II. THE CANONS OF THE SECOND SYNOD have a style quite different from those of the first, are not so simple,
25. The love of God is itself a gift of God
Prorsus donum Dei est deligere Deum. Ipse ut deligeretur dedit, qui non dilectus diligit. Displicentes amati sumus, ut fieret in nobis unde
placeremus. Diffundit enim caritatem in cordibus nostris Spiritus Patris et Filii, quem cum Patre amamus et Filio.
From Augustine, Tractat. CII. in Joann, n. 5 (ed. Migne, t. 3, page 1898).
The 370th (not 368th) Sentence in Prosper.
After drawing up these twenty-five chapters or canons, the Synod composed its own confession on the doctrine of grace in a kind of creed,
which contains the five following points in opposition to the Semipelagians: f368
(a) By the sin of Adam, free will is so weakened that henceforth no one can love God in a suitable manner, believe in Him, or act for God’s sake, unless grace has first come to him. Thus that glorious faith of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and other ancient Fathers, on account of which the apostle praises them, was imparted to them, not per bonum naturoe, which was, in the beginning, given to Adam, but by the grace of God. (The direct contrary of this had been taught by Faustus.) (b) All, however, are able, after they have received grace through baptism, with the co-operation of God, to accomplish what is necessary for the salvation of their soul.
(c) It is in no way our belief that some are predestinated by God to evil (predestinarian heresy); rather, if there are any who believe a thing so evil, we, with horror, say anathema.
(d) In every good work the beginning does not come from us; but God, without any previous merits on our side, inspires us with faith and love, so that we seek for baptism, and after baptism can, with His assistance, fulfill His will.
(e) Since this doctrine of the Fathers and of the Synod is wholesome for laymen also, the distinguished members of the laity, who have been present at the solemnity, should also subscribe. In consequence of this invitation, besides the bishops, also the Praefectus Praetorio Liberius and seven other viri illustres f369 subscribed.
From a letter of Pope Boniface II. to Archbishop Caesarius of Arles, f370 we see that the latter, as president of the Synod of Orange, after the end of it, sent the abbot and priest Armenius to Rome, and, among other things, gave him a letter to his friend Boniface, a cleric of high position there, in order that the latter might procure from Pope Felix a definite confirmation of the Synod, as desired by Caesarius. In the meantime, however, Felix had died, and Boniface himself had become Pope, as the second of that name.
He did not fail to fulfill the desire of Caesarius at once by means of the letter referred to. This is dated 8 Kal. Febr. Lampadio et Oreste V. C.
Coss., that is, January 25, 530. As, however, Felix IV. did not die until September 18, 530, it is impossible that the date of this letter should be
genuine, and as Pagi (ad ann. 530, n. 6, and 529, n. 11) supposes, must have been arbitrarily added a sciolo quopiam. Sirmond (l.c. page 605) supposed that we ought to read, Post Consulatum Lampadii, etc., i.e. A.D. 531; but Pagi thinks, and not unreasonably, that if Boniface had been elected in September 530 (Pagi, ad ann. 530, n. 4), he could hardly have put off the answer to Caesarius into the January of the following year, as he says himself in this letter: “Catholicum non distulimus dare responsum”
(Pagi, ad ann. 529, n. 11). Accordingly, as the Benedictine editors of the Concil. Gallioe opine, instead of 8 Kal. Febr., we should read Decembres or Novembres of the year 530. f371 Another way was taken by Cardinal Noris (Hist. Pelag. 2. 23), by the assumption that Felix IV. had died in September 529; and the Ballerini defended this view in their edition of the works of the cardinal. Noris, Opp. Omnia, t. 1, page 528, and t. 4, page 932.
Pope Felix, in this letter, expresses himself quite decisively against the Semipelagian contention that many a man, even without the divine grace (proeveniens), could of himself come to faith in Christ, and then says:
Quapropter affectu congruo salutantes suprascriptam confessionem vestram consentaneam catholicis patrum regulis approbamus. There may be a question whether he meant by this the whole minutes of Orange, or only the confession of faith appended to the twenty-five chapters. In the expression confessio there lies no necessity for thinking only of the latter;
for, in fact, the whole forms a kind of confession of faith, and the epilogue, which has specially this form, is by itself nothing independent, no
conclusive creed, but in its very first words represents itself as belonging to the twenty-five chapters. It is quite true that the Pope, in his answer, chiefly makes reference to this epilogue, and weaves into his own letters such Bible passages as are also found in the epilogue (<460725>1 Corinthians 7:25 and <500129>Philippians 1:29); but immediately afterwards he adduces the words of Christ in S. <431505>John 15:5, and indeed as quoted by the Fathers at Orange, although this is found not in the epilogue, but in chapter 7. So also he repeats the passages, <200835>Proverbs 8:35, <195811>Psalm 58:11, which occur in chapters 4 and 14.
It is customary to assign the Synod of Valence to the same year (529) as that of Orange, or to the following year (530). The Acts of this Synod are lost, and we have no information respecting it but that which is contained in the life of S. Caesarius, by his disciple, the deacon Cyprian. In this it is said: “Many stood up against the doctrine of grace taught by Caesarius,
and by a false apprehension of it there arose in Gaul an evil suspicion against the doctrine of the man of God. On this account the bishops beyond the Isere, in Valentia (Valence), came together. On account of sickness, Caesarius was unable himself to be present, although he wished to be; but he sent some bishops, priests, and deacons as deputies, and among them, in particular, the celebrated Bishop Cyprian of Toulon. The latter showed, at the Synod, from passages of the Bible and of the holy Fathers, that no man could make progress in divine things by himself alone, and without gratia proeveniens. For the perusal of the Synod, the man of God (Caesarius afterwards) furnished the complete array of proofs from the apostolic tradition. Pope Boniface, after he had learnt of the
controversy, rejected the opinions of the opponents, and confirmed, by apostolic authority, the judgment (prosecutio) f372 of Caesarius.” f373 Noris (Hist. Pelag. 2. 23), Pagi (ad ann. 529, n. 8 sqq.), and all the other writers represent the matter as though the Synod of Orange had not at once attained to full recognition in Gaul, and that Caesarius had, for that reason, summoned a new and larger Synod at Valence. But, in the first place, the original documents say not a word of Caesarius having summoned the Synod; on the contrary, he appears rather to have been invited to it; and this must be right, for Valentia belonged, not to the ecclesiastical province of Arles, but to that of Vienne, as we saw above (sec. 211) from the decisions of Popes Leo I. and Hilary, who assigned the suffragan bishoprics of Valence, Tarantaise, Geneva, and Grenoble to the metropolitan see of Vienne. Valence, however, lies on the boundary between the country on this side and on the other side of the Isere, and when the deacon Cyprian, who lived with Caesarius of Arles, says that the bishops ultra Isaram had come to Valence, and also Caesarius had sent deputies thither, the result comes out. The bishops of Gallia Viennensis and Lugdunensis, living on the other side, that is, on the north of the Isere, on account of the prevailing doctrinal controversies, determined to unite in a great Synod with the bishops on the south of the Isere, and for this purpose selected Valence, which was peculiarly suitable for such a common
assembly. Ecclesiastically it belonged to the north of the Isere, the province of Vienne, but in geographical position to the south of the Isere, lying near its junction with the Rhone.
In the second place, we find in our original documents not the slightest justification of the assumption that the Synod of Valence was held after that of Orange. The deacon Cyprian does not indicate the latter (at least as
Noris, Pagi, and the rest understood him); and it is a mere assumption on their part when they place the Synod of Valence after that of Orange. The reverse seems to me to be the truth, and I believe it possible to verify this by reference to the original documents. They relate that, when the doctrine of Caesarius came into suspicion, the bishops assembled at Valence; but his doctrine was in suspicion with the Semi-pelagians for a considerable time before the Synod of Orange. The first thing that happened after the origin of the suspicion was the assembly at Valence. After this was ended,
Caesarius furnished the proof for the true doctrine from tradition, and Pope Boniface confirmed this. When the Synod of Orange, under the presidency of Caesarius, verified the true doctrine from the writings of Augustine, and Pope Boniface confirmed the decrees of Orange, I suppose that the
biographer Cyprian (our authority) had understood by the proof which Caesarius furnished nothing else but the decrees of the Synod of Orange, and that this accordingly took place later than that of Valence. — After this exposition of our views, we must regard the attempt of Pagi (ad ann.
529, n. 10) to assign the Synod of Valence to the year 530 as radically a mistake.
SEC. 243. SECOND SYNOD AT VAISON, A.D. 529. F374
The Synod at Carpentras had ordained that, on November 6 of next year, a new assembly should take place at Vaison (in vico Vasensi) (see sec. 239).
It was attended by eleven or twelve bishops, and on the Nones of the month of November, A.D. 529, that is, on November 5, it was opened and closed. f375 As Vaison is an episcopal city in the province of Arles,
Archbishop Caesarius took the presidency, and this four months after the holding of the celebrated second Synod of Orange. The assembly at Vaison, as is said in the preface to the minutes, had no other aim than to keep alive love and harmony among the bishops, and to recall back to remembrance the ancient ordinances of the Church. There was no contested matter to be decided. After the reading of the ancient canons, they were contented to draw up five new ones, from which they expected a beneficent effect on the life of the Church. They are, moreover, of different meaning. The first was very important for the future education of the clergy, the second for the improvement and the universal introduction of preaching, the fourth for the maintenance of a close union with Rome. The two others refer to special points in worship: —
1. All priests in the parishes must, as is already the very wholesome