II. THE CANONS OF THE SECOND SYNOD have a style quite different from those of the first, are not so simple,
15. Bishops, priests, and deacons must have no intercourse with strange women, nor allow any nun, or strange woman, or female
servant (slave) to enter their chamber. Whoever does not attend to this is excommunicated; and the bishop will be punished if he does not punish such an offense in a priest or deacon. f417
Some other canons, said to belong to the Synod of Clermont, are placed by Mansi in his collection, t. 8, page 865 sqq.
Finally, the Synod addressed a letter to the Austrasian King Theodebert, praying him that he would not consent that any cleric or layman who possessed property in another Frankish kingdom than that of his residence, should be deprived of it. It should suffice that he paid tribute to the lord of his country. f418
SEC. 250. SYNODS AT CONSTANTINOPLE AND JERUSALEM, A.D. 536.
After the death of the Patriarch Epiphanius, to which we referred above (sec. 244), Anthimus, archbishop of Trapezont, was, through the influence of the Empress Theodora, the consort of Justinian, raised to the see of Constantinople. Like his patroness he leaned to Monophysitism, and the Emperor Justinian, in spite of his zeal for the Chalcedonian faith; was misled by Theodora and her party into the belief that Anthimus was quite orthodox. Soon after, in February 536, Pope Agapetus came to
Constantinople, whither the East Gothic King Theodatus had sent him, in order to confer, in his name, with the Emperor on political affairs. In Constantinople the Pope refused to have any fellowship with the new patriarch, especially as the latter had been advanced uncanonically from one bishopric to another, and, after a violent collision with the Emperor, brought it about that Anthimus was deposed, and the priest Mennas, president of the Hospice Samson, in accordance with the wish of the
Emperor, was raised to the see, March 13, 536. The Pope himself was the consecrator.
It is generally assumed, on the authority of the Byzantine historian
Theophanes, that the deposition of Anthimus and the elevation of Mennas was decided at a Constantinopolitan Synod; f419 but Mansi (l.c. page 871 sq.) contests its existence, and seeks to show that it was not until after the deposition of Anthimus that a kind of Synod, or at least an assembly of Oriental bishops and archimandrites, took place, and forwarded a letter to the Pope, who was then still in Constantinople. f420 They asked in this that the Pope would give Anthimus a period of time within which he must clear himself of the Suspicion of heresy, or be disqualified from holding the bishopric of Trapezont. The Pope acquiesced, suspended Anthimus for the present, and, from his sickbed, forwarded the memorial in question to the Emperor. As the Pope died April 6 or 22, 536, at Constantinople, the matter could not be completed until after his death, and this by a new Synod of Constantinople, which has become famous, held in May and June 536, which has left us very numerous and comprehensive Acts. These were first edited by Severinus Binius in 1618, after a codex in the library at Heidelberg, which, however, was in many places defective, and in others erroneous and incoherent. A much better text was discovered in the same year, 1618, by the learned Jesuit Fronton le Due; but he, too, left a good deal to be gleaned by Labbe, a member of his own order. To the industry of the latter we owe the present text.
The Acts of the first session, on the 2nd of May 536, declare that the Synod was held at the command of the Emperor. All their sessions, five in number, took place in the eastern hall of S. Mary’s Church, which lay in the neighborhood of the great church. The Patriarch Mennas was president. On his right sat five Italian bishops, who had been sent at an earlier period by the Apostolic Chair to Constantinople, and had remained there with Agapetus. They were Sabinus of Canusium, Epiphanius of Ecbanum, Asterius of Salerno, Rusticus of Faesulae, and Leo of Nola.
Besides these, there sat on the right hand twenty-three, on the left twenty- four, metropolitans and bishops from the most different parts of the Byzantine kingdom. The most celebrated among them was Hypatius of Ephesus. Also on the left were two deacons, two notaries, and several other clerics, whom Agapetus had brought with him to Constantinople;
moreover, the representatives of the absent patriarchs of Antioch
(Theopolis) and Jerusalem, and of the metropolitans of Caesarea, Ancyra, and Corinth. Finally, the clergy of Constantinople were present.
After all had taken their places, the deacon and over-notary Euphemius brought forward the following: “The priest Marinianus (Marianus), president (hJgou>menov) of the Dalmatius monastery, also exarch of all the monasteries of Constantinople, and the monks from Antioch and
Jerusalem, who are here present at the residence, have presented a petition to the Emperor, and he has, in accordance with the wish of the petitioners, commanded the reading of the petition in the present assembly, so that they may decide what is in accordance with the laws of the Church. The monks in question and the Referendar Theodore assigned to them by the Emperor now request permission to appear before the Council.” f421
The Patriarch Mennas granted this request. More than eighty abbots and monks from Constantinople, Antioch, and Palestine came in, and the imperial Referendar presented the document which they had addressed to Justinian. The patriarch had it immediately read by a deacon. Its principal contents are as follows: “Anthimus (the deposed archbishop of
Constantinople), Severus (the previous patriarch of Antioch), Peter (of Apamea, cf. sec. 233), and Zoaras (a Eutychian monk) had stirred up dissensions, had pronounced anathemas on the saints, and even in
Constantinople had erected profane altars and baptisteries over against the true altars, etc. Anthimus in particular, formerly bishop of Trapezont, had for a long time left his church, and, under the semblance of an ascetic manner of life, had united himself with the heretics (Monophysites), by whose help he attained to the see of Constantinople in a thoroughly uncanonical manner. Agapetus of Rome had, in union with the Emperor, deposed him, and advanced Mennas to his place. Somewhat later, in union with the bishops of Palestine and other Oriental f422 countries assembled at Constantinople, we requested (the Pope), in a new memorial, that
Anthimus should be required to clear himself of all suspicion of heresy and resume his see in Trapezont; and, if he could not do the first, then he should be altogether deposed from the priesthood. This request Agapetus had anticipated, had suspended Anthimus with the other previously-named heretics (Severus, etc.) from all priestly functions until they had done penance, and had presented the memorial of the monks and bishops to the Emperor. The Emperor, they prayed, would not think lightly of the
judgment of this man who had died in the meantime, but would accomplish
it, and free the world from the plague of Anthimus and the other heretics named.” f423
Upon this a report (didaskaliko>n), addressed by the same monks to the Patriarch Mennas, was read, in which they make him acquainted with all their steps against Anthimus, and with his history, which we already know
— how he had left the bishopric of Trapezont, had hypocritically begun an ascetic life, had united himself with the heretics, and had usurped the see of Constantinople. They, the monks, had repeatedly requested him to declare whether he agreed with the Council of Chalcedon and Pope Leo, and anathematized Eutyches and Dioscurus. God had now awakened Agapetus, and he drove Anthimus from the episcopal chair of Constantinople and consecrated Mennas, who had been elected by the Emperor, and the clergy of the Church, and other distinguished men. Somewhat later they had presented to the Pope the now well-known new memorial respecting Anthimus; but Agapetus had died, and they had now turned to the Emperor again, and on this account the present Synod was held. f424
The next document that was read was the letter which the monks, some time after the deposition of Anthimus, had addressed to the Pope. They call him there the “Oecumenical patriarch,” and complain of the Acephaloi and the schismatics, who had got up mischief against the Churches, the Pope, and the Emperor. In particular, the Monophysite monks had knocked out an eye from a likeness of the Emperor; and one of them, the Persian Isaac, had struck it with a stick, and at the same time uttered insulting words against the Emperor, really against God, for whose cause he had insulted the likeness. When the stick broke, he had torn the painted linen and cast it into the fire. These heretics had also insinuated themselves into the houses of several persons of distinction, and had led astray women; had set up in their own dwellings and in the suburbs false altars and baptisteries, protected by powerful persons of the very house of the Emperor (i.e. by the Empress Theodora). This the Pope should not endure; but, as he had formerly risen against Anthimus, and driven that wolf away, so ought he now to make representations to the Emperor, and drive away the
offenders. The Emperor, as was known, had forbidden these outside baptisms and services (in private oratories, etc.); but in spite of this, Zoaras (a Eutychian monk) had baptized not a few at the last Easter festival, and among them children of courtiers. f425
After this the story of Anthimus is told, his attaining to the see of Constantinople, and his deposition by the Pope related, and the latter adjured by the Holy Trinity and by the Apostle Peter, etc., to appoint a fixed time to Anthimus, within which he should declare his orthodoxy in writing and return to his church at Trapezont which he had left, if he did not wish even to be deposed. The Pope should also cite before him all the other numerous bishops, clergy, and archimandrites who held with
Anthimus, and punish them in accordance with the canons, particularly Severus, Peter, and Zoaras. Finally, they mention that not only the Eutychians but also the Nestorians had sought to rend the Church. f426 A similar letter had been addressed to the Pope by the bishops of the Oriental dioceses assembled in Constantinople, together with those of Palestine and the representatives of others; and this too was read; f427 also the letter which Agapetus, after the deposition of Anthimus, had sent to the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem and his bishops. He remarks in this that
Anthimus had not only uncanonically got possession of the see of
Constantinople, but, still more, that he persisted in the heresy of Eutyches, and had not allowed himself to be brought back by the Pope to the right doctrine. He had therefore declared him unworthy to be called Catholic and priest. His associates had also been condemned by the sentence of the apostolic see. The bishopric of Constantinople, however, had been
obtained by Mennas, a very excellent man, the respect for whom had been heightened by this, that the Pope himself had ordained him, a case which had not occurred since the times of the apostles. But Mennas had been elected by the Emperor, with the assent of the clergy and laity. Agapetus is surprised that Peter of Jerusalem had given no notice to the Pope of the uncanonical elevation of Anthimus to the throne of Constantinople, and had even consented to it, and he hopes that the bishops of Palestine will now receive none of those whom the Pope condemns. f428
Finally, Mennas declared that he intended to send a deputation of seven bishops, priests, and notaries to Anthimus, in order to inform him of the present Synod, and to invite him to appear within three days and give full assurance with regard to the points noted (that is, in regard to his
orthodoxy f429 ). The first session thus terminated.
At the second session, on May 6, in the same place, the monks again petitioned to be admitted, and after they were introduced, the minutes of the first session were read in their presence, and the deputies of the Synod
who had been sent to Anthimus related that they had sought him in the most different places, but had nowhere found him. The Patriarch Mennas then allowed him a further respite of three days, and commissioned seven other bishops and clerics to seek him and summons him to the Synod. f430 The third session, on May 10, was exactly like the second. The petition of the monks for admission was again granted, the minutes of the previous transactions were read, and the deputies related that they had not been able to find Anthimus anywhere. The Patriarch Mennas then allowed a third and last respite of ten days. If within that time he had not cleared himself of the suspicion of heresy, he would be condemned in accordance with the sentence pronounced against him by Agapetus. Again seven deputies were appointed to seek him, and the summons at the same time ordered to be publicly proclaimed. In accordance with this resolution a public letter was addressed to Anthimus. This letter occurs in the Acts of the fourth session.
It is dated May 15, and sent out by the “oecumenical patriarch” Mennas and the whole Synod; f431 and gives only a period of six days, as it was not published until the deputies had spent several days in vain inquiries after Anthimus.
After they had given a sufficient explanation of this at the fourth session, on May 21, Mennas asked both the Italian and the Greek bishops their opinion. The former, together with the Roman deacons, declared in few words that they held thoroughly to the judgment which had already been pronounced on Anthimus by Agapetus. Hypatius of Ephesus spoke as representative of the Greek bishops, and explained at greater length the offense of Anthimus, particularly that he rejected the Chalcedonian
expression ejn du>o fu>sesi; and closed with the decision that he should be deposed from the bishopric of Trapezont and all ecclesiastical dignities in accordance with the judgment of the Pope, and should be deprived of the name of Catholic. This sentence was immediately proclaimed by Mennas in a solemn address. As frequently happened, there then broke forth
numerous exclamations in honor of the Emperor and patriarch, and for the rejection of heretics.
At the same time the monks of Jerusalem presented a new memorial, and wanted, with their friends, in the general excitement to have this publicly read, and the resolution taken that the monasteries inhabited by the Eutychians, and especially by Zoaras, should be immediately suppressed.
Mennas, however, pacified them with the remark, that it would be
necessary first to acquaint the Emperor with this demand, since nothing could be done in the Church against his will and command (mhde<n tw~n th~|
aJgiwta>th ejkklhsi>a| kinoume>nwn para< gnw>mhn aujtou~ kai<
ke>leusin gene>sqai). At the same time, as compensation, Mennas added:
“We follow and obey the apostolic see, with which he has communion, as we also have; and whom he condems we also condemn.” At the close the minutes were signed by all the bishops present, together with the Roman deacons and the representatives of absent bishops. f432
Very voluminous are the Acts of the fifth session, held June 4, 536, since here numerous documents were read and embodied. The first was a memorial addressed to the Emperor by Paul of Apamea and the other bishops of Syria II., in which they set forth their own orthodoxy, pronounced anathema on all persons of Monophysite opinions, and
particularly on Anthimus, Severus (of Antioch), and Peter (formerly bishop of Apamea), and besought the Emperor to banish the heretics. f433
The second document, also addressed to the Emperor, was a petition of the monks already mentioned of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Syria, and
Palestine, requesting that the Emperor would recommend that the Patriarch Mennas and the Synod would hold a new session for the punishment of Severus, Peter, and Zoaras. f434 Then followed the reading of the memorial, which these same monks had presented to Mennas at the end of the fourth session, as we have heard. They express therein their satisfaction that Anthimus has been condemned; but remark that Satan has still two other active assistants, Severus and Peter, who had pronounced anathema on the Synod of Chalcedon and Pope Leo, had persecuted the orthodox, had maltreated and even killed many of them, and had, in an unlawful manner, got possession of the sees of Antioch and Apamea. Severus, in particular, had formerly served demons at Berytus, and even now was not free from heathenism; for immediately after his baptism he had connected himself with the Acephaloi, and as their head had rejected the Henoticon. Later, after he had usurped the episcopal chair, he had made believe that he accepted this, and had united with the bishop of Alexandria, Peter Mongus.
He had even gone so far as to inscribe his name on the diptychs of Antioch, although he had previously himself demanded his banishment from
Alexandria. To increase the disorder, he had then also received Peter of Iberia, and had entered into fellowship with the other Acephaloi. f435 He had indeed already been deposed and excommunicated along with his adherents; but they had escaped punishment by flight, and later on had
ventured to lay waste the city of Constantinople. Peter of Apamea and Severus had here their conventicles and their baptisteries, had led many astray, and also had seduced many women, and all this had been proved under Pope Hormisdas at Rome. Mennas and the Synod were therefore requested to pronounce anew anathema upon Severus, Peter, and their adherents, and also on the Syrian Zoaras, who had rejected the holy Fathers, had held unauthorized Church service, and had administered baptism. Besides this, the impious books of Severus should be condemned to the fire. f436
At the wish of the Italian bishops and of the Roman deacons there were now two letters read of Pope Hormisdas, first in Latin, and then in a Greek translation. The one of date February 10, 518, was addressed to the priests, deacons, archimandrites, and all the orthodox of Syria II., and contained the answer to a complaint of the orthodox monks of Syria, who had been cruelly ill-treated by Severus (in the time of the Emperor Anastasius). The Pope exhorted them to endurance and loyalty to the faith, and warned them against the adherents of Eutyches, against Dioscurus, and Peter of
Alexandria, against Acacius of Constantinople (the originator of the Henoticon), against Peter of Antioch, Severus, Xenaias, Peter of Apamea, etc. f437
Somewhat later is the second letter of Pope Hormisdas, which was addressed, March 26, 521, after the restoration of union between the Greek and Roman Churches, to the new Patriarch Epiphanius of
Constantinople (see sec. 233), and gave him instructions as to the manner in which those who had been misguided by the Monophysites, particularly by Severus, should be reconciled to the Church. f438
At the command of the Patriarch Mennas the notaries of his church further read all the documents connected with this subject, which had been
received and deposited in the archives of Constantinople, first, the complaint which the clergy of Antioch had addressed, in the year 518, respecting the intruder Severus, to the Patriarch John of Constantinople and the Synod assembled around him. We have already referred to this (sec. 233), and it is there told how Severus, in opposition to the canons, had got hold of the see of Antioch, had spoken blasphemies against God, rejected the holy Synods, imprisoned the orthodox, offered impious
sacrifices to demons, and had carried away and appropriated to himself the gold and silver doves which hung over the altars and fonts (kolumbh>qra),