Opening
SEC. 241. Second Synod of Toledo, A.D. 527 or 531.
In many manuscripts of the old collections of canons the Synodus Toletana II. is found with the superscription : Sub die xvi. Kalendas Junias anno guinto regni domini nostri Amalarici regis cera 565. As we know, the Spanish era begins from the year 3 8 before Christ ; and therefore the year 565 of this chronology is identical with 527 of the Dionysian. Baronius (ad ann. 531, n. 12 sqq.) and Pagi (ad ann. 531, n. 9) thought, in respect to this matter of the era, that an ancient clerical error had been made in the date of the Synod, and that we should remove it to 531, because in the superscription the fifth year of King Amalaric is expressly named. From this they assumed that the regnant years of Amalaric were numbered from the death of his grandfather and guardian ; and as he, the East Gothic King Theoderic the Great, died in the year 526, the fifth year of Amalaric could be no other than 531 of our era. In opposi- tion to this the Spanish scholars, Aguirre, Ferreras, and Florez thought they could reconcile the two statements of the superscription, — the year 565 of the Spanish era and the fifth year of Amalaric, — since Theoderic the Great laid down the guardianship of his grandson in the year 523, and there- fore the regnant years of the latter must have been counted from 523.1 In this case his fifth year agrees with our year 527. I have no doubt that this suggestion is the correct one, and that the second Synod of Toledo ought accordingly to be assigned to May 17, 527; but one of the principal reasons which the Spanish scholars adduce is, in my judgment,
1 Aguirre, Concil. Hisp. t. i. p. 267 ; Ferreras, Hist, of Spain, ii. ; Florez, Espana Sagrada, t. ii. p. 192, and t. vi. p. 130 sqq.
SECOND SYNOD OF TOLEDO, A.D. 527 OR 631. 149
quite invalid. In order to show that in Spain, in ancient times, the reign of Amalaric was actually dated from the year 523, they appeal to Ildefonsus of Toledo, who, in his treatise, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, on Archbishop Montanus of Toledo, who presided over our Synod, says : " He ruled the Church of Toledo for nine years (522-531) under King Amalaric." Ildefonsus, however, says only : " He was famous in the time of Amalaric, and held his post for nine years," l from which we cannot draw their conclusion.
Entirely without foundation, and long ago refuted by Pagi (I.e.), was the supposition of Baronius, that the second Synod of Toledo was held, not under Amalaric, but under his successor Theudis. The latter, during the minority of Amalaric, was raised by Theoderic the Great to be Viceroy or Governor of Spain, and early showed little fidelity, so that, in great measure from dislike to him, Theoderic so soon laid down his guardianship. Soon Theudis wanted to rise higher. Amalaric had married the Prankish Princess Clothilde, but persecuted her on account of her religion to such an extent that her brother, the Merovingian King Childebert of Paris (a son of Chlodwig), made war upon his brother-in-law. Amalaric here lost his life ; and as he died childless, the West Goths now elected Theudis for their king.2 Immediately after this elevation of Theudis, Baronius thinks, our Synod was held ; but, in the first place, the accession of Theudis happened in the year 532,3 and besides, King Amalaric is expressly mentioned, not orly in the superscription of the synodal Acts, but also in the text, after canon 5.
There were present at Toledo, under the presidency of the Metropolitan Montanus, seven other Spanish bishops : Nebridius of Egara, Justus of Urgelis, Pangarius, Cannonius, Paulus, Domitian, and Maracinus. The sees of the last five are unknown. Of Maracinus it is added, that he resided at Toledo as an exile. By whom and for what reason he was banished is not said. The assembly declared the permanent validity of the older Church ordinances, and decreed anew as follows : —
1
1. Those who, as children, were dedicated by their
1 In Fabrieii Bibliotheca Eceles. p. 62 (of the second series of side numbers). - Ferreras, I.e. 200 aud 208. 3 Fen-eras, I.e. 216, 219.
150 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
parents to the clerical office shall, soon after receiving the tonsure, or after admission to the office of lector (instead of ministerio electorum, we must certainly read lectorum), be instructed by one set over them in a building belonging to the Church, under the eyes of the bishop. If they have reached the age of eighteen, the bishop should ask them whether they wish to marry. If they choose celibacy, and vow its observance then shall they be dedicated to the sweet yoke of the Lord, at twenty years of age as subdeacons, and, if they are worthy, as deacons after the completion of their twenty-fifth year. Yet care must be taken that they do not, unmindful of their vow, contract matrimony, or practise secret cohabitation. If they do this, they must, as guilty of sacrilege, be excommunicated. If, however, at the time that the bishop asks them they declare their intention to enter into matrimony, the permission granted by the apostle (1 Cor. vii. 2, 9) shall not be withheld from them. If in more advanced years they, as married, with the consent of the other partner, take a vow of abstinence from the works of the flesh, then they may rise to the sacred offices. — Taken into the Corpus jur. can. c. 5, Dist. xxviii.
2
2. If anyone is thus educated from his youth for one church, he must not go even to another, and no strange bishop must receive such an one.
3
3. No cleric, from a subdeacon onwards, may live along with a woman, be she free, freed, or a slave. Only a mother, or a sister, or a near relation is allowed to take care of his house. If he has no near relation, then the woman who takes care of the house must live in another house, and under no pretext enter his dwelling. Whoever acts in opposition to this shall not only lose his clerical office and the doors of the church be closed, but he shall be excluded from the communion of all Catholics, of laymen also, even from speech with them.
4
4. If a cleric has laid out, on ground belonging to the Church, vineyards or small fields for his own sustenance, he may retain them to the end of his life, but then they fall to the Church ; and he must not dispose of them by testament to anyone, unless the bishop allows it.
SECOND SYNOD OF TOLEDO, A.D. 527 OR 531. 151
5
5. No Christian is allowed to marry a blood-relation.
At the close, the observance of these canons is declared to be the duty even of those bishops of the province who were not present. Archbishop Montanus is requested to give early notice of each new Synod, and long life is wished to King Amalaric.1
As a kind of appendix to this Synod, the Collections of Councils add two letters of Archbishop Montanus. The first, addressed to the faithful of the district of Palentia, blames the priests there, that they ventured themselves to consecrate the chrism. Such encroachments were forbidden, even in the Old Testament, and it was ordained by the synodal canons that the parochienses presbyteri (this expression occurs here for the first time) should either personally, or through the Hectares Sacrariorum? but not through less important persons, annually request the chrism from the bishop. He further complains that several of these priests had invited quite strange bishops for the consecration of churches, and that, in word and deed, they had supported the Priscillianist heresy.3
The second letter of Archbishop Montanus presents several difficulties.4 That Theoribius, or Turibius, to whom it is addressed, was a distinguished man, is clear from the titles which Montanus gives him : Domino eximio prcecipuoque Christicolce, Domino et filio. The context of the letter also shows that formerly, as a secular person, he had held a high office, probably that of governor, and in this position he had, in his district, completely put down the still existing heathenism, and also had greatly weakened the Priscillianist sect, on which account Montanus gives him praise. Sub- sequently Turibius abandoned the world, as is indicated by the words in the letter : Gum adhuc floreres in seculo ; and as Ferreras, in his History of Spain (vol. ii. sec. 252 sqq.), expressly
1 Mansi, t.- viii. p. 784 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1139 sqq. ; Gonzalez, Col- lection de Canones de la iglesia Espaftola, Madrid 1849, t. ii. p. 202 sqq. ; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, 1864, Bd. i. S. 446 ff.
2 The Rector Sacrarii is the cleric appointed to be custos of the church. Cf. Du Cange, Olossar. s. v. Sacrarium, t. vi. p. 35.
8 Mansi, t. viii. p. 788 sqq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 1142 ; Gonzalez, I.e. p. 208 sqq. ; Gams, I.e. S. 449.
4 Mansi, t. viii. p. 790 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1144 ; Gonzalez, I.e. p. 211 sq.
152 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.
asserts. He was indeed one of the principal promoters of Monasticism in Spain, and founder of the monastery of S. Toribio, on the northern coast of Spain, in the province of Burgos. The high regard in which, for this reason, he was held procured for him great influence, and this explains how Archbishop Montanus should call upon him to use his in- fluence, as that of a Severissimus sacerdos, in order to put a stop to the irregularity of the priests in Palentia with regard to the chrism. Montanus then further discusses, in an obscure manner not quite intelligible to us,1 the second point of complaint against the people of Palentia in regard to the calling in of strange bishops. Turibius seems to have upheld this irregularity, on which account Montanus threatens to bring an accusation against him before the King and (the Governor) Erganes. This last part of the letter agrees little with the courtesy of the first half.