"No doubt has been raised about the matter, and we hold it wrong to condemn a man illustrious for many and various noble actions." In my opinion it is becoming to write in these terms. If your holiness holds any other view, let what seems good to you be done. I, as they suppose, have undergone one punishment, and am ready by God's help to undergo yet another. Even a third and fourth, if they like, by the stay of God's grace I will endure, praising the Lord. If your holiness thinks right, let us see what answer comes from Palestine, and, after considering more exactly what course is to be taken, let us so write to Constantinople.
[1857] This letter is placed by Garnerius in the end of 447 on account of its allusion to Proclus, who died in October 447, and to the deposition of Irenæus of Tyre, for which the formal edict was issued in Feb. 448, but which was perhaps rumoured earlier. But by some the death of Proclus is placed a year earlier.
[1858] Susannah 22
[1859] Of the blessed Principius nothing is known. cf. Tillemont, XV. 267.
[1860] "The phraseology of this letter has given rise to much misapprehension. The use of the first person has led some to suppose that Theodoret, who belonged to another province, was the consecrator of Irenæus, or that he took part in his consecration, or even with the Abbé Martin (le Pseudo-Synode d'Éphèse, pp. 84, 85) that it is erroneously ascribed to Theodoret, and was really written by Domnus. It is clear from the tenor of the epistle that it was written by Theodoret, and that the first person is employed by him as writing in Domnus' name. (Tillemont xv. pp. 871, 872.)" Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 281 n. It is in consonance with this theory that Alexander of Antioch is described as bishop of this apostolic see, a phrase natural for Domnus to use, but not for Theodoret.
[1861] It is uncertain who this Diogenes was; he cannot have been Diogenes of Cyzicus, for he was alive and present at Chalcedon in 451.
[1862] No more is known of Domninus or Praylius. cf. p. 157. "It is clear from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus (ix, 12.) that by the beginning of the third century the rule of monogamy for the clergy was well established, since he complains that in the days of Callistus digamist and trigamist bishops, priests, and deacons began to be admitted.'" Dict. Christ. Ant. i. 552.
[1863] The Pontic Diocese is one of the twelve civil divisions of the Constantinian empire.
CXI. To Anatolius the Patrician. [1864]
Your excellency will be recompensed for the kindness you have shewn me by the God of all, for all that is done for His sake has its reward. I laugh at all my slanderers. The bodies of them who are most severely scourged do not feel the pain, because the scourged flesh is deadened. Still I lament over them whose unrestrained mouths utter such lies. In what way have the accusers of the godly bishop Ibas [1865] been wronged by me that they should utter such calumnies against me? To begin with, I was not even one of the judges, for in obedience to the imperial decree I was living at Cyrus. Moreover, as I have heard from many, they all along treated my absence as a grievance, for I had arranged for their partaking of the Holy Communion at the Easter feast of salvation, [1866] and as they often expressed a wish to meet me, I received them with kindness and advised them as to the proper course to take. But that I may also speak in the defence of the very godly bishop the lord Domnus, what was the proper course for him to take? He was openly attacked; he saw men deposed by a synodical sentence sent into another diocese, and resuming their priestly functions in violation of the laws of the Church; he saw things holy and divine laughed at and turned into ridicule by the enemies of the Church; what was he to do? When he knew this he handed over the case to others, and not only to the very godly lord Ibas, but also to the holy lord bishop Symeon of Amida, that the metropolitans of the two provinces might hear the charges. What fairness is there in charging the same persons with cruelty and kindness? If we excommunicate, we run into danger; if we do not excommunicate, we do not escape it. We alone of all the world are objects of attack. Other dioceses are at peace. We alone are exposed to calumniators,--specially I myself, though I took no part in the trial, and am absolutely without responsibility in the matter.
Thus have I been forced to write on reading your lordship's letter, and on learning from it how for these reasons a great commotion has been made against me, a man confined to my diocese; a man of peace; one not even deliberating with the godly bishops of the province. As a matter of fact, although there have been already two episcopal ordinations in our province, I took part in neither. Were I not restrained by the imperial decree I would have gone away, and spent the remainder of my days in some remote spot. I am faint for the plots hatched against me. I am sure those Edessenes never put together their slander against me of their own accord. They were prompted to these attacks on me by their truly truthful neighbours. I thank our Saviour that he has deemed me worthy of the beatitudes of the Gospel, all unworthy though I be. For this reason I have gladly accepted the sentence of relegation. I am ready for exile, and, for the sake of the "hope laid up for me," [1867] welcome whatever fate they may inflict. I pray without ceasing for your excellency, and beseech all the saints to share in my petitions.
[1864] This letter is in reply to that written by Anatolius on the receipt of Letter XCII. Garnerius, who places the decree of relegation earlier than Tillemont, dates it at about the end of April 448.
[1865] The leaders of the attack on Ibas, (bishop of Edessa and metropolitan, in 436) were four presbyters, Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, and Maras. The cabal chose the moment for action when Domnus visited Hierapolis for the enthronization of Stephen, and in 445 Ibas was summoned by Domnus to Antioch, but did not come. In 448 the eighteen charges--some frivolous, some of gross heresy--were formally heard, and Domnus decided in favor of Ibas. cf. p. 283, note.
[1866] i.e. recommended Ibas not to excommunicate his accusers.
[1867] Col. i. 5
CXII. To Domnus, Bishop of Antioch. [1868]
When news was brought to me that the pettiness of the victorious emperor had been put an end to, a reconciliation effected between him and the very godly bishop, [1869] the summons to the council cancelled, and the peace of the churches restored, I hoped that our troubles were a thing of the past. But I am deeply distressed at what I hear from your holiness. It is impossible to hope for any good from this notorious council, unless the merciful Master with His wonted providence shall undo the riotous demons' devices. Even in the great synod, I mean that of Nicæa, the Arian party voted with the orthodox and set their hands to the apostolic exposition. But they did not cease to war against the truth till they had torn asunder the body of the Church. For thirty years the supporters of the apostolic doctrines and they who were infected with the Arian blasphemy continued in communion with one another. But at Antioch, [1870] when the latest council was finished, when they had seated the man of God, the great Meletius, on the apostolic throne, and then after a few days ejected him by the imperial authority, Euzoius who was affected with the undoubted plague of Arius was put forward, and straightway the champions of apostolic doctrines seceded and thereafter the division continued.
As I look back on what happened then, and look forward to similar events in the future, my wretched spirit sighs and wails, for I see no prospect of good. The men of the other dioceses do not know the poison which lies in the Twelve Chapters; [1871] having regard to the celebrity of the writer of them, they suspect no mischief, and his successor in the see [1872] is I think adopting every means to confirm them in a second synod. For supposing he who lately wrote them at command, and anathematized all who did not wish to abide by them, were presiding over an oecumenical council, what could he not effect? And be well assured, my lord, that no one who knows the heresy they contain will brook to accept them, though twice as many men of this sort decree them. Before now, though a larger number have rashly confirmed them, I resisted at Ephesus, and refused to communicate with the writer of them till he had agreed to the points laid down by me, and had harmonized his teaching with them, without making any mention of the Chapters. This your holiness can ascertain without any difficulty if you order the acts of the synod to be investigated; for they are preserved as is customary with the synodical signatures, and there are extant more than fifty synodic acts shewing the accusation of the Twelve Chapters. For before the journey to Ephesus the blessed John [1873] had written to the very godly bishops Eutherius of Tyana, Firmus of Cæsarea, and Theodotus of Ancyra, denouncing these Chapters as Apollinarian. [1874] And at Ephesus the exposition and confirmation of these Chapters was the cause of our deposition of the Alexandrian and of the Ephesian. [1875] Moreover at Ephesus many synodic letters were written both to the victorious emperor, and to the great officers, about these Chapters; and in like manner to the laity at Constantinople and to the reverend clergy. Moreover when we were summoned to Constantinople we had five discussions in the imperial presence, and afterwards sent the emperor three protestations. And to the very godly bishops of the West, of Milan I mean, of Aquileia, and of Ravenna, we wrote on the same subject, protesting that the Chapters were full of the Apollinarian novelty. Furthermore their writer received a letter from the blessed John by the hands of the blessed Paul, [1876] openly blaming them; and in like manner from Acacius of blessed memory. And to give your holiness concise information on the subject I have sent you both the letter of the blessed Acacius, as well as that of the blessed John to the blessed Cyril, in order that you may perceive that though they were writing to him on the subject of agreement they blamed these Chapters. And the blessed Cyril himself, in his letter to the blessed Acacius plainly indicated the drift of these Chapters in the words "I have written this against his innovations and when peace is made they will be made manifest." The very defence proves the accusation. I have sent you the copy of what he wrote at the time of the agreement, that you may see, my lord, that he made no mention of them, and that those who attend the Council are under an obligation to bring forward what was written at the time of the agreement, and to state plainly what had caused the difference and on what terms the sundered parts were atoned. For they who are summoned to fight for the truth must flinch from no toil, and must invoke the divine aid, that we may preserve unimpaired the heritage bequeathed us by our forefathers.
Your holiness must look out for men of like mind among the godly bishops and make them companions of your journey; and likewise of the reverend clergy those who are zealous for the truth, lest betrayed even by them of our own side we are either driven to do something displeasing to the God of all, or, in our abandonment, fall an easy prey to our foes.
It is faith in which we have our hopes of salvation, and we must leave no means untried to prevent aught spurious being brought into it, and the apostolic teaching from being corrupted.
I write you these words from far away, with sighs and with groans, and I beseech our common Master to scatter this dark cloud and bestow on us once more the boon of the bright sunshine.
[1868] Garnerius points out that the indications of the date of this letter are clear. It mentions the imperial summons to the Latrocinium, and contains Theodoret's advice to Domnus as to what companions he should take with him. It must therefore be placed between the arrival of the summons at Antioch and the departure of Domnus for Ephesus. The summons is dated the 30th of March, and appointed the 1st of August for the meeting. Antioch is a clear thirty days' journey from Ephesus and Domnus had not yet chosen his companions. We may therefore date the letter in the May of 449.