BOOK VI.

THE SYNODS OF LAODICEA AND GANGRA.

 

Sec. 93. Synod of Laodicea.

 

IN very many old collections of the Councils which have had their origin since the sixth, or even in the fifth, century, we find the acts of the Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia (Phrygia Pacatiana) placed after those of Antioch of 341, but before those of the second General Council of 381. Some, for instance Matthew Blastares, with somewhat more precision, place this Synod after that of Sardica: the Trullan Synod, however, and Pope Leo IV place it immediately before the second General Council. Notwithstanding which, Baronius thought that this Synod should be placed much earlier, even before that of Nicaea; and for the following reasons : first, that in the last canon of Laodicea the Book of Judith is not mentioned among the books of the Bible, while, according to S. Jerome, the Synod of Nicaea had already declared it to be canonical; secondly, that several canons of Laodicea are identical with the Nicene, though with no mention of Nicaea, which would certainly have been made had this Synod borrowed from that of Nicaea, while, on the other hand, if the Synod of Laodicea was earlier than that of Nicaea, and if the latter received some canons from that comparatively unimportant Synod, the fact that Nicaea is not mentioned is easily explained.

The weakness of this latter argument is self-evident, and neither will the first hold good; for we have already shown in the history of the Nicene Council that the words of Jerome are not to be taken to mean that the Synod drew, up a decree or canon concerning the Book of Judith, but rather that it is highly probably that it was merely quoted in passing in some discussion or other, and so to a certain extent tacitly approved. Nay, if the Council had pronounced a formal decision concerning the Book of Judith, Jerome himself would certainly not in another place have expressed himself so uncertainly as to its authority. But if it did not pronounce any express decision about the Book, the whole argument of Baronius falls through. Besides this, the Laodicean canons, which contain so many detailed rules and orders as to the manner of living and conducting divine service, belong more to a time further removed from the persecutions, and when the Church had for some time been advancing peacefully. Thus we find among the Laodicean canons rules concerning the Church vestments, but no longer rules concerning the lapsi. This plainly points more to the last half than the beginning of the fourth century.

The seventh canon of Laodicea, in which the baptism of the Photinians is declared invalid, seems to offer a sure chronological land-mark. Now we know that Bishop Photinus began to attract notice about the middle of the fourth century, and was first anathematized by the Eusebians at the Synod of Antioch in 344 (in the macróstikos formula); by the orthodox at Milan in 345; then again by the Eusebians in 351 and 355, at the Synods of Sirmium and Milan; besides which, he was repeatedly banished, and in 366 he died in exile. As it is, however, as we shall presently see, doubtful whether the word Fotinienon in the seventh canon is genuine, unfortunately no certain conclusion can be drawn from this. Somewhat more light is thrown on the subject by the fact that, in the introduction to the Laodicean canons, the Greek text after the word Phrygia adds Pakatianis; and this points to a geographical division which appears not to have existed at the time of the Synod of Sardica in 343.

Peter de Marca tried to prove that the Synod of Laodicea took place in 365; but he was refuted by Pagi, who agreed with Gothofred’s hypothesis (in his notes on Philostorgius) that it had been occasioned by Theodosius, an Arian bishop of Lydia about the year 363. Philostorgius relates that, after the death of the Apostate Julian (in 363), Theodosius, a bishop of Lydia, summoned a small Synod, at which the consecration of Aetius and the ordinations performed by him were declared invalid. The Epitomist of Philostorgius (Photius) designates this Theodosius a vehement Eunomian, and it is therefore doubtful whether he is the same Theodosius, bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia, whom Epiphanius places among the Semi-Arians. Moreover, a passage in the Corpus Juris Canonici, the author of which is unknown, states that Bishop Theodosius, who, however, is not more precisely described, was the chief originator of the Laodicean decrees. Gothofred and Pagi identify him with the Theodosius mentioned by Philostorgius, and seek to confirm their supposition by maintaining that the Synod of Laodicea took a rigidly ascetic line, especially on sexual questions, and that Philostorgius, in strict agreement with this, speaks of the great abhorrence Bishop Theodosius had of all sexual intercourse.

But, in the first place, the Synod of Laodicea showed no sort of abhorrence of marriage or any such like hyper-ascetic tendency; and, secondly, the statement that this Theodosius was an ascetic is wholly incorrect, for the words of Philostorgius, as rightly interpreted by Valesius, prove quite the contrary, namely, that Theodosius had been himself implicated in unlawful relations, and had “led an irregular life”. A man, however, of this kind, who, as Philostorgius also says, in order to escape answering for his bad manner of life, could betake himself with a few friends and companions to a conciliabulum, with the view of over- throwing those whom he feared, is certainly not the author of decisions so earnest, strict, and dignified as are those of Laodicea; apart from the fact that this Synod was never accounted Arian, which, according to Gothofred’s conjecture, it would have been. To this must be added, first, that Philostorgius says not a word of the cabal got up by Theodosius having issued rules of discipline also; and, secondly, that not one of the Laodicean canons contains a distinct reference to Aetius. Even if, therefore, the above statement of the Corpus Juris is to hold good, the Theodosius who occasioned the Synod of Laodicea must certainly not be confounded with the other of the same name mentioned by Philostorgius, and we have still gained nothing as to the date of this Synod.

Under such circumstances, it is best, with Remi Ceillier,Tillemont, and others, to place the meeting of the Synod of Laodicea generally somewhere between the years 343 and 381, — i.e. between the Sardican and the second General Council, — and to give up the attempt to discover a more exact date. The entirely disciplinary contents of the canons seems to show that, at the time the Synod was held, there must have been a sort of truce in the dogmatic (Arian) conflict of that period.

The sixty canons of the Synod of Laodicea were composed in Greek, and have come down to us in the original language. There were also early Latin translations, for instance one by Dionysius Exiguus, which we likewise still possess, and commentaries on them were published in the Middle Ages, chiefly by Balsamon, Zonaras, Aristenus, and more recently by Van Espen, and Professor Herbst in the Tubingen Review.

A short preface by one of the old collectors precedes the Laodicean canons, and runs thus:

“The Holy Synod, which was assembled at Phrygia Pacatiana from different provinces of Asia, has drawn up the following ecclesiastical regulations : —

Can. 1. We have decreed, in accordance with the rules of the Church, that those who have lawfully and regularly entered upon a second marriage, and not formed a secret union, shall, after a short period of prayer and fasting, be pardoned and again received into communion.

 

We see that the Synod of Laodicea here defends Christian freedom with regard to second marriage, as the Council of Nicsea (Can. 8), and to a certain extent also the Synods of Neocaesarea (Can. 3 and 7) and Ancyra (Can. 19), had already done. By this, however, a second marriage is not exempted from all stain; on the contrary, an expiation of this weakness by prayer and fasting is declared necessary. Nay, the words “after a short period” plainly indicate that a digamist shall not be received into communion, and especially not admitted to the Holy Eucharist, immediately after contracting a second marriage, but shall be excluded for a short time, or placed in the aphorismus minor.

Further, as we have already shown in the translation, the words katá ton ecclisiastikon cánona must be connected with apodidosthe aftis tin Kinonian, so that the meaning stands: “in accordance with the rule of the Church they must be received”; but if, as Dionysius Exiguus has done, we connect the words in question with sinafthendas defteris gamis, it would be a mere tautology, as the word nomimos itself implies that the second marriage must be a lawful one. What, however, is the meaning of the words, “and have not formed a secret union?”. The three above-mentioned commentators of the Middle Ages rightly interpret this to mean that the digamist must not have already had intercourse (before marriage) with the person with whom he contracts a second marriage; for if so, he would come under the punishment of fornication, and in that case he could not be again so soon received into communion.

Lastly, it is hardly necessary to observe that this canon only speaks of a digamist who marries again after the death of his first wife. This is plainly indicated in the words, “the second marriage must be lawfully entered upon”, and second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife would not have been considered by the ancient Church a lawful marriage, but abominable adultery. The ancient Church had great difficulty in maintaining as permissible second marriage, even after the death of one party; so strict was the custom in this particular. On this compare what Van Espen remarks in opposition to Justellus.

 

Can. 2. That sinners of various kinds, if they have persevered in the public confession and penance, and have entirely turned from evil, after a time of penance fixed in proportion to their fall, shall, in consideration of the pity and goodness of God, be again received into communion.

 

Can. 3. That those only lately baptized shall not be promoted to the clerical office.

 

Can. 4. That clerics may not practise usury or take interest.

Can. 5. That ordinations may not take place in the presence of the audientes (penitents).

Can. 6. That it is not permitted to heretics, so long as they continue in heresy, to set foot in the house of God.

Can. 7. That heretics returning from the Novatian, Photinian, or Quartodeciman heresies, whether they have been reckoned among the [catechumens] or the faithful, shall not be received until they have anathematized all heresies, and more especially those in which they were themselves implicated. These, as soon as they have learnt the creed, and received the anointing of the holy chrism, shall share in the holy mysteries.

Can. 8. Those who return from the heresy of the so-called Phrygians (Montanists), even though of the number of the pretended clergy, and held in the greatest esteem, must be catechized with all care and baptized by the bishops and priests of the Church.

Can. 9. Members of the Church shall not be allowed to frequent cemeteries or chapels dedicated to so-called martyrs belonging to any heretics for prayer or divine service. Those who do this, if of the number of the faithful (not merely catechumens), shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they do penance and acknowledge their fault, they shall be again received.

Can. 10. Members of the Church shall not indiscriminately give their children in marriage to heretics.

Can. 11. The appointment of the so-called female elders or presidents shall not take place in the church.

Can. 12. The bishops must be appointed for the government of the Church by the decision of the metropolitans and the surrounding bishops (comprovincials), after they have given sufficient proof of their orthodoxy, as well as of their orderly behaviour.

Can. 13. The choice of those to be appointed to the priesthood shall not rest with the multitude.

Can. 14. At Easter the Host shall no more be sent into foreign dioceses as eulogia.

(It was a custom in the ancient Church, not indeed to consecrate, but to bless those of the several breads of the same form laid on the altar winch were not needed for the communion, and to employ them, partly for the maintenance of the clergy, and partly for distributing to those of the faithful who did not communicate at the Mass. The breads thus blessed were called eulogiae).

Can. 15. Besides the appointed singers, who mount the ambo and sing from the book, others shall not sing in the church.

 

Can. 16. On Saturday, the Gospels and other portions of the Scripture shall be read aloud.

Can. 17. At the Church services the psalms shall not be sung continuously one after the other, but after each psalm there shall be a lesson read.

Can. 18. The same service of prayer shall take place everywhere at the ninth hour, as in the evening.

Can. 19. After the homily of the bishop, first the prayer for the catechumens shall be said separately, and after the departure of the catechumens the prayer for the penitents, and when these also have received the imposition of hands and have withdrawn, then in like manner shall three prayers for the faithful be said : the first in silence, but the second and third repeated aloud. Hereupon the kiss of peace is given. And after the priests have given the kiss of peace to the bishop, the laity shall give the same to one another, and the Holy Sacrifice shall be offered. And the clerics alone shall be permitted to approach the altar of sacrifice and to take part in it.

Can. 20. A deacon may not sit in the presence of a priest, unless bidden to do so by the priest. The deacons shall in like manner be honoured by the ministers and all clerics.

Can. 21. The ministers (sub-deacons) shall not have their place in the diaconicum, nor touch the sacred vessels.

Can. 22. A minister (sub-deacon) may not wear the orarium, nor leave his place at the door.

(The orarium answers to the stole of the present day, which the sub-deacons are even now forbidden to wear).

Can. 23. The readers and cantors may not wear the orarium, or read and sing in the same.

Can. 24. No clerics from the presbyters to the deacons, and so on in ecclesiastical order, down to the ministers (sub-deacons), readers, cantors, exorcists, doorkeepers, or any of the ascetic class, shall enter a public-house.

Can. 25. The ministers (sub-deacons) may not distribute the bread, or bless the chalice.

 

Can. 26. Whoever is not authorized by the bishop may not exorcise either in the churches or in houses.

Can. 27. Neither the higher nor lower clergy, nor the laity when summoned to the agape, shall take any portion of it away with them, as this brings dishonour upon the office of the clergy.

Can. 28. The so-called agape shall not be held in the Lord’s houses (kiriakis) or churches, and no one shall eat or place couches in the house of God.

Can. 29. Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.

Can. 30. None of the higher or lower clerics and ascetics, nor any laymen, in a word no Christian, may bathe in the same bath with females, for this is the greatest reproach among the heathen.

Can. 31. Christians shall not marry heretics. They shall neither take them nor their children in marriage, nor shall they give their sons or daughters in marriage to them, until they promise to become Christians.

Can. 32. The eulogiae of the heretics shall not be accepted, for they are rather follies than eulogiae.

Can. 33. No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.

Can. 34. No Christians shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, i.e. those of the heretics, or to the heretics themselves before mentioned, for they are far from God. Whoever, therefore, goes over to them shall be held excommunicate.

Can. 35. Christians shall not forsake the Church of God and turn to the worship of angels, thus introducing a cultus of the angels. This is forbidden. Whoever, therefore, shows an inclination to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone over to idolatry.

Can. 36. Neither the higher nor the lower clergy may be magicians, conjurors, mathematicians, or astrologers, nor shall they make so-called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear these amulets shall be shut out from the Church.

Can. 37. No one shall accept festal presents from Jews and heretics, or keep the festivals with them.

Can. 38. No one shall accept unleavened bread from the Jews, or take part in their profanity.

Can. 39. No one shall share in the feasts of the heathen, or take part in their impiety.

Can. 40. Bishops who are summoned to a Synod shall not consider it of small importance, but shall appear there, in order to teach or be taught that which is to the advantage of the Church and of others (possibly the infideles). If any one, however, disdain to appear, he is his own accuser, unless he is hindered by something unusual.

Can. 41. No higher or inferior cleric shall travel without canonical letters.

Can. 42. The higher and inferior clerics shall make no journey without an order from the bishop.

Can. 43. The ministers (sub-deacons) may not leave the doors even for a short time to pray.

Can. 44. Women may not approach near the altar.

Can. 45. After the second week of Lent, no more persons shall be received for baptism.

Can. 46. Those to be baptized shall learn the creed (Symbolum) by heart, and recite it on Thursday before the bishop or the priests.

Can. 47. Those who have received baptism during an illness, if they recover, shall learn the creed by heart, and be made to understand that a divine gift has been vouchsafed to them.

Can. 48. The baptized shall, after baptism, be anointed with the heavenly chrism, and be partakers of the kingdom of Christ.

Can. 49. During Lent, the bread shall not be offered, except on Saturday and Sunday.

Can. 50. The fast shall not be relaxed on the Thursday of the last week of Lent, thus dishonouring the whole season, but the fast shall be kept throughout the whole period.

Can. 51. During Lent, no feasts of the martyrs shall be celebrated, but the holy martyrs shall be commemorated on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent.

Can. 52. No wedding or birthday feast shall be celebrated during Lent.

Can. 53. Christians, when they attend weddings, shall not jump and dance, but shall partake of the meal or breakfast with a modesty becoming Christians.

Can. 54. The higher and inferior clergy shall not join in witnessing any dramatic performance at weddings or feasts, but before the actors appear they shall rise and go.

Can. 55. The higher and inferior clergy, and also the laity, shall not put together their contributions and hold feasts in common.

Can. 56. The priests shall not enter and take their seats in the bema before the entrance of the bishop, but they shall always enter after the bishop, unless the latter is ill or absent.

Can. 57. In villages and in the country no bishops may be appointed, but visitors; and those who are already appointed shall do nothing without the consent of the bishop of the town, as also the priests may do nothing without the consent of the bishop.

Can. 58. No sacrifices shall be offered in houses by bishops or priests.

Can. 59. No psalms composed by private individuals or uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the canonical books of the Old and New Testament.

Can. 60. These are all the books of the Old Testament which may be read aloud: (1) Genesis, (2) Exodus, (3) Leviticus, (4) Numbers, (5) Deuteronomy, (6) Joshua, (7) Judges, Ruth, (8) Esther, (9) First and Second Book of Kings, (10) Third and Fourth Book of Kings, (11) First and Second Book of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), (12) First and Second Book of Ezra, (13) the Book of the 150 Psalms, (14) the Proverbs of Solomon, (15) Ecclesiastes (the Preacher), (16) the Song of Songs, (17) Job, (18) The twelve Prophets, (19) Isaiah, (20) Jeremiah and Baruch, the Lamentations and Letters (according to Zonaras, the Letter), (21) Ezekiel, (22) Daniel. The Books of the New Testament are these: four Gospels according to S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John; the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Catholic Epistles, namely, one by S. James, two by S. Peter, three by S. John, one by S. Jude; the fourteen Epistles of S. Paul, — one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon.

 

Sec. 94. Synod at Gangra.

 

A second Synod, also in Asia Minor, of uncertain date, but about the same time as that of Laodicea, was held about the middle of the fourth century at Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia, of which we still possess twenty canons, and a Synodal Letter addressed to the bishops of Armenia. In the heading of the latter the Bishops Eusebius, Aelianus, Eugenius, Olympius, Bithynicus, Gregory, Philetus, Pappus, Eulalius, Hypatius, Proairesius, Basil, and Bassus give their names as members of the Synod of Gangra, but there is no intimation of the Episcopal Sees of any of them. Other names appear in some manuscripts of the Latin translation of this Synodal Letter, made by Dionysius Exiguus, among which occurs, e.g., that of Hosius of Corduba, certainly wrongly, as neither the Greek, the many Latin codices, nor the Prisca have it: moreover, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, Hosius was without doubt dead. Baronius and Binius were therefore certainly wrong in maintaining that Hosius presided at this Synod in the name of the Pope; for even if the Latin codices which insert his name had been right, no inference whatever could he drawn in favour of his presidency, as they only mention his name somewhat late, and not primo loco.

The Libellus Synodicus mentions another president of the Synod of Gangra, namely, a certain Dius. The Ballerini think that it should be Bios, and that this again is only an abbreviation by copyists of Eusebios, who is named primo loco in the heading of the Synodal Letter. Which Eusebius is here meant is indeed doubtful, and depends upon the view taken as to the time when the Synod was held. Some take him to be the well-known Eusebius of Constantinople, formerly in Nicomedia; others the Eusebius, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (362-370), the predecessor of S. Basil the Great.

The Synodal Letter of Gangra says that “the Synod assembled on account of certain necessities of the Church, and for the investigation of the affair of Eustathius; and having found that many improprieties had been committed by the Eustathians, it therefore sought to remove the evils occasioned by him, Eustathius”.  It then enumerates the following disorders occasioned by the Eustathians: —

(1.) As the Eustathians condemn marriage, and maintain that no married person has hope with God, they have dissolved many marriages; and as those separated lacked the gift of continence, they have given occasion to adultery.

(2.) They caused many to forsake the public assemblies for divine service, and to organize private conventicles.

(3.) They despise the ordinary dress, and introduce a new (ascetic, monastic) dress.

(4.) The first-fruits which are given to the Church they claim for themselves, as being par excellence the saints.

(5.) Slaves run away from their masters and despise them, presuming upon their new dress.

(6.) Women now assume men’s clothes, and think themselves thereby justified; nay, many shave their heads under the pretext of piety.

(7.) They fast on Sundays, but eat on the fast-days of the Church.

(8.) Some forbid all animal food.

(9.) They will not pray in the houses of married people.

(10.) They will not take part in sacrifices (Eucharistic sacrifices) in the houses of married people.

(11.) They despise married priests and take no part in their worship.

(12.) They despise the services (masses) in honour of the martyrs, as well as those who join in them.

(13.) They maintain that the rich who do not forsake all have no hope of being saved.

“Besides this, much else that is wrong is taught by them, while they are not at unity among themselves, and each one adds what comes into his own mind. The Council accordingly condemns them, and declares them shut out from the Church; but in the case of their coming to a better mind and anathematizing their errors, they shall be again received”.

In this passage the chief contents of the canons of Gangra are already given; for they are in substance no more than anathemas of the above-mentioned errors and irregularities of the Eustathians. They run thus: —

Can. 1. If anyone despises wedlock, abhorring and blaming the woman who sleeps with her husband, even if she is a believer and devout, as if she could not enter the kingdom of God, let him be anathema (that is, without further judgment shut out from the Church).

Can. 2. If any one condemns one who eats meat, though he abstains from blood, idolatrous sacrifices, and things strangled, and is faithful and devout, as if in so doing he had no hope of salvation, let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone teaches a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master, to forsake his service, or not to serve him with good- will and entire respect, let him be anathema.

Can. 4. If anyone maintains that, when a married priest offers the sacrifice, no one should take part in the service, let him be excommunicated.

Can. 5. If anyone teaches that the house of God is to be despised, and likewise the services there held, let him be anathema.

Can. 6. If any one, avoiding the churches, holds private meetings, and in contempt of the Church performs that which belongs only to her, without the presence of a priest with authority from the bishop, let him be anathema.

Can. 7. If anyone appropriates to himself the tithes of fruit (oblations) belonging to the Church, or distributes them outside the Church, that is, to those who are not ministers of the Church, without the consent of the bishop, or without being authorized by him, and will not act according to his will, let him be anathema.

Can. 8. If anyone gives or receives such offerings without the consent of the bishop, or one appointed by him for the administration of charities, the giver as well as the receiver shall be anathematized.

Can. 9. If any one lives unmarried or in continence, avoiding marriage from contempt, and not because of the beauty and holiness of virginity, let him be anathema.

Can. 10. If any one of those who for the Lord’s sake remain single, in pride exalts himself above those who are married, let him be anathema.

Can. 11. If anyone despises those who in the faith solemnize the agape, and for the honor of the Lord invite their brethren to it, and will take no part in these invitations because he lightly esteems the matter, let him be anathema.

Can. 12. If any man from supposed asceticism wears the peribolaeum (the pallium of philosophers and monks), and as if he were thereby made righteous, despises those who in piety wear upper garments, and make use of other common and ordinary clothing, let him be anathema.

Can. 13. If a woman from pretended asceticism alters her dress, and instead of the customary female dress assumes male attire, let her be anathema.

Can. 14. If a woman leaves her husband and separates herself, from an abhorrence of the marriage state, let her be anathema.

Can. 15. If anyone forsakes his children, and does not educate them, and, as far as he can, train them in fitting habits of piety, but neglects them under the pretext of asceticism, let him be anathema.

Can. 16. If children, especially those of Christian parents, forsake them, under the pretext of piety, and do not show them due honor, on the plea of esteeming piety as the higher duty, let them be anathema.

Can. 17. If a woman from pretended asceticism cuts off her hair given her by God to remind her of her subjection, thus renouncing the command of subjection, let her be anathema.

Can. 18. If any one from pretended asceticism fasts on Sunday, let him be anathema.

Can. 19. If an ascetic, as possessing perfect understanding, and without bodily necessity, out of pride does not keep the fasts universally commanded, and observed by the whole Church, let him be anathema.

Can. 20. If any one out of pride and scorn censures the cultus of the martyrs or the services there held, and the commemoration of the martyrs, let him be anathema.

 

To these twenty canons the Synod of Gangra added an epilogue, which is often cited in the old manuscripts as the twenty-first canon, and the object of which was to prevent any misinterpretations of the decrees. It runs thus:

 

“We write (order) this, not in order to shut out those who in the Church of God, and in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, desire to lead ascetic lives, but those who make asceticism a pretext for pride, exalt themselves above those who lead simpler lives, and introduce innovations contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the canons of the Church. We, too, admire the virginity which is accompanied with humility, and approve continence when joined to dignity and virtue. We approve the renunciation of worldly affairs, if done with humility, and honor married intercourse as seemly, nor do we despise riches if united with righteousness and benevolence. We praise that simplicity and uncostliness of dress, which without ornament only serves for the needs of the body, and do not approve the effeminate and luxurious advance in dress. We also honor the house of God, and the assemblies held therein; but we do not confine holiness to these houses alone, but honor every place which is built in the name of God (therefore also the martyrs). We approve the common service in the Church of God for the good of the community, and value the immense charities of the brethren, which, in accordance with traditional order, are bestowed upon the poor through the Church; and, to sum up all, we wish that everything handed down in the Holy Scriptur”s and the Apostolic Traditions (that is, rules and usages) delivered to us should be observed in the Church". Gratian divided this Epilogue into two canons.

As we have seen, the Synod of Gangra was occasioned by the proud hyper-asceticism of Eustathius and his followers. Socrates and Sozomen both maintain that this Eustathius was no other than the well-known Bishop of Sebaste bearing the same name, with whom we became acquainted among the heads of the Semi-Arians. They also describe him as a strictly ascetic man, who introduced monasticism into Asia Minor and Armenia, gave rules for a strict life, as to dress and food, but who fell into foolish practices contrary to the laws of the Church. They then go on to ascribe to him in detail the very same ultra-rigorist and hyper-ascetic views which were censured by the Synod of Gangra, and their testimony has the more weight as both of them were only two generations younger than Eustathius, and he was one of those renowned personages who are spoken of long after their death.

This distinct statement of Socrates and Sozomen is further confirmed by Basil the Great, who also ascribes to Eustathius of Sebaste a tendency to monasticism, and subsequently quarrelled with him, his former friend, on account of several irregularities. To this must be added that Eustathius was bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, and that it was precisely to the bishops of Armenia that the Synod of Gangra directed its Synodal Letter. Under such circumstances, the statement of Baronius, Du Pin, and others (supported by no single ancient testimony), that another Eustathius, or possibly the monk Eutactus, is here meant, deserves no serious consideration, though Tillemont did not express himself otherwise than in favour of it.

It may be further questioned whether the errors and irregularities which the Council of Gangra rejected, should be attributed to Eustathius of Sebaste himself, or rather to his pupils, and the latter opinion found many supporters in the time of Sozomen. Among later writers, the Benedictines especially pronounced in favour of it. But the Synod of Gangra in its Synodal Letter not only speaks of the followers of Eustathius, but especially of Eustathius himself.

In accordance with the decisions of Gangra, Eustathius is said to have laid aside his peculiarities, and again dressed himself like other ecclesiastics (not as a monk); but Sozomen describes this as a mere unwarranted report. It now remains to decide the date of the Synod of Gangra. Socrates places it after the Synod of Constantinople of 360; but Sozomen, though certainly in a very vague and loose manner, places it before the Antiochian Synod of 341. The fact that in many old collections of canons, especially that of Dionysius, the canons of Gangra precede those of Antioch, agrees with this latter view, and not a few scholars have therefore placed the Synod of Gangra between those of Nicsea and Antioch, i.e. between 325 and 341; besides which, the Synod of Gangra mentions Eustathius without the title of bishop, which probably it would not have omitted if he had already at that time been raised to the episcopate.

Remi Ceillier has suggested another hypothesis as to the date of the Synod of Gangra, i.e. that, as in the letters in which S. Basil the Great complains of Eustathius (Ep. 226, 257) he never in any way mentions that the Synod had also declared against him, therefore it is more likely that it was held after those letters were written, in 376. Moreover, S. Basil's youngest brother, S. Peter, became bishop of Sebaste in 380. This would agree perfectly with the opinion that Eustathius was deposed from the See of Sebaste by the Synod of Gangra shortly before the year 380, and Peter appointed as his successor.

Lastly, the Ballerini are of opinion that this Synod took place between 362 and 370 A.D., and for this reason, that Bishop Eusebius, who is first named in the heading of the Synodal Letter, and was plainly the president of the Synod, was probably no other than the Archbishop Eusebius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the predecessor of S. Basil, to whom, in accordance with the prerogative of his See, the primacy over the provinces of Pontus, Paphlagonia, and Armenia belonged. This period between 362 and 370 would also agree with the statement of Socrates, that the Synod of Gangra came later than that of Constantinople in 360; and the Libellus Synodicus also, in stating that Dius was the president of the Synod of Gangra, probably indicates this Eusebius. But this hypothesis also is based upon the unproved assumption that the Eusebius of the Synodal Letter was the Archbishop Eusebius of Caesarea; and after all has been said, we can arrive at no certain conclusion as to the date of the Synod of Gangra.