Letter 25: Record of the synodal proceedings in the case of Hermes.

...they took part in the proceedings held on the day [...] by Hilary. There, indeed, when Hermes' case had been examined, Hilary, having no doubt about his conduct, judged that he had incurred rather than committed those excesses of which he was accused. In Epistle 8, addressed on this matter to the bishops of the aforesaid province, he indicates at the same time what the synod had decreed concerning him, namely that the decree of the Council of Nicaea should be kept inviolate, by which it is provided that no one is to pass over from a lay condition into the city as bishop, or presbyter, or deacon. III. Around the beginning of the year 463. A petition of Leontius of Arles to Hilary the pope concerning the restoring of the parishes of the church of Arles, cut off some time before. At the close of his Epistle 8 Hilary mentions a petition presented to him, by which Leontius was praying that the parishes of the church of Arles, which had been transferred to others by your predecessor Hilarius [the previous pope], be restored to their former jurisdiction. "But," he says, "mindful of apostolic moderation, we have remitted his complaint to your fraternity to be heard." IV. Before the month of October, year 463. An accusation of Gundioc, master of the soldiery, addressed to Saint Hilary the pope, concerning a certain usurpation by Saint Mamertus. Soon Saint Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, drew the ill-will of many upon himself by ordaining a bishop of Die, whom Leontius, bishop of Arles, asserted to be of his own jurisdiction, and this especially from that time when Leo had assigned their respective churches to each in Epistle 66, addressed to the bishops of the metropolis of Arles. And the matter went so far that the illustrious man Gundioc dared to defame the most holy man [Mamertus] in most bitter letters. These letters Saint Hilary mentions in Epistle 9, written on this occasion to Leontius on the sixth day before the Ides of October [October 10]. "As far as we have been informed," he says, "by the report of our son the illustrious man, the master of the soldiery Gundioc, the aforesaid bishop, against the will of the people of Die, and over those who in no way pertained to the number of his churches, which the authority of the apostolic see had assigned to him . . . in hostile fashion, as it is said, seizing the city, presumed to consecrate a bishop." Then, bearing it ill that the ordinances of his predecessor were thus neglected, indeed even scorned, he directs that, in the synod which he was bound to hold every year, Gundioc's report be examined, and that Mamertus, having been compelled, be required to give an account of his deed before the whole assembly of the brotherhood; and that whatever has been ascertained be made known by the letters of all to his notice (Hilary, Epistle 9). V. Before the 25th of February, year 464. A report of the bishops who had taken cognizance of the case of Saint Mamertus in synod, addressed concerning the same matter to Saint Hilary the pope. Having received the instructions of which we have spoken, Leontius convoked the synod. Whether there, as had been prescribed, Mamertus stood in judgment about to render an account of his deed, is very uncertain. But the matters which had been laid before Hilary the bishops there assembled partly confirmed themselves by letters sent through Antonius the bishop, as is easily gathered from his Epistle 10, in which he replies to each one by name. "And so those letters," says Hilary, "handed over to me by Antonius the bishop, whom they had delegated from among themselves and whom he himself judged worthy of so great a legation as its interpreter, greatly grieved me from the very beginnings of their composition." From these indeed he first learned by their assertion that the determinations established by his predecessor of holy memory Leo concerning the bishop of Vienne could be overstepped by Mamertus, determinations by which nevertheless it was established that his predecessor, indeed even Leontius, had thus far stood. Then, calling to mind the dignity of the church of Vienne once very gravely [...] by the transgression of the bishop of Arles, and afterwards settled by an inviolable determination for the correcting of the things that had been wrongly done, so that neither should be inglorious nor the other found wholly stripped of his ancient honor; he adds that it is clear from those same letters and from the report of Antonius the bishop that Mamertus wished to destroy privileges enclosed within fixed limits by wishing for more, who, abusing the moderation of Leontius, for the people of Die, against what is lawful, "a bishop," he says, "even if he is deserving, did not fear to consecrate." Here it is worth observing, as also in the whole epistle, that the fathers of the aforesaid synod complain nothing about the force inflicted on the people of Die, nothing about the city seized in hostile fashion. They charge Mamertus alone with the ordination, of a prelate indeed not unworthy of so great a distinction, but belonging to another's jurisdiction, which perhaps he, with obstinate mind, contended could not by any constitution be torn away as attached to his dignity and to ancient usage. Certainly Hilary imputes to him only the mark of pride and rebellion. "To whom," he says, "has a rebellious mind ever profited, or whom has the elation of pride not laid low?" And with certain things interposed: "His deed had been agreed to be resolved thus, that, according to the quality of the things that have been perpetrated, he should decree that even that man whom he created improperly be removed, not without loss of his own rank, from such priestly fellowship." Now since the epistle from which we gather these things was given on the 25th day of February, year 464, it follows that those letters were written at the beginning of that same month, or at the end of January, the aforesaid synod not yet being dissolved. VI. Before the 25th of February, year 464. A delegation by Saint Hilary the pope to Veranus concerning the convening of Saint Mamertus. At the same time Hilary was directing writings to Veranus the bishop, by which he charged him to approach Mamertus by his delegation, to announce to him what had been reported to him by the synod: namely, that he, by ordaining a bishop of Die, had rashly violated what Leo had defined, and that he should be willing to desist from his undertakings and attest by a firm profession that he would henceforth always preserve the determination of the apostolic see at the peril of his rank; but if not, that those same four cities, with whose ordination he had not been content, were to be recalled to the church of Arles (Hilary, Epistle 10, no. 5). These writings are hitherto missing. What followed from this is entirely hidden. But whether Mamertus truly sinned, or whether Hilary, deceived by vague and false accusations, so ill-treated the holy man, is uncertain and the case is still before the judge. For the authority of a synod proclaimed and assembled by Leontius is not of such weight that the unfair suspicion is by no means improbable that most of the fathers, suffragans of Leontius, could yield to the opinion of the metropolitan and conform themselves to his judgment and will. VII. In the year 463 or 464. A petition of Ingenuus, bishop of Embrun, addressed to Saint Hilary the pope, concerning a certain usurpation by Auxanius the bishop. The case of Auxanius, bishop of Aix as they suppose, laid before him not long after, Hilary settled more easily. He no doubt, on the occasion of that legation which he had undertaken in 462 with Faustus, bishop of Riez, as we mentioned above (cf. Hilary, Epistle [...]), had snatched away certain things to the prejudice of the church of Embrun, which seemed openly contrary to the synodal statutes confirmed by the apostolic see. Ingenuus, bishop of this city, complained of the injury inflicted upon him, having offered a petition and appended both the reports of Veranus and his fellow bishops once delegated by Leo to take cognizance of this case, and the response of Leo himself, by which he most fiercely defended his church. What then did the fair pontiff do? Having reviewed all these things in judgment, he was unwilling that to be valid which he saw had been elicited from him by surprise and contrary to his own synodal and his predecessor's determinations, and therefore he committed the cognizance of this complaint to the bishops Veranus, Leontius, and Victurus (cf. Hilary, Epistle [...]). From which at the same time it is easily gathered that Ingenuus had complained about the churches of Cemenelum and Nice through the letters of Auxanius, but that he himself was not entirely free of all fault, having ordained in one of them a bishop contrary to the decree of Leo, by which he had established that both churches were to be governed under one prelate. For when Hilary, as we have just sketched, had set forth this whole controversy, he immediately decrees: that Ingenuus should have the pontifical authority of his own province, concerning which, he says, there has long been [...] from the apostolic see [...] NOTICE OF EPISTLES NOT EXTANT. 173 [...] charged, and all things being kept which had been defined by Leo concerning the churches of the city of Cemenelum and the fortress of Nice, nothing should harm the right of the churches, even if in one of them, to exclude covetousness, he had recently, as is alleged, consecrated a bishop of another's jurisdiction, but that they should at the same time remain united under the rule of one prelate (Hilary, Epistle 12, no. 2). VIII. In [the year 464?], before the month of November. An excuse offered to Saint Hilary the pope by the honorable men and proprietors of Tarazona, Cascantum, Calahorra, Varea, Tritium, Leon, and Virovesca, on behalf of Silvanus, bishop of Calahorra, accused of unlawful ordinations. Letters of this kind the holy pope himself mentions in Epistle 16 to Ascanius and the bishops of the province of Tarraconensis. IX. Around the year 462. An encyclical letter of Saint Hilary the pope to the Easterners concerning the catholic faith. The Book of Pontiffs, in the life of this pontiff, among other things relates: "He made a decree and scattered throughout the whole East letters concerning the catholic and apostolic faith, confirming the three synods, the Nicene, the Ephesine, and the Chalcedonian, and the [writings] of the holy archbishop Leo, that is, the famous epistle to Flavian, and condemning Eutyches and Nestorius and Dioscorus and all their followers and heresies, and confirming the dominion and primacy of the holy catholic and apostolic see"; or, as in another codex, the Fossalensian, now Colbertine no. 1868, it reads: "He made a decretal and directed it throughout the whole East, and letters concerning the catholic faith." And it is no slight conjecture that Hilary performed this not long after he ascended the see of Peter, namely in order that he might as soon as possible confirm the Chalcedonian faith and close it off to every new sect added to it. X. A letter of Saint Hilary the pope to the bishops of various provinces concerning the sacrilege of injury inflicted on the churches. The Synod of Tribur in the year 895, canon 4, reports the following: "As Pope Hilarius writes to all the bishops throughout the various provinces in his letter: 'Injury to priests and to the churches is a sacrilege.'" Concerning the injury which is inflicted on the church by the plundering of its property, Isidore Mercator, under the name of the sixth synod under Symmachus, no. 6, says: "It is a sacrilege to transfer to another use or convert anything which anyone has bestowed on a venerable church, whether for the remedy of sins, or for salvation, or for the welfare of their souls." XI. Decrees ascribed to Hilary. 1. "If anyone seems to be contentious, the apostle saying [1 Corinthians 11:16], we have no such custom, neither the Church of God: he who does not give satisfaction, let him be noted, until he corrects himself." Gratian, and then the other editors of the councils, bring forth this fragment from a codex, Distinction XVI, chapter 19. The same is found in Burchard of Worms, book [...] chapter 55, and in Ivo, part XIII, chapter 66 (from the decrees of Pope Hilary, chapter 15). 2. "Where part of the body is, there too is the whole. The same reasoning holds in the body of the Lord as in the manna, which preceded as its figure. Whence it is said: He who had gathered more had nothing over, and he who had prepared less had no less. For the quantity is not to be reckoned in this mystery, but the power of the spiritual sacrament."

sario Ililari die habitae iuterfuere. Ibi vero discussa llcrmae causa ililarus de ejus conversatione nihil habens ambigui aeslimavil, illum hos fjuos ar- guerat excessus incurrisse potius guam fecisse, In epistola 8 de bac re ad praedktaruni provincianira episcopos data simnl signilicat,*quid dc ipso statuerit synodus, ut sarluni leclum esset cDncilii Nicacni decretum, quo cavetur, nc de dfritate in civitatem iranseant vel episcopus vel prcsbyter vcl diaconus. m. a. 463 circ. init. LeontH Arelatensis ad « Ililarum papnm libcUus dc resti- tueftdis Arelatensis ecclesiae paroeciis pridcm abscissis, Ad ejusflein epistolae 8 calocni Ililarus mcmiiiit oblati sibi libclli, quo orabat Leoulius. pristino Juri resiitui paroccias Arelatensis ccclcsiac praedccessore tuo Bilario in alios iranslatas. Sed moderaminis apostolici mcmorcs^ ait, fra- iemitati vestrae querclam ipsius remisimus audiendam. IV. a. 463 ante mens. Ociobr. Gunduici magislri miliium ad s. Hilarum papam incusatio de u^rpaiione guadam s. Mamcrii. Mox s. Mamertus Viennensis antistes multorum sibi iuvidiam condavit ordinato Dfensi episcopo, quem sui esse juris Leontius Arelatcnsis pracsul asscrcbat, el ex eo maxinic lempore, quo suas utriquc ccclcsias Lco attribuerat cpislola 66 ad cpi- «copos metropolis Arelatensis data. Eoque rcs processit, ut vir illustris Gunduicus s^nctissimuin viruin diflaraare sit ausus litteris acerbissimis. Ilas litteras s. Ililarus commemorat epistola 9 liac occasionc ad Leoutium VI Idus Oclobris scripla. Quantum fiiii nostri viri illustris magisiri militum Gunduici sermone est indi- ratum, inquit, praedicius episcopus inviiis Decnsibus, ei qui ad ccclesinrum ejus numerumj guas ei aposiolicae sedis drpuiavii aurioriias^ . . . minime pertinebnni, hostili morc^ ui diciiur^ occupans civiiaicm cpiscopum consecrare praesumpsii, Tum indignc ferens ita ncgligi immo ct spcrni dcccssoris sui con- stituta, praecipit, ulinsynodo, quain singulis aiinis baborc tencbatur, Gunduici rc- lationem discutial, et compulso Mamcrto raiioncm facti sui sub univcrso coeiu frniemiiatis exigerc, quid cxploratum fucrit, omnium liitcris sunc intimci noli- tiae (Hil. ep. 9). V. a. 464 ante d. 25 Febr. Episcoporum^ gui de s. Mnmcrti cntisa in synodo cognoverani, de eadem ad s. Hilarum pnpnm relntio. Mandatis, quae di\imus, acceplis Leontius syiiodum convocavit. Num ibi, .«•iiut praescriptam fuerat, Mamertus in judicio stcterit facti sui rationem rcddi- turns» valde esl incertura. Verum qiiac delata llilaro fucraiit, cpiscopi ibi congre- gati partim ipsi litleris per Anlonium cpiscopum missis confirmarunt, ut cx illius epist. lO, qna singulis nominatim rcspondct, facile colligilur. Littcras ilaquc illas, ait Hilarns, ab Anlouio episcopo, quem ex scse delegaverant ct i|)sc ianta lega- tiane dignum interpreiem judiciibat, sibi traditas v^ildc sc conlrislasse ah ipsis coniexius sui principiis. Ex quibus nimirum prmn nsscrtionc cognovii, dcfini- iianes a sanctae memoriae decessore suo Leone de Vicnnensi episcopo praesti- tutas a Mamerto potuisssftirnnscendi ^ quibus tamcn ejus decessorem Immo et Leontinm hactenus stclisse constaret. Tum in mcmoriam revocans, digni- tatem Viennensis ecclesiae Arelatensis aniisiiiis quondam irnnsgressionc crc- rissCy ct pro corrigendis^ quae perperam gerebaniur, inviolabili posiea defini- iione compositum^ ne alter inglorius alier in ioium veieri honore reperireiur exutus; addit, ex eisdem litteris et Antonii episcopi rclalionc paterc, Mamertum primlegia certis conclusa ierminis velic perdere plus volendo^ qui abusus Leoniii moderantia^ Deensibus contra fas episcopum^ etiamsi est merit inquil, non timuerit consecrare. Ubi obscrvarc libel. uti et in tota epistola, lul dc vi Deensibus ilJata, uihi] de occupala hostili morc civitate queri praedkl synodi patres. Solam Maracrto objiciunt praesuUs haud quidem iiidigQi tanto : stigio sed juris alieni ordinationem, quam fortc ille obflrmato animo contendd dignilati suae ei anliquo adnexam nulla avelli constitutione potuisse. Certe Hi rus notam ipsi solum impingil superbiae et rebellionis. Cui unquam profuU^ i quit, mens rebeUis, aut quem superbiae non inclinavit elatio ?. Et quibusdi interjcctis : Factum ejus convenerat sic resolviy ut juxta eorum^ quae perf trata sunt, qualitatem non sine jactura proprii ordinis etiam ilium a sacerc tali consortio submoveri ccmeret^ quem creavit indebite, Jam quum episto undehaeccolligimus, 25Februariidiea.464sildata» sequitur, utlitteraeilIaeeod< mcnse ineunte, vel exeunteJanuario scriptae fuerint.praedictasynodonondumsolu VI. a, 464 ante d, 25 Febr. S. Hilari papae ad Veranum de conveniendo s, M merto delegalio. Eodem tempore Hilarus scripta ad Vcranum cpiscopum dirigebat, quibus i demandabat, ut Mamertum ex sua delegatione adiret, quid sibi a synodo relat fuisset denuntiaturus : eum videlicet ordinatp' Deensi episcopo temere viola quod Leo definierat, utque a coeptis desistere vellet firmaque professione tesL se deinceps periculo ordinis sui semper conservaturum apostoiicae sedis d* nitionem, sin minus, ad Arelalensem ecclesiam easdem quatuor civitates^ qz rum non fuissct ordinatione contentus^ esse revocandas (llil. ep. 10 n. 5). II scripta hactcnus desideranlur. Quid vero inde secutum sit, prorsus latet. Sed utrum revera peccaveril Mamertus, an vagis faisisque accusationibus deceptus lE rus sanclum virum ila niale habuerit, incertum ct adhuc sub judicc lis est. Ne^ enim tanti e^t ponderis syuodi a Leonlio indictae et congregatae auctoritas, cu plerosquc patres Lcontii sufTraganeos in metropolitae sententiam concedere eC ejus arbitrium atque volunlatem conformarc sc potuisse, vero nec absimile iniqua est suspicio. vn. anno 463 aut 464. Ingenui Ebrcdunensis episcopi ad s. Hilarum papmm usurpatione quadam Auxanii episcopi. . Auxanii Aquensis, ut pulant, episcopi, causara sibi haud multo posl delai Hilarus facUius expedivit. llle occasione haud dubie cjus Icgationis, quam aJ 462 cum Fausto Rcgiensi episcopo obierat, ut supra merainimus (cf. llil. ep. quaedam ab llUaro in Ebreduncnsis ecclesiae praejudicium subripuerat, quae synodalibus statutis ab apostolica sede firmatis aperte contraria videbantur. Po irrogatam sibi injuriam querebatur Ingenuus hujus civitatis episcopus, ohlato» libello et subnexis quumVerani et sociorum episcoporum olim ad hanc causani gnosccndam Leoni delegatorum relationibus tum ipsius Leonis responsione, ecclesiae suae acerrime dcfeudebat. Quid tum aequus puntifex? His omnibiiJ judicio recensitis id valere noluit, quod a se per obreptionem et contra sttt synodalia ac decessoris sui definitiones elicitum videbat, ideoque hi^jus qiierc cognitionem Verano, Leontio ct Victuro episcopis demandavit (cf. HU. ep. V* Unde simul facUe coUigitur, de Cemeleusi et Nicensi ecclesus ab Auxanio Uiteroep conquestum fuisse Ingenuum, sed ncc ipsum omni prorsus culpa vacasse ordiBi in earum altera episcopo praeterLeonis decrctum, quo utramque ecclesiam subo antistite regendam constituerat. Ubi enira llilarus lotam hanc controversiam, modo perstriuximus, cxposuit, statim dccernit: ut habeat poniificium Ingem provinciae suae^ de cujus dudum^ inquit, ab apostolica sede esl iUiciia ce9m NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXST. 173 culpaiuSf atqoe custoditis omnibus, quae super ecclesiis Cemelensis civitatis Mf cast^i Nieensis a Leone definita fuerant^ nihil ecclesiarum juri noceret, ' fmi is m earum aliera ad excludendam cupiditatem^ quemadmodum perhibe- k^ aMdmi alienae episcopum proxime consecrasset, sed simul unitae sub mhtt anUstitis regimne permanerent (Ilil. ep. 12 n. 2). vm. i, i^ ante mens. Nov. Honoratorum et possessorum Turiassonensium^ Ca- seaniensium, Calaguritanorum^ Varegensium, Tritiensium^ Legionen- sium et Virovascensium ad s. Hilarum papam excusatio Silvani epi- seopi Calaguritani de illicitis ordinationibus accusati. ijjiisiDodi litteras s. papa ipsc in ep. 16 ad Asc^nium et episcopos provinciae Tamcooensis memorat. IX. Grt. e. 462. S. Hiiari papae ad Orientales epistola encyclida de fide ca- thoiica, Liber pontiflcalis in vita hujus poutificis inter alia narral : Hic fecit decre- Hm et per universum Orientem sparsit epistolas de fide catholica et aposto- Hct, eonfirmans ires synodos Nicaenam^ Ephesinam et Calchedonensem et temM sancti archiepiscopi Leonis, id est celebrem epistolam ad Flavianum, et imanl Euiychen et Nestorium et Dioscurum vel omnes eorum sequaces etkereses^ ei confirmans dominaiionem ei principatum sanctae sedis catho- ^ et aposiolicaey seu ut in codice alias* Fossaleusi nunc Colbertino Nr. 1868 Uirtar: Hic feeii decreialem et per universum Orientem direxit^ et epistolas ^fdicatholica. Et id quidem Hilarum non longc post, quam in Pclri sedem tttekos. praestitisse non levis conjectura cst, quo vidclicel Calchedonensem fir- ■ntfidem et omoem novis sectis addilum quamprimum praecluderet. X. 5. BQaripapae ad diversarum provinciarum episcopos de injuriae ecclesiis Ulaiae saerUegio. Svnodus Tribnriensis a. 895 c. 4 iUi refert : ut Hilarius papa omnibus epi- ^^per diversas provincias in epistda sua scribit, ^^injuria sacerdotum et ^i^rum sacrilegium esi.^*' — De injuria, quae ecclesiae inferlur depracdatione '^ ej«s, Isidonis Mercator nomine sextae synodi sub Symmacho num. 6 diiit : ^'^t^sacrUegium esi^ quaecunque vel pro remedio peccatorum vel sdlute vel '^fw ommarum suarum unusquisque venerabili ecclesiae contulerit^ in aliud ^'"uferre vei eonveriere. XI. Decreta Hilaro adscripta. !• Si qttis videiur conteniiosus esse^ dicente apostolo, mo5 i Cor. ^*^f9 eonsueiudinem non habemus, sed neque Ecclesia Dei.- 11,16. '^^iisfacit, notetur, usquequo se corrigat. ^^nhbiiu et deinde ceteri conciliorum edilores hoc fragmentum ex codice "'^* XVI cap. 19 proferunt. Exstal idem apud Burchardum Wormaliensem ■•^Qp. 55 et Ivonem p. XIII cap. 66 {ex decretis Hilari papae cap.l5). 2. Ubi pars est corporis, est et tolum. Eadem ratio cst in ^^ore Domini, quae in manna, quod in cjus figura praecessil. •«qBo dicitur: Qui plus collegerat, non habuit amplius^ ^^'\cuk 9J^ ^ui minus paraverat, habuit minus. Non cnim est quantitas * ^i^ibliis in hoc aestimanda myslcrio, sed virlus sacramenli spi- "iBalis.