II. THE CANONS OF THE SECOND SYNOD have a style quite different from those of the first, are not so simple,
10. Anathema to Origen and to everyone who teaches and maintains the like doctrine
Whether the Emperor Justinian himself drew up this edict, or the papal legate Pelagius and the Patriarch Mennas were the real authors, as
Baronius (ad ann. 538, n. 32) supposed, may reasonably remain undecided.
The question of ecclesiastical authority, as to whether the Emperor was entitled or not to issue an edict of this kind, belongs to another department.
It seems to me that we have here before us one of those many and great, even if well-meant, Byzantine encroachments, which does not disappear even when we assume that the Emperor acted in agreement with Mennas and Pelagius. The promulgation of this decree falls after the Synod of Gaza, probably in the year 543, as the Ballerini, in their appendices to the Works of Cardinal Noris, made probable; f472 whilst Baronius thought we should decide for the year 538, Garnier for 539 or 540.
SEC. 256. SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE ON ACCOUNT OF ORIGEN, A.D. 543.
Undoubtedly the Patriarch Mennas did not fail to hold without delay the su>vodov ejndhmou~sa which the Emperor had desired, probably in the same year, 543, and Justinian probably addressed to this assembly that letter, still extant, in which he derives the errors of the Palestinian monks from Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen, and briefly sums them up. On account of these dangerous errors and follies, the assembled Fathers were
requested, after careful weighing of the appended exposition (probably identical with the imperial letter to Mennas), to anathematize all those propositions, and also Origen and all who agreed with him. f473
SEC. 257. THE FIFTEEN ANATHEMATISMS ON ORIGEN.
To this Constantinopolitan Synod of the year 543, without doubt, belong also the fifteen celebrated anathematisms on the same number of
propositions of Origen, discovered, towards the end of the seventeenth century, by the celebrated librarian of Vienna, Peter Lambeck, among the ancient manuscripts of the library, and which had become incorporated in all the collections of Councils. f474
To these fifteen anathematisms in the Vienna Codex these words were prefixed: Tw~n aJgi>wv rxe> ( = 165) pate>rwn th~v ejn
Kwnstavtinoupo>lei aJgi>av pe>mpthv suno>dou kano>nev. In
consequence, at first there was no hesitation in assigning them to the fifth Oecumenical Synod, especially as several of the ancients declared that the latter did actually anathematize Origen. Basing upon this, even in later times, the brothers Ballerini, in particular, have ascribed the fifteen anathematisms to the fifth Oecumenical Council, whilst Cave (Historia Litteraria, ad ann. 541, page 363, ed. Genev. 1705), Dupin (Nouvelle Bibliotheque, t. 5, page 204, ed. Mons, 1691), Walch (Ketzerhist. Bd. 7 S.
661 ff., Bd. 8 S. 281 ff.), Dollinger (Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch. 1. 156, 158) assign them to the earlier Constantinopolitan Synod under Mennas (A.D. 1543). Full certainty in this matter can no longer be attained; but we believe that we come near the truth in the following remarks: —
(a) It is true that a series of ancient writers suppose that the fifth Oecumenical Council also anathematized Origen; but, as we shall see later on, in the history of that Council, there is only this much credible in the statement, that, in their eleventh anathematize, they repudiated Origen among others; but that they dealt in any detailed manner with Origen, and drew up (fifteen) special propositions against him, is most probably incorrect.
(b) Whoever wishes to maintain this, can appeal only to the
superscription of the codex at Vienna and to Evagrius (Hist Eccl. 4.
38). That this superscription is of much value no one will maintain; but Evagrius also in this case is a witness of no importance. He
interchanges the earlier accusations against Origen, drawn up by Sophronius and Gelasius, with the later, presented by Eulogius, Conon, etc. (cf. above, sec. 255, note 1); and is therefore constrained to
remove the Synod which was occasioned by the earlier accusation to a later period (the su>nodov ejndhmou~sa of A.D. 543). He therefore identified it with the fifth Oecumenical Council. Of the latter he then says: “They appended to their letter to the Emperor articles containing the heresies of the Origenists.” He then gives one of these articles, the fifth, verbally, as follows: “Theodore Ascidas of Cappadocia
maintained that, as the apostles and martyrs already do such miracles, and enjoy such honor, what could they desire for an apocatastasis, but to be like Christ Himself at the apocatastasis?”
This proposition we shall seek in vain among the fifteen in question. Indeed there is not one like it among them, and it is therefore clear that the
passage in Evagrius contains no proof for our fifteen propositions, particularly as no mention there is made of fifteen. How it is, in other respects, important for us, we shall see further on. Evagrius further tells us of the condemnation of Origen, and of his propositions in connection with the letter of the Emperor Justinian to Mennas, Vigilius, and the other patriarchs, on which account Valesius even in his time, in his notes to this passage in Evagrius, gave expression to the supposition that he had confounded the decrees of the Synod of Constantinople under Mennas (A.D. 543, or as Valesius thought, 538) with those of the fifth Oecumenical Synod; and we agree with him in this the rather that other ancient
documents, e.g. the minutes of the Constantinopolitan Synod of A.D. 536, were erroneously appended to the Acts of the fifth Oecumenical Synod. Cf.
Du Pin, l.c.
(c) We certainly possess no strong and decisive proof that the fifteen anathematisms belong to the Constantinopolitan Synod of the year 543;
but some probable grounds for the opinion may be adduced — a. It is, for example, beyond doubt, and attested f475 by Liberatus and Secundus, two contemporaries, that the edict of the Empeor Justinian to Mennas of Constantinople, Vigilius of Rome, Zoilus of Alexandria, Ephraim of Antioch, and Peter of Jerusalem, was subscribed by these patriarchs, and specially by the bishops assembled at Constantinople with Mennas, i.e. at the su>nodov ejndhmou~sa demanded by the Emperor, and at the same time anathema was pronounced upon Origen and his propositions. Facundus, in particular, says that the
condemnation of Origen was repeated (iterata), i.e. as at Constantinople, so at Rome, Alexandria, etc. f476
b. Whilst thus demonstrably and quite in accordance with the nature of the case, anathematisms were pronounced upon Origen at the su>modov ejndhmou~sa called on his account, it is not absolutely certain that, at the fifth Synod also, there were only transactions of a general kind on the subject of Origen. Of this there is no trace in the Acts of the Synod, except in a single passage (canon 11, sess. 4, see below), and this is critically suspicious. f477 In this connection it is very significant that Popes Vigilius and Pelagius, who lived at that very time, and Gregory the Great, who is only a little later, speak at length of the decrees of the
fifth Oecumenical Synod, but make not the least reference to a decree of that Synod against Origen. f478
c. It is certainly most improbable that the fifth Oecumenical Council drew up fifteen anathematisms against Origen, since the celebrated Origenist, Theodore Ascidas, was not only present at this Council, but was of the greatest influence there, and, in fact, was the real originator of it.
d. When, further, we compare the fifteen anathematisms against Origen with those which are found at the close of the imperial letter to Mennas and the other patriarchs, and which were recommended for acceptance, there is a visible similarity between them; and the fifteen seem to be nothing else than a more complete copy of the ten anathematisms of the Emperor, adopted by the su>nodov ejndhmou~sa (of the year 543).
e. Certainly, if we took for granted that the su>nodov ejndhmou~sa at Constantinople had done nothing further than give a simple
subscription of the imperial edict, and of the anathematisms laid before them, one could scarcely understand why they had drawn up the fifteen now in question. But the Synod went more fully into the matter, as was its duty, and censured the heresies of Origen in a more exact and complete manner. If this is in itself probable, it is also testified by Evagrius, in the passage already frequently referred to, where we find several important remarks on our Synod hitherto little regarded, that they first declared their rejection of Origen and his adherents by acclamation, and, moreover, sent a synodal letter to the Emperor, of which Evagrius gives us three fragments. The first contains, by way of introduction, the courteous address to the Emperor: “As thou dost possess a participation in the soul of the heavenly eagle, most Christian Emperor.” The second runs: “We thus flee, yea we flee from these doctrines (of Origen); for we know not any strange voice, and we have bound him, as a thief and a robber, with the bonds of anathema, and have cast him out of the sanctuary.” Finally, the third fragment says:
“The contents of that which we have done, thou wilt learn from our written communication.”
It can scarcely be doubted that this synodal letter, here given by Evagrius, had the fifteen anathematisms, as the principal part of the synodal decrees, connected with it or appended to it. Evagrius, too, speaks of an appendix, which contained the errors of the Origenisis, and which communicates to
us the heretical utterance of Theodore Ascidas, with which we are already acquainted, as fifth proposition. That this was not found among the fifteen anathematisms has already been remarked. But how do we solve the apparent difficulty? The fifth proposition in question from Theodore Ascidas is, properly considered, no anathematism, and we may with probability assume that, as the imperial edict to Mennas (and the Synod) consisted of three parts: the letter proper, twenty-four passages from Origen, and ten anathematisms, in like manner the answer of the Synod would be in three parts:
(1) the synodal letter
(2) quotations from writings and utterances of Origen and the Origenisis (among them Ascidas, whom the Palestinian monks had specially denounced, and to whom the Synod had every reason for here referring, in order to weaken his influence at Court), and
(3) anathematisms.
— By this assumption, and the explanations already given, we think we have removed the difficulties, and brought order into the whole subject.
The fifteen celebrated anathematisms are as follows: —
1. If anyone maintains the legendary pre-existence of souls and the