But again I ask: who had warned Ambrose that the Easterns had instituted that synod of theirs to this end, that they might decline the Roman one? Or could they not, once that synod was concluded, conveniently betake themselves afterward to the West? The matter, therefore, always returns to this: that concerning it he could not be certain before the letters of those same Easterns, by which they had excused themselves, had been brought to Rome; and therefore the same difficulty perpetually remains. Fifthly. Maximus is said to have been received into communion by the Italian bishops, because it was established that he had been ordained by Catholic bishops. But a twofold sin lies in this: first, against the Nicene canon 5, by which it is decreed that no one ejected be received by others;
by which safeguard, though most absurdly, the African bishops made use, lest Celestine should grant communion to those whom they themselves had condemned. Then, in what manner did those Italian prelates suppose this was permitted to them, with Damasus, the Roman bishop—who had rejected Maximus—unconsulted? For if by the apostolic canon 34 it had been defined, and received everywhere by the constant discipline of the Church, that the bishops of each nation should acknowledge him who was first among them and observe him as head, and do nothing of great moment apart from his judgment,
this surely was owed by a stronger right to the Roman pontiff, to whom all Italy, from the very origin of the nascent Church, had been wholly aggregated and, as it were, as Bacchini says, glued together. But to confirm by examples and by other unnecessary arguments a matter most well-known, proved by the testimony of the 6th Nicene canon, I judge superfluous. Yet this cannot be omitted by me, as especially suited to demonstrating the matter in question: namely, that none of the Western bishops thought it lawful to receive into communion Athanasius—ejected by the pseudo-synod of Tyre and Antioch—before the sentence had been pronounced by Julius.
Hence, indeed, it came about that Julius himself was condemned in the Philippopolitan assembly of the Arians, because he first opened the door of communion to the wicked and the condemned, and made an entrance for the rest to the dissolving of the divine laws. Let it, then, be permitted me at this place to wonder, together with Jerome, how the bishops approved what Italy [approved] which Rome scorned, and took up what the Apostolic See condemned. But that I may not bring my mind to think this of Ambrose, the very authority of Ambrose accomplishes it—who from the Council of Aquileia had already taught us that from the venerable Roman Church all the rights of communion flow. Sixthly.
In like manner, on account of Nectarius being ordained as the sole bishop, Maximus being rejected, the Italian bishops denounce their communion with the Easterns as broken: «Since our mediocrity has lately learned at Constantinople that Nectarius was ordained, we do not see that our communion coheres with the Easterns... nor do we see that it can otherwise be reconciled, unless either he who was first ordained be restored at Constantinople, or certainly there be at the city of Rome, concerning the ordination of the two, our council and that of the Easterns.» But, in the first place, I shall scarcely ever grant that these things could have been written by the bishops of the Italian vicariate, with the Roman bishop, whom they obeyed, unconsulted and opposing.
Then I assert that it is false that communion between the Westerns and the Easterns was ever broken on account of the ordination of Nectarius against Maximus; and this the testimonies of Sozomen and of Pope Boniface set, if I am not mistaken, in the open. For the one brings forward only one ground for the dissension that arose between the two, namely the episcopate of Flavian, and teaches that for that cause alone were the Easterns summoned to the Roman council; while the other writes thus: «Theodosius, judging that the ordination of Nectarius did not possess firmness because it was not within our cognizance, having sent from his side courtiers together with bishops, demanded that a formal letter be regularly directed to him by the Roman See, which might strengthen his priesthood»;
therefore there had been no question, nor dissension with the Easterns, on account of Maximus rejected, nor could there be any cause underlying for communion to be broken off from that head. Hence in the Roman council communion was at once taken up with the same Nectarius, but we know that Flavian was rejected by all. Therefore with the highest right, when the emperor Michael defended the election of Photius by the example of the same Nectarius, Nicholas I wrote back that Nectarius, truly Catholic, had taken up the helm of the Church of Constantinople without scandal, WITHOUT FORCE, WITHOUT ANY SCHISM;
and therefore that it well and most excellently pleased the holy Second Synod, supported by the authority of the Apostolic See, thus to determine concerning Nectarius—how far which things stand apart from those which are enounced in this letter, no one fails to see. Seventhly. To these things the Italian bishops add that, Meletius having died and Paulinus surviving, against right and ecclesiastical order Flavian was not so much substituted as superimposed, by the consent and counsel of Nectarius; in which place you see that Flavian is said to have been substituted against right and ecclesiastical order, not against a pact confirmed with God as witness.
But since there is open mention of this pact in the letters of the Council of Aquileia, why is it here passed over, if Ambrose is the author of both letters, and it added great weight to the cause which he was defending? Moreover, Flavian had already been ordained bishop of Antioch when Nectarius was not even being thought of. Sozomen relates the matter in these words: «By chance Diodorus... having beheld Nectarius, judged him worthy of the episcopate, and at once, in the inmost recess of his mind, conferred his suffrage upon him, considering the man's gray hair, his countenance worthy of the priesthood, and the suavity of his manners.»
«And so, as if for the sake of another piece of business, he led him to the bishop of Antioch, and, attending him with many praises, begged the bishop to assist him with his suffrage.» Flavian, therefore, already presided over the Church of Antioch when Diodorus of Tarsus approached to plead for him on behalf of Nectarius! For Flavian the bishop, on Sozomen's testimony, composes the list of those to be elected, offers it to the emperor Theodosius, and plays the chief part in the election of Nectarius; but could he be called bishop before the imposition of hands, or was the episcopal power then divided into a double one—namely, of jurisdiction and of order—so that these things could have been permitted to him while not yet ordained?
Therefore not, as the writer of this letter says, was Flavian constituted bishop by the work and counsel of Nectarius, but Nectarius by [the work and counsel] of Flavian. I am not unaware that Tillemont, who thinks Flavian was designated at Constantinople but ordained at Antioch, calls into doubt the credibility of Sozomen. But his opinion rests on no testimony at all; and the credibility of Sozomen's statement is built up by the letter which the Easterns wrote to Damasus, Ambrose, and the other bishops collected in the Roman synod in the year 382, with this intent, that they might render an account of those things which had been done by them in the previously held synod of Constantinople, whose words are these:
«But Flavian, the most reverend and most religious bishop of the most ancient Church of Antioch in Syria, the bishops both of that province and of the Eastern diocese, gathered into one, ordained, with the whole Church consenting and as it were with one mouth praising the man—which legitimate ordination indeed THE UNIVERSAL SYNOD ALSO RECEIVED.» We do not therefore deny that the bishops of the province of Antioch and of the Eastern diocese, namely Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beroea, could ordain Flavian, as they say; but when they add that his ordination was received by the universal synod, they moreover openly prove that it was celebrated at Constantinople, where the synod had been gathered;
and in vain does Baluze wrest these words to mean a synod of the province of Antioch; for if the bishops of the province of Antioch and of the Eastern diocese, gathered into one, had ordained him canonically, doubtless they had already weighed whether he should by any reckoning be barred from the episcopate, as discipline and the canons required; wherefore, when it is added that that ordination was received by the universal synod, they designate an altogether other and weightier synod—namely the Constantinopolitan, which was then being conducted, as Socrates openly explains.
Gregory of Nazianzus, moreover, says that he was asked by friends—and even tried by a base means—to give his suffrage to Flavian along with the rest, namely before his episcopate was laid down, and while that council over which he presided was not yet dissolved; let the whole series of that affair, most elegantly described by him, be read in the poem on his Life. What business, therefore, had the prelate of Constantinople with the bishops of Syria and of the Eastern diocese, that the zeal of him and of outsiders, depending in no way upon the See of Antioch, should be sought with so great fervor?
Then, is it credible that a matter conducted with so great a contention of minds, and so urged that they wished it finished within a single hour, was afterward delayed so long that it was completed only after several months? Lastly, it is established that the episcopate was laid down by the same Gregory after the arrival of the Egyptian and Macedonian bishops. But why? Because they, in order to avenge old and recent affronts received from the Easterns, and to brand upon them some grief in turn, alleged that the canons had been violated in his translation, as the same Gregory says.
But what just [ground]—to use this word—for the sake of requiting in turn on account of old and recent affronts, could have underlain, if Flavian had not yet been ordained, and that matter not yet completed and altogether defined? Add, finally, that election, or designation, and ordination, thus received together for that period, were wont to cohere with the discipline of the Church to such a degree that they seem scarcely ever to have been separated; and therefore that there can scarcely be one who rightly judges that Flavian himself, long before elected and designated at Constantinople, could afterward have been consecrated at Antioch.
But since these things are so, I shall never be brought to believe that that letter was either written by Damasus, or has Ambrose for its author, or [has] any other bishop of those times instructed in the things that were being done. And in that opinion I am confirmed more and more, when I direct my mind to its barbarous, rough, obscure style, alien from the elegance and perspicuity of Damasus and Ambrose. For what do those words mean: «we groan perhaps more grievously than inconsiderately»? Or was the grief perhaps greater than the cause for grieving? For how few there are who would tolerate one so speaking and thinking?
Then why should I recount the often inelegant repetition of the same words, such as these: «with ecclesiastical order preserved», «against right and ecclesiastical order»; «whose (Nectarius's) ordination, what order it had, we do not see»? On the contrary, how great a copiousness of matter, how great an elegance of words, joined with gravity of thought, in those letters which on this very cause, in the name of the Council of Aquileia, Ambrose truly wrote to Theodosius! Let the reader himself compare the two with each other, and judge by his own judgment whether in both they can seem to have been produced by the same hand.
What, finally, of the fact that the author of this Italian letter seems to be ignorant of the pact which had been sworn between Meletius and Paulinus, and which had restored concord to the Church of Antioch, although it was perfectly well known to Ambrose? Hence, writing to Theodosius, he says: «We think that our prayers were offered to your piety, by which, according to the PACT of the parties, we demanded that, on the death of one, [the rights] of the Church should remain with the survivor, nor should any superordination be attempted»; but the writer of the other, of which we treat, says that he had requested this—which had already been about to be done and established—namely, that some concord be entered into: «We had written some time ago, that since the city of Antioch had two bishops.»
«Paulinus and Meletius, whom we thought to be in harmony of faith—[we asked] either that peace and concord be arranged between them, with ecclesiastical order preserved, or certainly that, if one of them died with the other surviving, no substitution be brought forth into the place of the deceased while the other survived.» But in what year, on what occasion, those prayers which Ambrose mentions were offered to Theodosius, has been stated by me in another place. Now, as far as concerns the matter, see first how far coins differ from lupines; then it will be easy for you to judge whether the same Ambrose can deservedly be reckoned the author of both letters. But who patched it together, and for what cause he thrust it upon us along with this Italian council? This I confess that I do not know.
Yet, if it is permitted to conjecture anything, the squalor of the Latin diction—which sometimes savors of the Greek tongue—and a certain skill in ecclesiastical history conjoined with ignorance of it, make me suspect that these things issued from the Photian workshop. That Photius the crafty fabricated many things is beyond doubt; and learned men have already observed that those forgeries which he produced often reflect Greek phrasing and depart from the propriety of Latin speech. Moreover, we know that he often, and to the point of nausea, vaunted the example of Nectarius, by which he might defend his own ordination. But why did he not fabricate this letter too, especially suited and accommodated for confirming his contumacy against the Apostolic See?
Add that the same Photius had deservedly been compared to Maximus the Cynic by Pope Hadrian, in the letters written to the emperor Basil, whose words are these: «For we conjecture that there is no difference at all, either between Photius the adulterer and Maximus the Cynic, condemned by the Second Synod, or between the ordinations of the one and of the other; and therefore he who is by all means proved to have had with him an equal beginning seems bound to be constrained by an equal end»; and for this very cause the Eighth Synod had pronounced anathema upon Photius the fabricator of lies, upon Photius the new Maximus the Cynic. From which it is clear how greatly it was in Photius's interest to give to the cause of the same Maximus the Cynic another appearance than what it really had been.
But whatever of these things may be the case, what can furthermore be asserted for certain is this: first, that after the Council of Aquileia no other [council] can be established as having certainly been gathered in this intervening time; secondly, that this letter contains many things which are utterly alien from the truth, and on this head is unworthy of the prelate of Milan. Wherefore, if (which alone remains) you say that under the name of the Italian council were designated some bishops, perhaps of a single province, who wrote it in a common name although outside a synod, you must bring forward men who were altogether ignorant of the things that were being done, and who dared to write it with both the Roman pontiff and Ambrose himself unconsulted.
並且，為使你能形成此看法，請容許我准予此事。第四節——此處所討論的是西爾蒙德（Sirmond）以義大利會議之名所刊行的另一封書信：這封是真實的，乃由安波羅修（Ambrosius），甚至可能由西里修（Siricius）所撰。問題在於：是在何種場合、何時所寫？並且它被歸於加普亞（Capua）會議，彷彿是該會議的附錄。此看法的理據在此陳明。藉此機會，也討論了納西盎的貴格利（Gregory of Nazianzus）致克勒多尼烏斯（Cledonius）諸書信的年代；同樣引用並解釋了屈梭多模（Chrysostom）的一段話；並為安提阿的保利努斯（Paulinus）辯護，駁斥那位同一位教父著作的最新編者所作扭曲而惡意的詮釋。
And, that you may form this opinion, let me have leave to grant it. § IV.—The discussion concerns another letter published under the name of the Italian council by Sirmond: this one is genuine, and was written by Ambrose, or even by Siricius. The question is asked: on what occasion, and at what time? And it is referred to the council of Capua, as though it were an appendix to it. The grounds for this opinion are set forth. On this occasion the date of the letters written by Gregory of Nazianzus to Cledonius is also discussed; a passage of Chrysostom is likewise adduced and explained; and Paulinus of Antioch is vindicated against the wrenched and sinister interpretation of the latest editor of the works of that same Father.
It now remains for me to say something about another letter of the Italian council to Theodosius, whose opening words are 'To thy faith,' which critics have hitherto thought was written on this same occasion, in the cause of Maximus, and which holds place 14 among the letters of Ambrose in the edition of the Benedictine Fathers. This letter, then, I judge, like the others, to be genuine, and altogether worthy to be ascribed to Ambrose, whether you consider the flowing style, or the polish of the discourse, or the weight of the sentiments, or the truly apostolic spirit joined with an equal deference, with which he writes back to the emperor. I think, moreover, that the affair of Flavian moved Ambrose to write it, which is plainly evident from these words of his:
For it was a grief to him that the bonds of sacred communion between the Easterns and Westerns had been broken; since it is agreed that this came to pass on account of the single ordination of Flavian. When therefore the Easterns, after the death of Paulinus, laid the blame of this dissension upon the Westerns, who—as it seemed—had preferred to Flavian Evagrius, illegitimately ordained, Ambrose, who was held by the single zeal for pacifying the Church and sought timely means to that end, both in this letter and in another which (unless I am mistaken) he addressed on the same occasion to Theophilus of Alexandria, favors neither of the parties, openly condemns neither, nor does he plunge himself into that dispute;
so as to inquire by whose error or whose fault this had happened, lest he should seem to be sowing fables and empty words. It is agreed, then, that this letter was written in the cause of Flavian, and looks to that matter. But on what occasion and at what time? Surely not long after the synod of Capua. Both Ambrose and Theodoret indicate both points to us, though the latter mixes false things with true, owing to his open partiality toward the side of Flavian.
For since, after the death of Paulinus, the long-standing dissension of the Church of Antioch was by no means extinguished, but in Evagrius his successor still kept the Churches of both empires torn asunder, it was deliberated—not without the counsel of Theodosius, who was then at Rome—that a general synod should be convened in Italy, to take cognizance of that cause and at last put an end to the schism. To this synod Theodosius himself had given the Western bishops hope; that he would take pains that Flavian and other bishops from the East should be present. After therefore, with affairs in Italy pacified, he had departed, that synod was summoned at Capua, and Flavian was summoned by Theodosius to Constantinople, that from there he might sail to Rome.
But he, pleading that it was now winter, and promising that at the beginning of spring he would carry out the commands, returned to his homeland. But when he, awaited in vain, was not present at the appointed time, the synod already proclaimed was meanwhile held, in which communion was extended to all those who professed the catholic faith in the East, whether we should follow Evagrius or Flavian; but the judgment of the cause of the two contending over an undivided episcopate was committed to Theophilus of Alexandria, to be confirmed nevertheless by the supreme judgment of the apostolic see. Ambrose had hoped, from these most equitable decrees of the synod, that a remedy was now given and that there would be an end to the discord.
But when he had been informed for certain that Flavian had again resorted to the aids of entreaties and the support of imperial rescripts, he wrote, as it seems, another letter in the name of the same synod to Theodosius, in which—on the testimony of Theodoret—the emperor was more sharply rebuked. For it was by his easy compliance, he said, that the labor poured out by so many priests for attending the synod of Capua had been in vain: that one must turn back again to the contrivances of this world, again to rescripts, again that aged priests must be harassed, seas crossed over, that men feeble in body must exchange their homeland for foreign soil, that altars must again be abandoned, so that they might set out into far-off places;
while in the meantime Flavian alone should be lawless, who had neither come to Capua, nor presented himself before the judges appointed by the synod: for since Ambrose then wrote these things to Theophilus of Alexandria, we can scarcely think that he did not write the same, and other things in like and more vehement manner, to Theodosius, by whose fault chiefly these things had happened. Hence indeed it came about that, when the emperor, more sharply stung, had written back, he gave Ambrose occasion to write at last that letter which Sirmond brought to light, inscribed in the name of the Italian council, as being one which was a part and appendix of the synod of Capua. It is agreed that it was uniquely framed to soothe the emperor's mind:
namely, that the bishops of Italy, led by a single zeal for peace, had written to Theodosius, and had exhorted him, already running of his own accord, to win for himself alone this glory of restored public peace: that they grieved this had failed in vain, and were unwilling to inquire by whose fault it had happened: that, for the rest, since it had not stood by them that this great and longed-for good should be attained, they were free of blame, and had at least achieved this much, that they should not seem henceforth to have neglected the fellowship of the Easterns and to have held it of small worth:
that the Western bishops had imposed labor upon themselves, to come to Capua, not for the sake of Italy, or of Gaul, or of Africa, which flourished in a concordant religion, but in order that those things which had disturbed communion on the part of the East might be examined in that synod, and so that at last every scruple might be removed from the midst. But because Ambrose had rebuked the emperor, that it had come about by his easy compliance that Flavian had declined the synod of Capua, and moreover would not obey its decrees; while the emperor, on the contrary, had perchance written back that it had been deservedly declined by Flavian, both because the Westerns favored Evagrius, and because they had no jurisdiction over the Easterns;
the other answered in this very letter, that the Westerns had asked for a council to be assembled even from the Easterns themselves, and that therefore no suspicion either of excessive compliance or of partisan zeal could fall upon them: then that he had delegated the examination of this cause to Theophilus of Alexandria, not for the sake of deciding it, but of informing it, before whom Flavian ought to have presented himself; and therefore, those who had committed the matter to another's arbitration—the supreme authority of the Roman bishop being nevertheless preserved intact, by whom the judgment was to be confirmed—had asked rather for a just judgment than passed a prejudgment: that it could not be supposed that any reproach had been offered by the Westerns to the Easterns, when a council had been requested, to which they too had been summoned;
both because, the greater the number of bishops, the better and more well-advised is the deliberation; and because the Easterns themselves had gone before the Westerns by their own example, when Paul, a presbyter of Constantinople, had requested within Achaia a synod of the Easterns no less than of the Westerns: but it had seemed good to the Westerns that it should be proclaimed at Capua, whither all could more easily and safely come by a sea journey, since on the contrary the land route was full of danger, because Illyricum, through which one had to pass, was then in a suspect commotion.
Finally, that the boundaries established by the Fathers had not been torn up by the Westerns, nor the rights of the Easterns violated, when the synod was proclaimed at Capua, to be attended by the Easterns also; but rather that they had kept the things defined by Athanasius of holy memory and by those same Fathers; to whose example, and perhaps to the canons of Sardica, and to the causes of the Easterns judged by Julius, Liberius, and other more ancient bishops in the synods of Rome, when Ambrose appeals before Theodosius, he says that he detracts nothing of the reverence due to him. Therefore I acknowledge this letter as a genuine offspring of Ambrose, and worthy of that prelate; but if anyone wishes to attribute it to Siricius, I by no means object: both because the style of Siricius himself savors of the Ambrosian;
and because it deals with matters of which Siricius was a great part; and because Theodoret seems to count Siricius himself among the Roman bishops who had on this account more sharply rebuked Theodosius. But why I am moved to think that letter was written not long after the synod of Capua and its most wise deliberation, eluded by Flavian, is further this, that it is written in it that a council had been requested, both to extinguish the Antiochene schism, and that cognizance might be taken of those who attempt to introduce into the Church the dogma which is asserted to be Apollinaris's; and that the same council had been requested in Italy, because, since Illyricum was in a suspect commotion, maritime and safer places had had to be sought.
For these things lead us to that time at which Theodosius, Italy being pacified, had returned to Constantinople. For then we know that the heresy of Apollinaris was openly rampant in the East, and that various commotions arose throughout Illyricum, suppressed by him. The first is established from Nazianzen, Socrates, Sozomen, and others, whom it is superfluous to transcribe here; and from law 14, book XVI, title 5, of the Theodosian Code, issued at Thessalonica at the close of the year 388. The second, indeed, from Zosimus and Sigonius, whose words are these: 'Theodosius betakes himself into Greece. Moreover, having advanced to Thessalonica, he encountered a great tumult in Macedonia.'
For as many of the barbarians as had escaped safe within the marshes and the neighboring forests from the earlier expedition of the Romans, stirred up by Theodosius's occupations in Italy, were ravaging Macedonia and Thessaly at large, with none resisting; but when Theodosius had returned to Thessalonica, they betook themselves to hidden places, and bursting forth at daybreak, kept all the nearby regions in danger. They err, therefore, who refer those Illyrian commotions, of which mention is made in that letter, to the Gothic war, and who maintain that the council, which is written to have been convened in Italy on account of those same commotions, is that one which was celebrated at Rome by Damasus at the close of the year 382;