1. EVAGRIUS has no good ground for preferring his claim, Flavian has
cause to fear, and therefore avoids the trial. Let our brethren pardon
our just grief, for on account of these men the whole world is agitated,
yet they do not sympathize with our grief. Let them at least patiently
suffer themselves to be censured by those whom they perceive to have
been for so long a time harassed by their obstinacy. For between these
two who would agree upon nothing which appertains to the peace of
Christ, a grievous discord has arisen and spread through the whole
world.
2. To this shipwreck of pious peace the holy Council of Capua had at
length opened an haven of tranquillity; that communion should be given
to all throughout the East who profess the Catholic faith, and that
the cause of these two men should be referred to the judgment of your
Holiness, and to our brethren and fellow-bishops of Egypt, as assessors.
For we deemed your judgment likely to be true, in that, having embraced
the communion of neither party, it would be inclined by no favour
towards either side.
3. But while we were hoping that by these most equitable decrees of
the Council a remedy was now provided, and an end put to discord, your
Holiness writes word that our brother Flavian has again had recourse to
the aid of prayers, and to the support of Imperial Rescripts. And thus
the toil of so many Bishops has been spent to no purpose; we must have
recourse once more to the civil tribunals, to the Imperial Rescripts,
once more must they cross the sea, once more, though weak in body,
exchange their own country for a foreign soil, once more must the
Holy Altars be deserted that we may travel to distant lands, once more
crowds of indigent Bishops, whose poverty was before no burthen to them,
but who now need external aid, must suffer want themselves, or at any
rate use for their journey what else had fed the poor.
4. Meanwhile Flavian, alone exempt, as he fancies, from the laws, does
not come when all others are assembled. The money-lender and debtor
meet each other, these men alone cannot meet: Flavian by his own will
deprives himself of Episcopal fellowship, and will not appear in person
either at the Imperial order, or when cited by his brethren.
5. Nevertheless, even this cause of offence does not induce me to
consider our brother Evagrius entirely in the right, although he seems
to himself the more defensible either because Flavian avoids him, or
because he thinks his opponent to be in no better case than himself,
each of them relying more on the defects of his opponent’s ordination
than on the validity[238] of his own. We however would recall them to a
better course, wishing them to be aided rather by the goodness of their
own cause than by the defects of others.
Sidenote: Gal. ii. 18.
6. Now since you have stated in your letter that some form may be
devised touching this matter, whereby the discord of our brethren may
be removed; and as the holy Synod has trusted the right of cognizance
to the unanimous judgment of yourself and our other fellow-bishops from
Egypt, it is fitting that you should again summon our brother Flavian,
so that, if he should persist in not choosing to appear, you may then
without prejudice to the decrees of the Council of Nice, and also of
the Synod of Capua, take such measures for the preservation of general
peace as may not destroy what has been built up: _For if I destroy
what I have built, or build again what I destroyed, I make myself a
transgressor_. Let the grace of that peace which has been obtained be
thus preserved by all, and the refusal of either party to appear will
not have the effect of frustrating it.
7. Moreover we are of opinion that it will be well for you to refer to
our holy brother the Bishop of the Roman Church; for we do not doubt
that what you shall determine he also will approve. For the resolution
that is come to will be useful, and our peace and quiet will be secure,
if such a decree is made by your advice as shall not create discord in
our communion. And thus we also, receiving the series of your decrees,
and assured that the Roman Church has given its undoubting approbation
to what has been done, shall with gladness participate in the result of
this trial.
LETTER ON THE CASE OF BONOSUS.
A.D. 392 or 393.
THIS letter is certainly not written by S. Ambrose, though
included among his letters. The writer of it speaks of ‘our
brother Ambrose.’ Tillemont discusses the authorship in a note,
(45.) and makes it probable that it was written by Siricius.
The case of Bonosus had been brought before the Synod of Capua,
and they had decided that it should be referred to the Bishops
of Macedonia, under the presidency of ♦Anysius Bishop of
Thessalonica, as being his nearest neighbours. These Bishops
seem to have written a letter to consult Siricius, the Bishop of
Rome, and this is believed to be his reply, in which he declines
to interfere with their decision, only adding a few remarks
upon one point. Bonosus was Bishop of Sardica[239] in Illyria,
and the founder of an obscure sect. They were accused of
Photinianism, and Bonosus is called a fore-runner of Nestorius,
but the Helvidian doctrines of which this letter speaks are the
most clearly ascertained of their errors. The sect survived at
least till the vith Century.
A LETTER CONCERNING THE DECIDING OF THE CASE OF BONOSUS,
ACCORDING TO THE DECREE OF THE SYNOD OF CAPUA.
1. YOU have written to us a Letter concerning Bishop Bonosus in which,
either from love of truth or from modesty, you enquire our opinion.
But since it has been the judgment of the Council of Capua that those
who are neighbours to Bonosus and his accusers should be assigned his
judges, and specially the Macedonian Bishops, who, with the Bishop of
Thessalonica, should judge of his acts and writings, we have to remark
that the function of judging cannot appertain to ourselves. Otherwise,
were the question of the Synod at this day still open, we might well
have decided concerning these things which are included in what you
have written at length. Having taken upon yourselves this judgment, it
is now your part to form your decision on the whole question, to give
no power of retreat or escape either to the accusers or the accused;
for, being chosen by the Synod to conduct the examination, you have
taken upon you its functions.
2. Again, when Bishop Bonosus, after your judgment, sent to our brother
Ambrose to enquire his opinion whether he should break into and enter
upon the church which was closed to him, he received for reply that he
must do nothing rashly, that everything must be carried on modestly,
patiently and in order, that nothing contrary to your decision must
be attempted, that you, to whom the Synod had committed such authority,
would appoint what appeared to you agreeable to justice. The first
point therefore is that judgment should be given by those to whom the
power of judging has been given; for you, as we have said, judge in
place of the entire Synod; as to ourselves it does not befit us to
judge as though by the authority of the Synod.
3. Assuredly we cannot deny that he is justly blamed concerning the
sons of Mary, and that your Holiness deservedly repudiated the opinion
that from the same Virgin womb, of which according to the flesh Christ
was born, other offspring was produced. For the Lord Jesus would not
have chosen to be born of a Virgin, if He had conceived she would be so
wanting in continence as to suffer that birthplace of the Lord’s Body,
that palace of the eternal King, to be polluted by human intercourse.
To propound such an opinion as this, what is it but to fortify the
unbelief of the Jews who say that it was impossible He could be born of
a Virgin, and who, thus confirmed by the authority of Christian Bishops,
will strive with greater earnestness to overthrow the true faith?
Sidenote: S. John xix. 26, 27.
Sidenote: S. Matt. i. 18.
4. What else can be the meaning of that text wherein the Lord says to
His Mother of John the Evangelist, _Woman, behold thy son_, and again
to John of Mary, _Behold thy mother_? With what purpose was it that
while the Lord was hanging upon the cross and atoning for the sins
of the world, He declared also the integrity of His Mother? Wherefore
was it said but that unbelief might close its lips and be silent, nor
dare to offer any insult to the Mother of the Lord? He therefore, in
pronouncing upon and asserting His Mother’s chastity, likewise bears
witness that she was only espoused to her husband Joseph; and that she
was ignorant of that carnal commerce which is the accustomed right of
the marriage bed; for, had it been that she was to conceive children
of Joseph, He would not have chosen to separate her from the company
of her husband.
Sidenote: S. John xix. 27.
5. But if this is not enough, the Evangelist has added his testimony,
saying that the _disciple took her unto his own home_. Did he then
cause a divorce? Did he carry her off from her husband? How can he who
reads this in the Gospel stagger and waver to and fro as one who has
been shipwrecked?
Sidenote: Ib. 30.
6. This then is the testimony of the Son concerning His Mother’s
chastity, this is the rich heritage of Mary’s immaculate Virginity,
this is the consummation of the entire work. He spake thus, and _gave
up the ghost_, crowning the whole mystery with a good end of filial
duty.
7. We have also read and perused the whole of the instructions, as well
what relates to Senecio being joined with our brother and fellow-bishop
Bassus in the government of his Church, as what relates to other
matters, and we now look for the direction of your sentence.