A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

The History of the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, held in the Year 536.

IT rarely happens, that General Councils held about Matters of Faith restore Peace to the Church by their Decrees. Men have so great Inclination to their own Sentiments, and do so hardly en∣dure * 1.1 the affront of a Condemnation, that instead of yielding to the Decision given against them, they become more obstinate. They begin to look upon their Judges as Parties, and try all manner of ways, either to prove that they were not condemned, or that their Opinion was not rightly un∣derstood, nor their Reasons fairly heard; or lastly, to weaken the Authority of the Decision given against them. The Council of Nice had condemn'd the Arians, yet how many Disputes followed this Decree? How was the Church toss'd with many Commotions. The Council of Ephesus by proscribing Nestorius and the Orientalists, seems rather to have inflam'd then appeas'd the Diffe∣rence. The seeming Peace that follow'd was only feign'd, for the Fire of Division still rag'd in Men's minds, which broke forth in a little time after, and set the whole East in Combustion. The

Council of Chalcedon having treated of these things with much moderation, and explain'd them in very intelligible terms, should have reconcil'd men's minds: Marcianus caus'd it to be receiv'd almost every where; yet this Emperor was no sooner dead, but the troubles of the Church reviv'd again with greater violence then before.

After the Deposing of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, who was immediately banish'd to Gangra, the Emperor gave order to the People and Clergy of Alexandria, to choose one to succeed in his room. The greater part of the People oppos'd it, and this occasion'd a great Sedition, which was not appeas'd without much difficulty: But at last they were forc'd to obey, and Proterius was plac'd upon the Episcopal Throne. But the People of Alexandria being naturally inclin'd to Sedition, would not permit him peaceably to enjoy this Dignity. The far greater number separated from his Communion, and he was many times in danger of his Life; insomuch that the Emperor appointed Guards to attend him. But the News of the Death of Marcianus was no sooner arriv'd at Alexan∣dria, but the People taking occasion from the absence of the Governour, chose a Priest of Dioscorus's Faction, call'd Timotheus Aelurus, and having carried him to the great Church, caus'd him to be or∣dain'd Bishop. At the same time the Seditious went to find out Proterius, who was at the Font, where they run him thro the Body, and dragg'd it thro the Streets, burnt it, and threw the Ashes into the Air. This happen'd three days after the Feast of Easter in the Year 457.

The Clergy of Alexandria carried their Complaints to the Emperor Leo about this horrid Villany: The Complices of Timothy presented also their Libel to this Emperor, which tended to destroy what was done by the Council of Chalcedon. The Emperor being unwilling to give the Bishops the Fa∣tigue of coming to a new General Council, did only write a Circular Letter to them to desire their Opinions; and having receiv'd their Answers in favour of the Council of Chalcedon, and against Timothy, caus'd Timotheus Aelurus to be turn'd out, who was banish'd to Chorsona, and one call'd Ti∣mothy▪ surnam'd Salophaciolus, to be plac'd in his room. This Bishop liv'd in Peace under the Reign of Leo and his Successor Zeno: But the Tyrant Basiliscus having invaded the Empire, recall'd Timo∣theus Aelurus to Constantinople, after eighteen years banishment, and by his perswasion wrote a Circu∣lar Letter against the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo. Not only Timotheus Aelurus sign'd this Letter, but also Peter Mongus the Patriarch of Antioch and Anastasius. Their example was follow'd by almost five hundred Bishops. Timotheus Aelurus was restor'd, and Salophaciolus forc'd to fly and hide himself in a Monastery. Acacius of Constantinople, and many other Bishops, disap∣prov'd the Condemnation of the Council, and Basiliscus himself was forc'd to recall it by another Cir∣cular Letter, because of a Sedition which the Monks had rais'd at Constantinople.

Zeno having re-ascended the Throne, restor'd the Affairs of the Catholicks. Peter was forc'd a∣way from Antioch: Stephen, and afterwards Calendion, were ordain'd in his room. Timotheus Aelu∣rus being dead, the People of Alexandria chose Peter Mongus; but Zeno caus'd him to be turn'd out, and restor'd Timotheus Salophaciolus. After his death John Talaia was ordain'd in his room by those of his Party. But Zeno taking a fancy to restore Peter Mongus, made a Decree of Union, where∣in he expounded the Faith of the Incarnation after a Catholick manner, receiv'd the Chapters of St. Cyril, acknowledg'd no other Rule of Faith but the Nicene Creed, and said nothing of the Council of Chalcedon. Peter having sign'd this Decree was restor'd to the See of Antioch, and own'd by A∣cacius. But the Holy See and the Western Church would not acknowledge him, and receiv'd Ta∣laia who had retir'd into the West. Upon this occasion they fell out with Acacius, and were much dissatisfy'd with what the Emperor Zeno had done for the Peace of the Eastern Church. This mat∣ter went much further, for they condemn'd Acacius, as we have already seen, and wholly separated from his Communion. In the mean time Peter Mongus, who had acknowledg'd the Council of Chalcedon, to reconcile himself to Acacius, did afterwards publickly condemn it, to obtain the good will of the People of Alexandria. Acacius being dead, had Fravitus, and afterwards Euphemius, for his Successors, who having receiv'd a Letter from Peter Mongus, wherein he anathematiz'd the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, was preparing to condemn this Bishop, if the death of Peter had not prevented him. Athanasius, who succeeded him, and two other Patriarchs of Alexandria who follow'd him, be∣ing both call'd by the name of John, were of the same Judgment. But these last mention'd, made yet a more visible Defection from the Church, by condemning openly the Council of Chalcedon. There were then three Parties in the Church: One receiv'd the Council of Chalcedon, another re∣jected it, and a third held to Zeno's Edict of Agreement, without saying any thing of the Council of Chalcedon. This difference of Opinions divided the Churches. The West separated from the East, and the Eastern Bishops did not agree among themselves. The Egyptians would not communicate with the Bishops of Constantinople, because they approv'd the Council of Chalcedon. The Emperor Anastasius favor'd those who receiv'd the Decree of Union, and turn'd out those who admitted or condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon. In the mean time he secretly favour'd the Enemies of the Council, who had forc'd away Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch, and Macedonius Patriarch of Con∣stantinople. There was then at Constantinople an Egyptian Monk, call'd Severus, who was a cun∣ning intrigueing Man, he was the chief cause of Deposing these two Patriarchs, and found a way to possess himself of the See of Antioch. Assoon as he had usurp'd it, he wrote a Synodical Letter to all the Bishops of the East, wherein he anathematizes the Council of Chalcedon. This Letter was not receiv'd in Palestine, and many Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch rejected it, being unwil∣ling to acknowledge Severus for a lawful Bishop. There were also two Bishops of his own Patriar∣chate,

who had the boldness to send him Letters, wherein they declar'd him Excommunicated and Depos'd. In the Year 518 Justinus having succeeded the Emperor Anastasius, gave order to Ire∣neus to seize Severus, and cause his Tongue to be cut out, but he fled to Alexandria, and Paul a Catholick Bishop was plac'd in his room.

The Church of Alexandria had not yet quitted her Opinions; Dioscorus the younger, and Timo∣thy, who succeeded one another, had condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon. The last of them re∣ceiv'd Severus favourably, and Julian of Halicarnassus, who had been turn'd out of his Bishoprick upon the same account. Then there arose a Contest among those of this Faction, concerning the Corruptibility or Incorruptibility of the Body of Jesus Christ. A certain Monk ask'd Severus, whe∣ther he believ'd the Body of Jesus Christ to be incorruptible or corruptible. He answer'd him, That the Holy Fathers of the Church held it to be corruptible. The same Question being put to Julian of Halicarnassus, he answer'd quite contrary. These two opposite Answers were follow'd with Writings on one side and t'other, which gave the rise to a Schism among those of this Faction; the one were call'd Corrupticolae, and the other Phantafiastae. Timothy was of Severus's Opinion, and a Deacon call'd Themistius made himself Head of the contrary Party.

In the Year 527, Justinus associated Justinian to himself in the Empire. This Emperor was in∣clin'd to maintain the Council of Chalcedon as well as Justinus; but the Empress Theodora was of their Party, who said that the Body of Christ was incorruptible. For maintaining it, after the death of Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, she fetch'd Anthimus from Trapezus, who was devo∣ted to her Sentiments, and caus'd Theodosius to be ordain'd at Alexandria: But the People oppos'd this Ordination, and chose Gaianus, who was enthron'd by that Party which maintain'd that the Body of Jesus Christ was corruptible. The Empress caus'd him to be forc'd away, and restor'd Theodosius; but the continual Insurrections of the People forc'd him to retire, and to come to Con∣stantinople, whence he was driven away by the Emperor's order, because he would not acknowledge the Council of Chalcedon, and Paul the Catholick was Ordain'd in his room by Mennas.

Within a little time after the Pope Agapetus coming to Constantinople, who was sent by Theodatus King of the Goths, refus'd to receive Anthimus into his Communion, and endeavour'd to force him to retire to Trapezus, and to make a Confession of the Catholick Faith. Anthimus refusing to do it was condemned by Agapetus, who ordain'd Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople in the Year 536. Agapetus dying afterwards at Constantinople, Anthimus and his Adherents us'd all their endeavours to get the Power into their own hands, and while they disturb'd the Church by their Seditions, a Council▪ was held at Constantinople in the Year 536. Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople presided in it, and had at his right hand five Bishops deputed from the Holy See, and seven and twenty other Bishops, and at his left hand three and twenty Bishops more.

The Deacons deputed from the Holy See, from the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, and from the Archbishops of Caesarea, Ancyra and Corinth, were present there.

The first Action or Session was held on the second of May. The Deacon Euphemius, chief of the Notaries, represented that Marianus, Priest and Abbot of the Monastery of St. Dalmatius, the prin∣ciple Monk of Constantinople, and the Monks of Antioch and Jerusalem, had presented a Libel to the Emperor, who had referr'd them to the Decision of this Assembly. Mennas order'd that they should be call'd in, together with an Ambassador from the Emperor who brought them. He presented to the Council the Libel which the Monks had given to the Emperor, which was read by the Notary Acacius. It contain'd in substance, That Anthimus, Severus, Peter, Soaras, and those of their Sect, did not only publish their Errors, but stirr'd up every where Commotions and Seditions, and that being come to Constantinople, they had built Altars and Fonts in the City and Suburbs, in opposition to the true Altars of the Church; That Anthimus, formerly Bishop of Trapezus, being engag'd in this Faction of Hereticks, endeavour'd to invade the See of Constantinople; That he had been forc'd away from thence by the Pope Agapetus, and by Mennas, who was lawfully ordain'd; That from that time they had demanded, that he should be oblig'd to return to Trapezus, after he had declar'd in writing this disowning of what was done, and had purg'd himself from the Heresie whereof he was accused, or otherwise that he should be wholly depriv'd of the Priesthood; That Agapetus had prevented their desire by condemning him, and those of his Sect, and depriving him of the Sacer∣dotal Dignity, and the Name of a Christian, until he had done Penance; That this Pope being dead, they immediately address'd themselves to the Emperor, to pray him to confirm and execute this Judgment, that the Church might be at peace. After the reading of this Libel, Marianus pre∣sented a Memorial to the Council, which contain'd almost the same things. After this were read the several Instruments of the Process against Anthimus. The first is the Libel which these Monks had presented to Pope Agapetus, against Anthimus, Severus, Zoaras, and the other Acephali, whom they accus'd of the Eutychian Error, of holding unlawful Assemblies, of reiterating Baptism, of in∣vading the Sees of Catholick Churches, of taking their Churches by force, of erecting Altars and Fonts in contempt of the Catholick Church; particularly they accuse Anthimus of endeavouring to possess himself of the Church of Constantinople. They pray the Pope to oppose these Evils: They tell him, that as St. Peter came from the East to Rome to defeat the Tricks of Simon the Magician, so God had sent him from the West to the East to destroy there the Faction of Anthimus, Severus, and of Zoaras; That he ought, in imitation of what Celestine did to Nestorius, to prescribe a certain term to Anthimus, wherein he shall be bound to present a Writing to the Holy See, to the Pope and to the Patriarch of Constantinople, by which he shall purge himself from all Heresie, and to return

to his Bishoprick of Trapezus; which time being expir'd▪ if he did not give satisfaction, then he should be declar'd to be depriv'd and unworthy of any Ecclesiastical Dignity, and another should be pro∣moted in his room to the See of Trapezus: Lastly, That in order to the put••ing a full end to this Commotion, he should desire of the Emperor, that Severus, Peter and Zoaras, and those of their Sect should be turn'd out of their Church, that they should be forbidden to hold Assemblies, and that their Writings should be burnt in the Fire.

The second Instrument of the Process against Anthimus, is the Libel•• which the Eastern Bishops presented to Pope Agapetus, against Anthimus, Peter, Severus and Zoaras, whom they chiefly ac∣cus'd of reviving the E••••ychian Heresie. There they tell a story at length, which was only told o∣verly in the preceding Libel, of one Pers••••us call'd Isaac, of their Sect, who had tore a piece of Stuff, wherein the Image of the Emperor was painted.

The third is a Circular Letter of the Pope Agapetus, wherein he declares Anthimus Depos'd, his Followers Excommunicated, and Mennas the lawful Bishop of Constantinople.

After the reading of these Instruments, Deputies were nam'd to give Anthimus notice of what had pass'd, and to invite him to come within three days to the Council, to give that satisfaction which was to be wish'd, or to defend himself.

In the following Session held on the sixth of May, the Deputies declar'd. That having sought for Anthimus in the places where he dwelt, they could not meet with him. Then-other Deputies were nam'd again to seek for Anthimus, and to cite him to appear within three days.

This time being expir'd, an Assembly was held on the tenth of the same Month: The Deputies declar'd, That having sought for Anthimus both in his City-house and in that which is in the Suburbs, and in the House of Peter formerly Bishop of Apamea, and in the Chappels and Monasteries, they could not meet with him, nor learn the place of his abode. New Deputies were nam▪d again to seek for him, and that he might be utterly disabled to pretend ignorance of what was done, it was declar'd that notice should be given him by a publick Advertisement.

In the fourth Action held on the one and twentieth of May, after the Deputies had depos'd that they could not meet with Anthimus, and that the publick Placart had been read by which he was cited, the Council declar'd him to have fal••'n from the See of Trapezus, from all Ecclesiastical Dig∣nity, and to be unworthy of the Name of Catholick. Mennas pronounc'd the same Sentence for his own part against him. This Judgment was follow'd with many Acclamations in honour of the Em∣peror, against Anthimus, Severus, Peter, and Zoaras, and against their Followers.

In the fifth Action on the fourth of June, Theodorus Commissioner from the Emperor, presented to the Council two Libels, one from Paul of Apamea, and the Bishops of the second Syria, and ano∣ther from the Monks of Jerusalem, and of the same Province, against Severus who assum'd the Title of Bishop of Antioch, against Peter who call'd himself Bishop of Apamea, and against Zoaras whom they accus'd of maintaining the Sentiments of Eutyches, and of troubling the Catholick Church. The Monks themselves presented one much larger to the Synod, wherein they describe at greater length the Evils which the Church had suffer'd by the Acephali, the Blasphemies which they spoke against the Council of Chalcedon, the Outrages and Murders which they had committed, the Re-ordi∣nations and Re-baptizations which they had us'd, and the disorders of their Life. They pray the Council to anathematize particularly, Severus, Peter, Zoaras, and their Followers. The Opinion of the Bishops of Italy was ask'd, who said, That they look'd upon Severus and Peter as Hereticks, ac∣cording to the Letters of Hormisdas, to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, which they pro∣duc'd, and which were read in the Council. After this was read the Libel of the Clergy and Monks of Antioch to John the Patriarch of Constantinople against Severus, wherein he was accus'd of an ill Life, of keeping Communion with no Church, of invading the Church of Antioch by force, of having maintain'd the Eutychian Errors, and condemning the Council of Chalcedon, of having abus'd and kill'd many Monks, not sparing even the Altars and holy Vessels, but breaking the one and melt∣ing the other, of appropriating to his own use the Doves of Gold and Silver which were on the Fonts or Altars, of having robbed Houses, and pawn'd the Goods of the Church. This Libel was pre∣sented to the Council held at Constantinople in the Year 518, who receiv'd also another from the Monks of Constantinople, containing five Heads. The first is, That Euphemius and Macedonius, who had been unjustly forc'd away from their Sees, and were dead in Exile, were to be rank'd among Patriarchs▪ and their Names put again into Diptychs. The second, That those who had been turn'd out of their Sees, and banish'd upon the account of these two Patriarchs, were to be re∣stor'd. The third, That the Names of the Councils of Nice, of Constantinople and Ephesus, be put into the Diptychs. The fourth, That the Letters of St. Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon be joyn∣ed to them. The fifth, That what Severus had affirm'd against the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon may be rejected. and he himself condemn'd as a Heretick and a Blasphemer: The Bi∣shops assembled in the Council of Constantinople, approv'd the Requests contain'd in this Libel, and desir'd the Patriarchs to joyn with them, and to pray the Emperor to grant what they desir'd. Af∣terwards the Acclamations of the People are recited, which oblig'd John of Constantinople to declare publickly that he receiv'd the Council of Chalcedon, and to place the Names of the four first Coun∣cils in the Diptychs, together with those of Euphemius and Macedonius. The Letters also are reci∣ted which he wrote upon this occasion to John of Jerusalem, and to Epiphanius of Tyre, and the An∣swers of these Bishops. The Letter of the last is remarkable, because it specifies many Crimes of Se∣verus.

He says, That he had many times anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon, that he had re∣ceived the Clergy-men which were Excommunicated by their Bishops, that he had depos'd Priests * 1.2 who would not consent to his Impieties, that he had ordain'd Suffragan Bishops, and Titular Priests in Foreign Dioceses; that he had permitted a Bishop to ordain in the Diocese of another; that he had sold away the Goods of the Church of Antioch to enrich himself; that he had mov'd those who are maintain'd out of the Ecclesiastical Offerings, to make Schisms and Commotions; Lastly, that he was an Enemy to Peace and Truth. He speaks also of a Priest of his own City, call'd John, who had the boldness to anathematize the Letter of St. Leo, and the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon; who durst hold unlawful Assemblies, and celebrate forbidden Baptisms, insomuch that there have been seen, which never happen'd before, two contrary Processions of Persons baptiz'd; who had stirr'd up Commotions and Seditions, caus'd a Cross to be ston'd, abus'd a Bishop, and committed many other Outrages. The same things are objected to him in the Letter of the Bishops of the se∣cond Syria, which is related in this Council. After this were read the Informations of Peter of A∣pamea, and the Letter which his own Clergy had written against him to the Bishops of the second Syria, wherein they accuse him of saying to his Readers, who desir'd to be promoted to Holy Or∣ders, Unless ye hold your peace I will ordain you all Sub-deacons, and when the crucified Man shall descend, he shall not pluck you out of my hands; of having made an ill use of the Church; of ha∣ving baptiz'd a Woman of a bad Life; of holding immodest Discourses in the Church; of enter∣taining frequently a Comedian Woman in private; of wearing thro Pride a white Garment as a sign of his Innocence; of spitting upon the Altar in the time of celebrating the Mysteries; of refusing to baptize the Catechumens at the season; of keeping about him a multitude of Women, and commit∣ting Crimes with some of them; of persecuting and anathematizing the Catholicks; Lastly, of esta∣blishing the Eutychian Heresie, destroying the true Faith, and subverting Discipline. The Monks of Apamea complain'd also of the Outrages which he had committed against them. Their Libel was read in the Council, and then the Sentence of Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and of his Council, against Severus and Peter, which was follow'd and confirm'd by that of Mennas, and all the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople. Justinian joyn'd his Authority to that of this Council, and ordain'd by his Edict, That the Sentence of the Council against Anthimus, Severus, Peter, and Zoaras should be executed, forbids them to continue at Constantinople, condemned their Writings to the fire, and forbade all Transcribers to write them for the future, under the Penalty of having their Hand cut off. Lastly, He does most strictly forbid all those who held the Opinions of Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, or other Hereticks, to stir up any Sedition, or give any Disturbance to the Peace of the Church.

The Patriarch of Jerusalem having receiv'd this Law from the Emperor, and a Letter from Men∣nas, which acquainted him with the Sentence given at Constantinople, assembled his own Council, con∣sisting of the Bishops of the three Palestines, wherein the Condemnation of Anthimus, Severus, Peter and Zoaras was approv'd.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Histo∣ry of the Council of Constan∣tinople under Mennas, held in the Year 536.
• * 1.2

  The Histo∣ry of the second Council of Constan∣tinople, commonly call'd the fifth gene∣ral Coun∣cil.