THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
representatives of a number of churches for the purpose of reaching a common decision on a disputed question. But a little reflection will show that it is not the same thing. Both the discussion of a local question with the assistance of representatives from outside, and the meeting to discuss a question which affected a number of communities alike, sprang from the primitive Christian feeling of unity and from the consequent mutual intercourse; but they had different aims and significance.
The synods of the second century were loosely organized; they came together when a question happened to need decision, and represented no determinate group of churches ; they had no ex-officio members, and no authority which could interfere with local independence. By
2. Provin- degrees, however, the logical conse-
cial Synods, quences of the monarchical episcopate and the theory of apostolic succession followed. In the third century the bishops primarily constituted the synods. It is true that in this period presbyters still universally took part with the bishops, as is evidenced in Alexandria in the first synod held by Demetrius against Origen (Photius, MPG, ciii. 397); in Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. eccL, VII. XXX. 2, xxviii. 1); in Cappadocia (Cyprian, Epist., Ixxv. 4); in Rome (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., VI. xUii. 2, on the basis of the letter of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch); and in Africa (Cyprian, Epist., xix. 2). But none the less the center of gravity had shifted. Though Cyprian mentions the presence of presbyters and deacons, it is evident from more than one passage that in his mind it was the bishops who decided the questions. The records of the synod of Sept., 256, note the presence of many bishops from three provinces, with presbyters and deacons and the greater part of the laity; but in the decision the votes of the bishops alone are given. Thus, too, the African synodal epistles are subscribed by the bishops only (cf. Epist., Ivii., Ixiv., Lxvii., Ixx.). The presence of the lower clergy and the laity contributed to the publicity of the proceedings, not to the decision, which was now in the hands of the episcopate. The development which was complete by the middle of the second century in Africa was somewhat slower elsewhere. At Rome in 250 the consensus of the clergy and laity was still considered essential to a synodal decision (Cyprian, Epist., xxx. 5), and a similar state of things is found in Cappadocia (Cyprian, Epist., Ixxv. 4). But the same tendency was everywhere in evidence. It is not, therefore, surprising that in the First Council of Nicsea and in that of Antioch (341) it should be taken for granted that only the bishops were the active members (cf. canon v. of Nicaea, xiv., xv. of Antioch). In harmony with this development was the general conception of synodal authority. The bishops, as successors of the apostles, were officially endued with the Holy Spirit; they made their decisions " under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost " (Cyprian, Epist., Ivii. 5) or " in the presence of the Holy Ghost and
his angels " (synodal letter of the First Council of Aries, Mansi, Concilia, ii. 469); the decision of a
synod is equivalent to a divine sentence (letter of
Constantine on the dissolution of the Council of Aries, Mansi, Concilia, ii. 478).
The next step was to make synods ordinary institutions of the Church. Extraordinary ones continued to be held, but they were additional to the regular ones, which are assumed in the first mention of Eastern synods by a Western writer, probably between 210 and 220 (Tertullian, De jejunio, xiii.). Annual meetings soon became the rule, as can be evidenced in Cappadocia as early as the middle of the third century (Cyprian, Epist., Ixxv. 4). This regular recurrence led to the restriction of the district represented, and, probably on the analogy of secular assemblies, the bishops of each province met in its capital. The institution became legally established by the First Council of Nicsea (canon v.), which provided for two meetings in the year, one before Lent, the other in the autumn. At Antioch in 341 (canon xx.) the dates were defined as four weeks before Pentecost and Oct. 15, and the . arrangement continued long in force (Council of Constantinople, 381, canon ii.; of Chalcedon, 451, canon xix.). Finally the TruUan Council of 692 (canon viii.) and the Second Nicene of 787 (canon vi.) contented themselves with requiring a single annual session. The provincial synod became the most important organ for the episcopal government of the Church. The metropolitan called it and presided over it. Its competence was practically unlimited, extending over all questions of faith and morals, public worship, and the discipline and organization of the Church. The development of provincial synods accompanied that of metropolitan jurisdiction. After the organization of the patriarchal system in the East, the idea came up of having special synods for these larger divisions, and attempts were made to carry it out; but they did not lead to regular annual meetings or to the permanency of the institution.
Ecumenical councils had come into being before the complete organization of the provincial synods. In the course of the Donatist controversy Constantine committed the decision of it first to an episcopal commission meeting in Rome, then to a larger body of bishops assembled at 3. Ecumen- Aries (see Donatism). These assemical blies have been commonly considered
Councils, as synods, and such they were in the sense of being deliberative assemblies of bishops; but it is obvious that they differed from all previous synods. Their initiative came not from the bishops but from the emperor, who determined both the membership and the place and subject of the discussion, and gave his authority to the decisions, which were to be authoritative in secular law. They were thus not, like the provincial synods, organs of free episcopal government, but assemblies for the purpose of counseling the emperor as to his decisive action in ecclesiastical questions. These, however, and not the provincial synods, were the prototypes of the ecumenical councils. Constantine acted in precisely the same manner at the convocation of the Council of Nicsea. It was his intention that the Arian question should be settled by the council, and so he took a personal part in the proceedings; the adoption of