Epistola IV Ad Anysium Thessalonicensem

Letter 4 of Pope Siricius to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica: That no one in Illyricum may ordain a bishop without the consent of Anysius. To his most beloved brother Anysius, Siricius. Even some time ago, dearest brother, through Bishop Candidian, who preceded us to the Lord, we had given a letter of this sort, that there should be no license to presume to ordain bishops in Illyricum without your consent. Whether it reached you, I have been unable to know. For many things have been done there through contention by bishops in the making of ordinations, which your charity knows better. And therefore you must act diligently, lest, as has happened, while they presume to ordain unworthy men in rivalry in one church, they appear to have made three bishops. For your vigilance must be watchful to repress all such audacity, with the Spirit burning holy within you: so that either you yourself, if you are able, or those bishops whom you have judged suitable, you may send with letters, having given your consent, who may be able to ordain in the place of one who has died or been deposed a catholic bishop, approved in life and morals, according to the statutes of the Synod of Nicaea, or a cleric of the Roman church of proven merit from the clergy.

A note on the following letter. I. The following letter is attributed to Siricius by some, denied to him by others, and considered doubtful by some. It would be tedious to recount the various opinions of scholars concerning this letter and the arguments by which each defends his own view. But I am not permitted to remain entirely silent about these matters. Blondel, in his Pseudo-Isidore, page 550, first, as far as I know, cast certain seeds of doubt concerning its authenticity. He admits that Ferrandus the deacon, in his Abbreviation of the Canons, articles 6 and 130, mentions this letter, and that he, having lived up to the year of the Lord [appropriate for granting it authority], is suitable for conferring authority upon it; yet he raises two objections against it: first, that no memory of it exists in the old codex of the Roman church; second, that it is almost entirely copied verbatim in the letter of Innocent to Victricius; then he leaves this to the judgment of readers. Papabrocius considers the consular date to be an addition. Paschasius Quesnellus, in Dissertation 15 of his works on Leo, contends at length that both this letter and the African council in which it is said to have been read are mere fabrications of an impostor. Emanuel a Schelstrate, in his African Church, Dissertation 3, chapter 12, defends the truth of both writings. Sebastian Le Nain de Tillemont, volume X, page 793, where he sets forth what moves him, with his characteristic modesty leaves everything to the judgment of scholars, preferring, following the example of Baluze, to leave these matters in suspense rather than define anything rashly. Later, however, Stephen...

Baluzius, at the end of the edition of the book *De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii* reprinted in that year, page 1339, having added a singular dissertation against Quesnellus concerning the Council of Telepte, shows himself in this matter by no means doubtful or uncertain, but vigorously defends the truth of our letter. II. It is asserted by the authority of Ferrandus.—In this dissertation, first, after refuting the conjectures by which Quesnellus wishes the little work of Ferrandus to be regarded as suspect of interpolation, he does not hesitate to affirm that "there is scarcely any lucubration of the ancient writers so sound, so entire, and upon which the hands—not to say of impostors, but of unskilled scribes—have less encroached," and thus "that it is pure from those stains with which Quesnellus attempted to bespatter it." Then he adds twice, that even if certain faults, certain obscurities, were certainly proven in that collection of Ferrandus, it by no means follows that, whenever mention of the letter of Siricius occurs, it should forthwith be expunged from it; otherwise, the authority of almost all ancient writers would be at stake, if that license once prevailed. Then, however, he accuses Quesnellus of negligence especially in that, at the end of chapter 1, he says of Chiffletius: "He mentions the Codex Trecensis, which calls the same synod 'Zellensis' which others call 'Telensis': but it is one against countless others." For besides the Trecense, there are not countless copies of the Breviatio of Ferrandus, but only one, the Corbeiense.

The age of this codex, since it exceeds one thousand one hundred years, confers no small authority on the published work of Ferrandus. Therefore, since Quesnellus himself admits, in chapter 2, note 1, that "one could pronounce with certainty concerning the genuineness of the council of Telepte or Zella and the letter attached to it, if the integrity of the Breviatio itself were established," Baluzius rightly pronounces that both that council and the letter read in it are genuine, once he has vindicated Ferrandus's Breviatio from all suspicion of corruption. III. That it was recited at the council of Telepte.—The second argument of Quesnellus against the truth of this letter is drawn from the name of the council to which it is attached. "For it is established," he says in chapter 3, "that it is everywhere written 'Telense,' and not by the error of scribes. Moreover, it is clear that there is only one city of Telensis, which lies in the province of Proconsularis; but that Donatianus, bishop of Telepte in Byzacena, held a synod in Proconsularis is a dream of an impostor who had neither sufficient knowledge of ecclesiastical discipline nor of the African regions to weave his fraud skillfully." Here we cannot sufficiently wonder how much a preconceived opinion imposes on anyone. For, to say nothing of the old Vatican codex, in which the aforementioned council is called Thelescense, and two Royal codices, in one of which it is called Telenense and in the other Telinense, in the very codex of Thuanus, now Colbertinus, it is noted.

which Quesnellus had in his possession, and which he praises throughout his Codex, one may read in the general index of chapters: "The Constitutions of the Council of Thelepte, that is, in Africa, according to the decretal of Pope Siricius"; and then on the title page of the council itself: "Here begins the Council of Telepte on the Tractatoria of the holy Pope Cyndus of the city of Rome throughout Africa... the council having been assembled in the church of the Apostles of the people of Telepte." How could a man with eyes have failed to notice that threefold repetition of the word "Teleptensis"? Or did he neglect to consult those passages? But if he neglected even to read the codex that was in his own possession, what trust is to be placed in him when he declares, "It is established that 'Telense' is written everywhere, and not written thus by scribal error"? Moreover, in another Colbertinus manuscript, there is a double copy of the same council: in the first it is called "Telense," but in the second "Telenense," with the addition at the end: "Here end the canons of Thelense." Donatianus, however, in the first copy is called bishop of Teleptinensis, and in the second bishop of the city of Telensis. Since, therefore, it is admitted that Donatianus was bishop of the church of Teleptinensis or Teleptensis, and primate of the province of Byzacena in the year—which his subscription in the Second Council of Milevis, held in the year, proves—and yet he is written as bishop of the city of Telensis by a manifest scribal slip, why should we not believe that it was likewise by a scribal slip that the council, which in some manuscripts we read as "Teleptense," was written as "Telense" in others?

The same council, which Ferrandus calls the Council of Zella because it was actually held at Zella, but which others call the Council of Thelepte because Zella belongs to the diocese of Thelepte, Baluze thinks was named "in the same way that Loaysa called the council held in the time of King Sisebut at Egar in the province of Tarragona the Council of Tarragona; and Sirmond called that which met at Juncarias in the territory of Maguelonne the Council of Maguelonne." IV. That the agreement of another letter of Innocent with it does not harm its truth.—Another objection, derived from the agreement of the substance of Siricius's letter with another of Innocent to Victricius, is refuted by Hincmar of Reims, vol. II, p. 461, with this observation: "For it is the custom of the pontiffs of the apostolic see to place the words of their predecessors in their own letters as if they were their own." And Hincmar of Laon, ibid., p. 631, confirms that this observation is most true. Although perhaps this observation of theirs rests on nothing else than that in the letters forged by Isidore the same things are frequently found repeated. At least this is certain, which Baluze adds, that Innocent himself, in his letter to Exsuperius, chapter, transcribes the very words of his own letter to Victricius, chapter. From which it should seem less surprising if he also transcribes the writings of a predecessor, which had, in a certain way, become his own along with that see.

Indeed, when I compare both letters, I am convinced that Innocent’s letter was derived from Siricius’s letter, not the other way around. And I trust that the same will be evident to those who observe that, in Innocent’s letter, what requires explanation in Siricius’s letter is for the most part supplied; so much so that Siricius clearly appears as the author of his own words, and Innocent as the interpreter of Siricius. For it is not plausible that someone who wished to compose a letter from Innocent’s words and attribute it to Siricius would have omitted certain of his words that seem necessary for clarity of meaning. Some of these passages would now be pointed out, were it not more convenient to reserve this for notes. As for Innocent, by inserting into his own letter several rules already prescribed by Siricius, he suitably satisfied Victricius, who was asking for nothing new from him, but was requesting a book of rules by which “the discipline observed in the churches of the city of Rome” might be learned.

V. The alleged reason for its forgery is rejected. — Nor is there any place here for the suspicion of that most distinguished man, who thinks that someone, excessively zealous for Roman grandeur and authority, when he saw that the efforts of the Roman pontiffs Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine had turned out badly—efforts they had made to introduce the right of appeals to the Apostolic See into the African provinces—conceived the idea of forging this letter of Siricius and inventing a famous African synod that received it, so that the memory of those unfortunate outcomes might be obliterated. Indeed, suspicions of this kind are raised and removed with the same ease with which they are introduced. On the contrary, anyone zealous for the Roman name ought to have been deterred from fabrications of this sort precisely when he had recently witnessed the diligence of the Africans in scrutinizing what was foisted upon them under the name of councils. Who, moreover, was so dull as to hope that the memory of a matter attested by so many deeds and inserted into the very codex of canons of the African church could be obliterated? But even if someone had such zeal for Roman grandeur that he did not shrink from inventing false writings for the sake of this matter, he would undoubtedly have set forth the right of that see in more open and magnificent words than those which Siricius uses.

VI. That Siricius not absurdly used words of exhorting and requesting to persuade those things which had been prescribed. — But, says the praised man, chapter 5, number 7, “the malice or ignorance of the forger is made manifest by these words of chapter 9, ‘We urge that priests and levites not have intercourse with their wives;’ and also these, ‘I exhort, I urge, I request, etc.’” Yet in these words we freely admit that nothing similar appears to us. For we do not understand them to be said, as the learned man pretends, “as if priests and levites were not bound by the law of continence;” but so that they might be induced, by exhorting, urging, requesting, and persuading, to observe that law by which they were bound. Is there room for exhorting, urging, requesting, and persuading only in those things which depend on the free will of the mind and are chosen with no necessity of precept? Siricius himself, from the very prooemium of his letter, indicates that the things to which he subsequently exhorts are not mere counsels, but precepts, and indeed those by which each person is bound all the more because they are not new but ancient constitutions. Wherefore, after setting forth the same things, he subjoins: “If anyone, puffed up in the mind of his flesh, should wish to wander from this rule of the canon, let him know that he is cut off from our communion and will suffer the penalties of Gehenna.” Certainly no one would judge that anyone should be cut off from his communion, or be liable to the penalties of Gehenna, on account of neglected counsels. Moreover, as Baluzius has already observed, Innocentius, letter 3, to Exsuperius, number.

3; praising the words of Siricius concerning the law of continence, he calls them “the admonitions of the man of blessed memory Siricius,” not precepts. Siricius himself, in letter 4, no. 5, strongly disapproves of what was done as if “against apostolic precepts,” and forbids it from happening again by means of a word of admonition, in this manner: “I admonish that this not happen further.” And in letter 10, no.: “I admonish that it is not fitting to entrust the mystery of God to polluted and unfaithful men... as the reverence of religion itself suggests.” VII. The observance of the Africans toward the apostolic see. — Quesnellus had already premised in chapter 3, no.: “It is certain that in that age the Africans conducted the administration of their own churches according to the canons of their own synods, and did not allow laws of ecclesiastical discipline to be imposed upon them from transmarine regions.” But what he posits as certain cannot at all be reconciled with what happened under Siricius’ successors Anastasius, Innocentius, and Bonifacius, if the letters of Siricius, which are said to have been read in an African council, are to be rejected. For now the Africans, as Baluzius also noted (Cod. can. Eccl. Afr. c. 36), decree that letters be written and a legate sent to Anastasius, bishop of the apostolic see, and to Venerius, priest of Mediolanum, to entreat them to moderate the decree, which the state of the African churches at that time did not permit to be observed.

When the letter of Anastasius was read in their council, they gave thanks to God "that He deigned to inspire in that excellent and holy bishop such pious care for the members of Christ, although placed in different lands, yet constituted in one body." They also send letters back to the same pope, in which they reverently set forth what they had decreed concerning the reception of the Donatists. Then, after the letters of Innocent were likewise read, which provided "that bishops should not readily travel overseas," they confirmed this very thing by their own sentences. Finally, having published a canon of the Scriptures, they decree "that this also be made known to our brother and fellow priest Boniface and to other bishops of those regions for the confirmation of this canon." Indeed, they deemed it necessary to consult Siricius himself and Simplicianus about infants baptized among the Donatists, whether it is lawful to promote them to ministers of the sacred altar. Since the Africans were thus disposed toward the apostolic see, who would be surprised that they ordered the letters of Siricius, which were useful and filled with sound statutes, to be read in their council? But laws were not properly imposed by those letters, inasmuch as they did not issue new precepts, but confirmed old ones.

VIII. That the following letter was written to the Italians and on account of the Italians.—The other objections, which are brought against the truth of the following letter, are refuted with equal ease. It will have been most helpful to have observed, for the sake of this matter, that that letter was written not on account of the Africans, but on account of those who, having been summoned to the Roman council, had been unable to come, and was afterwards sent to the Africans in much the same way as we have seen the letter of Damasus, written on account of the bishops of Illyricum, subsequently sent to the Easterners and inscribed to them. Just as, however, in the copy of this letter which was delivered to the Easterners, those things were retained which it was fitting to say only to the bishops of Illyricum—of which sort is that passage: "Whence your sincerity perceives... that with this faith both the Easterners, who recognize themselves as Catholics, and the Westerners glory"—so too in the copy of Siricius, which was written to the Italians but transmitted to the Africans and recited by them in their council, those things which had been said only about the Italians were not changed. Hence that phrase, "especially on account of those who, at present, either by reason of illness or of worn-out age, were least able to be present," which Quesnellus, interpreting it of the Africans, judges altogether absurd, is found to be most aptly fitting for the Italians, of whom alone it is spoken. The understanding of the first chapter or decree depends on the same observation, concerning which the aforementioned man labored in vain. Indeed, if he had observed this, he would have been far from having...

He would say, "the first argument is drawn from the insipidity of this first decree," in that "however you read it, you can accommodate it neither to common usage, nor to the rules of grammar, nor to African discipline and custom"; but he would have freely admitted that it is so aptly accommodated to African custom and discipline that from this alone he would cease to doubt the truth of the entire letter and of the Council of Telepte. IX. It has reached us only by means of a copy sent to the Africans.—It should be observed, moreover, that this letter has come to us from no other source than through the proceedings of the synod of Telepte. As it was recited in this council, so it is presented by various and very ancient collections of conciliar and pontifical letters, of which four are preserved in the Colbertine library, two in the Royal library, one in our Germanensis, and others elsewhere. Nor is it absent from the codex which Quesnellus presented under the name of the Codex of Canons of the Roman Church. In it, indeed, it holds the last place; whence he conjectures that it was added later. But if that reasoning is once admitted, the canons of Constantinople, Laodicea, and Antioch, which immediately precede, must likewise be considered added; and the same judgment will apply to the letter of Damasus to Paulinus, which in that codex is placed only as chapter 55, after the letters of Simplicius, Felix, Gelasius, etc.

From the acts of the Council of Telepte, the one who first transcribed this letter took care only that it should not be hidden where he received it. Nor should it be held as a fault against him that he omitted the other acts of the same council, just as no one will blame us for presenting here the letters of Roman pontiffs recited in various councils, while leaving aside the synodal acts. For just as it is not our custom, so it was not the custom of those who collected the ancient canons and decrees of the apostolic see to add synodal acts to their collection. Hence, from the fact that they copied only the letter recited in those synods, it does not follow that nothing else was done in them; nor should Quesnel have concluded from that "that no matter of greater importance was to be treated in that synod (of Telepte) than the reading of the letter or letters of Siricius." The very preface, which in ancient books is placed before this letter of Siricius, indicates that the letters of this pope were recited only on occasion, and after the business for which the synod had assembled was completed, with the approval of the council itself. I have thought it worthwhile to present it here, transcribed from the Colbertine codex, with the variants of other copies noted in the margin, for all to see. Thus, moreover, it is found in the aforementioned codex:

X. "Here begins the Council of Telepte concerning the Tractoria (Corb. ms. Telesim per tractatus) of Saint Siricius, pope of the city of Rome, throughout Africa. After the consulship of the most glorious Honorius for the eleventh time and Constantius for the second time, on the sixth day before the Kalends of March, the council having been gathered [in the Church of the Apostles] of the people of Telepte (Same ms. council of the people of Telensis, with the intermediate parts omitted), the blessed father, the bishop of the first see, Domitianus of the city of Telepte, having taken his seat, with Januarius, Felix, Secundus, Cyrius, Secundianus, Geta (Same ms. Zeta), Eunomius, Maximianus, Donatus, Cresconius, Jocundus, Sopratus (Other Colb. Sopater), Restitutus, Julianus, Maximinus, Romanus, Teriolus, Nilicus, Maximus, Donatianus, Basilius, Papinianus, Januarius, Porphyrius, also Porphyrius, Donatus, Julianus, Tutus, Fortunius (Two mss. Fortinus, Quantianus), Quintianus, Capio, and the other bishops sitting with him; and also Vincentius and Fortunatianus, legates of the province of Proconsularis sent to the council of Byzacium, and the rest" (namely, what had been done in the synod, and what the antiquarian deliberately omits, in order to come to the letters of Siricius), "Vincentius and Fortunatianus said: Also with Thusdrum (Corb. ms. Thosdrum, other Colb.

We had been [with Thiodrus?], as your reverend memory recalls along with me, and we had given orders for the letters of blessed memory Siricius, bishop of the apostolic see, to be read out. From these, when our brother bishop Latonius’s holiness read one, the suggestion indicates that we should now present both: have these read out. The bishops said: Let the letters of venerable memory of holy Siricius be read out, so that we may know what the text of them contains. And when they were handed over, Privatus the notary said: A copy of the tractatoria of the bishop of the city of Rome. “To the most beloved brothers, etc.” Here, what is said to be the Council of Telepte, celebrated “in the Church of the Apostles,” if anyone suspects it to be fabricated in imitation of the words of Siricius, who states that he assembled “at the relics of Blessed Peter,” that suspicion will seem all the more unjust, in that it is not unusual to have churches dedicated to the Apostles in any part of the world.

XI. That the Council of Telepte is unjustly said to be suspect of forgery.—With these matters duly considered, let each one judge whether it is permissible to reject as a forgery, on mere conjectures, the African Council preserved in very ancient manuscripts, and specifically in the Corbie manuscript, which is no later than the middle of the sixth century, and supported by the authority of Ferrandus, the African deacon, who flourished at the beginning of the same sixth century; a council, I say, in which are noted the days and consuls under which it was held, the place where it was celebrated, the bishop who presided over it, and the other bishops who attended it: even though in all these notes nothing is found that does not agree with or is contrary to historical truth. Certainly, that Donatianus was bishop of the Church of Telepte in that year we have from the Collatio Carthaginensis. That he was at least from that year the primate of the province of Byzacena is attested by the subscription appended to the Second Council of Milevis, and this is expressly affirmed by the Codex of the African Church Canons, c. 127. That he was also still alive in the year 418, to which the Council of Telepte is assigned, is attested by the general synod of Africa, as is read in Labbe, vol. II, p. 1578, held on the Kalends of May of the same year. Nor is it inconsistent that a provincial synod be celebrated somewhat before a general one, either for the sake of its own business, or to prepare matters to be brought to the general synod.

Moreover, Vincentius and Fortunatianus, who speak at Telepte as legates of the Proconsular province, are also known to have performed the same function elsewhere, both from the Second Council of Milevis, chapter 27, and from the Code of Canons of the African Church, chapter and we learn. XII. What is meant by the name "Tractoria."—The term "Tracturia" or "Tractoria," or "Tractatoria," by which this letter is designated, and in the expression of which there is, in Augustine, a variety among ancient manuscripts, was transferred to ecclesiastical usage from civil law. In the Theodosian Code, book VIII, there is a special title 6, "On Tractorias and Stativas," where "tractoria" means the same as a letter by which those discharged from military duties were sent home, as is also clear from book VII, title 18, law 11. Elsewhere it signifies a diploma by which authority is given to receive public provisions or transport. The Africans are accustomed to use it for announcing ecclesiastical letters. With this word, in Augustine, letter 43, number and 9, a letter by which bishops were summoned to a synod is indicated: but in Sermon on Psalm 36, number and 20, the synodal letter of the Maximianists sent throughout all Africa is called "Tractatoria" or "Tractoria" both by Augustine himself and by the Maximianists. With the same word, Augustine, letter 43, number 8, understands letters sent throughout the whole world concerning the names of those who have either been convicted, or have pertinaciously refused to respond to the charges brought against them. In the same sense, Marius Mercator in his Commonitory.

He calls the letter of Zosimus, which was inscribed to all the churches concerning the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, a Tractorian.