E

EANHAM. (1009). [Concilium Ænhamense.] Held about 1009, at the command of King Ethelred, by St Alfeage, Archbishop of Canterbury, at Eanham (probably Ensham in Oxfordshire), at Whitsuntide; many bishops, abbots, and laymen were present. Thirty-two canons and laws were published.

1. Relates to the duties of abbots and abbesses, and regulars.

2. Enjoins chastity upon priests.

6. Forbids to sell a Christian into a foreign land.

7. Forbids to condemn Christians to death for every trifling cause.

8. Forbids marriage within the fourth degree.

9. Declares the protection of the Church, and of the king’s hand, to be equally inviolable.

10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Relate to the payment of various Church dues and fees.

15. Orders the due observation of fasts and festivals, except the fast before the feast of St Philip and St Jacob, which was not necessarily to be observed, by reason of the Paschal feast.

16. Commands the observance of the Ember fasts.

17. Orders men to fast on every Friday, except it be a festival.

18. Forbids the ordeal and oaths, and marriages, on high festivities, on Ember days, from Advent to the Octave of the Epiphany, and from Septuagesima to the fifteenth night after Easter.

19. Allows a widow to marry again twelve months after her husband’s death.

20. Orders every man to confess often, and to communicate at least thrice a year.

21. Enumerates various sins to be avoided by Christian people.

30. Charges “God’s servants” to be careful in their lives, to be chaste, and to follow their books and prayers, &c., &c.

31. Commands that the money arising from the satisfaction by an offender for his fault, shall, at the bishop’s discretion, be applied to the relief of the poor, the repairing of churches, providing bells, vestments, and the like.—Tom. ix. Conc., p. 789. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 285.

EDINBURGH (1177). Held in 1177, by the Cardinal Priest Vivianus, legate, in which many ancient canons were renewed and some fresh ones enacted.—Skinner’s Ecc. Hist. Scot., vol. i. p. 279; Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 486.

EDINBURGH (1552). Held in January 1552, by the Archbishop of St Andrews, in which the question was agitated, “whether the Paternoster might be said to the saints.” This matter made no small stir at the time, and amongst other places in St Andrews, the decision of the council was that the Lord’s Prayer might be said to the saints; but many of the bishops present urged the sub-prior of St Andrews upon his return rather to teach the people that “the Lord’s Prayer ought to be said to God; yet so that the saints ought also to be invocated.”

The council further ordered the publication of a catechism in the mother-tongue, containing an explication of the creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer; and all curates were enjoined to read some portion of it every Sunday and holiday, when there was no sermon.—Skinner, Ecc. Hist. Scot., vol. ii. p. 39.

EDINBURGH (1559). Held March 2, 1559, by desire of the Queen Regent of Scotland, to consider certain articles of reformation proposed by the (so-called) congregation, which were as follow:—

1. That the public prayer be said and the sacraments ministered in the vulgar tongue.

2. That bishops be elected by the gentry of the diocese, and parish priests by the parishioners.

3. That insufficient pastors be deprived.

4. That all immoral or unlearned churchmen be excluded from the administration of every ecclesiastical function.

To the first demand the council made answer, “that they could not dispense with using any language but Latin in the public prayers and administration of the sacraments, being appointed by the Church under most severe penalties.”

To the second: “That the canonical laws concerning the elections of bishops and pastors ought to be maintained, that the election of bishops being a privilege of the crown, with consent of the pope, to determine anything in opposition thereto, when the queen was so young, would be indiscreet and treasonable.”

To the two last they agreed.—Skinner’s Ecc. Hist. Scot., vol. ii. p. 80.

EDINBURGH (1724). An assembly of the Scotch bishops, convoked by John Fullerton, Bishop of Edinburgh, was held July 9th, 1724, to settle the points of difference concerning the “usages.” For some years past the bishops in Scotland had been divided as to the propriety of returning to the following usages (enjoined in the first book of Edward):—

1. Mixing water with the wine.

2. Commemoration of the faithful departed at the altar.

3. Consecrating the elements by express invocation.

4. Using the oblatory prayer before distribution.

In this conference a paper called a “Concordate,” was drawn up by six of the bishops, by which Bishop Gadderar, who favoured a revival of the above usages, agreed, on his part, not to refuse the unmixed cup when communicating with his brethren, not to mix publicly in any of his ministrations, and, further, to do all in his power that all under his inspection should walk by the same rule. Again, in consideration of the other bishops having permitted the use of the Scotch Liturgy, he engaged not to insist upon the introduction of any other ancient usages unauthorised by the Scotch Church. On the other hand, the primus, and other members of the “college of bishops” (so the opposers of usages called themselves), authorised and commissioned Bishop Gadderar to officiate as Bishop of Aberdeen.—Skinner, Ecc. Hist. Scot., vol. ii. p. 634.

EDINBURGH (1731). An assembly of the bishops of the Church of Scotland was held towards the end of December 1731, in which a second “Concordate” was drawn up; consisting of certain articles of agreement made between the college of bishops (as those who opposed the restoration of the ancient “usages” called themselves) and their opponents. These articles were to the following effect:—

1. That only the Scotch or English Liturgy should be made use of in public divine service. That the peace of the Church should not be disturbed by the introduction of disputed ancient usages; and those of the clergy who should act otherwise, should be censured.

2. That no one in future should be consecrated bishop without the consent of the majority of bishops.

3. That no bishop should be elected to a vacant bishopric by the presbyters, without the mandate of the primus, and consent of the majority of bishops.

4. That the majority of bishops shall elect the primus for convocating and presiding only. No bishop to exercise jurisdiction out of his own district.

5. Appoints Bishop Freebairn to the dignity of primus.

6. Relates to the limits of the different dioceses.

These articles were signed by five bishops present, and subsequently by four others.—Skinner, Ecc. Hist. Scot., vol. ii. p. 646.

EDINBURGH (1743). Held August 9, 1743, on occasion of the consecration of John Alexander to the see of Dunkeld. Four other bishops were present: Bishop Keith, primus, presiding. Sixteen canons, ten of which had been drawn up by the deceased Bishop Rattray, were agreed to.

1. Enacts that no one shall be consecrated bishop without the consent of the majority of the bishops. All consecration otherwise performed to be void, and the consecrator and the person consecrated judged schismatics.

2. The primus to be chosen indifferently from the bishops by the majority of voices. The primus to have no other exclusive privilege than that of convocating and presiding, and that under three restrictions—(1.) If the reasons assigned by him for a convocation shall seem insufficient to the majority of the other bishops, or the time or place appointed improper, the meeting to be wholly set aside, or the time and place altered accordingly. (2.) If the primus refuse to convoke a synod, when required by the majority of bishops, the latter may proceed to convoke without him. (3.) The primus to hold his office only during the pleasure of the majority of bishops.

3. No primus, under pain of suspension, to lay claim to any further power than is granted by these present canons.

4. Upon the demise or translation of a bishop, the presbyters of the district shall not proceed to elect to the see without the mandate of the primus with the majority of bishops.

5. If the presbyters of any district shall elect a person already consecrated, he shall nevertheless not have any jurisdiction over the district until his election be confirmed by the majority of bishops.

If the person elected be a presbyter with whom the majority of bishops, for good reasons, are dissatisfied, a new election shall be made.

6. Every bishop to appoint one of his presbyters to act as his dean. The dean to inform the primus of the death of his bishop. The dean to apply for a mandate to elect a successor within four months after vacancy.

7. During a vacancy the nearest bishop to perform the necessary episcopal functions in the district; no other bishop to take upon him to perform any such functions without the consent of such bishop. In cases of discipline, for which no rule is found, the presbyters of a vacant bishopric to apply to the primus, who shall determine the case with his colleagues.

8. No presbyter shall take upon him the charge of any congregation until he be appointed by the bishop of the district. No presbyter nor deacon shall remove from his district without letters dismissory from the bishop. None to be ordained presbyter without a designation to a particular charge.

9. Enacts that in cases where, owing to the distressed state of the Church, the bishop of one district was compelled to dwell within the district of another bishop, and to have his place of worship there, those who belonged to his congregation, as well as his assisting presbyters and deacons, should be under his sole jurisdiction.

10. Orders every bishop carefully to recommend to his clergy and to candidates for holy orders, the study of the Holy Scriptures, and of the fathers of the apostolic and two following ages; and diligently to instruct their people in the truly Catholic principles of that pure and primitive Church.

11. The dean of every district to sit in all synodical meetings as the representative of the presbyters: to defend the interests of the presbyters, but to have no decisive vote. The dean of vacant districts to be chosen by the presbyters.

12. Upon the death of the primus, the senior bishop to succeed at once, and to hold office until the next synod, to be holden within four months.

13. Bishops unable, through infirmity, or pressing inconvenience, to attend at a synod, to notify the same to the primus. Bishops so absent, to be permitted to send their judgment upon the matter to be debated to the primus, signed with their own hand, and this to be considered as their canonical vote. Absent bishops also permitted to make propositions in writing, for the consideration of the synod. No synod to be holden unless more bishops be present than absent.

14. In all cases where the votes of the bishops are equally divided, the vote of the primus to count for two.

15. Any presbyter or deacon deposed by his bishop, who shall presume to perform any part of his sacred office, or to gather a separate or schismatical congregation, to be excommunicated; and any clergyman taking upon him to countenance such presbyter or deacon in their schismatical separation to be suspended from the exercise of his holy functions during the bishop’s pleasure. And such of the laity as shall adventure to adhere to the deposed presbyter or deacon, either in worship or other sacred administration, not to be allowed to partake of any Church ordinances until they be again reconciled and received by the bishop of the district.

16. Any clergyman taking upon him to marry persons belonging to another congregation, without the certificate of their proper pastor, to be suspended for the first offence for three months, for the second six months, for the third sine die.—Skinner, Ecc. Hist. Scot., vol. ii. p. 654. Coll. C. E. Hist. 663.

EGARENSE (615). January 13th, 615. Esp. Sag. tom. xlii. t. xxv. 83.

ELNE (1027). [Concilium Helenense.] Held in 1027, at Elne, a city in Rousillon. Amongst other things, the Trève de Dieu was decreed in this council, by which it was enacted that no man should attack his enemy from the hour of noon on Saturday, till the hour of prime on Monday, under pain of excommunication; also that the holy office should be said for three months for excommunicated persons, to obtain the grace of God for their conversion.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1184.

ELVIRA (or ILLIBERIS) (300). [Concilium Eliberitanum.] Held probably about the year 300, at Elvira (Illiberis), which Florez believes to have stood on the site of the present Granada. Nineteen bishops were present, and eighty-one strict canons were published. Amongst the bishops was Hosius of Cordova; twenty-six priests and certain deacons also assisted. The canons appear to be a collection from the penitential canons of Africa and Spain.

1. Deprives of communion, even in death, those who, after baptism, have voluntarily sacrificed to idols.

3. Relaxes the penalty in canon 1 in favour of those who have not gone beyond offering a present to the idol. It allows of admitting such to communion at the point of death, if they have undergone a course of penance.

6 and 7. Forbid communion even at the point of death to those who have caused the death of another maliciously, and to adulterers who have relapsed after entering upon the course of penance.

12 and 13. Forbid communion even in death to mothers who prostitute their own daughters, and to women who, after consecrating themselves in virginity to God, forsake that state.

20. Directs that all ecclesiastics guilty of usury shall be degraded.

23. Orders that every month double fasts shall be kept, except in July and August.

These double fasts consisted of a fast on two consecutive days, on the first of which no food might be taken.

26. Orders the observation of Saturday as a fast.

32. Forbids priests to reconcile penitents, but in case of necessity allows the priest or deacon to administer the holy communion. Si et jusserit sacerdos.

33. Prohibits the clergy from the use of marriages.

34. Forbids to burn lights in cemeteries during the day, lest the spirits of the faithful should be disturbed. Cabaputius interprets this of wizards who tried by this means to raise the forms of the dead.

36. Declares that pictures ought not to be in a Church, lest the object of veneration and worship be depicted upon walls.

40. Declares that one who is put to death for breaking down idols shall not be numbered amongst the martyrs, for such an act is not commanded in the Gospels nor sanctioned by the example of the Apostles. (See art. ARIDAS.)

46. Imposes ten years’ penance upon apostates.

51. Excommunicates for five years the man who shall have married his wife’s sister.

52. Pronounces anathema against persons guilty of publishing defamatory libels.

57. Directs that no man or woman who has lent his or her dress for any profane ceremony, shall enter the church for three years.

63 and 64. Forbid communion even in death to adulteresses who have wilfully destroyed their children, or who abide in a state of adultery up to the time of their last illness.

65. Forbids communion even in death to one who has falsely accused of crime a bishop, a priest, or deacon.—Tom. i. Conc. 967.

ELY (1290). Held about Michaelmas, in 1290, at Ely, for the transaction of general business relating to the honour of God and the public good. William, Bishopelect of Ely, was consecrated in his own cathedral by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a fifteenth part of all their goods was voted by the clergy to supply the necessities of the Royal Exchequer.—Wilkins’ Conc., vol. ii. p. 173.

EMBRUN (1290). [Concilium Ebrædunense.] Held by Raymond de Mévillion on the Saturday before the Feast of the Assumption, 1290. Besides Raymond there were present the Bishops of Grasse, Digne, Glandéve, Senez, Nice, and Vence. Three canons were published.

2. Orders that special prayers shall be offered up in every parochial and conventual church in order to obtain a mitigation of the persecutions which the Church suffered.—Mart., Thes. Anec. Tom. iv. col. 209.

EMBRUN (1727). Held in 1727, by M. de Tencin, Archbishop of Embrun, and subsequently cardinal, upon occasion of the publication of a Pastoral Instruction by Soanen, Bishop of Senez, in the preceding year. Eighteen bishops attended, four belonging to the province of Embrun, and ten from those in the immediate neighbourhood. They declared the Pastoral Instruction, which opposed the Bull Unigenitus and the papal infallibility, to be rash, scandalous, seditious, injurious to the Church, to the bishops, and to the royal authority, schismatical, full of error, and calculated to foment heresy. The Bishop of Senez himself was suspended from all episcopal power and jurisdiction, and from the exercise of both sacerdotal and episcopal offices, and imprisoned till his death.—Conc. Ebræd., in 4to, published in 1728, Paris.

ENGLAND (516). [Concilium Britannicum.] Held in 516, by all the archbishops, bishops, and abbots of the country, on the occasion of the coronation of King Arthur. St Dubritius, desiring to devote himself to a hermit’s life, resigned the archiepiscopal seat of Caer-leon, and David was elected in his stead.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1562.

ENGLAND (603). Held in 603, by St Augustine, probably near Bangor Iscoed, “Augustine’s Oak,” in the open air. This was properly a conference between Augustine and the bishops of the British Church. Seven bishops, and two from Cornwall and Somerset, attended, with Dunod, Abbot of the monastery of Bangor Iscoed, and several doctors. St Augustine proposed to them to receive their Churches into union if they would agree to the following propositions:—

1. To keep the feast of Easter with the Roman Church, and on the first Sunday after the fifteenth day of the moon.

2. To administer holy baptism after the use of the Roman Church, by three immersions.

3. Unite with them in preaching the Gospel to the Anglo-Saxons.

These terms the British bishops refused, as well as his demand to be recognised as primate, and St Augustine at his departure warned them of the sorrows which he foresaw to be in store for their Church. As he died in 604, this council must have been held shortly before that date.—Churton’s Early Eng. Church, p. 42. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i., pp. 26, 27.

ENGLAND (693). Held about 693, by Ina, King of the West Saxons, during the vacancy of the see of Canterbury. Hedda, Bishop of Winchester, and a large assembly of the “servants of God” were present, besides many aldermen and other laymen. Seventy-five laws were passed, many of which refer to temporal matters, and fourteen to ecclesiastical affairs.

2. Orders children to be baptised within thirty nights.

3. Forbids work on Sundays.

5. Establishes the privilege of sanctuary afforded by Churches.

6. Fines, to the amount of one hundred and twenty shillings, a person who shall fight in a minster; inflicts various fines for fighting in different situations.

12. Requires one hundred and twenty shillings for satisfaction for breaking into a bishop’s house; the same for breaking into the king’s.

It is probably this council which Bede speaks of as having been called by King Ina, to effect a union between the British and Saxon Christians, who still differed in many usages.—Johnson, Ecc. Canons. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 58.

ENGLAND (908). Held about 908, by King Edward the elder, the son of Alfred; Plegemund, Archbishop of Canterbury, presiding. The Bull of Pope Sergius III. was read, complaining of the long vacancy of several episcopal sees, and enacting, “that for the future, when any bishop dies, there shall be no delay in placing another in his stead.”

In consequence, West Saxony was divided into five dioceses instead of two, and bishops nominated to fill them. The three new sees were those of Wells, St Petroc’s, or Bodmin, and Crediton.—Johnson, Ecc. Canons. Wharton, Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 209.

ENGLAND (969). Held in 969, by St Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury. Bishops from all parts of England attended, to whom the archbishop spoke at length concerning the irregular conduct of the clergy, especially denouncing their dissolute habits and indecent gestures; their negligence in celebrating divine service, scarcely condescending to attend at Vigils, and coming to mass only to laugh; also their devotion to every kind of sensuality.

It was then decreed that all canons, priests, deacons, and subdeacons, should observe the law of continence, or be deprived.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 698. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 247.

EPAONE (or EPAUNE) (517). [Concilium Epaonense, Epaunense, Pomense, or Poumense.] Supposed to be Yene, in the diocese of Bellay. Avitus of Vienne convoked this council under Sigismond, King of Burgundy, whom he had converted from the Arian heresy. Twenty-seven bishops, all from the kingdom of Burgundy, attended; amongst whom were Viventiolus of Lyons, Apollinaris of Valence, Gregory of Langres, &c. Avitus, in the letter of convocation, complains of the neglect of councils, and states that the pope had censured him upon that account. Forty canons were published.

3. Forbids the ordination of persons who have done open penance.

4. Forbids the clergy to keep dogs or birds for sport.

15. Separates from communion any clerk guilty of eating with a heretical clerk.

21. Forbids the consecration of widows to be deaconesses.

25. Forbids to place the relics of saints in rustic oratories, unless the neighbouring clergy can honour the sacred ashes with chanting.

26. Forbids to consecrate any but a stone altar.

30. Forbids incestuous marriages. Forbids any one to marry his brother’s widow, who is already almost his sister, or the own sister of his wife, or his step-mother, or cousin-german, or the widow or daughter of his uncle, or the children of his paternal uncle, or any of his own blood. Allows those already so married, either to keep their wives, or to form a new and lawful marriage.

35. Enjoins all Christian persons to go and receive the blessing of their bishops on the nights of Christmas and Easter.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1573.

Mansi, in his Supplement to the Collection of Labbe, says, that to the canons of this council should be added that which forbids bishops and priests to celebrate the holy Eucharist in unconsecrated houses.

EPHESUS (196). [Concilium Ephesinum.] Held in 196, under Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, where it was ruled that Easter should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon, on whatever day of the week it might be. A letter from Polycrates to Victor, Bishop of Rome, is extant in Eusebius, in which he defends this practice. (See C. PALESTINE, 195.)—Tom. i. Conc. p. 598. Euseb. Hist. v. 23, 24.

EPHESUS (401). Held in 401, by St Chrysostom, at the head of seventy bishops, from Asia and Lydia. Heraclidus was here consecrated Bishop of Ephesus. Six simoniacal bishops were deposed, upon the testimony of witnesses and their own confession, and others elected to succeed them.—Palladius, Dial. c. 15. p. 135. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1222.

EPHESUS (431). The third œcumenical council was held at Ephesus in 431, upon the controversy raised by Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, who declaimed against the title of Θεοτόκος, which the Church applied to the Blessed Virgin, as the mother of Him who was both God and man.

To understand fully the circumstances which led to the convocation of this council, it is necessary to relate something of the previous history of Nestorius.

As soon as Nestorius had been elevated to the see of Constantinople, he evinced a most violent zeal against all heretics, and carried on matters against them with great vehemence and indiscretion. He destroyed a church in which the Arians were accustomed to hold their meetings, and in various ways persecuted all sects of heretics. The way in which he attacked the Quartodecimani occasioned great commotions amongst the Sardians, in which many lives were lost. By this conduct, according to Socrates, he rendered himself very odious; but his excessive zeal for the truth, as it afterwards appeared, was only assumed, in order the more securely to introduce his own heresy, which asserted two persons in Christ; and that by His two natures, we are to understand that He was, in fact, no more than a perfect man, connected by a moral and apparent union with the Word. That is to say, that the Word was, indeed, united to man, but was not made man. Christ was not born of the Virgin, and never suffered death. And so that the Virgin was not Theotokos, the mother of God, but the mother of the Man; or, as he expressed it, of Christ; intending by the Word Christ not the God-Man, but the man connected with God. He asserted, moreover, that by reason of this connection, it was lawful to worship Jesus Christ as God, and to attribute to Him those titles and attributes which Holy Scripture and the Church have assigned to Him; but still that all this was done in an improper sense; as, for instance, in Holy Scripture Moses is said to be a god unto Pharaoh. He even allowed the use of the expression, “mother of God,” provided those who did use it confessed that it was in an improper sense, and only because Jesus Christ was the temple of God. In answer to objections brought against him, he distinguished the Word from the Son of God, declaring Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and Emmanuel, but not the Word. Thus the main point in his heresy was that the Son of God was connected with the Son of man, but was not made the Son of man.

Although he endeavoured at first to propagate his error secretly, and in an obscure and ambiguous manner, he eventually determined to proclaim it openly; and an opportunity was afforded him by Anastasius, a priest, who, in a sermon, boldly maintained that “no one should presume to call Mary the mother of God; for that she was but a woman, and it was impossible that God should be born of a woman.” This assertion produced a great sensation everywhere; but, notwithstanding, Nestorius openly supported the doctrine of Anastasius in his sermons; and declared, that to call the Virgin the mother of God, was nothing less than to justify the follies of the Pagans, who attributed mothers to their gods. Upon this, certain of the clergy and monks of Constantinople expressed a desire to learn from himself whether he really confessed the doctrines imputed to him, which they maintained to be contrary to the Catholic faith: Nestorius, however, caused them to be seized, beaten, and thrust into prison.

In spite, however, of his violence and insolence, a simple layman had the boldness to enter the lists against him, maintaining “that the same Word born of the Father before all worlds, was born a second time of the Virgin after the flesh;” but although this champion of the true faith received great praise, the heresy of Nestorius continued to spread everywhere, especially by means of his Homilies, which were carried to all parts, and penetrated even into the deserts in which the monks dwelt. It was upon this occasion that St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, fearing lest these errors should take root amongst them, wrote his letter to the hermits.

Nestorius, perceiving the storm which was now rising against him, thought to turn it aside by convoking a pseudo-council, in which he deposed many of the clergy as followers of the Manichæans, and sentenced them to be exiled; for, secure of the emperor’s protection and countenance, he acted with the utmost boldness and insolence. But St Cyril, determined to persevere in his opposition to the new heresy, addressed a letter to the emperor (Theodosius) and his sister, in which, after having refuted all the heresies which had appeared upon the subject of the Incarnation, he stated and proved the real faith of the Church, in opposition to those who endeavoured to divide, as it were, Jesus Christ into two persons; meaning Nestorius, although he did not name him. At the same time, in order to arrest the progress of the heresy, he assembled a council at Alexandria, which was attended by the bishops of Egypt, to whom he communicated the letters that had passed between himself, the Pope, and Nestorius. The result was the celebrated synodal letter containing the twelve anathemas of St Cyril. A short time previously (430) the doctrines of Nestorius had been condemned in a council held at Rome.

The dispute had now become so hot and general, that both parties applied to the emperor, demanding an œcumenical council, as the only means of settling it. This he accordingly granted, and addressed a circular letter of convocation to all metropolitans, declaring that he had appointed Ephesus to be the place of assembling, and commanding them to attend at the following Whitsuntide, with their suffragans, but not in too great numbers. At the same time he wrote especially to St Augustine to entreat him to attend, but he was already dead when the letter arrived at Carthage.

Celestine, the Pope, not seeing fit to attend in person, sent three legates, Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and Philip, a priest.

Amongst the first who arrived at the council was Nestorius, with a numerous body of followers, and accompanied by Ireneus, a nobleman, his friend and protector. St Cyril also, and Juvenal of Jerusalem came, accompanied by about fifty of the Egyptian bishops; Memnon of Ephesus had brought together about forty of the bishops within his jurisdiction; and altogether more than two hundred bishops were present. Candidianus, the commander of the forces in Ephesus, attended, by order of the emperor, to keep peace and order; but by his conduct he greatly favoured the party of Nestorius.

The day appointed for the opening of the council was June the 7th; but John of Antioch, and the other bishops from Syria and the East not having arrived, it was delayed till the 22nd of the same month.

During this interval St Cyril examined the question of the Incarnation, and made extracts from the books of Nestorius. Memnon of Ephesus entirely adopted the views of Cyril. The partisans of Nestorius, on the other hand, complained of certain injuries which had been done them by the clergy and by some Egyptian sailors; and there is no doubt that the people of Ephesus were inclined to the Catholic side, and strongly opposed to Nestorius and his party.

Meanwhile Nestorius, in the course of his conversations with the bishops, manifested more and more the venom of his heresy; and, in answer to those who proved to him from the Holy Scriptures, that Jesus Christ was truly God, and was born of the blessed Virgin after the flesh, impiously declared, that “he could not call an infant of two or three months old God, or bring himself to adore a sucking-child.”

The delay of John of Antioch, and the other Eastern bishops with him, in coming to the council, troubled the Catholics, for he was known to be the friend of Nestorius, and his absence was attributed to the fear of seeing Nestorius deposed. There is reason to believe that John did, in fact, hope by his delays to wear out the patience of the bishops, so that in the end the matter might fall to the ground. It is true that he protested to the emperor, upon his arrival, that he had made all the haste in his power, and had accomplished the journey from Antioch to Ephesus in forty days: but his excuses were looked upon as mere pretexts. Previously to his arrival, Cyril and his followers, when the 22nd June drew nigh, took measures for the opening of the council on that day, as had been settled, judging that they had waited long enough for the Oriental bishops; and although this was warmly opposed by Nestorius and sixty-eight of the bishops, who, with Candidianus, insisted upon waiting for the arrival of John and the others, Cyril prevailed; and on the 22nd June 431, the council assembled in the church of the holy Mother of God at Ephesus. Every thing was done with regularity, and in order; St Cyril presided, and was styled by the council the head of all the bishops assembled. After him came Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavianus of Philippi, Firmus of Cesarea, Memnon of Ephesus, Acacius of Melitene, Rabbulas of Edessa, St Euthymius, the abbot, Theodotus of Ancyra, and the others according to their rank and dignity, to the number of one hundred and ninety-eight; most of them being from Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Egypt. The holy gospels were placed in the midst of the assembly, signifying the presence of Christ Himself. Soc. l. 7, c. 29, p. 370, c. d. &c.

As soon as the bishops were assembled, June 22, a further, but ineffectual, effort was made to stay proceedings until the arrival of those that were absent. They then proceeded to business; and, in the first place, the letter of the emperor, convoking the council, was read. The answer of Nestorius to the citation of the council, was then declared, viz., that he would come if he judged it necessary; but in order that the matter might be carried on canonically, before any of the papers relating to the affair were read, they deputed three bishops to bear to Nestorius a second monition to appear before the council, and to give an account of his faith. The deputies, upon their arrival at his house, found it surrounded by armed soldiers, and could not get to speak with him; he, however, caused them to be informed, that when all the bishops had arrived he would appear before the council. A third citation was then made, with no better success. After this the fathers resolved to think only of the defence of the true faith, following strictly the canons of the Church. These were read.

1. The Nicene Creed, according to custom, as being the rule of faith.

2. Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, of which the fathers highly approved.

3. The answer of Nestorius to this letter, which the fathers vehemently declared to be heretical, and at variance with the true faith, as contained in the creed.

4. Twenty articles selected out of the works of Nestorius, containing a collection of passages from his sermons; these the fathers declared to be “horrible blasphemies;” and with one voice exclaimed, “Anathema to the heretic Nestorius, and to all who refuse to anathematise him!”

5. The last letter of St Cyril to Nestorius, containing the twelve anathemas; upon which nothing was said.

6. Various passages from the fathers, showing what was their doctrine upon the subject of the Incarnation; which the fathers of the council declared entirely coincided with their own faith.

Seventhly, the depositions of those bishops who had heard the impious doctrine of Nestorius from his own mouth, were received.

After all these documents had been read and commented upon, sentence was given in these terms:—

“Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom Nestorius hath blasphemed, hath declared by this holy synod, that he is deprived of all episcopal dignity, and cut off from all part in the priesthood, and from every ecclesiastical assembly.”

This sentence was signed by one hundred and ninety-eight bishops, according to Tillemont, and by more than two hundred according to Fleury; it was immediately made known to Nestorius, and published in the public places, causing an extreme joy throughout the city. At the same time notice of it was sent to the clergy and people of Constantinople, with a recommendation to them to secure the property of the Church for the successor of the deprived Nestorius. As soon, however, as Nestorius had received notice of this sentence, he protested against it, and all that had passed at the council; and forwarded to the emperor an account of what had been done, artfully drawn up, to prejudice the latter against the council, and setting forth that Cyril and Memnon, refusing to wait for John and the other bishops, had hurried matters on in a tumultuous and irregular way, and with evident signs of hatred against himself.

In order, therefore, to do away with the bad impression which such an account could not but make upon the emperor, the fathers deemed it right to forward to him the acts of the council; but the friends of Nestorius at Constantinople contrived to keep from the emperor’s presence all who came to him on the part of the council, whilst, on the other hand, Candidianus made use of violence against the bishops, surrounded them with guards, and prevented them from sending any other persons from Ephesus to the court.

In the midst of these proceedings, John of Antioch arrived at Ephesus, June 27, followed by twenty-seven bishops, and escorted by a band of soldiers; affronted that the council had not delayed its proceedings until he arrived, he gave the most violent and irregular tokens of his displeasure, refusing to admit to his presence the deputies whom the council sent to him to inform him of what had been done, and even causing the bishops to be repulsed from his door by soldiers.

Meanwhile he assembled a mock council, with Nestorius and his Orientals, amounting altogether to about forty bishops, who took upon themselves to judge and condemn the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus; to depose St Cyril and Memnon, and to separate from communion the rest of the two hundred bishops composing it.

This being done, John admitted the deputies of the council; but no sooner had they opened the object of their mission than the bishops of the party of John, with Ireneus, began to load them with abuse, and even to offer them bodily violence; upon which they retired, carrying to the council their complaints of the manner in which they had been treated. The fathers, shocked at such a proceeding, immediately declared John to be separated from communion, until he should appear before them and justify himself; at the same time, they testified their contempt for the sentence of his mock council. Nestorius and his party, having written to the emperor, in justification of their proceedings, the latter, prejudiced by Candidianus, addressed a letter to the fathers of the council, in which he declared his disapproval of the deposition of Nestorius, and stated that he would suffer no bishop to leave Ephesus, until the question about doctrine had been settled. In reply to this, the fathers justified their proceedings, and complained of the false reports of Candidianus.

The party of John, elated by the emperor’s letter, made an attempt to consecrate a new bishop for Ephesus, in the place of Memnon; but as soon as their design got wind, the gates of the church were barred with all haste, and they were obliged to retire in confusion. In the meantime, although the party of Nestorius endeavoured to hinder all egress from Ephesus, the fathers contrived to get a letter conveyed in a hollow stick to the monks and clergy of Constantinople, who having received it, resolved to wait upon the emperor in a body, with the abbot St Dalmatius, who for forty-eight years had not quitted his monastery, at their head.

The letter having been presented to the emperor, and a true version of the proceedings at Ephesus laid before him, he testified his satisfaction at what had been done by the council; upon which the party of John and Nestorius immediately sent Count Ireneus to the emperor with various letters to support their cause. Dalmatius, however, and the clergy of Constantinople, wrote to the fathers at Ephesus, telling them what they had done, and testifying their joy at the deposition of Nestorius.

The presence of Ireneus at Constantinople again marred the prospects of the orthodox party. This nobleman was entirely devoted to the cause of Nestorius and John, and by his false statements renewed the emperor’s former prejudices against the council, or rather, reduced him to a complete state of indecision, which resulted in his confirming the deposition both of Nestorius and of St Cyril and Memnon, and annulling all else that had been done by either party; at the same time he sent Count John to Ephesus to regulate matters according to the best of his judgment.

Before the next session, the deputies of the Bishop of Rome arrived, and on the 10th of July the council sat again. When the letter of Celestinus to the council had been read, the legates were informed of the preceding acts of the council, and declared their assent to the sentence passed against Nestorius.

On the 16th of July, in the fourth sitting, a petition was received from St Cyril and Memnon, demanding justice in the matter of the sentence pronounced against them by John of Antioch and the Syrian bishops. The council directed that these last should be summoned to appear; but the bishops sent to execute the summons were repulsed by soldiers. A second citation having been made, John declared that he could give no answer to men who were deposed and excommunicated.

In the following session, July 17, the deputies who were sent with a third citation to John of Antioch, were met by the archdeacon of Nestorius, who desired to give them a paper; but upon their judging it right to refuse this, he declared that as they would not receive his memorial, he would pay no further regard to the council, but wait for the emperor’s decision. Subsequently, the council proceeded to separate from communion, John of Antioch and his Syrian followers, to the number of thirty-three, amongst whom was Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, the celebrated ecclesiastical writer. To this sentence it was added, that, unless they speedily made acknowledgment of their fault, the extreme penalty would be inflicted upon them.

In this session, probably, six canons were drawn up against the Syrians and Nestorians; they contain nothing whatever relating to the public discipline of the Church.

In the sixth session, July 22, St Cyril presided. The council condemned the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia (not, however, naming that bishop), and strictly forbade any person to compose, or cause to be signed by those who would enter the Church, any other creed or confession of faith than that of Nicea, under pain of deposition, if an ecclesiastic, and of anathema, if a layman.

In the seventh session, August 31, the petition of Rheginus, Archbishop of Constantia or Salamis, in Cyprus, was read, in which he complained of the encroachments upon his rights made by the Church of Antioch, in arrogating the right of ordination contrary to canon and universal custom. The sentence of the council was to the effect that the archbishops of Cyprus should be left in free possession of the right of consecrating their own bishops, according to canon and custom, unless the Patriarch of Antioch could prove that the privilege he claimed was founded upon ancient usage; for, since the latter was not present in the council, he could not then defend his case.—Orien’s Chr. Tom. ii. col. 1039.

Shortly after this session, Count John, who had been sent by Theodosius, arrived at Ephesus, and appointed the bishops of both synods to meet him on the following day. Accordingly, John of Antioch and Nestorius attended with their party, and St Cyril with the Catholics; but immediately a dispute arose between them, the latter justly contending that Nestorius should not be present, whilst the former wished to exclude St Cyril. Upon this, the Count, to quiet matters, gave both Cyril and Nestorius into custody, and then endeavoured, but in vain, to reconcile the two parties. Thus matters seemed as far from a settlement as ever; in the meanwhile, the emperor endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation between the two parties, by obliging the orthodox bishops to communicate with the Syrians; this, however, the former positively refused to do, until the latter should cease from their evil conduct towards Cyril and Memnon, and would consent to anathematise Nestorius and his doctrines.

At last the Syrian party made a move towards restoring the peace of the Church, and rendered an account of their belief upon the subjects of the Incarnation and of the Blessed Virgin, which was found to be sound and Catholic, and was subsequently of great use in pacifying the troubles which had arisen. On the other hand, the fathers of the council wrote to the emperor in behalf of Cyril and Memnon, laying before him the true state of the case. They were warmly seconded by the orthodox party in Constantinople, with whom they had also communicated, and who did not hesitate to proclaim openly their sympathy for the two persecuted bishops, and addressed to the emperor a very forcible petition in the name of all the clergy, setting before him, amongst other things, that by condemning in Nestorius the whole of his party, and in St Cyril and Memnon all the Catholics, he had, in fact, left every thing open to the Arians and Eunomians. They concluded by declaring that they were ready to suffer every thing, even martyrdom, with those who maintained the same true faith as themselves.

Worked upon by these representations, the emperor at last permitted the fathers of the council to send to him eight deputies, whilst the Orientals or Syrians, on their part, sent as many; the place of meeting was Chalcedon, whither the emperor proceeded, and spent five days in listening to the arguments on both sides; and here the Council of Ephesus may, in fact, be said to have terminated; nothing is known of what passed at Chalcedon, but the event shows that Theodosius was convinced by the arguments of the Catholics, since upon his return to Constantinople he ordered, by a letter, the Catholic deputies to come there, and to proceed to consecrate a bishop in the place of Nestorius, whom he had already ordered to leave Ephesus, and to confine himself to his monastery near Antioch. Afterwards, he directed that all the bishops at the council, including St Cyril and Memnon, should return to their respective dioceses.

The judgment of this council was at once approved by the whole Western Church, and by far the greater part of the East; and was subsequently confirmed by the œcumenical Council of Chalcedon, consisting of six hundred and thirty bishops. Even John of Antioch, and the Eastern bishops, very soon acknowledged it. It has ever been regarded by every branch of the true Church as œcumenical.—Richerius, Hist. Conc. Gen. tom. i. c. 7. Tom. iii. Conc. p. 1, &c. Palmer’s Treatise on the Church.

EPHESUS (449). Held in 449. Although this council was immediately rejected and annulled by the œcumenical Council of Chalcedon, and by the universal Church, it is too remarkable to be omitted. The circumstances which led to it are as follows:—

The heretic Eutyches, whom Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, had in the preceding year deposed, burning with the desire of revenge, for some time past had endeavoured, by falsehood and cabals, to induce the Emperor Theodosius to call a council, in which he hoped to triumph over the bishops. This hope was greatly strengthened by the knowledge that he possessed the favour of Chrysaphius, the eunuch and chief officer of the emperor, whose influence over the latter was unbounded, and who so entered into the views of Eutyches, as to resolve to obtain the reversal of the sentence against him. He began by persuading Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, to undertake the defence of Eutyches, and to attack Flavianus. Then he united his entreaties to those of Eutyches, that the emperor would convoke an œcumenical council. In consequence, Theodosius wrote to Dioscorus, desiring him to attend at Ephesus, on the 1st of August, with ten metropolitan, and as many Egyptian bishops, and no more, in order to inquire into a question of faith in dispute between Flavianus and Eutyches, and to remove from the Church the favourers of Nestorius. In the same manner he wrote to other bishops, always fixing the same number of metropolitans and bishops, and especially forbidding Theodoret to leave his diocese. He sent his own officers, Elpidus and Eulogius, with authority to provide such troops as they might deem necessary, in order to carry into effect what might be required.

The bishops who had sat in judgment upon Eutyches were present at the council, but were allowed to take no part in the debates, and Dioscorus was allowed to take the lead in every thing relating to the council.

Before its commencement Eutyches obtained leave to hold an assembly, in which he pretended to show that the acts relating to his condemnation had been falsified, and his answer garbled, those expressions which would have established his innocence having been, as he pretended, omitted. However, the correctness of the acts was proved.

St Leo sent three legates in consequence of the letter of the emperor, one of whom died on the road, the other two were Julian, Bishop of Puteoli, and the deacon Hilary (afterwards pope). It was at this time that he wrote his celebrated letter to Flavianus upon the Incarnation.

The council met, August 8, and about one hundred and thirty bishops attended; amongst them were Dioscorus, Domnus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Eustathius of Berytus, Basil of Ancyra, and Basil of Seleucia; also Flavianus with several of his clergy. Eutyches was present with many of his monks.

About forty-two of the bishops who had taken part in the Council of Constantinople were present, but they were not allowed to have any voice in the deliberations, any more than Flavianus himself, which, as Tillemont observes, was manifestly contrary to the canons.

In the first place Dioscorus, who presided, read the emperor’s letter of convocation, after which the pope’s legates presented his letter to the council, which, however, was not read. Thalassius then moved that they should proceed at once to consider the question concerning the faith, to which Dioscorus objected, upon a plea that the faith, as settled by the fathers, ought not to be questioned, but that they should rather proceed at once to consider whether the condemnation of Eutyches had been in accordance with that faith. Then Eutyches was brought in, and presented a petition, in which he complained of having been persecuted for his unwillingness to hold any other faith but that of the Nicene Creed.

Flavianus then demanded that Eusebius of Dorylæum, who had accused Eutyches, should be brought in and confronted with him: this, however, was refused, and the acts of the Council of Constantinople were then read. In the exposition of faith given by Flavianus they could find nothing to condemn; but when it was read that Basil of Seleucia had said that Jesus Christ is to be adored in two natures, Barsumas and his monks, together with the Egyptian bishops, with loud cries exclaimed, that he deserved to be torn to pieces who thus divided Christ; and when they came to that passage in which Eusebius pressed Eutyches to confess two natures, voices were heard on all sides calling out that Eusebius ought to be burnt alive, and that whoever held the two natures in Jesus Christ should be anathematised.

Dioscorus and his party then declared that they believed with Eutyches in one nature only, upon which Basil of Seleucia, terrified by the threats held out to him, retracted all that he had said upon the two natures at Constantinople, and Seleucus of Amasia had the cowardice to do so also. After this Dioscorus demanded of the bishops their opinion respecting the orthodoxy of Eutyches, to which Juvenal of Jerusalem answering first, declared that he considered him to be perfectly orthodox, and the other bishops not daring to say any thing contrary to the will of Dioscorus, all declared that they concurred in that judgment.

Then Domnus of Antioch consented that Eutyches should be re-established in the priesthood and in his office of abbot, to which all the bishops present agreed.

After this Dioscorus ordered the acts of the sixth session of the Council of Ephesus to be read, forbidding, upon pain of deposition and anathema, the use of any other than the Nicene creed; a prohibition plainly intended to check the rashness of individuals in making new creeds, not to prevent the use of any other words than those employed in the creed, in order to express more clearly the sense of any one of its articles. However, Dioscorus, upon the pretence that Flavianus had expressed the doctrine of the Church in more precise terms than the Church herself had done in that creed, insisted that he had subjected himself to the penalties denounced by the canon of Ephesus. The bishops shamefully agreeing with him, sentence of deposition was at once pronounced against Flavianus and Eusebius. Flavianus appealed from this decision to the Bishop of Rome, whose legate, Hilary, boldly opposed the sentence: at the same time many of the bishops on their knees implored Dioscorus to reconsider the matter; but he, determined to carry it through, cried out for the imperial officers, upon which the proconsul Proclus entered, followed by a band of soldiers, armed with swords and sticks, and carrying chains, who, by threats and blows, compelled the bishops to sign the sentence of deposition. This, at last, ninety-six of them did, many, however, being first severely wounded; Flavianus himself was treated with such excessive violence, that he died of the injuries he had received within three days; it is said that Dioscorus jumped upon him as he lay upon the ground, and that Barsumas and the monks kicked him with the utmost brutality.

To the condemnation of Flavianus that of Eusebius of Dorylæum was added, which ended the first session: after which the legate Hilary, dreading fresh scenes of violence, fled secretly to Rome. In the following sessions Theodoret of Tyre was deposed, also Domnus of Antioch and Ibas of Edessa; after which Dioscorus departed, and the bishops withdrew from Ephesus.

Thus ended the σύνοδος λῃστρικὴ, as the Greeks justly named this disgraceful assembly, in which violence and injustice were carried on to the utmost excess.—Tom. iii. Conc. p. 1471.

ERFORT (932). [Concilium Erpfodiense.] Held in 932 under Henry I. of Germany, at which thirteen of the bishops of Germany were present, besides abbots and other clerks. Five canons were published.

Canon 1. Directs that the festivals of the twelve apostles shall be observed with the greatest reverence.

Canon 2. Forbids to hold secular courts on Sundays and other festivals; also declares that the king had granted an injunction, that no judges should cite Christian persons before them during the seven days preceding Christmas, nor from Quinquagesima to the octave of Easter, nor during the seven days preceding the feast of the nativity of St John the Baptist, so as to prevent them from going to church.

Canon 3. Forbids any judge to interrupt persons bona fide going to or from church to pray, or whilst in the church.

Canon 5. Forbids self-imposed fasting without the bishop’s consent.

ETAMPES (1092). [Concilium Stampense.] On the consecration of Ivo to the see of Chartres.

ETAMPES (1130). Held in 1130. Convoked by Louis le Gros, on occasion of the schism caused by Pope Anacletus, in order to ascertain clearly which of the two popes, Innocent II. or Anacletus, had been lawfully and truly elected. St Bernard was called to the council. After some time spent in fasting and prayer, the king, bishops, and lords met together with one accord to listen to and follow the opinion of St. Bernard upon the subject, who, after giving it the most profound attention, and making the most exact inquiries concerning the form of election, the qualifications of the electors, and the fitness and reputation of Innocent II., who had been first elected, gave it as his opinion, that he had been lawfully chosen, and ought to be recognised as pope. This opinion was gladly received by the whole assembly.—Sug. vita Ludw., p. 317. Tom. x. Conc. p. 972.

ETAMPES (1147). Held on Septuagesima Sunday, 1147, under King Louis VII., in which the crusade to Jerusalem was resolved upon. On Easter Sunday the king received from the hands of Pope Eugenius III. at St Denys the royal standard.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1104.

EXETER (926). [Concilium Exoniense.] Held at Christmas, somewhere about the year 926, by King Ethelstan. Complaint was made that the laws enacted in the Council of Greatlea were not obeyed, and an unanimous resolution passed to drive the transgressors out of England. It was also enacted that “all the servants of God in every minster should sing fifty psalms to God for the king every Friday.”—Johnson, Ecc. Canons. Inett, Orig. Ang. vol. i. p. 304.

EXETER (1287). Held April 16, 1287, by Peter Quivil, the bishop. A book of constitutions in fifty-five articles was drawn up, relating to the sacraments and other matters.

The first eight relate to the seven sacraments. (See ARLES, 1261.)

9 and 10. Of churches, chapels, oratories, and churchyards.

11. Of the ornaments, &c., of churches, and orders that there be in every church at least one chalice of silver or of silver-gilt, two corporals, two vestments, one for festivals and the other for ordinary occasions, four “tuellœ” for the high altar, two of which at least shall be consecrated.

Also for every altar where mass is to be celebrated there shall be two surplices and one rochet, a Lenten veil and a nuptial veil, a pall for funerals; a frontel for each altar, a missal, gradual, “torparium,” manual, &c., &c., a chest for the books and vestments, a pyx of silver, or at worst of ivory with a lock, a Chrismatory of pewter, with a lock, a pax, three vials, stone sacramentarium, immovable, chasuble, vase for holy water, paschal candelabrum, two crosses, an image of the Blessed Virgin, &c., &c.

The parish to provide all these things, with certain exceptions, which are specified. “Also we have heard that parishioners often quarrel concerning the seats in church, two or more of them claiming the same seat, whence great scandal arises, and divine service is often hindered; we therefore enact that no person in future shall be allowed to claim any seat as his own, the nobility and patrons of churches being alone excepted, but he who first comes to church to pray shall choose his own place for prayer.”

13. Forbids markets, &c., in churches and churchyards

14. Of cemeteries.

15. Of the immunities of the Church.

16. Of the repairs of churches.

17. Of the life and conversation of the clergy.

18. Of concubinary clerks.

19. Of residence.

20. Of inquiry to be made into the capacity of ecclesiastical persons.

21. Of the duty of ministers to say the office every night and day.

22. Of the duty of parishioners to attend church on Sundays and festivals.

23. Contains a list of festivals to be observed in each month.

24. Forbids the clergy to practise any business.

25. Forbids to let out churches to farmers.

26. Forbids to alienate church property.

27. Forbids clerks to build for themselves upon ground not belonging to the Church, with Church property.

28. Orders five marks as the proper stipend of a curate.

29. Orders that “Beneficia aquæ benedictæ,” be assigned only to scholars.

30. Forbids a clerk to cite another before the secular judge.

31. Of the celebration of rural chapters.

32. Forbids to summon innocent persons before the chapter.

35. Of the seizure of excommunicated persons by the secular arm.

36. Forbids to confer a parish on a priest for one year after ordination.

37. Of the ordination of priests.

38. Forbids to take any fee for ordinations.

39. Forbids to allow divine service to be hindered on account of the faults of the priest.

40. Of visitations.

41. Forbids clerks to bind themselves to submit to secular judgment.

42. Of the form of liberating the property of clerks detained by laymen.

43. Of care to be observed in promulgating sentences of excommunication.

44. No one to excommunicate another in his own cause

45. Of matrimonial causes.

46. Of appeals.

47. Of quæstors.

48. Of relics.

49. Of Jews.

50. Of wills.

51. Permits rectors, after Quadragesima, to will away the income of their churches during the coming year.

52. Of mortuaries.

53. Of tithes.

54. Of oblations.

55. Of sentences of excommunication.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1263. Wilkins’ Conc. vol. ii. p. 129.