decision. It was their business to decide what seemed good to them, and not to expect from him the form of their judgment. He submitted entirely to their consideration and their conscience the question whether they would consider the offenses charged against Symmachus as deserving punishment or not. They might do about this as they would, and as they would have to answer before God, only it was their business to restore peace to the Roman Church (by pronouncing which was the legitimate Pope), so that no division and disorder should remain. f172 It is probable that in delivering this royal missive the royal Anagnosticus (Lector) read a further communication from Theoderic to the Synod which was still assembled in Rome, which in part had the same contents with the one just quoted, but also contained a fresh exhortation to the bishops to judge justly and impartially. If, however, they should come to no definite decision, this would be a bad example to give to others and to the future.

If we rightly understand the close of this edict, the three house-stewards were in it instructed to extend every possible protection to Pope Symmachus in case he should be willing to come to the Synod; and the Synod was commanded to give over the Lateran, as well the building as the area, to him in whose favor their judgment might be given. f173 Upon this the bishops assembled anew on the 23rd of October 501 (where, the minutes do not say), and this is the assembly which is called by Mansi and others the third, but by the Acts, and with propriety, the fourth. f174 Thus, e .g ., Ennodius entitled his Apology, which he wrote for this Synod, as Apologeticus pro Synodo quarta Romana , and it was also called the fourth at the last Synod but one, the sixth, held under Symmachus. f176 There, too, in some MSS. it is called the Palmaris , and is often mentioned under this name by the ancients. An examination of the meaning of this title is found in Baronius, and the most probable view is that the Synod obtained this designation from the supposed place of assembly, a porticu beati Petri Apostoli , quae appellatur ad Palmaria , as Anastasius said. f177 Several scholars, particularly the Bollandist and Mansi, give the title Palmaris to the following Synod, which they call the fourth and we the fifth, but in manifest contradiction to the text of the minutes of the last Synod of this series. f180 The Acts of our Synod (the fourth) begin with the statement that it was held by command of King Theoderic under the consulate of Rufus Magnus Faustus Avienus, by which, as has already been mentioned † (p. 63), we are to understand only the one consul of the West. We must therefore read viro clarissimo consule instead of viris clarissimis consulibus . Accordingly this Synod belongs to the year 501, and must not be removed into the following year, as Baronius has done. It is quite true that the consul for the year 502 had the same name Rufus Magnus Faustus Avienus; but when the latter is meant, Junior is added, whilst naturally, in the year 501, the elder Avienus was quoted simply and without the addition of Senior , since there was at that time no Junior as consul. But Pagi (ad ann . 503) is more astray than Baronius when he ascribes this assembly to the year 503, arbitrarily rejecting the chronological datum which, as we have said, is found in the minutes, and thus makes it later than the following Synod.

Immediately after the introduction just noticed, the Acts of the Synodus Palmaris give first a brief historical survey of the two previous assemblies of the same year, 501, i .e . of the second Synod held at Easter 501 in the Church of S. Julius, and of the third Synod held on September 1 in the Basilica of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem. We have already related the contents of this part. Next comes an extract from the letter of Theoderic of October 1, mentioned above, after which the Synod proceeds to draw up its own decrees. On account of the high consideration of Peter which had descended to his successors, they said, they had not ventured to pass judgment upon the Pope, but preferred to leave this to God, to whom all secrets were open. In regard to men, therefore, Symmachus was freed from all the charges, and all who had fallen away from him should return to his obedience, at the same time almost the whole people had remained steadfast to him. It would thus belong to Symmachus to celebrate the holy mysteries in all the churches of his jurisdiction, and everyone must receive the communion from him. The clergy, moreover, who had previously separated from him, must render him satisfaction, and then ask for forgiveness and be reinstated in their offices. Those clergy, on the contrary, who should in future venture to celebrate Mass in any sacred place in Rome without his consent should be punished as schismatics. The minutes were signed by seventy-six bishops, at the head of whom stood Lawrence of Milan and Peter of Ravenna. f182 When the Acts of the Synod were received in Gaul, the bishops there, being unable, in consequence of the dismemberment of the empire, to hold a Synod, commissioned Bishop Avitus of Vienne to express his judgment on this important matter in their name and in his own. Avitus therefore addressed a letter to the two senators, Faustus and Symmachus.

In this letter he first complains that Christian bishops had accepted a command from the King to sit in judgment on the Pope, but commends them for having themselves seen the impropriety, and expressed their sense of it. In his double capacity of bishop and Roman senator, he adjures his senatorial colleagues to have the same care for the Roman Church as for the State, and to restore its peace.

We learn from the author of the Vita Symmachi that the resolutions of the Synodus Palmaris unfortunately did not obtain universal acceptance, but, on the contrary, those clerics and senators who belonged to the opposition presented a new memorial to the King in favor of Lawrence, who had for some time taken up his abode in the residence city of Ravenna, in order to be safe from Symmachus. They represented that it was prescribed by the canons that every bishop was bound to remain in the church for which he had been consecrated, and that therefore Lawrence should return to Rome and preside over the church for which he had been consecrated a considerable time ago. Lawrence did, in fact, return to Rome (probably at the beginning of the year 502), and remained there four years, during which time the strife of the parties went on with violence, and both sides repeatedly appealed to the King. f184 In this interval falls the fifth (otherwise called the fourth) Synod, assembled by Pope Symmachus on the 6th of November 502, under the consulate of the younger Avienus, in S. Peter’s Church in Rome, which, as we know, was in his hands. Baronius regards this Synod as only a new session of the Palmaris , proceeding upon the assumption already disproved, that this Synod also belonged to the year 502. Pagi, however (ad ann . 502-503), has reversed the order, and placed our fifth Synod before the Palmaris . At the very beginning of the minutes of this Synod it is mentioned that there were present eighty-one bishops, thirty-four priests, and four deacons, all Italians; whilst the subscriptions, of which Mansi gives two copies from different MSS., contain rather fewer names. These numbers were, to a large extent, the same as at the previous Synod.

First of all, Pope Symmachus addressed the assembly, and commended them for their previous resolutions (in the Synodus Palmaris ). He then ordered the deacon Hormisdas to read a document which, two decades before, had been put forth by Basil, the Proefectus Proetorio under Odoacer, at an assembly of the Roman clergy in S. Peter’s Church, and contained a command that they should not, after the death of Pope Simplicius (A.D. 483), elect a successor to him without the permission of the King. The same decree forbade every Pope to alienate any portion of the goods and ornaments of the churches under penalty of anathema to the vendor, and other penalties for the purchaser. During the reading of this passage the Synod expressed its indignation that a layman should threaten anathema to a cleric (the Pope who sold), and several bishops of distinction, particularly Lawrence of Milan, Peter of Ravenna, and Eulalius of Syracuse, immediately declared this edict as invalid, because no Pope had subscribed, and because no layman had the right to issue instructions respecting the property of the Church. Indeed, even bishops, according to the ancient canons, had no right to give decisions respecting the property of the Church without the assent of the Metropolitan or Primus (see vol. 2, sec. 113). Least of all could a layman, when no Pope, who had the primacy of the whole world, was present, make disposition of Church matters.

The whole Synod concurred in this judgment, and declared the decree in question wholly invalid, and at the same time forbade any layman, however pious or powerful, to put forth ordinances on Church property, since the care of such things was by God intrusted to the priesthood alone. In order, however, to protect the property of the Church, and to shame his enemies who had accused him of squandering it, Pope Symmachus now published the law, that henceforth no occupant of the apostolic see should finally dispose by sale or exchange of any estate, small or great, belonging to the Church, and that the proceeds of such should accrue to no others than clerics, prisoners, and strangers; only the houses of the Church in cities, the maintenance of which was very expensive, might be exchanged after a fair valuation. This law should apply not merely to the Pope, but also to the occupants of all particular churches in Rome, whether priests or not.

Finally, everyone selling Church property was threatened with loss of his dignity; every buyer, and everyone who signed such a contract of sale as witness, with anathema, and the clergy were authorized to claim back all alienated Church property and its proceeds. This whole law, however, was to apply only to Rome, and not to the provinces, since there the local bishops had themselves to arrange what was suitable. f186 Occasion for a new Synod was given by the continued acts of enmity committed by the opposition party. In order to destroy the importance of the fourth Synod (the Palmaris ), which had acquitted Symmachus, the opponents published a memorial with the title: “Contra synodum absolutionis incongruae” (against the Synod of the improper absolution).

But Ennodius, of whom we have heard, came forward with his Apologeticus pro Synodo quarta Romana . We learn from this the objections which the enemies of Symmachus brought against that Synod, namely, that all the bishops had not been summoned by the King to the assembly, that not all who were present had agreed in the decision, that they had not heard the Pope’s accusers (his own slaves), that the members of the Synod had been too old, that they had not sufficiently attended to the command of the King, and had involved themselves in a contradiction; since, on the one hand, they had maintained that the Pope could not be judged by his inferiors, and yet had brought him before them; and, moreover, that it was something new for a Pope to convoke a Council in order to defend himself against accusations.

Thereupon the sixth (otherwise the fifth) Synod under Symmachus was held at Rome after the consulate of Avienus, as the Acts say, and so in the year 503 (the month unknown), ante confessionem B . Petri , i .e . before the grave of S. Peter. At the very beginning the memorial of Ennodius, already mentioned, was publicly read, universally approved, and its preservation and introduction into the Acts of the Synod between the minutes of the fourth and fifth assemblies ordered, with which Symmachus entirely agreed. The members of the Synod then demanded that the opponents and accusers of the Pope should be punished, and saluted himself with loud shouts of joy. He, on his part, entreated that they would be gentle with them according to the word of Christ, that he who wished to be forgiven by God must also forgive his brethren. In order, however, that for the future nothing of the kind should be attempted against a Pope, there was no need, he said, for any new ordinances, since the old were sufficient, and these were now read, confirmed anew, and embodied in the minutes. f189 At the same time, the Synod appointed the punishment for the transgression of these laws. Again acclamations broke out in honor of Symmachus, and all the bishops present joined with him in subscribing. f190 After the Pope came next the bishops already mentioned, Lawrence of Milan, Peter of Ravenna, and Eulalius of Syracuse. The MSS. still extant give 214 names (not 218 as in the superscription); but probably some subscriptions of earlier Councils have been added by mistake to the genuine subscriptions of this Synod, for there occur among the 214 several names of bishops who had been present at the Council of Chalcedon more than fifty years before. f191 The last Synod of this series is called the sixth at the beginning of the Acts, which, however, are the work of a later collector of Councils, and not of its own secretaries. As already shown, it was really the seventh, and was held under the presidency of Pope Symmachus on the 1st of October, probably in the year 504, and again in S. Peter’s Church. On the proposal of the Pope, the older laws against the embezzlers of Church property, and against the misconduct of priests, were again brought to remembrance, and confirmed with many acclamations: “Whoever possesses the property of the Church without permission of the bishop, and dares to persist in possession, and conceals the property of God from His servants, shall first be expelled from the Church by the bishop of the place. Those who do not amend are to be regarded and punished as murderers of the poor. But the punishment must be preceded by a clear admonition.

Moreover, the excuse is inadmissible, that anyone possesses ecclesiastical property as a present from the King or any other secular power.” Upon this the 7th and 8th canons of Gangra in reference to the property of the Church † (see vol. 2, page 327 sqq.) were repeated and explained, that it was a gross sacrilege if Christians, and especially Christian rulers and princes, should alienate to others what someone, for his soul’s health, had presented to the Church; and all were threatened with eternal anathema who should unrighteously possess or accept Church property, or should give, lend, or bequeath it to their heirs. f193 The minutes of this Synod, which are drawn up at unusual length, were signed by the Pope and 103 other bishops. Some MSS. have still more subscriptions; but in these the names of the bishops as well as of their sees are given incorrectly. Immediately after the Pope, in this case, came the signature of Peter, bishop of Ravenna. But Lawrence of Milan does not appear, although he was still alive, and did not die until the year 512. We know, moreover, from Cassiodorus, that King Theoderic regarded the decisions of the Synod as valid, and recommended the restoration to the church of Milan of the property of which it had been deprived. In like manner, we have an edict from this King, dated March 11, 507, in which he declared the similar ordinance of the fifth Synod to be binding. f196 There is mention of another, the eighth Roman Synod under Symmachus, which anathematized the antipope and the visitator. It was discovered by Remi Ceillier (l .c .page 649) in Anastasius. He says: “Anastase fait mention d’un Concile de Rome sous Symmaque, ou il dit que ce Pape fut absous par 115 Eveques, et Pierre d’Altino, nomme Visiteur par Theoderic, condamne avec Laurent, competiteur de Symmaque, mais Ennode n’en parle pas dans son Apologetique, ni Symmaque dans le sien. Auroient-ils oublie l’un et l’autre un jugement qui ne pouvoit que fortifier leur cause?”

Remi Ceiller might, with still greater propriety, have appealed to a document of the year 506, in which the Roman deacon John, who had hitherto taken the side of the opposition, declares his submission to Symmachus in the words: “Consentiens quae, veneranda Synodus judicavit atque constituit, anathematizans Petrum Altinatem et Laurentium Romanae ecclesiae pervasorem schismaticum.” f197 It cannot be denied that another Synod, the eighth, shortly before the year 506, may have pronounced the sentence of condemnation on the visitator and the pretender to the papacy, but it is more probable that this took place at the Synodus Palmaris , or one of the Synods immediately succeeding. If Symmachus was recognized as the only genuine Pope, as was done in the Palmaris , the rejection of his opponents was the natural consequence. We must not, however, forget that the Synodus Palmaris was subscribed by only 76 bishops, whilst Anastasius assigns 115 to his Synod. Often, however, the subscriptions are not complete, or at least have not come down to us complete.

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

SEC. 221. BYZACENE SYNOD , A.D. 504 OR 507.

It is customary to assign the Byzacene Synod (in the African province of that name, south of Carthage) to the year 504. But Labbe, even in his time, thought it more correct to place it in the year 507, because Fulgentius of Ruspe was made bishop soon after the Synod, and his elevation belonged to the year 507 or 508. Moreover, he also rightly drew attention to the fact that the assembly was not properly a Council, but only a conference of some African bishops. The only source from which we draw information respecting this Council is the disciple and biographer of S. Fulgentius of Ruspe, the deacon Fulgentius Ferrandus, and he relates that at the time when the Vandal and Arian King Thrasamund exiled the largest number of the orthodox bishops of Africa, and forbade others to ordain, those who still remained had formed the resolution, in spite of this prohibition, to care for the orphaned churches, and that in consequence many priests and deacons were in all haste consecrated bishops. f202 SEC. 222. SYNOD AT AGDE (AGATHA), A.D. 506.

Of greater importance is the Concilium Agathense , which was celebrated at Agde in South Gaul, near the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, in the province of Languedoc, in September 506. There were thirty-five bishops present, and thirty-four subscribed. At their head, as is shown by the subscription, stood Archbishop Caesarius of Arles, and in a short preface to the canons the bishops state that they had met in S. Andrew’s Church at Agde with the permission of the West Gothic (Arian) King Alaric, in order to take counsel on discipline, on the ordination of clergy and bishops, and on matters useful to the Church. In the Collections of the Councils there are ordinarily seventy-one canons of this Synod published, which were regarded as genuine by Gratian, and which he received almost in their complete form into his Decretum . Besides, we find both in his works and in the older collections of Burchard of Worms and Ivo of Chartres, some other canons ascribed to this Synod. But it was pointed out by Sirmond that only forty-seven belong to it; all the others are lacking in the oldest manuscripts of the Conciliar Acts, and proceed from other Synods, although they were at an early period placed among the canons of Agde. The forty-seven genuine canons have the following content: — 1. After the reading of the earlier ordinances, De digamis non ordinandis , particularly of the 1st canon of the Synod of Valence, A.D. 374 † (see vol. 2, page 289), the Council softened the ancient harshness to the extent that those Bigami or husbands of widows who had already been ordained, should retain the title (dignity) of the presbyterate and diaconate, but that such priests should not consecrate (say Mass), and such deacons should not serve (at the altar). 2. Disobedient clerics were to be punished by the bishop. If any among them should presumptuously despise the communion (of the bishop), not attend the church, and not fulfill their office, the peregrina communio should be given to them until they return. Remi Ceillier (l .c . page 657), under reference to the dissertation of Jacobus Dominicus, De communione peregrina , explains this expression thus: They were, like strange clergy, to communicate after the rest of the clergy, but before the laity. This explanation, however, is incorrect. The true meaning is recognised by Aubespine, and after him by Bingham, who has written a whole dissertation on this term. They remark that just as strangers, even when they have no letters of peace, were yet provided with all that was necessary, and were received into the communio benignitatis , but not to the communio altaris , so they dealt temporarily with disobedient clerics, in order to reform them, and that this temporary exclusion from the church was a much slighter punishment than the permanent removal into communio laicalis . f209 The same explanation is given by Bohmer in his edition of the Corpus jur . can . in the note to c. 21, Dist. 50, where we find our canon of Gratian adduced. 3. If a bishop has excommunicated anyone who is innocent, or who has committed only a very slight fault, the neighboring bishops should advise him; and if he does not comply, they should not, at the next Synod, deny the communion to the excommunicated person, so that he may not through the fault of others die without this. (In the old collection of Church ordinances of Burchard, the end of this canon runs as follows: “If the bishop will not follow his colleagues, they shall exclude him from their communion until the next Synod.”) In the Corpus jur . can . our canon is c. 8, Causa 11, q. 3. 4. Clerics and laymen who take back presents made to the Church or to a monastery by their ancestors or themselves, shall be excommunicated as murderers of the poor. See above, sec. 220; cf. c. 11, C. 13, q. 2. 5. If a cleric has stolen anything from the church, he shall be removed into communio perigrina (cf. c. 2). In the Corpus jur . can . this canon is united with the previous one as c. 11, C. 13, q. 2. 6. What is left or presented to a bishop, whether to him and the Church alike or to him alone, belongs, not to the bishop as personal property, but is the property of the Church; for the giver meant to care for the salvation of his soul, not for the use of the bishop. Justice also requires that, as the bishop enjoys that which is bequeathed to the Church, so the Church should have what is presented to the bishop. If, however, anything is left in trust to the bishop or to the Church, with the intention of its coming afterwards to another, the Church must not retain this as property, cf. c. 3, C. 12, q. 3. This canon was repeated in c. 20 of the Synod of Reims, A.D. 625. 7. No bishop shall alienate the buildings, slaves, or furniture belonging to the Church, because they are the property of the poor. In case of its being necessary, however, to give anything, in the interest of the Church, for sale or for usufruct, this can be done only with the consent and subscription of two or three neighboring comprovincial bishops.

Moreover, if a bishop grants their liberty to any slaves who have made themselves deserving of it, his successors must respect this act, and must also leave them that which his predecessor had presented to them in fields, vineyards, and dwelling, only that it must not exceed twenty solidi in value. If what was given is worth more, the excess must be restored after the death of the emancipator. Insignificant and less useful goods of the Church may be given to strangers and clerics for usufruct, with reservation of the Church’s right of possession. Cf. c. 1, C. 10, q. 2. 8. If a cleric leaves his office and has recourse to a secular judge on account of (ecclesiastical) punishment (i .e . to escape it), then he and the judge who admits him shall be excommunicated. Cf. c. 1, C. 21, q. 5. 9. If married deacons or priests wish to return to the nuptial couch, the ordinances of Popes Innocent and Siricius shall apply. For this reason the Ordinatio Innocentii , which also includes the older ordinance of Siricius, was appended to this canon. Both require that such incontinent clerics shall be deprived of all ecclesiastical dignities and offices. Only those who did not know that the continuance of marital intercourse was forbidden, may be allowed to retain their office, if they abstain for the future. 10. A cleric must not visit strange women nor have them in his house; and he must live only with his mother, or sister, or daughter, or niece. 11. Female slaves also and freedwomen must be removed from the service and from the house of a cleric. 12. All members of the Church must fast daily during Lent, even on Saturdays, Sundays alone being excepted. Cf. c. 9, De Consecrat . Dist. 3. 13. In all churches the sacrament of baptism is to be administered to the candidates on the same day, namely, eight days before Easter. Cf. c. 56, De Consecrat . Dist. 4. 14. The altars are not only to be anointed with chrism, but are also to be blessed. Cf. c. 32, De Consecrat . Dist. 1. 15. Penitents shall receive from the priest the imposition of hands and a cilicium upon the head. If, however, they do not cut off their hair and change their clothes, they must be rejected. Young people, on account of the weakness of their age, must not lightly be admitted to penance. But the Viaticum is not to be refused to anyone who is near death. Cf. c. 63, Dist. 1. 16. The bishop must ordain no one a deacon who is not twenty-five years old. If a young married man wishes to be ordained, he must be asked whether his wife also agrees, and is willing to depart from her husband’s abode and practice continence. Cf. c. 6, Dist. 77. 17. A priest or bishop must be thirty years old before being ordained. (Gratian has united this canon with the previous one in c. 6, Dist. 77.) 18. Laymen who do not communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost are not to be regarded as Catholics. Cf. c. 19, De Consecrat .

Dist. 2. 19. Nuns (Sanctimoniales), however their morals may be approved, must not receive the veil before they are forty years old. Cf. c. 13, C. 20, q. 1. 20. If clerics are careful of their hair, it must be cut off even against their will by the archdeacon; and they must wear only becoming clothes and shoes. Cf. c. 22, Dist. 23. 21. Divine service may be held in oratories, but not at Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, Pentecost, the Nativity of S. John the Baptist, or other great festivals. On these days all must attend the parochial service. The ecclesiastic who says Mass on those days in an oratory is excommunicated. Cf. c. 35, De Consecrat . Dist. 1. 22. Priests and clerics in towns, etc., may spend for themselves the Church property which the bishop has assigned to them, but they are not to sell it or give it away. Cf. c. 32, C. 12, q. 2. 23. A bishop must not with partiality pass over a blameless cleric and prefer a younger to him. If, however, the elder is not fitted for the archidiaconate, then the better qualified for the administration of the Church should be chosen by the bishop. Cf. c. 5, Dist. 74. 24. In regard to children exposed, the ordinance of the older Council (of Vaison, c. 9, above, sec. 163) remains in force. 25. Laymen who separate themselves from their unfaithful wives without having waited for the sentence of the comprovincial bishops, in order unlawfully to enter into other unions, must be excluded from Church communion and from intercourse with the faithful. Cf. c. 1, C. 33, q. 2, and c. 2 of the Council of Vannes, A.D. 465; see above, sec. 211. 26. If a cleric secretes or suppresses documents by which the Church can prove her right to a possession, or delivers them up to her opponents, he shall be excommunicated, and condemned to pay an indemnity. And the same shall be done to anyone who has tempted him to it. Cf. c. 33, C. 12, q. 2. 27. No one is allowed to build or found a new convent without permission of the bishop. Monks are not to be ordained clerics without a testimonial from their abbot; and no abbot must receive a strange monk unless his abbot gives his permission. Cf. c. 12, C. 18, q. 2. 28. Women’s convents must not be placed in the neighborhood of men’s convents, as well because of the cunning of Satan as because of the evil report of men. Cf. c. 23, C. 18, q. 2. 29. The Church shall protect those who have been regularly liberated by their masters. Cf. c. 7, Dist. 87. 30. Divine service shall everywhere be held in the same manner. After the Antiphons, the Collects shall be said by the bishops or priests, the hymni matutini and vespertini be daily sung. At the close of matins and vespers (which are here called Missoe , see above, sec. 219), after the hymns, chapters out of the Psalms shall be said, and the people after the vesper prayer shall be dismissed by the bishop with a blessing. Cf. c. 13, De Consecrat . Dist. 5. 31. Those who for a long time have enmity with one another shall first be admonished by the priest, and if they persist, shall be excommunicated. Cf. c. 9, Dist. 40. 32. A cleric must not without permission of the bishop sue anyone before the secular judge. If he is himself sued in this manner, he may answer; but he himself must bring no charge, least of all a criminal accusation, before the secular judge. If, however, a layman has falsely accused a cleric, he shall be excluded from the Church, and from the communion of Catholics. Gratian out of this canon made two, namely, c. 17, C. 11, q. 1, and c. 8, C. 5, q. 6; but he brought in non before respondeat , so as to give this meaning: “If a cleric is summoned before a secular tribunal, he must not answer.” But in all the old and good MSS. the negation is wanting, as Sirmond assures us. f212 33. If a bishop has no sons or grandsons, and appoints anyone save the Church his heir, then all that he has derived from the revenues of his Church and not spent for ecclesiastical purposes, and so saved, shall be deducted from what he has left. If, however, he has left sons, these shall see the Church unharmed in regard to the inheritance (by giving up a portion of it). Cf. c. 34, C. 12, q. 2. 34. If Jews wish to become Catholics, since they may so readily return to their vomit, they must remain eight months as catechumens before they can be baptized. Only if they come near to death may they receive baptism earlier. Cf. c. 93, De Consecrat . Dist. 4. 35. If the metropolitan summons the comprovincial bishops either to the ordination of a bishop or to a Synod, they must appear on the day appointed. Only serious illness or the command of the king excuses. If they do not appear, they remain, in accordance with the ancient canons, excluded from communion until the next Synod. Cf. above, sec. 113, c. 11 of the sixth Synod of Carthage; and sec. 200, note on c. 20 of the Synod of Chalcedon; also below, sec. 229, c. 6 of the Synod of Tarragona, where the idea of the excommunication here threatened is more fully discussed. In Corpus jur . can . our canon appears as c. 13, Dist. 18. 36. All clerics who faithfully serve the Church shall be rewarded by the bishops after their deserving, and in accordance with the ordinances of the canons. Cf. c. 10, C. 1, q. 2. 37. Murderers and false witnesses must be excluded from Church communion, unless they have expiated their crimes by penance and satisfaction. Compare c. 1 of the Synod of Vannes, above, sec. 211; and c. 20, C. 24, q. 3. 38. Clerics must not travel without the epistoloe commendatitioe of the bishop. So also the monks; and if they do not attend to this admonition, they must be beaten. Monks are not allowed to separate from the community and occupy separate cells (huts), unless when they are under probation or in case of sickness, when the abbot may soften the stringency of the rule for them. But even then they must (in their separate cells) remain within the walls of the monastery and under the supervision of the abbot. The abbots must not have several cells or monasteries. Only in case of hostile attacks they may (outside the monastery) erect residences inside the walls of a city. The same was ordained by the Synod of Vannes, A.D. 465, in canons 5 to 8; see above sec. 211. Gratian has our canon as c. 43, C. 20, q. 4. 39. Priests, deacons, subdeacons, or others not permitted to marry, must not be present at the marriages of others, nor in companies where erotic and indecent songs are sung, etc. A repetition of c. 11 of the Council of Vannes (sec. 211), and cf. c. 19, Dist. 34. 40. Clerics and laity must not participate in the meals of the Jews. — This is forbidden by the Synod of Vannes (c. 12) to the clergy alone. In Gratian this canon stands as e. 14, C. 28, q. 1. 41. A clergyman who gets intoxicated must, as far as his position permits, be excommunicated for thirty days, or corporally chastised.

Cf. c. 13 of the Synod of Vannes, and c. 9, Dist. 35. 42. Clerics and laymen who meddle with the sortes sanctorum must be excluded from the church. Cf. c. 16 of the Synod of Vannes (sec. 211), and c. 2, C. 26:q. 5. 43. Whoever has undergone ecclesiastical penance is forbidden, in accordance with previous synodal ordinances (of. sec. 112), to become a cleric. If he is already ordained, he shall be regarded like one who has married a second time, or a widow. — If a priest, he is not to consecrate; if a deacon, he is not to serve (see above, c. 1). Our canon is found out of place, and combined with the following one in Gratian, c. 3, C. 26, q. 6. 44. The priest must not bless the people and the penitents in the church. Cf. c. 3, C. 26, q. 6. 45. Small fields and vineyards which are of small use to the Church, and are situated at a distance, may be alienated by the bishop without consulting his brethren. — This is an abridgment of c. 7. Received by Gratian into c. 53, C. 12, q. 2. 46. Slaves also who have run away, and who, when recovered, can scarcely be retained, the bishop is at liberty to sell. Cf. c. 54, C. 12, q. 2. 47. On Sundays all laymen must be present at the whole Mass, so that they are not allowed to depart before the blessing. If, nevertheless, they do so, they shall be publicly censured by the bishop. Cf. c. 64, De Consecrat . Dist. 1.

So far the genuine canons of the Synod of Agde extend. In addition, as we have remarked, there are others ascribed to this Synod, as follows: — 48. The bishop may leave to his heirs what belonged to him as private property. But what he received from the Church must remain to the Church. Cf. c. 19, C. 12, q. 1. 49. Deacons and priests who are appointed to a parish may not alienate anything of the ecclesiastical property intrusted to them. So with the sacerdotes (bishops). If, nevertheless, they do so, and if they are convicted of it in a Council, they are to be deposed, and they must make restitution. If, however, the bishops wish to give liberty to any belonging to the churches under their care (i .e . slaves which are Church property), they must in doing so follow the process prescribed by the Church. If they fail in this, they (who were freed) must return to their former service. Gratian divided this canon into two, c. 35 and c. 56, C. 12, q. 2. 50. If a bishop, priest, or deacon has committed a capital offense, has falsified a document, or given false witness, he shall be deposed, and imprisoned in a monastery, where for his whole life he shall receive only lay communion. — This is c. 22 of the Synod of Epaon (sec. 231), below, and is found in the Corpus jur . can . as c. 7, Dist. 1. 51. A bishop must not bequeath by will any Church property. — This is c. 17 of the Synod of Epaon, taken into the Corpus jur . can . as c. 5, C. 12, q. 5. 52. If a priest, or deacon, or any other cleric travels without a letter from his bishop, no one is to receive him to communion. — This is c. of the Synod of Epaon. 53. If a parish priest (parochiarum presbyter ) alienates any Church property, his act is invalid. Cf. c. 36, C. 12, q. 2. 54. The priest who administers a parish should allow what he purchases to be put down in the name of the Church, or he should resign the administration of the Church. — This is c. 8 of the Synod of Epaon, and is placed by Gratian as c. 3, C. 12, q. 4. 55. Bishops, priests, and deacons are not allowed to have hunting hounds and falcons. The bishop who does so shall abstain three months from the communion, the priest two months, the deacon shall be excluded for one month from all service and from the communion. — This is c. 4 of the Synod of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 2, Dist. 34. 56. If an abbot sells anything without the bishop’s knowledge, it may be recovered by the bishop. Slaves who belong to monks must not be set free by the abbot; for it is unfitting that, whilst the monks daily till the ground, their servants should be idle. — This is a portion of the 8th canon of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 40, C. 17, q. 4. 57. An abbot must not preside over two abbeys. Cf. above, c. 38 and c. 39 of Epaon; also c. 4, C. 21, q. 1. 58. New cells (small monasteries) or small congregations of monks may not be set up without the knowledge of the bishop. — This is c. of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 13, C. 18, q. 2. 59. If a cleric has possession of Church property ever so long, it does not become his private property. — This is c. 18 of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 11, C. 16, q. 3. 60. Punishment of one who has lapsed from the Church and gone over to a heresy. — This is c. 29 of Epaon. 61. Incestuous unions are entirely prohibited. The different kinds of incest are enumerated in detail. — This is c. 30 of Epaon. In Gratian, c. 5, C. 35, q. 2 and 3. 62. = c. 34 of Epaon. 63. = c. 35 of Epaon. 64. If a cleric is not present in his church on the great festivals, he shall be excommunicated for three years; and so also the priest or deacon who leaves his church for three weeks. Cf. c. 29, C. 7, q. 1. 65. = c. 20 of Laodicea (in vol. 2). In Gratian, c. 15, Dist. 93. 66. Unordained servers must not take a place in the Diaconicum , nor touch the holy vessels. This is identical with c. 21 of Laodicea (vol. 2, page 313); only that here the reference is only to insacratis ministris , whilst at Laodicea it is to servers (subdeacons) generally. Cf. c. 26, Dist. 23. 67. = c. 31 of Laodicea (vol. 2, page 316). 68. = c. 36 of Laodicea (vol. 2, page 318). 69. Agitators must never be ordained, nor yet usurers or such as have taken personal vengeance. Cf. c. 8, Dist. 46. 70. A cleric who makes a buffoon of himself, or talks obscenely must be discharged from his office. Cf. c. 6, Dist. 46. 71. Synods shall be held annually. f214 Some other canons supposed to proceed from the Synod of Agde are found in the Corpus jur . can . c. 25, Dist. 86; c. 4, C. 14, q. 3; and c. 12, C. 2, q. 4. Further, in the old collections of Ivo and Burchard, in Mansi, l .c . page 338 sqq.

SEC. 223. SUPPOSED SYNOD AT TOULOUSE, CONCILIABULUM AT ANTIOCH, A.D. 507 AND 508.

Ruricius, the aged bishop of Lemovicum (Limoges), was not present at the Synod of Agde on account of bodily infirmity. From the correspondence which took place between him and the president of the Synod, Archbishop Caesarius of Arles, we learn that in the following year (507) a Synod was held at Toulouse (situated, like Agde, in the West Gothic kingdom), and that Spanish bishops also were invited to it. In consequence of this many, especially of the older historians, suppose a Synod of Toulouse to have been held A.D. 507, without giving any further information about it.

But Baluze even in his time showed that such a Synod could not have been held, since at that very time the Frankish King Chlodwig overcame the Gothic King Alaric II. in war and killed him (507), so that the West Gothic kingdom, full of the noise of war, afforded no facility for peaceful discussions at Synods.

Theophanes gives us intelligence of an Antiochene Conciliabulum, A.D. or 509. At the command of the Greek Emperor Anastasius, Flavian, archbishop of Antioch, had shortly before signed the infamous Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno (see vol. 3, sec. 208), and now assembled the bishops who were under him at a Synod, the decree of which, now lost, solemnly recognised the Synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, but passed over that of Chalcedon in silence; pronounced anathemas over Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; and put forth four chapters (propositions), presumably the work of Acacius of Constantinople, which, in opposition to the doctrine of Chalcedon, combat the expression “in two natures.” f217 SEC. 224. FIRST SYNOD OF ORLEANS, A.D. 511.

After Clovis (Chlodwig), king of the Franks, had conquered the portion of the West Gothic kingdom which lay in Gaul (507 and 508), he summoned a great Synod to Orleans, Aurelianensis I., on the 10th of July 511, at which there were present not only bishops of the Frankish, but also of the former West Gothic kingdom, altogether thirty two, among them five metropolitans, Cyprian of Bordeaux (probably president of the Synod), Tetradius of Bourges, Licinius of Tours, Leontius of Elusa (Eauze), and Gildared of Rouen. Many of those present had been members of the Synod of Agde, from which many canons were now repealed at Orleans. That Chlodwig had invited the bishops to the Synod is stated in the short preface which they prefixed to the minutes, and is clear also from the letter of the Synod to Chlodwig, which mentions that he had also prescribed the points on which they should take counsel, and that the bishops had asked for the confirmation of their decrees by the King. These were the thirty-one canons which followed: — 1. If murderers, adulterers, and thieves have taken refuge in the church, then, in accordance with canonical and Roman law, they are not to be taken from the porch of the church or the residence of the bishop until an assurance has been given by an oath on the Gospels that they shall be free from all punishments (de omni poenarum genere sint securi ), on the condition that the guilty one shall give satisfaction to the injured party. Whoever breaks this oath shall be excluded from the Church and from all intercourse with Catholics. If, however, the offender will not agree to the demand laid down, and from fear flies from the church, then he shall not be required of the clergy of the church, that is, they shall not be held responsible for him. Gratian united this canon and the third as c. 36, C. 17, q. 4, in his decree. 2. If anyone has ravished a woman and flies with her into the church (for asylum), then the ravished person, if she has been manifestly subjected to violence, must immediately be set at liberty. The ravisher, however, shall be secured for further punishment, and shall either be made a slave, or he must purchase his release from slavery. If, however, the maiden has either before or after the seduction consented to it, then she shall be sent back to her father if he is still alive, with an excuse (for her deed), and the ravisher must afford satisfaction to the father in the manner prescribed (i .e . become his slave, or purchase his freedom from him). In the Corpus jur . can . c. 3, C. 36, q. 1. 3. If a slave has taken refuge in the church, he shall, if his master has taken the required oath (can. 1), be immediately sent back to him. If the master does not keep his oath, he shall be excluded from all intercourse with Catholics. If, however, the slave, in spite of his master having taken the oath for impunity, refuses to leave the church, then his master may remove him by force. Cf. c. 36, C. 17, q. 4. 4. No layman is to be ordained a cleric except by command of the King, or with concurrence of the judge. Nevertheless, the sons and descendants of clerics shall remain in the power of the bishops (i .e . such may be ordained without permission from any other quarter). 5. The products of gifts and fields granted by the King to the Church, together with the immunity of the clergy, shall be expended on the repairs of churches, the maintenance of the clergy and the poor, or for the redemption of prisoners. Bishops who are negligent herein shall be publicly censured by the comprovincial bishops; and if this does not avail, they shall be excluded from the fellowships of their colleagues. (On the meaning of this expression, cf. vol. 3, page 406, note 1 on can. 20 of Chalcedon). 6. Whoever makes claims upon a portion of the Church’s property, or of the bishop’s private property, but in a proper manner, without insults, is not from this circumstance alone to be excluded from Church communion. Cf. c. 20, C. 2, q. 7. 7. Abbots, priests, and all clerics and monks may not, without trial and recommendation by the bishop, solicit princes for ecclesiastical benefices. Whoever does so shall be deprived of his office and of communion until such time as he has done adequate penance. 8. If a slave, without knowledge of his master, has been ordained deacon or priest by the bishop to whom his servile condition was known, he shall remain in his clerical position, but the bishop must make double reparation for him to that master. But if the bishop was not aware of his being a slave, then the same compensation shall be made by those who gave testimony at his ordination (that he was free), or asked for his ordination. Cf. c. 19, Dist. 54. 9. If a deacon or priest has committed a capital offense, he shall be deprived of his office, and of communion at the same time. Cf. c. 14, Dist. 81. 10. If heretical clerics return of their own accord to the Church, for instance, from the Arian Goths, they shall receive the clerical office of which the bishop has thought them worthy with ordination by imposition of hands; and heretical churches shall be consecrated in the same manner in which Catholic churches are wont to be reconciled (innovari ). 11. Penitents (ascetics; cf. note on c. 15 of the Synod of Agde, sec. 506, above) who forget their vow and return to the secular life, shall be excluded from the communion, and from all intercourse with Catholics.

Whoever eats with them is by that act excommunicated. 12. If a deacon or presbyter has entered among the penitents to do penance (see former canon), he may nevertheless, if need arises and no other clergy are at hand, baptize anyone. Cf. c. 14, Dist. 81. 13. If the widow of a priest or deacon marries again, they shall both, she and her second husband, either be punished and separated, or, if they persist in their error, they shall together be excommunicated. Cf. c. 11, Dist. 28. 14. In accordance with the ancient canons, one-half of the oblations placed upon the altar shall belong to the bishop, the other half to the rest of the clergy. All fields, however, remain in the power (administration) of the bishop. Cf. c. 8, C. 10, q. 1. 15. All that is presented to parishes in fields, vineyards, slaves, and cattle, remains, in accordance with the ancient canons, in the power (administration) of the bishop. From that which is offered on the altar, however, he receives the third part (i .e . of the offering in the parish churches he receives only the third part, of the offering in the cathedral, according to can. 14, the half). Cf. c. 7, C. 10, q. 1. 16. The bishop shall give food and clothing to the poor or sick who can no longer work, as far as he can. Cf. c. 1, Dist. 82. 17. Churches, whether already built or yet to be built, can be recognised only with the consent of the bishop in whose diocese they lie. Cf. c. 10, C. 16, q. 7. 18. No one may marry the widow of his brother, or the sister of his deceased wife. Cf. c. 61 of Agde. 19. Abbots are under the bishop; if they transgress, they will be punished by him; and once a year they must assemble at the place fixed by the bishop. Monks, however, owe reverent obedience to their abbot.

If a monk acquires private property, the abbot shall take it from him and spend it for the convent. Monks who roam about shall, with the assistance of the bishop, be caught and brought back. The abbot who does not chastise such monks, or who receives a strange monk, is himself in fault. Cf. c. 16, C. 18, q. 2. 20. A monk may not use an orarium (pocket-handkerchief) or shoes (tzangoe ) in the monastery. Cf. c. 32, C. 27, q. 1. 21. If anyone has become a monk, and afterwards marries, he can never obtain an ecclesiastical office. — The second part of c. 32, C. 27, q. 1. 22. No monk may, without permission of the bishop and abbot, leave the monastery and build himself a cell. Cf. c. 38 of Agde, and c. 14, C. 18, q. 2. 23. If a bishop gives any goods to clerics or monks for usufruct, there arises from this, however long it may be, no prescription. Cf. c. 59 of Agde, and c. 12, C. 16, q. 3. 24. Before Easter there shall be kept, not a Quinquagesima, but a Quadragesima. Cf. c. 6, De Consecrat . Dist. 3. 25. No one must keep Easter, Christmas, or Pentecost in his villa unless he is sick. Cf. c. 21 of Agde, and c. 5, De Consecrat . Dist. 3. 26. The people must not leave the church before the end of Mass; and if a bishop is present, they shall first receive the blessing from him. Cf. c. 47 of Agde, and 65, De Consecrat . Dist. 1. 27. All churches shall celebrate the Rogations, i .e . the Litanies before Ascension Day, so that the three days’ fast ends at the Festival of the Ascension. On these three days, all man-servants and maid-servants (slaves, male and female) shall be free from labor, so that all the people may come together (at divine service). Moreover, on these three days only such foods shall be used as are permitted in Lent. Cf. c. 3, De Consecrat . Dist. 3. 28. Clerics who do not take part in this holy work (the Rogations) shall be punished according to the judgment of the bishop. Cf. c. 5, Dist. 91. 29. In regard to intercourse with strange women, the bishops, priests, and deacons must observe the earlier canons (e .g ., cc. 10 and 11 of Agde). 30. Fortune-telling, auguries, and sortes sanctorum are forbidden under pain of excommunication. Cf. c. 16 of Vannes, c. 42 of Agde, and c. 9, C. 26, q. 5. 31. A bishop, unless he is ill, must not fail in attendance at divine service on Sunday in the church which lies nearest to him. Cf. c. 4. De Consecrat . Dist. 3. f220 Besides these thirty-one genuine canons, several other doubtful ones are attributed to our Synod by Burchard, Gratian, and Ivo of Chartres, which Mansi collected, but which we have thought we might omit, as they are not found in the minutes of the Synod. Neither do we include a letter from King Chlodwig, said to have been addressed to this Synod, on the subject of the liberation of the Christians taken in the war with the West Goths. Sirmond showed long ago that this letter has no connection with our Synod, and is considerably older.

SEC. 225. ORIENTAL SYNODS ON THE MONOPHYSITE QUESTION.

The opponents of the orthodox Chalcedonian faith carried on the conflict with greater violence at a Synod at Sidon in Palestine, A.D. 511 and 512, than at the Conciliabulum of Antioch, recently mentioned. The wellknown chronicler, Count Marcellinus, who was a contemporary, relates in his Chronicle (sub cons . Pauli et Mussiani ), that, at the command of the Byzantine Emperor, Anastasius assembled about eighty unorthodox bishops at Sidon, in order to persecute the orthodox bishops. Flavian, patriarch of Antioch (who in the year 508 had shown himself weak ), and John, bishop of Paltus (in S