Hilarus, bishop, to his most beloved brothers, the bishops of the provinces of Vienne, Lyons, Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, and the Pennine Alps.
Although the extent and character of the wrongs long committed in the churches of Narbonne and Béziers are not hidden from your charity, and the improbity of presumption which has come all the way to Us is without doubt manifest throughout the Gallican regions, it is nevertheless a matter of apostolic solicitude not to remain silent about the faults disclosed to Our examination — lest, through unfitting silence, We should seem to share a common portion with those acting unjustly. Long ago the leaders of the aforementioned cities brought no less grief to my predecessor of holy memory than to Us, by their daring to pursue illicit petitions — which Our patience could scarcely mitigate through the lamentation of necessity alone. For by what examples, as you yourselves also acknowledge, has the thing been done, and what is there not most worthy of rebuke, which runs counter to the decrees of the holy Fathers and the very institutes of the canons?
Since therefore Our brother and fellow bishop Hermes had believed himself rightly received by the Church of Narbonne because he claimed to have been unworthily excluded from the Béziers, by whom he had been ordained: if he truly grieved that this had been done to him, and if he knew to help his own injury by a legitimate remedy, he ought rather to have hoped for vindication through endurance than pardon for what he perpetrated. Yet if he now at least takes on the common spirit of all the Lord’s priests, if he follows their example, and directs the eyes of his heart to those matters which, for the contemplation of ecclesiastical peace, have somehow been put to rest — and considers for the peace or faith of the whole Church how many things have been erred in manifold ways: there is absolutely nothing that he himself would not reprehend, and that he would not blush to indulge in himself what in another he rightly reproves.
For We know, and for a long time have had nothing uncertain about Our aforementioned brother’s manner of life, when — turning over in Our mind the course of his former life and the purpose placed before him earlier — We judge that he fell into the excesses for which We reprove him rather than committed them. But by the precepts of the brothers gathered in a numerous council, and assembled from various provinces for the day of Our anniversary in honor of the blessed Apostle Peter by the grace of God, with Our brothers and fellow bishops Faustus and Auxanius presiding, and with many others working to uphold the vigor and authority of judgment, the following has been established by Us from the love of peace: that in the sentence which We, with Christ our Lord inspiring, have brought forth — without inclining to either side of the legation — neither the charity of evangelical indulgence nor the rod of apostolic discipline has been lacking. For on the whole, indulgence has neither acted inhumanely nor has affection failed to exercise constraint.
Chapter I: Hermes May Preside Over Narbonne but May Not Ordain Bishops; The Primatial Authority Passes to Constantius of Ucetia
To him who is now permitted to preside over the Church of Narbonne, We have removed the power of ordaining bishops on account of these things which have been wrongly done — which power We have judged to pertain to Our brother and fellow bishop Constantius, bishop of the Church of Ucetia, who is said to hold primacy by seniority — with the proviso that, if Constantius should die while Hermes still lives, this care shall fall upon whoever is found to be primate in order of episcopal consecration. But upon Hermes’s death, the custom of making bishops is to be restored to the Church of Narbonne — a custom which the city did not lose by its own fault, but which the cause of presumption lost. Therefore let the sincere love of your brotherhood in the Lord — sharing with Us in Our sees the solicitude of pastoral care — vigilantly exercise diligence over the churches entrusted to it, and let it be mindful of those things which have arisen in the Narbonne province, so as to detest the deed rather than take it as an example. We do not wish it to be so henceforth, just as We know it was not before.
Chapter II: An Annual Gallic Council Is to Be Held Under Leontius’s Coordination; Grave Cases Are to Be Referred to the Apostolic See
Therefore, dearest brothers, necessary care must be applied that the error which We have just abolished with the help of Christ our Lord cannot reemerge in similar or new excesses. This can be provided for in no other way than by executing the statutes of the venerable canons concerning the holding of councils — which necessity has until now caused to be neglected — in which, for the sake of emerging matters, those things done contrary to ecclesiastical discipline may be corrected and those to be followed established. Let therefore, year by year, an episcopal council be held from the provinces that are able: so that, at suitable places and times, it may be celebrated according to the disposition of Our brother and fellow bishop Leontius, to whom We have delegated the solicitude of gathering the brothers, with the metropolitans notified by his letters — so that whatever has been allowed contrary to apostolic precepts in ordaining bishops or presbyters or clerics of any place, or whatever is reprobated in their conduct, may be cut away by the common authority of all. In this gathering above all let it be convened — so that, with Christ our Lord presiding, it may be venerable to the holy and formidable to the perverse. Nor may anyone stray from the rules which the united brotherhood has prescribed in common according to the definitions of the canons — so that, with the annual examination drawing near, each one may so direct his acts that he should wish for the judgment’s scrutiny rather than fear it. But in resolving graver cases, which cannot be settled there, let the sentence of the Apostolic See be consulted.
Chapter III: Inter-Provincial Travel Requires Metropolitan Letters; Arles Handles Referrals
We cannot pass over what must be cared for with more diligent solicitude: that bishops not dare to travel to another province without letters from their own metropolitans — which is also to be observed throughout the individual churches in every order of clerical office. On the other hand We provide for this: that if some have not been able to obtain such letters through some dispute, the bishop of Arles — examining everything together with two metropolitans of provinces that are conveniently located — shall establish, according to the character of the case, what is to be observed; and let him not permit another man’s cleric to be received to the injury of that cleric’s own bishop, without the testimony of his own bishop, as the statutes of the canons command. Let each brother, and all together, know that they must obey these present constitutions, by which Our admonition also announces that the judgment of Christ our Lord will not fail against those who, by a proud rebellion in declining to attend councils, are convicted by the testimony of their own conscience of not having the confidence of priestly innocence.
Chapter IV: Leontius’s Petition Concerning the Parishes of Arles Is Referred to the Brothers’ Council
Moreover, a petition from the same brother has been presented to Us, in which he reveals that parishes of the Church of Arles were transferred by his predecessor Hilary to others — which was not permitted — and he asks that those parishes be restored to their original right by Our authority. But mindful of apostolic moderation, We have referred his complaint to your brotherhood to be heard, so that in your gathering the things which are hoped for by Us may be presented, and the things which accord with ecclesiastical rules may be decreed.
Chapter V: No Church Property Is to Be Alienated Without Conciliar Examination
At the same time, We wish the entire brotherhood to be admonished concerning this: that properties which are neither deserted nor damaging, which belong to the Church, and by which the necessities of many people are customarily relieved, not be transferred by any legal means to another, unless the cause of the alienation is first demonstrated before a council — so that what must be done may be handled by the common deliberation of all. May God keep you safe, dearest brothers.
Given on the third day before the Nones of December, in the consulship of the most glorious prince Severus Augustus.
Footnotes
- ↩ The recipients are five provinces of southern and central Gaul: Viennensis, Lugdunensis, Narbonensis Prima (metropolitan see Narbonne), Narbonensis Secunda (metropolitan see Aix-en-Provence), and the Alpes Penninae. This is the same region Leo had governed through his Gallic rulings in Letters X and XI. Addressing the full provincial episcopate simultaneously is a deliberate choice: the Hermes-Narbonne matter is handled not as a local affair but as a pan-Gallic concern requiring a common ruling applicable to all.
- ↩ The Latin is apostolicæ sollicitudinis interest culpas in nostro deprehensas examine non tacere. The phrase echoes Leo’s characteristic vocabulary: sollicitudo as the Roman bishop’s universal pastoral responsibility, naming Rome’s duty to speak about faults disclosed to its examination. The nostro examine — “Our examination” — identifies the Apostolic See as the tribunal before which provincial irregularities are investigated. Silence would constitute complicity; therefore apostolic solicitude requires speech and correction.
- ↩ The anniversary council of Hilarius’s accession, held annually and attended by bishops who traveled to Rome for the occasion (see footnote on natalis in Letter II). Faustus and Auxanius presided as senior figures within the gathering. Auxanius is apparently the same bishop who was rebuked in Letter IV for his attempted jurisdictional expansion against Ingenuus; his presence here, presiding at Hilarius’s anniversary council, shows that the earlier rebuke had not excluded him from Rome’s fellowship. The Roman synodal structure is not merely decorative — it is the setting in which papal rulings on provincial questions are formally promulgated.
- ↩ The Latin is neque caritas evangelicæ indulgentiæ, neque apostolicæ virga disciplinæ — “neither the charity of evangelical indulgence nor the rod of apostolic discipline.” The pairing is precise: mercy does not preclude discipline, and discipline does not preclude mercy; both belong to the exercise of the papal office. The image of the rod (virga) of apostolica disciplina is the language of paternal correction: the Apostolic See corrects its wayward sons, and the correction is itself a function of its office. The phrase is Hilarius’s characterization of his own ruling in the Hermes case: the outcome retains both pastoral care and jurisdictional authority.
- ↩ Constantius of Ucetia (modern Uzès, in Languedoc). By removing the ordination power from Hermes and transferring it to Constantius on grounds of seniority (qua ævo honoris primas esse dicitur), Hilarius creates a provisional primatial arrangement for the lifetime of Hermes. The principle is the same that governs the broader Gallic vicariate: primacy is assigned by Rome on the basis of seniority, and the senior bishop exercises the function until he dies or until Rome revises the arrangement.
- ↩ The Latin is faciendorum mos antistitum Narbonensi reddatur Ecclesiæ, quem non civitas, sed causa præsumptionis amisit. The non…sed… construction clarifies the grammar: not the city lost this custom, but the cause of presumption did. Hilarius’s provision is therefore calibrated: the penalty is personal to Hermes; the see itself is not permanently disabled; and the ordinary ordination right returns to Narbonne when Hermes dies. This preserves the distinction between the person (who lost the power by presumption) and the office (which recovers its rights upon the resolution of the personal matter).
- ↩ The Latin is sollicitudinem in congregandis fratribus delegavimus — “We have delegated the solicitude of gathering the brothers.” This is the same delegation-of-sollicitudo structure Leo employed in establishing Anastasius of Thessalonica as his vicar for the Illyrian churches (Letters V, VI). The Roman bishop’s own sollicitudo — his pastoral care for all the Churches — is the source; the vicar exercises it in a delegated capacity over a specific region. Leontius here functions as Hilarius’s Gallic vicar on the matter of convening councils, just as Anastasius functioned as Leo’s Illyrian vicar. This is also the same Leontius whose authority Leo had first designated in Letter X — the Gallic vicariate structure Leo established is still operative and is now Hilarius’s instrument.
- ↩ The Latin is apostolicæ sedis sententia consulatur — “let the sentence of the Apostolic See be consulted.” This is the reservation clause of the entire Gallic conciliar structure. The annual council handles ordinary cases; graver cases (graviores causæ) are reserved to Rome. The structure is identical to what Leo established for Illyricum in Letter VI and for Gaul in Letter X: a provincial or regional body handles the normal run of cases, but final appellate authority rests with the Apostolic See. The word sententia is the language of judicial finality — Rome’s sentence closes the case.
- ↩ This is a significant procedural choice. Hilarius acknowledges that Hilary of Arles’s transfer of parishes was not lawful (quod non licuit), and he acknowledges Leontius’s petition that they be restored nostra auctoritate — by Hilarius’s own authority. But Hilarius declines to issue the ruling directly, referring the question instead to the Gallic council under the formula moderaminis apostolici memores — “mindful of apostolic moderation.” The procedural restraint does not diminish the underlying jurisdiction (Hilarius plainly has the authority to decide the matter), but exercises that authority through the conciliar mechanism the same letter has just established. The point is pastoral: the conciliar body gains both experience and legitimacy when it handles substantive cases under Rome’s oversight.
- ↩ December 3, 462. The PL prints “anno Chr. 470,” but the editor’s footnote explicitly corrects this: by 470 both Hilarius (died 468) and Severus Augustus (died 465) were already dead. The consular date (Severus as sole consul) places the letter firmly in 462. This makes Letter VIII contemporary with Letter VII (November 3, 462) — both produced in late 462 as Hilarius’s response to the Gallic situation disclosed during his first year in office.
Historical Commentary