Councils Of. Constantinople

Councils Of. Constantinople

I. General Synods . — The following are regarded as oecumenical by the Latin or by the Greek Church, or by both:

1. The First Oecumenical Council Of Constantinople (or the second in the list of oecumenical councils) was convoked at Constantinople in 381 by Theodosius the Great. There were present 150 orthodox bishops (mostly Elstern), and 36 followers of Macedonius, who left Constantinople when their doctrine was rejected by the majority. The council condemned, besides the Macedonians, the Arians, Eunomians, and Eudoxians, and confirmed the resolutions of the Council of Nice. It assigned to the bishop of Constantinople the second rank in the Church, next to the bishop of Rome, and in controversies between the two reserved the decision to the emperor.

2. The Second (Ecumenical Council Of Constantinople (the fifth in the list of oecumenical councils), held in 553 on account of the Three Chapters' controversy, by 165, mostly Oriental, bishops. This council excommunicated the defenders of the Three Chapters, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas, and others, and the Roman bishop Vigilius, who refused to condemn the Three Chapters unconditionally.

3. The Third (Ecumenical Council Of Constantinople (the sixth in the list of oecumenical councils), held from 680 to 681 in the Trullan palace, and attended by 289 bishops, among whom were three Oriental patriarchs, and four legates of the Roman bishop Agathon. The opinions of the Monothelites were condemned, especially through the influence of the Roman legates, as heretical.

4. The General Council convoked in 691 by the emperor Justinian II, and also held in the Trullan palace. As it was regarded as supplementing the fifth and sixth oecumenical councils, which had given no Church laws, it was called Quinisexta (Synodus) or Quinisextum (Conciliun). It gave 102 stringent canons on the morals of clergymen and ecclesiastical discipline. It is recognized as an oecumenical council by the Greeks only.

5. The Fifth Oecumenical Council , held in 754, and attended by 383 bishops. It passed resolutions against the veneration of images, which were repealed by the second OEcumenical Council of Nice. It is not recognized by the Latin Church, but only by the Greek.

6. The Sixth Oecumenical Council (by the Church of Rome regarded as the fourth OEcumenical Council of Constantinople, or the eighth in the list of oecumenical councils), held in 869. It deposed patriarch Photius, restored patriarch Ignatius, and gave laws on Church discipline. It is, of course, not recognized by the Greeks. 7. In 879 another General Synod was held at Constantinople, attended by 380 bishops, among whom were the legates of pope John VIII. Photius was recalled, the resolutions of the preceding council against him repealed, and the position of the patriarch of Constantinople to the pope defined. The Greeks number this council as the Eighth OEcumenical.

8. The Ninth Oecumenical Council Of The Greek Church was held in Constantinople, under the emperor Andronicus the younger, in 1341. It condemned the opinions of Barlaam as heretical.

II. Particular Synods . — The most important of the particular synods are: 1. and 2. In 336 and 339, two Arian synods, under the leadership of Eusebius of Nieomedia. The former deposed and excommunicated Marcellus of Ancyra; the latter deposed and expelled bishop Paulus, of Constantinople, and appointed Eusebius his successor. 3. A semi-Arian synod against AEtius, who was banished. 4. In 426, a synod held against the Messalians; in 448, 449, and 450, synods against the Eutychians. 5. In 495 and 496, Eutychian synods, condemning their opponents, and recognizing the Henoticon of Zeno. 6. A synod in 516, condemned the resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon. 7. In 536, against Severus, Anthimus, and other chiefs of the Acephali. 8. In 541 (543?), against some views of Origen. 9. In 815, two synods on the question of veneration of images, the one, attended by 270 bishops, in favor, and the second against the-images. 10. In 861, introducing patriarch Photius, and approving the veneration of images. 11. In 1170 (according to others in 1168), a synod, attended by many Eastern and Western bishops, on the reunion of the Eastern and Latin churches. Similar synods were held in 1277, 1280, 1285, all without effect. 12. In 1450, a council convoked by the emperor Constantine Palseologus deposed the patriarch Gregory, put in his place the patriarch Athanasius, and declined to accept the resolutions passed by the Council of Florence in favor of the union of the Greek and the Latin churches. 13. In 1638 and 1642, two synods held against the crypto- Calvinism of the patriarch Cyril Lucaris. — Pierer, Univers. Lex. 4:397; Wetzer u. Welte, Kirchen-Lex. 2:838; Christian Rememb. April, 1854, art. 1; Schaff, Hist. of the Christian Church, 2, 3; Landon, Manual of Councils; Hefele, Concil.-Geschichte; Edinburgh Review, July, 1867, p. 49.

ADDENDUM (From Volume 12):

(Concilium Constantinopolitanum). The large number of these, and the great importance of several of them, justify a fuller treatment, which we give from Landon, Man. of Councils, s.v., and Smith, Dict. of Christ. Antiq. s.v.

I. Held A.D. 336, by the Eusebians, under Eusebius of Nicomedia, at which Athanasius was exiled to Treves, Marcellus of Ancyra, with several other bishops, deposed, and Arius ordered to be received into communion by the Alexandrian Church. According to Ruffinus (Hist. 1:12) it was convened by order of the emperor, viz. Constantine the Great; and according to Emusebins, the historian (Confra Marcell. 1:4), it was exclusively gathered together from the neighborhood of the capital. It seems to have met in February, and not separated till the end of July. See Mansi, Concil. 2:1167-1170.

II. Held A.D. 339 or 340, by order of the emperor Constantius II, to depose Paul, the newly elected bishop there, whose orthodoxy displeased him, and translate Eusebilus, his favorite, from Nicomedia to the imperial see. See Mansi, Concil. 2:1275.

III. Held A.D. 360, composed of deputies from the Council of Seleucia, just ended, with some bishops summoned from Bithynia to meet them, about fifty in all. Most of the former were partisans of the metropolitan of Csesarea, whose name was Acacius, and semi-Arians. A creed was published by them, being the ninth, says Socrates, that had come out since that of Nicea. It was, in fact, what had been rehearsed at Rimini, with the further declaration that neither substance nor hypostasis were permissible terms in speaking of God. The Son was pronounced to be like the Father, according to the Scriptures, and Aetins, who maintained the contrary opinion, was condemned. A synodical epistle to George, bishop of Alexandria, whose presbyter he was, conveyed the sentence passed upon him and his followers. Several bishops were deposed at the same time, among them Cyril of Jerusalem — all for various causes. Ten bishops, who declined subscribing to these depositions, were to consider themselves deposed till they subscribed. Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, who had hitherto professed the Nicene faith, was one of those present, and joined in their creed. See Mansi, Concil. 3:325.

IV. Held A.D. 362 or 360, in which sixty-two bishops excommunicated and deposed Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, for his errors in faith concerning the Holy Spirit. See Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. cent. 4, part 1, chapter 5.

V. The second general council, met in May, A.D. 381, to reassemble the following year, for reasons explained by the bishops in their synodical letter. Owing to this circumstance, and to the fact that its acts have been lost, its proceedings are not easy to unravel. Socrates begins his account of it (Hist. 5:8) by saying that the Emperor Theodosius convened a council of bishops of the same faith as himself, in order that the creed settled at Niczea might prevail, and a bishop be appointed to the see of Constantinople. That the bishops met at his bidding is testified by themselves in their short address to him subsequently, to confirm what they had decreed. Whether they reassembled at his bidding we are not told. Of their number there has never been any dispute, this council having, in fact, gone by the name of that of "the one hundred and fifty fathers" ever since. There were thirty-six bishops of the Macedonian party likewise invited, but they quitted Constantinople in a body when they found that it was the faith of the Nicene fathers to which they would be called upon to subscribe. Of those present, Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, Meletius of.Antioch, who presided at first, Cyril of Jerusalem, with the two Gregories, of Nazianzum and Nyssa, were the most considerable, Nectarius and Flavian being added to their number before they separated. The names of all who subscribed have been preserved (Dionys. Exig. ap Justell. Bibl. Jur. Canon. 2:502).

The first question considered was that relating to the Church of Constantinople, and it was declared that Maximus, called the Cynic, had not been lawfully made bishop; that his ordination, and all that he had since (done in his pretended character of bishop, was null and void, and that, in fine, he was a usurper of the see of Constantinople. Then they proceeded to elect to the see Gregory Nazianzen, and eventually, notwithstanding his entreaties and tears, obliged him to accept the office. During these proceedings Meletius died, and Gregory of Nazianzum succeeded him as president of the council. He endeavored with all his powers to induce them to leave Panlinus in the see of Antioch. with the view of appeasing the divisions of that Church; but his efforts were ineffectual. The bishops of Macedonia and of Egypt (who had now arrived) vehemently opposed his designs, objecting also to his election, upon the ground that, being already bishop of another see, he ought not to have been translated to that of Constantinople. In consequence of this, Gregory formed the resolution to entreat the fathers to permit him to resign the see of Constantinople, which he in the end did, and Nectarius was elected in his room. During this interval Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, presided over the council; but Nectarius, immediately after his election, took that office upon himself. Now, Nectarius had been a priest in the latter city, but so far from having passed through the inferior degrees, as the canons direct, he had not been even baptized. Seven canons and a creed appear to have been submitted to the emperor by the assembled fathers for confirmation, at the close of their labors. Whether any canons have been lost seems to admit of some doubt. Socrates speaks of the establishment of patriarchs as one of the things done by this council; and the Arabic paraphrase, under a separate heading, "concerning the order of the prelates, and their rank and place," explains this as follows: "Honor besides, and the primacy, was granted in this council to the bishop of Rome, and he was made first, the bishop of Constantinople second, the bishop of Alexandria third, the bishop of Antioch fourth, and the bishop of Jerusalem fifth" which is the more remarkable as neither it nor Socrates omits the canon ordaining special prerogatives for new Rome. It is one difficulty connected with these canons, that in all probability they were not all passed. at the same council.

1. Confirms the faith of the council of Nicea, and anathematizes ("extrema execratione ac detestationem") all who deny it, especially the Arians, Eunomians, Eudoxians, Sabellians, Apollinarian, and others.

2. Forbids bishops to go beyond their borders, and to trouble other dioceses. Orders that the bishop of Alexandria shall have the sole administration of Egypt, and that the privileges given to the Church of Antioch by the Nicene canons shall be preserved. Orders that the affairs of the Asian, Politic, and Thracianu dioceses shall be severally administered by their respective bishops, and that the synod of each province shall administer the affairs of the province, according to the cannon of Nicaea.

3. By this canon the primacy of honor is given to the bishop of Constantinople after the bishop of home, on account, as it states, of the former being "the new Rome."

4. Declares the nullity of the consecration and of the episcopal acts of Maximus.

5. As regards the books of the Western Church, we have also received those in Antioch, who confess one and the same divinity in the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

6. Lays down a rule for ecclesiastical judgments, and permits all persons whatever to bring an accusation against a bishop or any other ecclesiastic on account of any private injury or wrong said to have been received: but in Church matters it directs that no accusation shall be received coming from heretics or schismatics, or from persons excommunicated or deposed, or accused of any crime, before they shall have justified themselves.

7. Gives direction as to the manner in which heretics ought to be received into the Church; Arians, Macedonians, Sabblatians, Novatians, Qnartodecimani, and Apollinarians were simply to be required to renounce their errors in writing, to anathematize all heresies, and to be anointed witi the holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and ears, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Others, such as the Eunrmians (who baptized with one immersion), Montanists, Sabellians, etc., were to be received as heathens, i.e., to be catechised, exorcised, and baptized. See Labbe, Concil. 2:911. Of the heretics named in canon 1 the Semi-Arians engaged most attention by far here, from the further error into which they had fallen of late respecting the divinity of the Holy Ghost. All that was ruled by this council on doctrine was directed against them exclusively. By the word "diocese," in canon 2, is meant a tract embracing several provinces.

Most probably, the third canon, ordaining that in future the see of Constantinople should take honorary precedence next after Rome, was intended to prevent the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria from ever attempting to take such liberties with it again.

Dionysius Exigunus ends his canons of this council with the fourth. Traces of a new series appear with the fifth. It runs as follows: "Concerning the tome of the Westerns, we, too, have received those who professed their belief, at Antioch, in one Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." What was this tome of the Westerns? Some think it was the synodical epistle received from pope Damasmus by the Easterns at their second meeting, A.D. 182, to which they wrote their own in reply. Others, with better reason, hold that it was a synodical letter of pope Damasus, addressed to the synod. Of Antioch A.D. 378 or 379. A third view is, that it was another of his to Paulinus of Antioch some years before. Athanasius sent a letter, in the name of his synod at Alexandria, A.D. 362, to the Church of Antioch, which he calls "a tome" himself, to which Panlinus is expressly said to have subscribed, and in which the indivisibility of the Holy Ghost from the substance both of the Father and the Son is as distinctly set forth as it ever was afterwards. Through Eusebius of Vercelli, to whom it was addressed, and by whom it was in due time subscribed, it would find its way into the West and to Rome, as the rallying-point of the orthodox, and a boiad of union, under existing circumstances, between the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, whose acceptance of its doctrine can scarce have become known to each other before Macedonimus, the ex- patriarch of Constantinople, commenced assailing the divinity of the third person in the Godhead. On this, it would immediately give rise to, and be the foundation of, a series of "tomes" or epistles of the same kind between them, in which Constantinople, being in Arian hands, would take no part, nor Alexandria much, owing to the banishment of its orthodox prelate, Peter, from A.D. 373 to 378, under Valens.

Meletius had also been driven from Antioch a year earlier; but his orthodox rival, Paulin us, was allowed to remain; and this would account for the correspondence that went on between him and pope Damasus uninterruptedly while Meletins was away, and of which the prominent topic was the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Now, the synods of Antioch and Rome are confusedly given about this time, yet several were probably held at each place. One thing, may well be thought to have been agreed upon at the first synod of Antioch, and possibly Rome too, which was afterwards confirmed in the second, and is evidently referred to by the Constantinopolitan fathers in their synodical letter, namely, the creed, in its enlarged form. Admit this form to have been agreed upon at the synod of Autioch, in conjunction, or not, with that of Rome,: A.D. 372, and the use of it in the year following by Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, as the authorized creed of the Church, is explained; nor is there any reason why Gregory Nyssen, if he composed it at all — as stated by Nicephorus alone — should not have composed it there.

But Valens coming to Antioch in April, to persecute the orthodox, the probability would be that this synod was hastily broken up, and remained in abeyance till A.D. 378 or 379, when its proceedings were resumed under Meletius, and confirmed by one hundred and sixty-three bishops, and with its proceedings this creed. All, at tine same time, then and there subscribed to the Western tome or letter of pope Damasus. Hence, both the language of the fifth Constantinopolitain canon above mentioned, and of the fathers who framed it, in their synodical letter, where they say that "this, their faith, which they had professed there summarily, might be learned more fully by their Western brethren, on their being so good as to refer to 'the tome' that emanated from the synod of Antioch, and that set forth by the ecniumenicail council of Constantinople the year before, in which documents they had professed their faith at greater length." Now, what they had set forth themselves was their adherence to, the Nicene faith and reprobation of the heresies enumerated in their first canon; what they had received from Antioch and accepted must have been the creed which has since gone by their name, but was certainly most their composition; and whatever else was confirmed there, A.D. 378, including the Western tome. The letter of pope Damasus to Paulinus was written A.D. 372, when there was nobody left at Antioch but Panlinus to write to. The letter addressed in his own name and that of the ninety-three bishops with him, "to the Catholic bishops of the East," was "the men" received by the synod at Antioch A.D. 378-9; to which they replied the same year. Both letters being on the same subject-as were the synods of 372 and 37 — it was easy to confuse them.

We now come to the synodical letter of the reassembled Council of Constantinople, A.D. 382, and their proceedings generally. Most of the bishops who hard met at Constantinople, A.D. 381. returned thither the following summer.

One of their number, Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, and Epiphanius and Jerome with him, had gone meanwhile to Rome. Being at Constantinople, they received a synodical letter from the West, inviting them to Rome, where a large gathering was in contemplation. This letter having been lost, we can only guess at its contents from what they say in reply to it, coupled with their fifth canon, which was evidently framed in consequence. The affairs of the East being in imminent peril and confusion, they beg to be excused from going rawty so far from their sees. The most they could do, would be to send deputies into the West Cyriacrus, Euisebiru, and Priscianus are named, to explain their proceeding's, which they then epitomize, commencing with what has been anticipated above about their faith, and ending with the statement that Nectarins and Flavianus had been appointed canonically to their respective sees, while Cyril was recognised by them as bishop of Jerusalem for the same reason.

Thus this letter explains the framing of their fifth canon, and attests its date. The same date is assigned to canon 6, restricting the manner of instituting proceedings against bishops, and reprobating appeals to the secular power. But canon 7, prescribing the distinctions to be observed in admitting heretics into communion, is shown not to belong to this camncil at all. It is almost identical with the ninety-fifth Trullan canon. Of the creed, little more need be hadded. It was in existence A.D. 373, having probably been framed at Antioch, in conformity with the synodical letter of Athanasius, A.D. 372, where it was doubtless confirmed A.D. 378-9, and received more probably by the fifth canon of this council A.D. 382, than promulgated separately by the council of the year preceding. Possibly this may have been the creed called by Cassian, as late as A.D. 430, "peculiarly the creed of the city and Church of Antioch." From the portion of it given by him it is as likely to have been this as that of A.D. 363, or any other between them. That there is a family likeness between it and the creed of the Church of Jerusalem, commented on by Cyril, will be seen on comparing them. On this hypothesis alone we can understand why no notice should have been taken of it at the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, and in the African code, namely, because it had originated with a provincial, and only been as yet received by a general council. It was promulgated as identical with that of Nicaea for the first time by the fathers of the fourth council.

The dogmatic professions of the council of 81 were confirmed by Theodosius in a constitution dated July 30 of the same year, and addressed to Antouinius, proconsul of Asia, by which the churches are ordered to be handed over to the bishops in communion with Nectarins and others who composed ft, the Eunosmians, Arians, and others having been deprived of their churches by a constitution issued ten days earlier. It was also received by pope Damasus, and has been regarded in the West ever since, so far, as oecumenical. Its first four canons, in the same way, have always been admitted into Western collections. But what passed at the supplemental council of 382 never seems to have been confirmed or received equally. It was in declining to come to this last council thrat Gregory Nazianzen said, in his epistle to Procspius, "that he had come to the resolution of avoiding every meeting of bishops, for he had never seen any synod end well, or assuage rather than aggravate disorders." His celebrated oration, known as his "farewell" to the council of 381, is inspired by a very different spirit. See Mansi, Concil. 3:583.

VI. Held A.D. 382, in order to appease the divisions of Antioch, to which see Flavianus had been nominated in the preceding council. during the lifetime of the actual bishop, Paulinus. Most of the bishops who were present at that council also attended here. Nothing certain is known of the proceedings, except that the election of Flavianus was confirmed, and a letter to the Western Church written, to excuse the Orientals from attending the council at Rome held at the same time. A declaration of faith was added on the subject of the Blessed Trinity as well as of the Incarnation.' This council further declared that Nectarius had been duly elected to the see of Constantinople, according to the Nicene canons, and it also recognised the election of Flavianus to Antioch. See Labbe, Concil. 2:1014.

VII. There was a meeting of bishops held at Constautinople, by command of Theodosius, A.D. 383, under Nectarius, to devise remedies for the confusion created by so many sees passing out of the hands of the heterodox into those of the orthodox party. The Arian, Eunomian, and Macedonian bishops were required to attend there with confessions of their faith, which the emperor, after examining carefully, rejected in favor of Nicera. The Novatians alone, receiving this, were placed by him upon equal terms with the orthodox. It is said to have been on this occasion that Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, on entering the palace, made the usual obeisance to Theodosius, but took no notice of Arcadius, his son, standing at his side (Socrates, Hist. 5:10).

VIII. Held A.D. 394, Sept. 29, on occasion of the dedication of the church of the Apostles Peter and Paul, built by Ruffinus, praefect of the Prmetorium. The dispute concerning the bishopric of Bostra was brought before this council. Nectarius of Constantinople presided, in the presence of Theophilus of Alexandria, Flaviansus of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, Palladius of Cresarea in Cappadocia, and many other bishops of note. It was determined, that although three bishops are sufficient to consecrate, a larger number is required in order to depose. See Labbe, Concil. 2:1151.

IX. Held A.D. 399, attended by Twenty-Two bishops under Chrysostom, to inquire into seven capital charges brought against Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus. As he. died before the witnesses could be examined, Chrysostom, at the request of the Ephesian clergy, went over thither, and, at the head of seventy bishops, appointed Heraclides, a deacon, in his place, and deposed six bishops who had been ordained by Antoninus. Their proceedings contain a reference to the canons of the African Church. Strictly speaking, this last was a synod of Ephesus. See Mansi, Concil. 3:991.

X. Held A.D. 403, by forty or sixty bishops, in support of Chrysostom, unjustly deposed by the pseudo council, "ad Quercum," because of his non- appearance there. Although Arcadius had weakly confirmed this deposition, and banished him into Bithynia, his exile lasted but for one day, for the empress Eudoxia, frightened by a terrible earthquake which happened at the time, sent after him to recall him, and he re-entered Constantinople in triumph. See Labbe, Concil. 2:1331.

XI. Held in the same year. After the restoration of Chrysostom to his bishopric, he ordered those priests and bishops who, upon his condemnation, had intruded into the sees and benefices of his followers, to be deposed, and the rightful pastors to be restored; he then demanded of the emperor that his own cause should be considered in a lawful synod. Sixty bishops assembled, who came to the same conclusion with the last council, viz. that Chrysostom had been unlawfully deposed in the council "ad Quercum," and that he should retain the bishopric. See Socrates, Hist, 8:19.

XII. Held A.D. 404, to sit in judgment on Chrysostom, who had been recalled from exile by the emperor and retaken possession of his see, from which he had been deposed by the synod "ad Quercum." Theophilus of Alexandria was not present on this occasion, having had to fly Constantinople on the return of his rival. Still, he was not unrepresented; and Chrysostom had by this time provoked another enemy in the empress Eudoxia, whose statue he had denounced, from the games and revels permitted to be held round it, in offensive proximity to his church. At this synod he seems to have given attendance when the question of his former deposition was argued. Thirty-six bishops had condemned him; but sixty- five bishops, he rejoined, had, by communicating with him, voted in his favor. It is not implied in these words that a synod was actually sitting in his favor now, any more than during the synod "ad Quercum," the deputies from which found him surrounded, but not synodically, by forty bishops, in his own palace. The fourth or twelfth canon of the Council of Antioch was alleged by his opponents: his defence was that it was framed by the Arians. As quoted by his opponents, it was differently worded from what either the fourth or twelfth are now; possibly there may have been an Arian version of these canons, against which his objection held good. The synod, however, decided against him, and his banishment, to Comnana, on the Black Sea, says Socrates to Cucusus, in Armenia, say others followed, where he died.

XII. Held A.D.426, on the last day of February, when Sisilnnius was consecrated bishop there, in the room of Atticus. Afterwards, the errors of the Massalians, or Euchites, were condemned, at the instance of the bishops of Iconium and Sida. A severe. sentence was passed on any charged with holding them after this denunciation. See Mansi, Concil. 4:543.

XIV. Held A.D. 428, on the death of Sisinnius, when the well-known Nestorius was consecrated. See Mansi, Concil. 4:543.

XV. Held A.D. 431, October 25, four months after Nestoritus had been deposed, to consecrate Maximian in his place., This done, Maximian presided, and joined in a synodical letter, enclosing that of the Council of Ephesus, with its first. six canons, as they are called, to the bishops of ancient Epirus, whom attempts had been made to detach from orthodoxy. Letters were written likewise by him and by the emperor to pope Celestine, Cyril, and other bishops, to acquaint them with his elevation, at which all expressed themselves well pleased. Another synod appears to have been held by him the year following, for restoring peace between his own church and that of Antioch. See Mansi, Concil. 5:257-292, 1045-1050.

XVI. Held A.D. 443, probably to consider the case of Athanasius, bishop of Perrhe, on the Euphrates, afterwards deposed at Antioch under Domnus. See Mansi, Conci. 6:463.

XVII. Held A.D. 448, November 8, under Flavian, to inquire into a dispute between Florentus, metropolitan of Sardis, and two of his suffragans; but while sitting, it was called upon by Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, one of its members, who had, as a layman, denounced Nestorius, to summon Eutyches, archimandrite of a convent of three hundred monks, and as resolute an opponent of Nestorius as himself, on a charge that he felt obliged to press against him. The charge was that he recognised but one nature in Christ. Messengers were despatched to invite Eutyches to peruse what Eusebius had alleged against him. A reply was brought subsequently from Eutyches, that he refused to quit his monastery. A second and third citation followed in succession. Then he promised attendance within a week. At last he appeared, made profession of his faith, and was condemned thirty-two bishops and went — three archimandrites subscribing to his deposition, from the priesthood and monastic dignity. The proceedings occupied altogether seven sessions, the last of which was held November 22. Its acts were recited in a subsequent council of the year following at Constantinople; at Ephesus, also, the year following, under Dioscorus; and again, in the first session of the Council of Chalcedon. See Mansi, Concil. 6:495, 649; Labbe, Concil. 3:1466.

XVIII. Held A.D. 449, April 8, of thirty bishops under Thalassius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, by order of the emperor, to re- consider the sentence passed on Eutyches by the council under Flavian, on a representation from the former that its acts had been falsified. This, however, was proved untrue. Another session was held April 27, on a second petition from Eutyches, to have the statement of the official or silentiary, who had accompanied him to the council under Flavian, taken down. This officer declared to having seen the instrument containing his deposition before the session was held at which it was resolved on. The acts of this council are likewise preserved in the first session of that of Chalcedon. See Mansi, Concil. 6:503, 753.

XIX. Held A.D. 450, at which Anatolius was ordained bishop; and at which, some months afterwards, at the head of his suffragans and clergy, he made profession of his faith and subscribed to the celebrated letter of Leo to his predecessor Flavian, in the presence of four legates from Rome, charged to obtain proofs of his orthodoxy. See Mansi, Concil. 6:509. All the bishops, abbots, priests, and deacons at the time in Constantinople were present. Nestorius and Eutyches, together with their dogmas, were anathematized. The pope's legates returned thanks to God that all the Church was thus uianimous in the true faith. Several of the bishops who had yielded to the violence of Dioscorus in the Latrocinium were present in this assembly, and having testified their sorrow for what they had done, desired to condemn the act with its authors, in order to be received back into the communion of the Church; they were subsequently received into communion, and restored to the government of their respective churches. See Labbe, Concil. 3:1475.

XX. Held A.D. 457, under Anatolius, by order of the emperor Leo, whom he had just crowned, to take congnizance of the petitions that had arrived from Alexandria for and against Timothy AElurus, who had been installed bishop there by the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, and to consider what could be done to restore peace. The council anathematized Elurus. and his party. See Mansi, Concil. 7:521, 869.

XXI. Held A.D. 459, under Gennadius. Eighty-one bishops subscribed to its synodical letter, still extant, in which the second canon of the Council of Chalcedon is cited with approval against some simoniacal ordinations recently brought to light to Galatia. See Mansi, Concil. 7:911.

XXII. Held A.D. 478, under Acacius, in which Peter, bishop of Antioch, surnamed the Fuller, Paul of Ephesus, and John of Apamea, were condemned; and a letter addressed to Simplicus, bishop of Rome, to acquaint him with, and request-him to concur in, their condemnation. A letter was addressed at the same time by Acacius to Peter the Fuller himself, rebuking him for having introduced the clause "Who was crucified for us" into the Trisagion, or hymn to the Trinity. This letter has been printed as issued from a synod five years later, when, in fact, there was no such synod. See Mansi, Concil. 7:1017 sq.

XXIII. Held A.D. 492, under Euphemius, in favor of the Council of Chalcedon; but as he declined removing the name of his predecessor, Acacius, from the sacred diptychs, he was not recognised as bishop by popes Felix and Gelasius, to whom he transmitted its acts, though his orthodoxy was allowed. See Mansi, Concil. 7:1175.

XXIV. Held A.D. 496, by order of the emperor Anastasius I, in which t.he Henoticon of Zeno was confirmed, Euphemius, bishop of Constantinople, deposed, and Macedonius, the second of that name who had. presided there, substituted for him. See Mansi, Concil. 8:186.

XXV. Held A.D. 498, by order of the emperor Anastasius I, in which Flavian, the second bishop of Antioch of that name, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, took the lead: condemning the Council of Chalcedon and all who opposed the Monophysite doctrine, or would not accept the interpolated clause "Who was crucified for us," in the Trisagion. But it seems probable that this council took place a year later, and that another had met a year earlier, under Macedonius, less hostile to the Council of Chalcedon than this, and of which this was, the reaction. See Mansi, Concil. 8:197.

XXVI. Held A.D. 518, July 20, by order of the emperor Justin, at which the names of the councils of Nicsea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; of Leo of Rome, with Enuphemius and Macedonius of Constantinople, were restored in the sacred diptychs; and Severaus and all other opponents of the fourth council anathematized. Count Gratus was despatched to Rome by the emperor with letters from himself and the patriarch to pope Hormisdas, hoping that peace might under these circumstances be restored between them. The Easterns had to anathematize Acacius of Constantinople by name, and to erase his and the names of all others, Euphemius and Macedonius included, who had not erased his previously, from the sacred diptychs, before the pope would readmit them to his communion. See Mansi, Concil. 8:435 sq.; Labbe, Concil. 4:1586.

XXVII. Held A.D. 531, under Epiphanius, who was then patriarch, to inquire into the consecration of Stephen, metropolitan of Larissa, within the diocese of Thrace, which had been made without consulting him. Stephen, having been deposed by him on these grounds, appealed to Rome; but the acts of the synod held there to consider his appeal are defective, so that it is not known with what success. See Mansi, Concil. 8:739.

XXVIII. Held A.D. 533, between the Catholics and followers of Severus; the latter were silenced, and many of them returned into the Church. See Labbe, Concil. 4:1763.

XXIX. Held A.D. 536. According to some, three synods were held in Constantinople this year:

(1) In which pope Agapetus presided and deposed Anthymus, patriarch of Constantinople; but this the emperor Justinian had already done, besides confirming the election of Mennas in his stead, at the instance of the clergy and people of the city. Agapetus, who had come thither on a mission from Theodatus, king of the Goths, having previously refused his communion, had unquestionably procured his ejection; and he afterwards consecrated Mennas, at the request of the emperor.

(2) In which a number of Eastern bishops met to draw up a petition to the pope, requesting him to call upon Anthymuls, subsequently to his deposition, but previously to his going back to Trebizond, from which he had been translated, for a retractation of his denial of two natures in Christ; but this can hardly be called a council; and the death of the pope stopped any definitive action on his part.

(3) Under Mennas, after the death of the pope, consisting of five actions, the first of which took place May 2, Mennas presiding, and having on his right, among others, five Italian bishops, who had come to Constantinople from the late pope. The first thing brought before the council was a petition from various monastic bodies in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Mount Sinai, to the emperor, begging that the sentence, stayed only by the death of the pope, against Anthymus, might be carried out; a general account of what had passed between them and the pope followed; their petition to him was produced by the Italian bishops present and recited; after it another petition to him from some Eastern bishops on the same subject; and his own letter to Peter, bishop of Jerusalem, in reply. Desirous of following out his decision, the council sent deputies to acquaint Anthymus with its proceedings, and bid him appear there within three days. The second and third actions passed in sending him similar summonses, but, as he could not be found, his condemnation and deposition were at length decreed in the fourth action by the council and its president, and signed by seventy-two bishops or their representatives, and two deacons of the Roman Church. At the fifth and last action a number of documents were recited, mainly referring to Peter, bishop of Apamea, Severus, and other Monophysites. All these having been read, an anathema was passed upon Peter, Severus, and Zoaras, one of their followers, by the council now sitting, and then by Mennas, its president; according to the order observed in the fourth action in passing sentence upon Anthymns. Eighty-eight bishops or their representatives, and two deacons of the Roman Church, as before, subscribed on this occasion. A constitution of the emperor addressed to Mennas confirmed their sentence. See Mansi, Concil. 8:869 sq.; Labbe. Concil. 5:1 sq.

XXX. Held A.D. 538 (541, or 543), under Mennas, by order of the emperor Justinian, in support of his edict against the errors of Origen, denounced to him in a petition from four monks of Jerusalem, placed in his hands by Pelagius, a Roman envoy, whom he had sent thither on a different errand, with the express object of injuring Theodore, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, surnamed Ascidas, who defended Origen. His edict is in the form of a book against Origen, and addressed to Mennas. It was communicated to the other patriarchs and to pope Vigilius. The council backed it by fifteen anathemas against Origen and his errors, usually placed at the end of the acts of the fifth general council, with which this council came to be subsequently confused, in consequence of their respective acts having formed one volume. See Mansi, Concil. 9:487 sq.

XXXI. Held A.D. 546, under Mennas, to assenta to the first edict, now lost, of the emperor Justinian against the three chapters the year before. Some authors pass over this council, and substitute for it another. supposed to have been held by pope Vigilitus the year following after his arrival in February (A.D. 547), at which it was decided to refer passing sentence upon the three chapters to the meeting of the general council about to take place. See Mansi, Concil. 9:125; Labbe, Concil. 5:390.

XXXII. Held A.D. 553, the fifth general council, by order of the emperor Justinian, with Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, for president; pope Vigilius being on the spot all the time, but declining to attend: indeed, he was not even represented there. The council opened on May 4, in the cathedral. In the first and second sessions, which were styled conferences, Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople, Apollinaris of Alexandria, and Domnus of Antioch were present, together with three bishops, deputies of Eustachius, the patriarch of Jerusalem; there were in all one hundred and sixty-five bishops, among whom were five Africans, the only bishops who attended from the West. The following is a summary of its causes and proceedings, with their results:

As far back as his election, A.D. 537, Vigilins had been secretly pledged to the empress Theodora, who favored the Monophysite party, to assent to the condemnation of the three chapters; and this step had been pressed upon the emperor all the more warmly since then, in consequence of the condemnation of the Origenists in a council under Mennas the year following. Theodore, bishop of Csesaren, a devoted Origenlist, and friend of the empress, pointed it out, in fact, as a means of bringing back a large section of the Monophysites to the Church. Their opposition to the fourth generally council, he averred, lay in the countenance supposed to be given by it to these writings:

1. The works of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia;

2. The letter of Ibas, bishop. of Edessa, to Maris; and 3, what Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhns, had published against Cyril — the third, however, he forbore to name — all held to be tainted with Nestorianism. By condemning them, he seems to have expected that the authority of the council that had treated their authors so favorably would be undermined. Justinian, acting on his advice, had already condemned them twice (A.D. 545 and 551), and the first time had been followed by Vigilius, whose Judgment, published at Constantinople, A.D. 548, is quoted in part by the emperor in. his address to this council on its assembling. But Vigilius had (A.D. 547) declared against coming to any decision on the subject till it had been discussed in a general council; and to this he went back on ascertaining' what indignation his Judgment had caused in Africa and in the West, and excommunicated Maennas and Theodore for having gone further. Accordingly, the emperor decided on summoning this council to examine and pronounce upon them; and Entychius, the Constantinopolitan patriarch, addressed a letter to Vigilins, which was read out at its first session, May 5, requesting him to come and preside over its deliberations. Vigilins assented to their joint examination by himself and the council, but was silent about his attendance. Three patriarchs and a number of bishops accosted him personally, with no better success.

At the second session or collation, a second interview with him was reported, in which he definitively declined attending; and even on a message from the emperor he would not undertake to do more than examine the chapters by himself, and transmit his opinion on them, not to the council, but to him. Some bishops of Africa and Illyria excused themselves to the deputation sent to invite their attendance.

At the third collation the fathers commenced the real business for which they had been convened. They pledged themselves to the exact doctrine and discipline laid down in the four general councils, each and all, preceding their own; one and the same confession of faith had sufficed for them in spite of all the heresies they had met to condemn, and should suffice now. All things in harmony with it should be received; and all things at variance with it rejected. Having thus pledged themselves to the fourth council among the rest, the fathers proceeded to the examination of the three chapters in their fourth collation. This was on May 12. Extracts having accordingly been read out from various works of Theodore, both he and they were judged worthy of condemnation. The next day, or the fifth collation, passages for or against Theodore, Cyril, and others, were produced and weighed; and authorities, particularly Augustine, cited in favor of condemning heretics, although dead. At the close of the sitting, extracts from the writings of Theodoret, against Cyril, were recited; on which the fathers remarked that the fourth council had acted wisely in not receiving him till he had anathematized Nestorinus. The sixth collation took place May 19. During the interval Vigilius issued his Conbstitutum, dated May 14, in the form of a synodical letter addressed to the emperor, answering and condemning a number of the positions of Theodore, but pleading for Theodoret and Ibas, as having been acquitted by the fourth council. However, the council at its sixth collation found the letter of Ibas in question contrary to the Chalcedonian definition, and anamthematized it accordingly; but its author escaped.

At the seventh collation, May 26 or 30, a communication was read from the emperor in deprecation of the Constitutumr, addressed to him by the pope, May 14, and on which there had been a good many messages between them, in vain, since. No less than six documents were recited, proving that Vigilius had expressly condemned the three chapters as many times; the last of them, a deposition signed by Theodore, bishop of Casesarea, and a lay dignitary, to the effect that Vigilius had sworn to the emperor in their presence to do all he could for the condemnation of the three chapters, and never say a word in their favor. Next, an inquiry, by order of the emperor, respecting a picture or statue of Theodoret, said to have been carried about at Cyrrhus in procession, was reported. Lastly, the imperial mandate, which ordained that the name of Vigilius should be removed from the sacred diptychs for his tergiversations on the subject of the three chapters. Unity with the apostolic see would not, he adds, be thereby dissolved, inasmuch as neither Vigilius nor any other individual could, by his own change for the worse, mar the peace of the Church. To all this the council agreed.

Finally, reviewing at its eighth collation, June 2, in a singularly well- written compendium, all that it had done previously, and vindicating the course about to be pursued, the council formally condemned the three chapters, and with them the author of the first of them — Theodore — promulgating its definitive sentence in fourteen anathemas, almost identical with those of the emperor, and in which the heresies and heresiarchs thus condemned are specified; Origen among the number, in the eleventh, thoigh not in the corresponding one of the emperor. He had been previously condemned in the council under Mennas A.D. 538, as we have seen. Of these anathemas the Greek version is still extant: of almost every other record of its proceedings the Latin version alone remains. Vigilins, after taking some time to consider, announced his assent to them in two formal documents: the first a decretal epistle, dated December 8 of the same year, and addressed to the Constantinopolitan patriarch, in which, as he says, after the manner of Augustine, he retracts all that he had ever written differently; and the second, another Constitutum of great length, dated February 23 of the year following, but without any heading or subscription in its present form. He died on his way home, amid Pelagius, the Roman envoy who had been instrumental in condemning Origen, had thus, on becoming pope, to vindicate the condemnation of the three chapters by this council, in the West, where they had been defended all but unanimously, and were upheld obstinately by more than three parts of Italy still. The second Pelgius, twenty-five years later, in his third letter to the bishops of Istria, said to have been written by Gregory the Great, then his deacon, apologized for the conduct of his predecessors and his own therein, by referring to the occasion on which Peter was reproved by Paul ( Galatians 2:11). Gregory, when pope, settled the matter by affirming that he venerated the fifth council equally with the four preceding.

No canons seem to have been passed by this council: many points connected with it are still doubtful: and the documents published as belonging to it greatly need rearranging. See Mansi, Concil. 9:151-651; Labbe, Concil. 5:411, sq.

XXXIII. Held A.D. 565, at which the emperor Justinian endeavored to get the errors of Julian of Halicarnassus, a well-known Monophysite, who maintained the incorruptibility of the body of Christ antecedently to his resurrection, approved by banishing those who opposed them. See Mansi, Concil. 9:765.

XXXIV. Held A.D. 587, at which a foul charge brought against Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, by a banker of his diocese, was examined. He was honorably acquitted and his accuser punished. This may have been the synod summoned as a general one by the Constantinopolitan patriarch John, in virtue of his assumed title of ecumenical patriarch, and for which he was so severely taken to task by pope Pelagius II; but for this no direct proof is adduced. This is referred to in a letter of Gregory the Great to that patriarch, and a further letter of his some time later, when Cyriacus was patriarch, whose plan of holding another synod for the same purpose he would seem to have anticipated. Mansi conceives this synod to have been held A.D. 598 (Concil. 9:481).

XXXV. Held A.D. 626, under Sergins, to consider the question raised by Paul, a Monophysite of Phasis, in Lazica, and Cyrus, its metropolitan — afterwards translated to Alexandria — before the emperor Heraclius, whether one or two wills and operations were to be ascribed to Christ. Sergius pronounced in favor of one operation and one will; thereby founding the heresy called Monothelism. The question may have originated with Athanasius, patriarch of the Jacobites in Syria, on his promotion to the see of Antioch by Heraclius four years later. See Mansi, Concil. 10:585.

XXXVI. Held A.D. 639, under Sergius, and continued — unless there were two distinct councils this year — under Pyrrhus, his successor, at which the exposition of faith by the emperor Heraclius, favorable to Monothelism, was confirmed. Parts of its acts, with the "exposition" in full, were recited in the third sitting of the Lateran, under Martin I, A.D. 649. See Mansi, Concil. 10:673.

XXXVII. Held A.D. 665, by order of the emperor Constans II, at which Maximus, the great opponent of the Monothelites, was condemned. See Mansi, Concil. 11:73.

XXXVIII. Held A.D. 666, under Peter, patriarch of Constantinople, and attended by Macedonius of Antioch and the vicar of the patriarch of Alexandria, at which Maximus was condemned a second time, with his disciples. See Mansi, Concil. 11:73.

XXXIX. The sixth general council, held in the banqueting-hall of the palace, called Trullus from its domed roof, and lasting from November 7, A.D. 680, to September 16 of the ensuing year. It was convened by the emperor Coinstantine Pogonatus, in consequence of a request made to him by the patriarchs of Constantinople to permit their removing from the sacred diptychs the name of pope Vitalian, lately deceased, while they were for retaining that of Honorius. In short, they wished to commemorate none of the popes after Honorius till some disputes that had arisen between their own sees and his had been settled, and some newly-coined words explained. Donus dying before this letter could reach Rome, it was complied with at once by his successor, Agatho, who sent three bishops, on behalf of his synod, and two presbyters, and one deacon named John — who subsequently became pope as John V — in his own name, to Constantinople, "to bring about the union of the holy churches of God." On hearing from the "oecumenical pope," as he styles him, to that effect, the emperor issued his summons to George, patriarch of Constantinople — whom he styles oecumenical patriarch — and through him to the patriarch of Antioch, to get ready to come to the council with their respective bishops and metropolitans. Mansuetus, metropolitan of Milan, who had formed part of the Roman synod under Agatho, sent a synodical letter and profession of faith on behalf of his own synod, and Theodore, bishop or archbishop of Ravenna, who had formed part of the same synod, a presbyter, to represent him personally. The number of bishops actually present, it is said, was two hundred and eighty-nine, though the extant subscriptions are under one hundred and eighty. Thirteen officers of the court were there likewise, by command of the emperor, who attended in person, and were ranged round him — on his left were the representatives of the pope and his synod, of the archbishop of Ravenna, and of the patriarch of Jerusalem, then Basil, bishop of Gortyna, in Crete, and the remaining bishops "subject to Rome" — his right being occupied by the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, a presbyter representing the patriarch of Alexandria, the bishop of Ephesus, and "the remaining bishops subject to Constantinople." The business of the council was concluded in eighteen actions or sessions, as follows:

1 (November 7, 680). The legates of Agatho having complained of the novel teaching of four patriarchs of Constantinople, and two other primates, that had for forty-six years or more troubled the whole Church, in attributing one will and operation to the Incarnate Word, Macarius, patriarch of Autioch, and two suffragans of the see of Constantinople favorable to this dogma, briefly replied that they had put out no new terms, but only believed and taught what they had received from general councils and from the holy fathers on the point in question, particularly the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandril, named by their opponents, and Honoriis, formerly pope of elder Rome. Whereupon the chartophylax, or keeper of the archives of the great Church, was ordered by the emperor to fetch the books of the oecumenical councils from the library of the patriarch. As nothing was said of the acts of the first and second councils on this occasion, we must infer they had been lost previously. The chartophylax was told to produce what he had brought; and immediately two volumes of the acts of the third council were recited by Stephen, a presbyter of Antioch in waiting on) Macarius, who forthwith contended that some of Cyril's expressions were favorable to him.

2 (November 10). Two volumes of the acts of the fourth council were read, when the legates of Agatho pointed out that two operations were attributed to Christ by pope Leo.

3 (November 13). Two volumes of the acts of the fifth council were read, when the legates protested that two letters of pope Vigilins, contained in the second volume, had been interpolated, and that a discourse attributed in the first to Menuas, patriarch of Constantinople, was spurious. This last having been proved on the spot from internal evidence, its recital was stopped, the emperor directing further inquiry to be made respecting the letters of the pope.

4 (November 15). Two letters from Agatho were recited — one to the emperor, in his own name, the other to the council, in his own name and that of a synod of one hundred and twenty-five bishops, assembled under him at Rome, previously to the departure of his legates. The burden of both is the same, namely, that that had been defined as of faith by the five general councils preceding it was the summit of his ambition to keep inviolate. Several passages in the Latin version of these letters, on the prerogatives of the Church of Rome, are not found in the Greek. Either, therefore, they have been interpolated in the one, or suppressed in the other.

5 (December 10). Two papers were exhibited by Macarius, and recited, of which the first was headed, "Testimonies from the holy fathers confirmatory of there being one will in Christ, which is also that of the Father and the Holy Ghost."

6 (February 12, 681). A third paper from Macarius to the same effect as the other two, having been read, the sealimng of all three was commanded by the emperor, and intrusted to his own officials and those belonging to the states of Rome and Constantinople. On the legates affirming that the quotations contained in them had not been fairly made, antheintic copies of the works cited were ordered to he brought from the patriarchal library to compare with them.

7 (February 13). A paper headed "Testimonies from the holy fat hers demonstrating two wills and operations in Christ" was produced by the legates, and read. Appended to it were passages from the writings of heretics, ill which but one will and operation was taught. This paper also was ordered to be sealed, by the emperor.

8 (March 7). The passages adduced by Agatho from the fathers, and by his synod, in favor of two wills and operations, having been examined and confirmed, were pronounced conclusive by all present except Macarils; and the petition to have the name of Vitllian erased from the diptychs was withdrawn by George, the existing patriarch of Constantinople, amid great applause. Macarius being then called upon to make his profession, proved himself a Monothelile; and was convicted of having quoted unfairly from the fathers in his papers, to support his views.

9 (March 8). Examination of the papers of Macarius having been completed, he and his presbyter Stephen were formally deposed as heretics by the council.

10 (March 18). The paper exhibited by the legates was taken in hand; and after a most interesting comparison between it and the authentic works in the patriarchal library, was declared thoroughly correct in its citations; a profession of faith was received from the bishop of Nicomnedia and some others, in which Monothelism was abjured.

11 (March 20). A long and remarkable profession of faith, contained in a synodical letter of Sophronius, late patriarch of Jerusalem, and the first to oppose Monothelism, was recited; and after it, at the request of the legates, some more writings of Macarius, since come to hand, that proved full of heresy.

12 (March 22). Several more documents belonging to Macarlins having been received from the emperor through one of his officers, which he professed not to have read himself, some were looked through and pronounced irrelevant, but three letters were recited at length, two from Sergins, patriarch of Constantinople, and one from pope Honoriun in reply to one of these. Search in the patriarchal archives and proper investigation placed the genuineness of all three beyond doubt. A suggestion brought from the emperor, that Macarius should be restored in the event of his recalting, was peremptorily declined by the council.

13 (March 28). Both the letters of Seragius before mentioned and that of Honorius to him were declared heterodox; and he and his successors, Pyrrhns, Peter, and Paul, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Theodore, bishop of Pharalnoil all of whom Agatho, had passed sentence previously with Honorius, whom Agatho had passed over, were definitively cast out of the Church — the only sentence of the kind ever decreed against any pope. Finally, search having been made for all other works of the same kind in the archives, all that could be found were brought out and recited. A large number were pronounced heretical, and burned as such Letters of Thomas, John, and Constantine, patriarchs of Constantinople, were read likewise, but their orthodoxy was allowed.

14 (April 1). Returning to the letters of pope Vigilius that had been called in question, it was ascertained by careful inquiry that each of the volumes of the fifth council had been tampered with; in one case by inserting the paper attributed to Mennas, in the other by interpolating the letters of Vigiliis, in support of heresy. The council ordered both falsifications t