Opening
Braga in Spain, to which Miso, King of the Suevi (son of Theodomir), summoned the bishops of the three eccle- siastical provinces (here named utrumque concilium) of his kingdom of Galicia, A.D. 572. The two archbishops, Martin of Braga (formerly bishop of Dumium) and Niti- gisius of Lugo, were at their head, and the former presided.
1 Garsias Loaisia, the earliest editor of the Spanish Councils (Cardinal Aguirre is about a century later), supposes that we should read 600 instead of 607. In that case this Council would belong to the year 562.
2 Printed in Aguirre, Condi. Hispan. t. ii. p. 299 sqq. ; Mansi, t. ix. p. 815 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 373 sqq.
396 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
On his proposal, first of all were read the capitula of the former Synod of Braga, at which he had been present as bishop of Dumium, and for their completion two other canons were drawn up. They all refer to Church discipline ; and it is remarkable how Archbishop Martin, in the year 572, could say there is de unitate et rectitudine fidei in hoc provincia nihil dubium, whilst only nine years before the previous Synod of Braga held it necessary to oppose the Priscillianists so vehemently (see above in this section). Are we to think that this heresy had in the meantime been so weakened as to be extinguished? The 10th canon of our Synod makes reference to this. The ten canons ordain : —
1
1. Bishops must visit their dioceses and see that the clergy rightly discharge their functions, particularly that the catechumens are exorcised twenty days before baptism, and are instructed in the creed. The bishops should exhort the laity to keep far away from all worship of idols and from vices.
2
2. On these visitation tours the bishops must demand of each church no more than two solidi (in honorem cathedrce), and from the parochial clergy they shall require no menial services.
3
3. Ordinations must be imparted without remuneration.
4
4. Henceforth nothing shall be paid for the small portion of balsam (chrism) sent to the churches by the bishop for use in baptism.
5
5. If a bishop is petitioned to consecrate a church he must demand nothing for this, but he may receive a voluntary gift. He is not, however, to consecrate a church unless he has previously received a deed as to its adequate endowment.
6
6. It has already happened that persons have built a church from selfish motives, and then appropriated one-half of the offerings there presented. A church of that kind no bishop must consecrate.
7
7. As many put off the baptism of their children because they are unable to pay the baptismal fees, these are for the future abolished, and the clergy must demand nothing for baptism, but may receive a voluntary offering.
SYNODS BETWEEN THE YEARS 560 AND 575. 397
8
8. If anyone accuses a cleric of fornication, he must have two or three witnesses (according to 1 Tim. v. 19), otherwise the accuser is to be excommunicated.
9
9. The metropolitan shall declare the date of the next Easter festival to the bishops, and at Christmas, after the Gospel, it shall be proclaimed by every clergyman to the people. At the beginning of Lent, Litanice shall be held for three days.
10
10. It is a relic of the Priscillianist heresy that some priests hold and consecrate Masses for the dead after having previously partaken of wine. If anyone henceforth ventures thus to consecrate after he has partaken of anything, he shall be deposed by the bishop.1
Some further canons, supposed to be of Braga, which
Burchard cites from Worms and Gratian, are given by
Aguirre and Mansi (ll.cc.).
Quite incredible is that which is related by the Spanish chronicler under Philip n., Hieronymus Moralis, and after him by Baronius, ad ann. 572, n. 10, respecting a second Synod of Lugo, A.D. 572. Even Florez and his continuator Manuel Kisco have mentioned this in the Espana Sagrada (t. iv. n. xl. p. 252). It is quite correct that the often- named Archbishop Martin of Braga sent a collection and translation which he had made of eighty-four older Greek canons (Martin came from Pannonia) to Archbishop Nitigisius of Lugo, and universe concilia Lucensis ecclesice.2 But by concilium is here, as above, to be understood nothing else than an ecclesiastical province.
In France the fourth Synod of Paris was now celebrated. Gregory of Tours refers to it (Hist Franc, lib. iv. c. 48 ; earlier, 42) when he says : In order to put an end to a disagreement between Kings Guntrum and Sigebert, Guntrum convoked the bishops of his kingdom at a Synod in Paris.
As is well known, Guntrum and Sigebert were brothers,
1 Mansi, t. ix. p. 835 ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 383 ; Aguirre, t. ii. p. 316 ; Bruns, pt. ii. p. 37. Given best in the new Coleccion de canaries de la iglesia espaftola, t. ii. p. 620 sqq. See above.
• This collection of Martin's is printed in Mansi, t. ix. p. 846 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 398 sqq. ; Aguirre, t. ii. p. 325 sqq. ; and in the Coleccim de canones, p. 631 sqq.
398 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
the latter King of Austrasia, the former of Burgundy ; both sons of Chlotar I. Besides these, their brother Chilperich possessed the kingdom of Soissons ; but the eldest brother Charibert had died A.D. 570, and they had divided his kingdom among them. There was hardly any cessation of war between the brothers, and although Guntrum and Sigebert partly united with one another against Chilperich, yet they were frequently in a state of hostility towards each other ; so that it is unnecessary, with Valesius and Le Cointe, to alter the text of Gregory, as if he said : " In order to stop a quarrel between Chilperich and Sigebert, Guntrum convoked the Synod."
The subject of the dispute between Guntrum and Sigebert was the appointment of a bishop at Chateaudun (Castello- Dunum). This castle belonged to the diocese of Chartres, but to the kingdom of Sigebert, whilst Chartres was under Guntrum. With Sigebert's assent, Archbishop ^Egidius of Reims consecrated the priest Promotus as bishop of Chateau- dun, and thus raised this city to be a bishopric and separated it from the diocese of Chartres, without, however, any assent from Pappolus, bishop of Chartres. The latter made complaint at the fourth Synod of Paris, which was held on the llth of September 573, in the Basilica of S. Peter (afterwards S. Genevieve). It was attended by thirty-two bishops and one priest as the representative of his bishop, and numbered among its members six metropolitans, Philip of Vienne, Sapaudus of Aries, Priscus of Lyons, Constitutus of Sens, Laban of Eause, and Felix of Bourges. Naturally S. Ger- manus of Paris was also present. They all subscribed the synodal letter to Archbishop ^Egidius of Eeims, in which his conduct was severely blamed, and the deposition of Promotus pronounced. In a second letter they exhorted King Sigebert no longer to protect that injustice.1
In the latter letter, they say, among other things, that the Synod had been summoned non absque conniventia of Sigebert. But these seem to be only words of courtesy. Had Sigebert consented to examine the matter synodaliter,
1 Mansi, t. ix. p. 865 sqq ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 462 sqq. ; Sirmond, t. i. p. 350 sqq.
SYNODS BETWEEN THE YEARS 575 AND 589. 399
many bishops would have come out of his kingdom also to Paris, whilst those who were present belonged almost entirely to the dominion of Guntrum.
From another expression of our Synod at the beginning of its letter to Archbishop ^Egidius of Reims it seems to come out, that that controversy was not the only subject of its transactions, for it says : " Dum pro causis publicis, privatorumque querelis Parisiis moraremur ; but we know nothing further on the subject.
We further learn from Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc, vii. 17), that Promotus was deposed after the death of Sigebert his king (575), and that his endeavours for restitution remained without effect.