Constantine

ON ST. CONSTANTINE, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,

AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

In the year 676.

Constantine, Patriarch of Constantinople (St.)

BY J. P.

CHAPTER I.

His cult from the Greek Calendars, his elogium, the time of his see and death.

Since we find this Constantine recounted among the Greeks on altogether diverse days, we think a sufficient foundation is afforded us, both from the consent of several and from the authority of the announcements, to pronounce in favor of the legitimate and public cult once granted him: His memory from the Greek Calendars; for the Great Menaea, printed, on this day, the 29th of July, make memory of Constantine, patriarch of Constantinople: on which day also the Mazarin Menaeon marks him in these words: Ὁ ἅγιος Κωνσταντῖνος πατρ. Κ. Π. ἐν εἰρήνῃ τελειοῦται. That is: Holy Constantine, patriarch of Constantinople, is consummated in peace. And presently he is praised with this distich, which is there subjoined:

Ἔχεις ἄλεκτον εἰς Ἐδὲμ προεδρίαν, / Κωνσταντῖνε, πρόεδρε τῆς Κωνσταντίνου. That is: Thou hast an ineffable presidency in Eden, Constantine, president of the city of Constantine. (In verse: "He obtains ineffable primacy in the heights, who bore the primacy of the royal city.") Which more literally in loose style can be thus rendered: "Thou hast an ineffable prefecture in Eden, Constantine, president of the city of Constantine." The allusion is, as often elsewhere in little verses of this kind, of little charm, inasmuch as it could easily be applied to all prelates. The Menaeon of Chifflet mentions this holy Prelate at the 28th of this month: as then you have him among the Passed-over.

[2] But to establish the public cult with which he was once honored at Constantinople, there most conduces the testimony his public veneration at Constantinople. which is read in our manuscript supplement to the Great Menaea, printed, from the Sirmond-Chifflet transcripts at the 9th of August; where, after this announcement had been given, the name of Sirmond being prefixed, Μνήμη τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κωνσταντίνου ἀρχιεπισκόπου τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως, That is: The memory of St. Constantine, archbishop of the imperial city; presently is subjoined: Τελεῖται δὲ ἡ αὐτοῦ σύναξις ἐν τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κυριακῇ. That is: But his solemnity is celebrated in the most holy great church, on the Lord's Day; namely at Constantinople in the church of St. Sophia, and on an uncertain Lord's Day: since none is here determined. Which perhaps afforded occasion for referring him to the Calendars on days so diverse among themselves. Now, the cult of Constantine being thus established, we must explain who this one is among several synonymous patriarchs of Constantinople, whom the Greeks pursued with public veneration.

[3] Anselmo Banduri lately wove a chronological series of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, beginning from St. Metrophanes, It is inquired who among the four synonymous patriarchs of Constantinople. and ending in Gregory II or George Melissenus, prefixed to his first volume of the Eastern Empire: where four Constantines occur. And the first indeed is bound to the year of Christ 674; the second, from bishop of Sylaeum, is declared patriarch in the year 754 by Constantine Copronymus; but then, becoming hateful to him, and relegated into exile on the 30th of August in the year 766. The third is Constantine Lichnudes or Lichudes, substituted for Michael Cerularius, cast into exile by the emperor Isaac in the year 1059. The fourth finally, Constantine Chliarenus, is there noted to have undertaken the administration of the church of Constantinople in the year 1153. Which, then, of these four synonymous patriarchs of Constantinople ought to be understood, who, although with only a confused name, yet seems to have been mentioned in the sacred Registers of the Greeks? That the second can here obtain any place, even the most remote, many and weighty weights of reasons forbid: for, by the testimony of Theophanes in the Chronography, having abjured the religion of images, he contaminated himself with sacrilegious nuptials; a patriarch, as he calls him more than once, of a false name.

[4] Until at last he was most ill treated by the most wicked emperor Copronymus, after he had returned to Constantinople from the exile this one is to be understood: into which by his command he had been cast; where, exposed to mockery by all kinds of injuries, and most basely deposed, amid these words he ended the scene of his most unhappy tragedy: for the emperor Constantine Copronymus, sending patricians to him, asks, as Theophanes is author: "What thinkest thou of our faith, and of the synod which we held?" But he, a little man of a plainly vain mind: "Most excellently," he answers, "dost thou believe, and rightly hast thou celebrated the synod": namely hoping by this means again to appease the emperor. To him, the answer being given, they more quickly subjoin: "This one thing it was that we wished to hear from thy impure mouth. Now, therefore, go into the darkness, and to an evil hour." And so, sentence being passed upon him, he was beheaded in the Cynegium. Therefore that Heretic, as he is deservedly called by Baronius at the year 767, that patriarch, can here have no place, when there is treatment of the roll of the Saints. More of him will the same Baronius give at the year 754 and 767. But now the third and fourth are too recent for us that they can pertain hither. Of both Pagi treats; and of the third indeed at the year 1058, no. 12 (where you will find the elogium of Psellus concerning his notable endowments of wisdom and of managing affairs) and at the year 1066, no. 10. But of the fourth the same author makes mention at the year 1155, no. 12.

[5] [and the question is decided in favor of Constantine the first; praised in the third Council of Constantinople,] It remains, therefore, that no other Constantine, patriarch noted in the Greek Calendars, ought to be understood than the first of that name. And indeed of his orthodoxy you have this testimony rendered in the third Council of Constantinople, Session 13, in Labbe, volume 6, column 995: "The holy council said: A bodily oath being paid, in the hearing of us and of the most glorious judges who are with us, by George, the God-loving deacon and chartophylax of this holy great church of God, and a bodily word of this kind forbidding us complete satisfaction—that by no means did Thomas, John, and Constantine of holy memory extort from certain persons libels concerning [one] operation and will—we have provided that the three men of holy memory, that is, Thomas, John, and Constantine, remain in the same state, and be recited in the sacred diptychs of the holy churches; inasmuch as they were found in all things immaculate and irreprehensible concerning our right faith of the Christians." Baronius, at the year 664, sufficiently shows that he holds those Acts of the sixth synod suspect, when, before he produces them, he premises, "if however they be free from imposture."

[6] And indeed that they are not free from imposture, inasmuch as they reckon among the Catholics Thomas and John, as being duly catholic. the predecessors of Constantine in the patriarchal chair, Baronius holds, both there in passing, and proves it at greater length at the year 656 in the said Thomas, and at the year 658 in John. "For the rest," he says at the year 664, "as concerns Constantine, nothing prevents but that he could have been a Catholic, the emperor (Constans) now in the West appearing among the Catholics a Catholic." Pagi, at the year 666, no. 1, more affirmatively, and, in my judgment, more rightly, determines that he was a Catholic bishop. For since the public veneration, attributed by various Registers to some Constantine, can be verified only, and from what has been said ought to be verified, in this our Constantine, but not in another; it remains that we remove from him all suspicion of monothelism against the Catholics; especially since his solemnity, as we saw above, is said to have been celebrated at Constantinople; who therefore is to be left in the possession of his legitimate and public cult, until some solid reason be brought—which is not hitherto brought—which may dislodge him from it; as will be proved at greater length in the next paragraph.

[7] But of the rest, which pertain to him, take these few things. His office before the episcopate, the time of his see and death. He was a deacon of the same church of Constantinople, and likewise custodian of the vessels and steward, by the testimony of Nicephorus in the Chronography, before he was promoted to the mitre of the same church. But that this happened in the year 674 Pagi, cited in the last place, proves, against Baronius, who annexes it to the year 664; but the death of our Prelate the praised Pagi adapts to the year 676, from the Chronicle of Nicephorus, which teaches that he sat one year, eight months, and seven days, according to the Greek edition of Scaliger and the royal edition; although, he says, Baronius, using perhaps an edition of Nicephorus little corrected, has one year, 2 months, and 7 days. And indeed, because Banduri, alleged above, so ordered the series and succession of these Patriarchs, that he accommodated them to the years of the Christian era, having consulted, as I think, and weighed the notes of time of other authors concerning them, it seemed good from him, Pagi consenting, to fix the beginning of the patriarchate of Constantine in the said year 674; but the end in the year 676. For that this reckoning of time is far to be preferred to that which it seemed good to Baronius to note, will become clear from what is to be said, by which we shall attempt to free our Saint from all suspicion of heresy, and to vindicate the Acts of the sixth synod, which the same most eminent Cardinal here supposes to be corrupted.

CHAPTER II.

The orthodoxy of St. Constantine, and the sincerity here of the sixth ecumenical synod, is established.

The words of the sixth ecumenical synod, which was the third of Constantinople, produced by us above at no. 6 for the orthodoxy of St. Constantine, because Baronius thought they had been corrupted, this was the cause why he brought forth more weakly and remissly what he thought concerning this point, using these words: "As concerns Constantine, NOTHING PREVENTS Testimony given by the sixth synod for the orthodoxy of St. Constantine BUT THAT HE COULD HAVE been catholic, etc." Do you hear, "nothing prevents but that he could, etc."? Which hold the matter in suspense and leave it rather in uncertainty than affirm and determine it. But on the contrary—be it said with the reverence of the most wise man—it could be done, nay rather ought to be: because by the most express words of the aforesaid synod a luminous testimony is produced, that both Constantine and Thomas and John, his predecessors, accused of libels not sufficiently Catholic extorted from certain persons, as is gathered from the fragment of the synod adduced above, "were found in all things immaculate and irreprehensible concerning our right faith," says the synod, "of the Christians." Than which testimony what more conducive to the honor of our Saint; what could be more aptly predicated for proving the truth of his orthodox faith, we do not see; provided it be legitimate, sincere, and genuine.

[9] it is shown And indeed that it is such, since on it the whole hinge of the present controversy turns, it now lies upon us to prove. Pagi in the Historico-chronological Critica on the Annals of Baronius, at the year 658, no. 2, thus speaks: "To Thomas succeeded John, both of whom Baronius thought were wrongly praised as Catholic in the Acts of the sixth synod, because he supposed them corrupted. To this he judged that each was a participant in the things that were done against St. Maximus and his disciples, who at this time were detained in a most harsh exile. But since it is now established that before the pontificate of Thomas and John (and therefore before that of our St. Constantine) there was raging at Constantinople against St. Maximus and his disciples, and that the Acts of the sixth synod are of undoubted faith; now of both patriarchs (and so by a stronger right of this our one) nothing but well is to be thought." Thus Pagi; to which we too altogether subscribe. But that Baronius was in a plainly opposite opinion is established from what he has at the said year 658 concerning Thomas, bishop of Constantinople; to which year he fixes his death, calling him a Monothelite; where he also treats of John, his successor.

[10] that it is not corrupted, but sincere Before all things, therefore, it must be proved by us that before the pontificate of Thomas and John there was raging at Constantinople against St. Maximus and his disciples; which if we shall have proved, three corollaries follow thence: namely 1. That the Acts of the sixth synod, inasmuch as they praise them as orthodox, are not corrupted, but sincere. 2. That rightly, therefore, is it to be thought concerning the faith of those prelates. 3. Finally, that the testimony of the synod has full authority, so that what it asserts concerning the orthodoxy of St. Constantine may be admitted without all doubt; and indeed by a stronger right, to repeat this again, because, according to what has been said, the possession of public veneration stands for him. And so the time of the death of St. Anastasius the presbyter and apocrisiarius, of St. Maximus the abbot, and of Anastasius his disciple, Pagi at the year 660 determines, partly from the epistle of the same Anastasius the apocrisiarius to Theodosius, presbyter of Gangra, partly from the Hypomnesticon, relating summarily what makes to this purpose. That epistle is inserted in the Works of St. Maximus, which were published in two volumes at Paris by the reverend Father François Combefis, and it is read in volume 1, from page 67; from which I transcribe the following:

[11] from the reckoning of time, The epistle is noted in the title which is prefixed to it as sent "from the third exile," that is, the Lazic. Soon under the beginning of the epistle, "I make known to you, therefore," says Anastasius, "that when we had come to the region of the Lazi, friends of Christ, on the sixth day before the Ides of June, in the fifth Indiction (which concurs with the year of Christ 662), immediately they separated us from one another, by the command of him who then had by lot deserved to preside over those who were there; plundering all things, even to a single needle and thread, whatsoever we had acquired for necessary uses, both from you and from other friends of Christ. And that most sacred man indeed (I mean the lord Maximus the abbot), being able to sit neither on a beast of burden nor in a vehicle, for that he was placed in infirmity; when, weaving twigs, they had woven from them as it were a little couch, bearing it, they carried him, and shut him in the castle called Schemari, near the nation of those who are called Alani. But the lord Anastasius the abbot, and me the sinner, placing us upon horses, they led away, etc."

[12] Further, the martyr of Christ God, namely the lord abbot Maximus, in which the martyrdom of St. Maximus when he was committed to custody in the castle above mentioned, a divine vision being made to him, called some of those who were in the castle, and said to them: "On the thirteenth day of the month of August of this present, fifth Indiction, on the seventh feria Saturday, the Lord will take me up": which also was done. Therefore on the thirteenth day of the aforesaid month of August, of the past fifth Indiction, according to his divine prophecy, on the seventh feria, the present being left behind, he went to the Lord. And hence it is altogether established that St. Maximus died in the year of Christ 662. But now let us weigh, concerning Anastasius himself, what is to be determined concerning the time of his death.

[13] Of Stephen, a fervent herald of the Catholic faith in Lazica, the same Anastasius in the same epistle thus writes: and of his companions "That noble man, on the Kalends of January, of the eighth Indiction, which just now has passed, … fell asleep in the Lord": therefore Anastasius, in the year of Christ 665, with which that Indiction concurred, had not yet died. But in the scholium subjoined to the said epistle, in most express terms the time of his death is thus defined: "But he too, our holy father and martyr Anastasius, who wrote this epistle, died on the Lord's Day, at the third hour, on the fifth day before the Ides of October, when in the holy collect he was saying, 'Holy things to the holy,' in the tenth Indiction"; that is, in the year 666, in which the tenth Indiction began on the Kalends of September. The Hypomnesticon mentioned above, which is had in Combefis in the cited place, from page 80, marks the same day, the same year of the death of Anastasius the apocrisiarius, namely "on the eleventh day of October, on the first feria Sunday, at the third hour, when there was said among the holy Offices, 'Holy things to the holy,' in the tenth Indiction." Nor are there wanting there characteristic notes, from which we may determine the duration of his vexations: for presently it is thus said: "The aforesaid holy Anastasius, presbyter and Roman apocrisiarius, from the sixth Indiction of the past cycle to the tenth Indiction, in all his aforesaid three exiles, being affected with diverse deportations, and tribulations and necessities and straits neither mediocre nor small, remained twenty years."

[14] From the year of Christ 647, therefore, in which the sixth Indiction began on the Kalends of September, is proved to have happened: to the year 666, in which the tenth Indiction began on the Kalends of September, Anastasius sustained persecutions; and so from the emperor Constans before the promulgation of the famous Typus, which happened in the year 648. Finally, of St. Maximus and Anastasius his disciple the Hypomnesticon again records these things, page 83: "Likewise also Anastasius his disciple, from the eleventh Indiction of the past cycle, through three exiles, namely of Bizya and Perberis of the Thracian region, and the aforesaid Lazic, in many afflictions and intolerable necessities, and athletic contests of this kind, ten years being accomplished, they migrated to the supreme kingdom: St. Maximus indeed, as was said, in the month of August, on the thirteenth day, in the fifth Indiction … But his disciple Anastasius in the month of July, on the twenty-fourth day, of the same Indiction." Whence it becomes plain that Maximus and Anastasius his disciple were exercised with vexations from the year 652 to the year 662, namely from the eleventh Indiction to the fifth.

[15] whence full orthodoxy is [restored to our Constantine] Come now, and, both the days of death and the duration of the persecution of these Athletes, concerning which hitherto we have brought forward things both many and solid, being accurately weighed, we leave it to the reader to determine whether the two said prelates of Constantinople, Thomas and John, had any part in those things which, against these praised confessors of the faith, Maximus and his companions, we narrated to have been agitated by the heretics: in those things, I say, which were agitated against them by the heretics; which prelates were then promoted to the mitre, when all things had long since been attempted against them; so far that it can seem, with no show of truth, to be asserted that these in any way influenced their afflictions: for Thomas II, of whom we here treat, is noted as first made patriarch in the year 666 in Banduri alleged above; where also John V is said to have been substituted for Thomas in the year 668: but our Constantine succeeded those two, and undertook the government of the see of Constantinople, as we said above, in the year 674; and therefore, because the Prelate was more remote in time from the vexations of the praised champions of the faith, he ought also deservedly to be reckoned more remote from all, even the slightest, influence upon them, and so a true, sincere, and genuine orthodox.

[16] [and sincerity is asserted for the sixth synod against Baronius, here to be excused.] Deservedly, therefore, together with his two other predecessors, he is praised in Session 13 of the sixth ecumenical synod, or the third of Constantinople, which, on account of these praises, can by no means here be said to be corrupted; as we have already abundantly proved. The things which pertain to Thomas and John we have indeed treated more laboriously,

although they properly were not of this place, but so it had to be done, both that the sincerity of Session 13 of the often-mentioned synod might be asserted, and that the orthodoxy of our Constantine might shine with a fuller light. That the most wise author of the Ecclesiastical Annals thought more harshly of Thomas and John; and that concerning the orthodoxy of Constantine he did not speak plainly and affirmatively enough, we ought not so much to wonder at as to excuse: for Baronius could not see all things; and many monuments have come to light which lay hidden from him while he composed his Annals; so that it cannot be doubted that he would have written far otherwise in this our controversy with him, if he had had at hand the epistle and Hypomnesticon cited above; whose words are too clear and express for us not, with due reverence, to recede from his opinion, both in the reckoning of time which Baronius sets down, and in the other conclusions not aptly enough ordered by him here from the same. But these and other things, which pertain to the notion of the time of our Patriarch, can be more fully examined in a chronological Treatise which, God well favoring, will afterward be published concerning these patriarchs.