Epigrams 5 part 8/8

for since the Gothic war had been entirely finished and in every respect extinguished in the year 380, this excuse of Illyrian commotions may seem altogether insipid and ridiculous, not to say false, if you understand it of that Roman council: just as, conversely, it is wholly just and true, if you refer it to the council of Capua. Let it be added that this letter can be seen to have been written at no time more fitting than the one I have stated. For first, so far is it from being the case that the Easterns thought a reproach had been offered to them in the year 382, when they were summoned to that council, that they rather, on this account, praised the charity of the Westerns in the letters written to them:

next, they say that they were summoned to the Roman council not only by the letters of Damasus, but also of Theodosius, which Jerome too asserted. How then can it be that Theodosius wrote to Ambrose at that time those things which Tillemont, Fleury, Cellier, and others suppose and invent? Lastly, Theodosius himself could by no means have written these things to Ambrose before the year 382 was already advanced: it is therefore necessary that you confess that this very letter of Ambrose, of which we are treating, was given in that year already drawing to its close, and at that very time at which the Roman council was being held. But those who concede this, I would wish them to say why that letter was not inscribed in the name of that same Roman council.

Moreover, let those who say this consider whether they are rightly consulting the glory of the most holy prelate of Milan. These, then, are the things that move me, so that I think this letter, whether it be Siricius's or Ambrose's, was written not long after the synod of Capua, after both that synod's decree and the judgment of Theophilus of Alexandria had been declined. Some greater light would dawn upon this question, if from the records of history we could know for certain who that man was, and of what Church the bishop, who had been denounced to the Roman pontiff on account of the heresy of Apollinaris, and also who that Paul, the presbyter of Constantinople, was, who is said to have requested a council in Achaia, to be gathered from both Westerns and Easterns.

For as concerns this latter, I have nothing certain to bring forward. This much only is established, that, since there had been a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, the great Paul, bishop of that Church, who had died a martyr under Constantius, this Paul could not be designated under that name, whatever Labbe and Sirmond may have opined. Wherefore it is necessary that someone was in actual fact a presbyter from the Constantinopolitan clergy, of whom that many ministers in that Church were called by that title is established from the Dialogue of Palladius on the life of Chrysostom.

But neither shall I readily concede to Tillemont and the other patrons of the Italian council, that that council in Achaia could have been requested by that presbyter in the year, as this author thinks, 381 or 382, that is, at the time when we know that councils were frequent both at Rome and in the royal city, and the Easterns themselves, summoned by the letters of the emperors, brought forward causes other than this one to avoid going to Rome, and sent legates; that letter, therefore, was written in another year, and likewise in another year Paul ought to have requested this council from both Churches, in Achaia;

and no time more apt for this matter can be devised than that one which had begun to slip by after the synod of Capua, fruitless through Flavian's obstinacy, and after Theodosius's return to the royal city. For Flavian, summoned thither by the emperor, while he sought a synod in the East and in the bosom of his own people, this Constantinopolitan presbyter, led by zeal for public concord, was able to suggest Achaia as more convenient, as it were, for the Westerns. Hence Ambrose, writing to Theophilus, complains that, after that vain synod of Capua, priests worn out with old age must again be harassed, seas must again be crossed over, and sacred altars abandoned, that they might set out into far-off places.

But that very council in Achaia was refused by the Westerns, because Illyricum, of which Achaia had been a part, was then in a suspect commotion. As for the bishop, in whose name he was denounced to the apostolic see on account of the heresy of Apollinaris, scarcely can either Apollinaris himself, or Timothy—as very many nevertheless suppose—be understood; both because each of them had long since been deposed by Western and Eastern synod; and because the one had already died, and the other had been punished with exile; but it is difficult to assert anything certain, since there were frequent pseudo-bishops in the East, who were demolishing the vineyard of the Lord:

yet, if there is any room for conjecture, it seems that in this place Vitalis is indicated, who presided over the Apollinarians at Antioch, of whom there was no small number: for since, in the synod of Capua, the chief matter to be treated was the extinguishing of the Antiochene schism and the restoring at last of unimpaired peace to this Church, it can scarcely be that at the same time there was not also action and deliberation concerning Vitalis himself, from whom the greatest hindrance to this good was being brought. Moreover, these words of this letter seem to designate him: 'so that, convicted of a new dogma, he might by no means lie hidden under the general name of the faith, but forthwith, because he did not hold by the teaching of doctrine, should lay down both his office and the title of priest;

lest any fibers should thereafter remain for those desiring to deceive, and the contrivances of trickeries.' Inasmuch as these words express to us a man who would feign his faith among the Catholics, and under the appearance of a lamb would be a wolf—like, namely, to Vitalis himself, whom Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret describe as a crafty man, full of fraud and deceits. This my conjecture seems to be confirmed by the letters of the same Nazianzen to Cledonius, and chiefly by the second, in which he makes mention both of Vitalis himself and of Damasus.

This letter Tillemont and some others think was written not long after the abdication of the Church of Constantinople, by Gregory settled in his retreat at Arianzus, although they bring forward no reason suitable to prove this. What openly destroys this opinion is this, that the same Gregory says that Vitalis was then still surviving, and calls him a man most dear to himself, but indicates that Damasus—whom he addresses with the title of 'blessed'—was already deceased when he wrote: therefore that letter was written after the year 384, in which the latter died: but at precisely what year? I would by no means dare to set forth a time that is defined and certain; I think, however, that it can be safely asserted that it was written after the year 388 and about the time of the synod of Capua.

For first, from law 14 of the Theodosian Code concerning Heretics, which was passed against them, it is established that the Apollinarists then ran riot and chiefly vexed the catholic Church at that time. Next, Gregory himself indicates this very time, when he says they arose thirty years before, and thus about the year 358 or the following one. For in the year 356, on the testimony of Basil, that plague had not yet broken out. Hence Nicephorus says there are those who write that Apollinaris made his secession from George of Laodicea, because the latter had given his assent to the decrees of the synod of Seleucia. But on the contrary, by the year 362, in which the Alexandrian synod proscribed it, it had already breathed its venom upon the Church. But if Vitalis had not yet departed from life at this time;

if, feigning himself catholic in faith—as we note from the same passage of Nazianzen—he presided over the Apollinarists settled at Antioch, and was a great increase and bulwark to this heresy; if finally, in the synod of Capua, there was action and deliberation concerning the procuring at last of peace for that city, then scarcely could anyone other than he be seen to be designated and expressed in this very letter, whether of Ambrose or of Siricius, to Theodosius. Hence we understand at about what year was delivered the homily of Chrysostom which is entitled 'On the Anathema,' and what those words of his regard: 'But what do those say, bold to every malice' (his own Flavianists, namely, whom he addresses)?

'He has become,' they say, 'a heretic; he has the devil dwelling within him, and speaks wickedness against God, and by sly and empty deceit leads many away into the depth of perdition, and therefore he has been cast out by the Fathers—especially his master, who cut off a part of the Church': thus they designate either Paulinus or Apollinarius. Montfaucon, whose edition I use, having recited these things, says: 'These, as at first sight they offer themselves, indicate Paulinus living and teaching: for he who speaks wickedness against God, and leads many away, is, as it seems, Paulinus: for we do not think these things can be referred to any other':

'but his master, who had been cast out by the Fathers, is Apollinarius, mentioned in the second place, who, after he had in a synod been admitted to communion with Paulinus subscribing, was afterward cast out by Athanasius and the other Fathers, when they had discovered his heresy. Surely these sayings of the multitude attack only two men, namely, as Chrysostom explains, Paulinus and Apollinarius. For if words of this kind had been uttered after the death of Paulinus, they would doubtless attack Evagrius his successor, of whom, however, there is here no mention.'

But I, for my part, think that under the name of Paulinus and Apollinarius, Evagrius and Vitalis are designated, and that this homily was therefore delivered when Paulinus—who had chosen Evagrius as his successor—was already dead, namely, after the year 388 had already elapsed, and not far from the time of the synod of Capua. For that Apollinarius could either be seen or said by Chrysostom to be the master of Paulinus, no one will ever assert who has rightly known how many contentions Paulinus himself perpetually waged with Apollinarius and his disciples on behalf of the catholic faith; nor can I sufficiently marvel that these things, spoken by a most learned man against an eminently catholic bishop, escaped him.

Therefore Vitalis alone is designated by those words, whose master Apollinarius certainly was—as was plain to all, on the testimony of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret—and Chrysostom points out Vitalis, I might almost say with the finger, as one who by sly and empty deceit leads many away into the depth of perdition. Moreover, the master of this man whom Chrysostom indicates had cut off a part of the Church, and had on that account been cast off by the Fathers. But that this was deservedly said of Apollinarius is established, who had led away many of the catholic Antiochenes to Vitalis, profanely ordained bishop by himself, and to his own heresy, and was afterward put outside the Church by the Fathers.

Thus, apart from open and manifest calumny, it could not even be thought of Paulinus, whom the catholic Eustathians had of their own accord followed—certainly the more ancient and purer part of the Church of Antioch. Chrysostom therefore, addressing his own people, lest he should expressly name by name Evagrius, and Vitalis—of hitherto doubtful faith and communion—then living, indicated each of them, and their followers, under the persona of Paulinus and Apollinarius, who had long since died.

Therefore, from this very homily of Chrysostom it can indeed be gathered that great disturbances were stirred up about these times on account of that heretic in the Church of Antioch, and that he was therefore deservedly designated by me in this same letter, and that this letter pertains, finally, to the synod of Capua and its acts—contrary to what the opinion of the learned has hitherto held: but I have thought fit to submit this very point again in this place to the eyes and mature judgment of readers, as another. Letter of the council of Italy to the emperor Theodosius. Among other things he writes that those were condemned in the synod who were attempting to introduce the dogma of Apollinaris. To the most blessed emperor and most clement prince Theodosius, Ambrose and the rest of the bishops of Italy.

The knowledge of thy faith, spread throughout the whole world, has soothed the inmost affection of our mind. And in order that this glory too might be created for thy empire, namely, that thou shouldst seem to have restored unity to the Churches of the Westerns no less than of the Easterns, we have judged that thy clemency must be at once entreated and, in ecclesiastical affairs, instructed by our letters, O most tranquil and most faithful emperor. For it was a grief that the fellowships of sacred communion between the Easterns and the Westerns had been interrupted. We are now silent as to by whose error or by whose fault, lest we should seem to be sowing fables and empty addresses. Nor do we repent of having made the attempt, since to leave it unattempted would fall into blame.

For we were often charged with this, that we seemed to put the fellowship of the Easterns in second place, and to refuse their grace. We thought, indeed, that labor must even be imposed upon us—not for Italy, which has long been quiet and secure from the Arians, and is vexed by no disturbance of heretics; not, I say, for ourselves, because we seek not the things that are our own, but the things that are of all; not for Gaul and Africa, which enjoy the concordant fellowship of all the priests. But in order that those things which had disturbed our communion on the part of the East might be examined in synod, and every scruple removed from the midst.

For not only concerning those things which thy clemency deigned to write, but also concerning those who attempt to introduce into the Church some dogma or other, which is asserted to be Apollinaris's, many things moved us which had to be cut off with the parties present, so that one convicted of a new dogma, and refuted in error, might by no means lie hidden under the general name of the faith: but forthwith, because he did not hold by the teaching of doctrine, should lay down both his office and the title of priest: nor should any fibers thereafter remain for those desiring to deceive, and the contrivances of trickeries. For he who shall not have been convicted with the parties present—which thy clemency in truth defined by an august and princely response—will always seize upon the ever-recurring little handle of controversy.

Therefore we besought a sacerdotal council, that it might be lawful for no one to fabricate a falsehood against one absent, and that in council it might be discussed what was in truth. Thus no suspicion of design or of easy compliance falls upon those who observed all things with the parties present: indeed, we wove together the allegations, not for the sake of deciding, but of informing, and we who sought a judgment do not pass a prejudgment; nor was any of these things to be reckoned a reproach, when the priests were asked to a council, whose absence was frequently more present than their presence, when it consulted for the common good.

For neither did we reckon it a reproach, when one presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, Paul by name, requested within Achaia a synod of the Easterns no less than of the Westerns. Thy clemency observes that the request was not unreasonable, since it was sought even by the Easterns; but because Illyricum is in a suspect commotion, therefore maritime and safer places were sought. Nor have we plainly innovated anything as if from any precedent:

but, preserving the things defined in councils by Athanasius of holy memory—who was as it were the pillar of the faith—and by the ancient sanctity of our Fathers, we do not tear up the boundaries which our fathers set, nor do we violate the rights of hereditary communion, but, reserving the due honor to your empire, we show ourselves zealous for peace and quiet.