Part 36

The Council avoided deciding, and even taking into Consideration, the Affair of _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_, in the Absence of the former, though they had chiefly met for that Purpose. However, to re-establish the Tranquillity of the Church, they agreed to renew their Correspondence with, and grant their Communion to, all the Catholic Bishops of the East. [Sidenote: _The Difference between the Two Competitors to the See of_ Antioch _refered, by the Council, to the Bishops of_ Egypt.] As for the Difference between the Two Competitors for the See of _Antioch_, they committed the discussing and deciding it to _Theophylus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and the other Bishops of _Egypt_, as the most proper Judges, since they communicated with neither, and therefore could not be suspected to favour the one more than the other[1304]. The Bishop of _Alexandria_ immediately acquainted _Flavianus_ with the Resolution of the Council, summoning him, at the same time, to appear, in Compliance therewith, before the Bishops of _Egypt_, who were soon to assemble, in order to put the Decree of that venerable Assembly in Execution. [Sidenote: Flavianus _refuses to comply with the Decree of the Council._] But _Flavianus_, instead of obeying the Summons, and paying the Regard that was thought due to the Decree of so numerous a Council, refused to stir from _Antioch_, pleading a Rescript, which he had extorted from _Theodosius_, commanding the Western Bishops to repair into the East, and there examine the Affair in a new Council. This _Theophylus_ did not expect, and therefore being at a Loss how to conduct himself on such an Emergency, he gave _Ambrose_ immediate Notice of the Summons he had sent, and the Answer he had received. _Ambrose_ had nothing so much at Heart as to restore Peace and Tranquillity to the Church of _Antioch_; and from the Regard which the Council had shewn to _Flavianus_, as well as the Impartiality with which they had acted with respect to both, he had promised himself Success in so pious an Undertaking. It was therefore with the utmost Concern that he saw his Endeavours thus unexpectedly defeated, and all Hopes of accomplishing what he had undertaken, vanish at once. He had but too much Reason to resent such an affronting Conduct, which did not so much affect the Council in general, as him in particular, since it was at his Motion, that the Council took the above-mentioned Resolution. That, however, did not tempt him to depart from the Neutrality he had embraced, and declare for _Evagrius_: he still maintained the same Impartiality, and refused to communicate with either. [Sidenote: Ambrose_’s Moderation and Impartiality_.] In his Answer to _Theophylus_, he desires him, without betraying the least Emotion of Anger or Resentment, to summon _Flavianus_ once more, directing him, at the same time, to communicate with all the Catholic Bishops of the East, pursuant to the Decree of the Council, whether he complied with this Second Summons or no; and to acquaint the Bishop of _Rome_ with what he had done, that, the Whole being approved by that Church, as he did not question but it would, the whole Church might be happily of one Mind, and reap the Fruit of his Labour[1305].

[Sidenote: Syricius _writes to the Emperor_.]

_Syricius_, and in all Likelihood _Ambrose_ too, wrote to _Theodosius_, pressing him to send _Flavianus_ to _Rome_[N33], if he did not approve of his being judged by the Bishop of _Alexandria_. _Syricius_, in his Letter, tells the Emperor, that he well knew how to deal with Tyrants, who revolted from him, and how to chastise them; but suffered those to go unpunished, who despised the Laws of _Christ_[1306][N34].

Footnote N33:

That is, into the West; for thus _Theodoret_ constantly expresses the West.

Footnote N34:

_Theodoret_ tells us, that _Damasus_, _Syricius_, and _Anastasius_ the Successor of _Syricius_, wrote to the Emperor _Theodosius_ about the Dispute between _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_. A gross Mistake! since _Damasus_ was dead long before the Election of _Evagrius_, and _Theodosius_ before that of _Anastasius_.

_Theodosius_, in Compliance with the Request of _Syricius_, made in the Name of all the Western Bishops, sent anew for _Flavianus_, and told him, that he must, by all means, either repair to _Rome_, or submit his Cause to the Judgment of the Bishops of _Egypt_. [Sidenote: Flavianus _ready to resign his Dignity, rather than to submit to the Judgment of the_ Egyptian _or Western Bishops_.] But he was determined, says _Theodoret_, to relinquish his Dignity rather than to suffer the Western Bishops, or those of _Egypt_, to examine and decide whether he had a Right to it or no; and, by that means, to hold it of them. He therefore answered the Emperor, with great Calmness and Respect, in the following Terms: _Sir, if my Faith is not thought Orthodox, or my Conduct not worthy of a Catholic Bishop, I am willing to be judged by those who accuse me, and ready to submit to the Sentence they shall pronounce. But, if all this Noise is made merely for the sake of my Dignity, from this Moment I resign every Preferment I enjoy in the Church, to those whom nothing but Preferment can silence. You may therefore dispose of the See of_ Antioch, _now vacant, to whom you please_. _Theodosius_, pleased with this Answer, and thinking _Flavianus_, the more ready he was to give up his Dignity, the more worthy to hold it, ordered him to return to _Antioch_, and resume the Government of his Church; nor did he ever afterwards give the least Attention to the pressing and repeated Instances of _Syricius_, and his Collegues in the West[1307].

[Sidenote: Flavianus _did not acknowlege in_Syricius _the Power claimed by his Successors_.]

From the whole Conduct of _Flavianus_ it is manifest, that he did not acknowlege any extraordinary Power in _Syricius_, much less that Power, which has been claimed by his Successors, of disposing, by Divine Right, of all Bishopricks, of placing and displacing Bishops, at Pleasure, throughout the Christian World. This Power, though evidently usurped, and utterly unknown even in the End of the Fourth Century, Bishops are now obliged to own in their very Titles, styling themselves Bishops of such a Place, _by the Grace of God, and of the Apostolic See_. _Flavianus_ was content with _the Grace of God_; and, as for the _Grace of the Apostolic See_, he gave himself no Trouble about it. And yet _Flavianus_ is honoured by the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint; and his Festival kept on the 26th of _September_. And truly, if we may depend upon the Testimony of the most authentic and unexceptionable Writers of those Times, we shall hardly find one in the _Roman_ Calendar more worthy of that Honour. The famous _John Chrysostom_, who was one of his Presbyters before his Promotion to the See of _Constantinople_, has filled his Homilies with the Praises of _the great Flavianus_, as he styles him. His distinguished Merit, eminent Virtues, and extraordinary Piety, seem to have been _Chrysostom_’s favourite Topic; and these Encomiums he bestowed upon him, while he was still alive. After his Death he was distinguished by the Council of _Chalcedon_, with the Title of _the blessed Flavianus_[1308]; and by that of the East, held under _John_ of _Antioch_, ranked among the brightest Luminaries, the most illustrious Prelates, and the greatest Saints of the Church[1309]. _Theodoret_ never names him without adding to his Name some Epithet, denoting his extraordinary Merit, such as _the great, the holy, the admirable_ Flavianus. As therefore no room is left to doubt of his extraordinary Piety and Merit, we may well conclude, from his absolutely refusing to submit his Cause to the Judgment of _Syricius_, and the other Bishops of the West, that he did not acknowlege either in him or them a Power to judge him. This Refusal did not, in the Eyes of _Chrysostom_, and other great Men, detract in the least from his Merit, nor lessen the high Opinion they entertained of his Sanctity. A plain Indication that they did not think his Conduct reprehensible, and consequently did not acknowlege, more than he, that Power which is now one main Article of the _Roman Catholic Creed_.

[Sidenote: _The Communion between the East and the West renewed._]

As _Flavianus_ declined the Judgment of the _Western_ as well as the _Egyptian_ Bishops, and the Emperor gave no farther Ear to their Remonstrances and Complaints, the Resolution taken by the Council of _Capua_ was put in Execution; which was, to renew the Communion and good Understanding between the East and the West, and abandon the Church of _Antioch_ to its Schism, which, after so many promising Remedies applied in vain, began now to be deemed an incurable Evil[1310].

[Sidenote: Bonosus _accused before the Council_.]

The Council of _Capua_, after the above-mentioned Resolution concerning the Difference between _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_, heard a Charge brought by some Bishops against _Bonosus_, Bishop of _Naissus_ in _Dacia_, according to some, or, as others will have it, of _Sardica_, the Metropolis of that Province. He was accused of a Crime against the Canons of the Church and the Law of God[1311], and likewise of Heresy. [Sidenote: _His Errors._] The Crime is not specified; but as for the Heresy, I gather from _Austin_, that he held the Son to be inferior to the Father[1312]; and from _Ambrose_, that he taught, the Virgin _Mary_ had had other Children after the Birth of _Christ_[1313]. [Sidenote: _The judging of his Cause committed by the Council to the neighbouring Bishops, who condemn him._] He had, it seems, been condemned by _Damasus_, who died in 384[1314]. but still held his See, and was not driven from it, even by the Council of _Capua_. For the Fathers of that Assembly committed the hearing and judging of his Cause to the Bishops in his Neighbourhood, chiefly to those of _Macedon_, under their Metropolitan _Anysius_, Bishop of _Thessalonica_[1315]. The neighbouring Bishops assembled, pursuant to the Order of the Council; and _Bonosus_, as well as his Accusers, appearing before them, they found the Charge so well supported, that they immediately forbid him to enter his Church; which was suspending him from all Episcopal Functions. _Bonosus_ complained loudly of this Sentence, and even advised with the Bishop of _Milan_, whether he might not, in Defiance of a Judgment so rash and immature, still exercise the Functions of his Office, and, in case of Opposition, repel Force with Force. _Ambrose_ exhorted him, in the strongest Terms, to acquiesce to the Sentence, to conduct himself with the Prudence, Temper, and Moderation, that became a Bishop; and, above all, not to undertake any thing that might be interpreted as a Contempt of the Authority of his Judges, since he could not contemn their Authority, without contemning at the same time that of the Council, which had appointed them[1316]. In the mean time the Bishops of _Macedon_, having more leisurely examined the Cause of _Bonosus_, wrote to _Syricius_, referring the Decision to him, and declaring their _Abhorrence of the detestable Error, that the Virgin_ Mary _had other Children besides Christ_. If this was an Error, which may well be doubted, it was one that did no-way affect the Christian Faith, and therefore did not deserve such a severe Condemnation: but as it thwarted the favourable Opinions then entertained in the Church concerning Virginity, it is no Wonder that it should meet with so rough a Treatment[N35].

Footnote N35:

That the Virgin _Mary_ had other Children besides Christ, was not a new Opinion. It was taught by _Helvidius_ in 383. and long before him by _Tertullian_, as _Jerom_ himself is forced to own in the Treatise which he wrote against _Helvidius_: nay, in the Time of _Epiphanius_, who flourished from the Year 366. to 403. that Opinion universally prevailed in _Arabia_, as appears from the Letter which he wrote in Confutation of it, and addressed to all the Christians dwelling in _Arabia_, from the Presbyters down to the Catechumens. In that Letter he styles those who denied the perpetual Virginity of the Virgin _Mary_, _Antidicomarianites_; and ranks them, though their Opinion had not yet been condemned by the Church, sometimes among the Heretics, and sometimes among the Schismatics. But in the same Letter he censures, with no less Severity, those who adored her, styling the Worship that was paid her _an idolatrous Heresy_; which was taxing those who paid it both with Heresy and Idolatry; and from neither will the unmeaning Terms of _Latria_, _Dulia_, _Hyperdulia_, &c. invented and used by the Schoolmen to express different Degrees of Worship, excuse the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_. _Epiphanius_ was unacquainted with such Terms, as well as with the different Degrees of Worship answering them; and therefore called the Meeting of certain Women, on a stated Day, to offer a Cake to the Virgin _Mary_, and eat it together in her Honour (whence they had the Name of _Collyridians_), _a Folly repugnant to Religion, an Illusion of the Devil, a robbing God of the Honour that was due to him, an idolatrous Heresy_[N35.1]. These Women came from the Northern Provinces of _Scythia_ into _Thrace_, probably about the Year 372. when _Athanaric_ King of the _Goths_ drove all the Christians out of his Dominions. From _Thrace_ they wandered into _Arabia_; and there, in Opposition to the _Antidicomarianites_, introduced the above-mentioned idolatrous Practice. This is the first Instance of any Worship paid to the Virgin _Mary_; and to those Women the extravagant Worship that is still paid her by the Church of _Rome_, owes its Rise. Some of these Women took upon them to act, at their Meetings, as Priestesses. This _Epiphanius_ styles an abominable Abuse, Women being so utterly incapable, says he, of performing any Ecclesiastical Functions, that our Saviour did not grant even to his Mother the Power of baptizing[N35.2].

Footnote N35.1:

Epiph. hær. 78, 79.

Footnote N35.2:

Idem ibid.

_Syricius_, in his Answer to the Bishops of _Macedon_, approves their Sentiments; and employs almost his whole Letter to shew, that the Virgin _Mary_ was always a Virgin: but as for the Cause of _Bonosus_, he tells them, that _it was not lawful for him to judge it, since that Province had been committed to them by the Council of_ Capua[1317]. And was not this disclaiming, in the most plain and explicit Terms he possibly could, that Power which his Successors challenge, and have almost overturned the Christian Religion to maintain[N36]?

Footnote N36:

Such a Letter, we may be sure, has not been tamely received by the Partisans of _Rome_. Some of them have rejected it as forged and surreptitious, for no other Reason, but because _Syricius_ is there made to disclaim a Power which he undoubtedly had. But this is evidently begging the Question[N36.1]. Others, finding it conveyed to us amongst _Ambrose_’s Letters, have ascribed it to him, by prefixing his Name to it. But _Ambrose_ is unluckily named, and spoken of, in the Body of the Letter: whence _Baronius_ himself allows it not to be his[N36.2]. The Style afforded great Matter of Dispute, some thinking it like, and others unlike, to the Style of _Syricius_: but more than the Style, the Title; _To_ Theophilus _and_ Anysius. The former was Bishop of _Alexandria_: And how came he to be any-ways concerned in the Cause of _Bonosus_? If that Name was common to him with some Bishops of _Macedon_, how came that Bishop to be named before _Anysius_ his Metropolitan[N36.3]? In the Height of these Disputes, _Holstenius_ published the above-mentioned Letter at _Rome_, under the Name of _Syricius_, from a very antient and authentic Manuscript, with the following Title, _To_ Anysius _and the other Bishops of_ Illyricum[N36.4]. This turned the Controversy into another Chanel; for the Dispute was no more concerning the Authenticit, but the Sense, of the Letter, which the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ began to think very different from the Sense that the Words of _Syricius_ had conveyed to them before; nay, those who had rejected the Letter as spurious, for no other Reason but because _Syricius_ was there made to disown a Power which he undoubtedly had, were not ashamed now to maintain, that he disowned no such Power. Some of them have a particular Faculty or Talent at making Authors say what they never thought or dreamt of; nay, at making them affirm what they flatly deny, and deny what they positively affirm. But they have not been so successful on this as on several other Occasions. The Words of _Syricius_ are too plain and precise to admit of any plausible, or even probable, Misinterpretation. To avoid therefore the tiresome and unnecessary Task of confuting the forced Interpretations they have put on the Words of _Syricius_, I refer the Reader to his Letter, which is the Fifth amongst _Ambrose_’s Letters; and leave him to judge, whether it was possible for him to disclaim, in Terms less liable to Misinterpretations, the Power of judging a Cause committed by a Council to the Judgment of others, which was disclaiming, in other Words, that universal Jurisdiction, which his Successors have usurped, and pretend to exercise by Divine Right.

Footnote N36.1:

David. p. 562, 563.

Footnote N36.2:

Bar. ad ann. 389. n. 76.

Footnote N36.3:

Vid. Blond. primau. p. 236.

Footnote N36.4:

Holst. coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 189.

[Sidenote: Bonosus _exercises the Episcopal Functions after his Condemnation_.]

As _Syricius_ declined the judging of _Bonosus_, his Cause was in the End decided, and he condemned by _Anysius_ and the other Bishops, to whom that Judgment had been committed by the Council of _Capua_. It was at the same time decreed, that those who had been ordained by him after the first Sentence, that is, after his Suspension, should retain the Degrees to which he had raised them. This Indulgence was shewn, as is declared in the Decree, contrary to the common Rule, _on account of the present Necessity_; that is, lest they should adhere to _Bonosus_, and form a Schism[1318]. [Sidenote: _He ordains some by force._] _Bonosus_, though thus condemned, continued to exercise the Episcopal Functions, and, holding separate Assemblies, to ordain, without Examination or Distinction, all who presented themselves to him: nay, he is even charged with dragging some by open Force to his Conventicle, and ordaining them there against their Will[1319]: a kind of Rape never heard of before. What Advantage he could propose to himself or others in so doing, we are not told, and it is not easy to guess. The Bishops of _Macedon_ allowed even those, who were thus ordained, to keep their respective Degrees in the Catholic Church, upon their only receiving the Benediction of a lawful Bishop. Hence those, who found themselves excluded by the Church from holy Orders, on account of their scandalous Lives, applied to _Bonosus_, pretending to espouse his Party, but left him as soon as they had obtained the Degree they wanted[1320]. _Bonosus_ died about the Year 410. but his Doctrine did not die with him, being maintained by some Two hundred Years after his Death[N37].

Footnote N37:

His Followers were known by the Name of _Bonosiacs_ or _Bonosians_; and Mention is made of them by Pope _Gregory_, towards the Latter-end of the Sixth Century[N37.1]. That Pope writes, as does likewise _Gennadius_[N37.2], that the Church rejected their Baptism, because they did not baptize in the Name of the Three Divine Persons. But the Council of _Arles_, held in 452. by the Seventeenth Canon, commands the _Bonosians_ to be received into the Church by the holy Unction, the Imposition of Hands, and a Confession of Faith, _it being certain, that they baptize in the Name of the Trinity_[N37.3]. It is to be observed, that several Writers have confounded the _Bonosians_ with the _Photinians_, who did not baptize in the Name of the Three Persons; and by them both _Gregory_ and _Gennadius_ were misled[N37.4].

Footnote N37.1:

Greg. l. 9. ep. 61.

Footnote N37.2:

Id. ib. Genn. dog. c. 52.

Footnote N37.3:

Avit. frag. p. 188.

Footnote N37.4:

Vide Concil. t. 2. p. 1270. & t. 3 p. 663. & t. 4. p. 1013.

[Sidenote: _An End put to the Schism of_ Antioch.]

_Syricius_ had, in the last Year of his Life, the Satisfaction of seeing an End put at length to the Schism of _Antioch_, which I have had so frequent Occasion to speak of; and the East and West, after so long a Misunderstanding, or rather Separation, happily reunited. This great Work was accomplished in the following Manner: _Evagrius_, the Successor of _Paulinus_, dying not long after his Promotion, _Flavianus_ employed all the Credit and Interest he had at Court, and with the Clergy of _Antioch_, to prevent the Election of a new Bishop in the room of the deceased: and so far his Endeavours proved successful. But he could by no means gain the _Eustathians_, who continued to assemble apart, or prevail either upon the Bishops of _Egypt_, or _Syricius_, and the other Western Bishops, to admit him to their Communion, though he had no Competitor, whose Cause they could espouse against him. Thus, through the inflexible Obstinacy of the _Egyptian_ and Western Bishops, was Discord kept alive, and a kind of Schism fomented among the Prelates and Members of the Catholic Church, says _Sozomen_[1321]. In this Situation Affairs continued from the Year 392. in which _Evagrius_ died, to the Year 398. when the famous _John Chrysostom_, Presbyter of the Church of _Antioch_, was, in regard of his extraordinary Merit, preferred to the See of _Constantinople_. No sooner was he placed in that high Station, than his generous Disposition, above all little Piques and Jealousies, his Zeal for the Welfare of the Church in general, and the tender Regard he had for that of _Antioch_ in particular, prompted him to employ all the Credit and Authority, which his new Dignity gave him, in bringing about an intire Reconciliation between the East and the West, and restoring the Church of _Antioch_ to the Communion of those Churches, from which it had been so long separated[1322]. [Sidenote: Chrysostom _studies to reconcile the Eastern and Western Bishops_.] _Chrysostom_ had been consecrated by _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, whom the Council of _Capua_ had appointed to decide, with the other Bishops of _Egypt_, the Difference between _Flavianus_ and _Evagrius_, as I have related above. To him therefore, before he left _Constantinople_ to return to _Egypt_, the new Bishop of that City, impatient to see so great a Work brought to a happy Issue, imparted his Intention of attempting a Reconciliation between _Flavianus_ and _Syricius_ Bishop of _Rome_, earnestly intreating him to second and promote with his Endeavours an Undertaking truly worthy of the Two first Bishops of the East.

[Sidenote: Flavianus _and_ Theophilus _reconciled_.]