EPISTOLX VIII. SEU RESCRIPTUM AMBROSII, ALIORUMQUE EPISCOPORUM AD SIRICIUM PAPAM DE CAUSA SUPRADICTA

Letter 8 Or the Rescript of Ambrose and Other Bishops to Pope Siricius on the Above-Mentioned Case. They review and refute the errors of Jovinian and his associates. First, that they abolish the grades of merit and equate marriage with virginity; then, that they deny the virginity of Mary in childbirth; next, that they oppose fasts. Finally, after noting that their opinion on the nativity of Christ supports the Manichaeans, they subscribe to the judgment of Siricius regarding their condemnation. (See this letter of Ambrose in the works of the same holy Father, vol. of our Patrologia XVI, col. 1123.) NOTE ON THE FOLLOWING LETTER. I. What is to be inquired into.—Concerning this letter, more than one question arises. For there is no agreement among the learned about its author. Nor is there greater consensus among them about Bonosus, on whose occasion it was written. For they are uncertain what his error or crime was, what his see was, and even whether he was the same person who was called by the ancients the leader of the Bonosians. To clarify these matters, it will help first to know the time at which the letter itself was written.

II. The time at which it was written.—The letter itself bears no obscure mark of the time when it was written. For in it the Council of Capua is recalled as having been held recently. Now it has been proven in the latest edition of Ambrose, where the order of the letters is established, that this synod was celebrated after Theodosius’ return to the city of Constantinople, that is, after the 26th of November of the year 391, and before the death of Valentinian, that is, before the 15th of May of the year 392. From this it follows that this letter, too, is rightly considered to have been written in the year 392 before the month of May, especially since the disturbances that followed Valentinian’s intention in Italy do not allow it to be deferred later. III. It is falsely attributed to Damasus.—Hence the opinion of Nicholas of Cusa in book II, chapter 18 of *De Concordantia Catholica*, of James Almain in his book *De Auctoritate Ecclesiae*, of Cajetan in his book *De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii*, and of Robert Coke in book III, chapter 14, who attribute this letter to Damasus, cannot be defended. For that pope had already ceased to live by that year, so much so that his successor Siricius had responded to the inquiries of Himerius at the beginning of the year. Nor indeed did they come to that opinion by the authority of any manuscript attributing that letter to Damasus, but were deceived by the order in which they saw it placed among the letters of Ambrose. For since they noticed that it was placed immediately before what is now Ambrose’s letter 17, in which Damasus is mentioned as still living, they did not even suspect that this letter pertained to Damasus’ successor.

The more probable this opinion would have seemed to them, if they had read in Marius Mercator, edition of Baluze, page 165, that Bonosus was "precondemned by Damasus"! But he did not say that Bonosus was precondemned by Damasus in any other sense than that in which we may say that Socinus was precondemned by the Council of Nicaea and by Damasus himself. For M. Mercator refers to the confession of faith which Damasus sent to Paulinus, and specifically to this: "We anathematize Photinus, who, reviving the heresy of Ebion, confesses the Lord Jesus Christ only from Mary." For Bonosus himself was commonly said to be reviving the same error. IV. Nor is it by Ambrose. Not only its ancient editions, but also the Colbertinus, Carolilocensis, and several other manuscript codices attribute this same letter to Ambrose. But Baronius proves that it is not his, from the year, because in it Bonosus is said to have consulted "our brother Ambrose." Our brothers, who prepared the edition of Ambrose, indeed observed that this could have been said by him not in his own name, but in the name of some synod over which he presided; and at the same time they noted the great affinity of this little work with undoubted writings of Ambrose, for example, book On the Institution of the Virgin, chapter 5, and letter 63 to the Vercellenses, number 109. But if in this letter Ambrose speaks in the name of a synod, it ought to have been inscribed in the name of that synod, not of Ambrose, and therefore the authority of the inscription of those codices, which is clearly false, is undermined.

Therefore, the aforementioned brothers published that letter, although it is among the Ambrosian epistles, yet without a title and in a different character. V. It has been rightly restored to Siricius. — Justellus notes in the canon of the African Church Code that it is to be assigned to Siricius, and the men mentioned above, number, Cusanus, etc., support him, insofar as they hold for certain that it belongs to some Roman pontiff. For if it had been shown to them that it was written in the time of Siricius, they would not have hesitated to concede to the same opinion. It was finally restored to this pope by Lucas Holstenius in the bipartite Roman collection; and Launoy approves and praises this restoration in his first letter to Samboenvius, where he also discusses many things about this epistle. Lalibeus also subsequently gave it its place among the epistles of Siricius. Holstenius, indeed, having died before his work left the press, was unable to note in which codex he had found this epistle with a sounder title; but there is no room for doubt that he did not invent that title, which no one denies is most fitting, from his own imagination, but expressed it on the authority of some old exemplar. For there was no reason why he would publish this anew among the epistles of the Roman pontiffs, which he first published either as new or as improved, unless a new title, supported by the authority of some old codex, had persuaded him that this epistle should rightly be considered as improved and in some way new.

Yet the agreement of this letter with the praised writings of Ambrose, especially in number, is not to be denied. But it could have happened that either Ambrose lent his assistance to Siricius in this matter, or Siricius thought fit to use Ambrose's arguments, brought forward against the reported error of Bonosus at the Synod of Capua or elsewhere. VI. Diverse opinions concerning Bonosus. That Bonosus over which church he presided, Baronius in the year 389, Petavius in volume IV of Ecclesiastical Dogmas, book XIV, and others confess to be unknown to them. Sirmondus, in his notes on Avitus, conjectures that he was the bishop of the see of Naissus in Dacia. That conjecture is undoubtedly based on Innocent's letter 16 to Marcian, bishop of Naissus, on account of which Holstenius, in his geographical annotations on the Roman patriarchate, pages and 123, also defends the same opinion. But John Garnerius, in his commentaries on Marius Mercator, relying on the authority of Mercator himself, affirms that Bonosus was placed over the metropolis of Sardica. Hence Tillemont, volume X, page 755, having freely admitted that Bonosus was a bishop either in Macedonia or in a neighboring province, proposes to inquire whether two Bonosi are to be distinguished: one of Naissus, of whom Siricius and Innocent speak, and another of Sardica, whom Marius Mercator and other writers make the leader of the Bonosians. He himself, with his characteristic modesty, testifies that he does not dare to assert this distinction first, yet he does not keep silent that he notices nothing which contradicts it.

VII. Two Bonosi must be distinguished. The same distinction is again supported where he observes that Siricius and Innocentius speak of some Bonosus whom they indicate was accused of canonical crimes rather than any heresy; and that Innocentius specifically did not require any profession of faith from the clerics ordained by him. But we are surprised that this man, distinguished with praise for diligence, has let this slip. For both Siricius teaches that Bonosus, of whom they themselves speak, was "rightly reproached concerning the sons of Mary," and notes that he, in asserting this, "asserts nothing other than the perfidy of the Jews, who say that he (Christ) could not be born from a virgin"; and Innocentius, in letter 16 to Marcianus, writes that it was decreed concerning the clerics ordained by Bonosus that if, "with his error condemned, they wished to be joined to the Church, they would be gladly received, lest perhaps those who were worthy of recovering salvation should perish in the same error." Since, therefore, it is established that Bonosus, of whom Siricius and Innocentius speak, was contaminated by the stain of error, it remains to be asked whether the error for which Siricius notes he was accused was different from that which others attribute to the leader of the Bonosiaci. But on this point the rest agree, that the leader of the Bonosiaci revived the heresy of Hebion, Paul of Samosata, and Photinus. For these are the words of Marius Mercator concerning him: "Following the philosopher Hebion, Marcellus of Galatia, and also Photinus, in recent times Bonosus, who was condemned beforehand by Damasus, bishop of the city of Rome.

For this reason, in Pope Gelasius's letter 33, no. 4, Photinus and Bonosus, who fell away in a similar error, are condemned. Likewise, the Fathers of the Second Council of Arles, in canon 16, having spoken previously about the Photinians and Paulianists, declare that they judge the "Bonosiacs (as) coming from the same error." The opinion of Gennadius was no different regarding these, who, in his book *On Illustrious Men*, chapter [on the book of Audentius], mentions a book of Audentius especially directed "against the Photinians, who are now called Bonosiacs." He has similar things about them also in his book *On Church Dogmas*, chapter 22 (or 52). Gregory the Great, in book 11, letter 67, to Quiricus, also counts the Bonosiacs among those who deviate from the faith of the Trinity: insofar as, namely, as Avitus, bishop of Vienne, explains more openly in letter 3, page 29, "they take away the honor of divinity from Christ." Whence Augustine also seems rightly to speak about the leader of these heretics, when, replying to a letter from Elpidius, who denied the divinity of Christ and sent him to Bonosus as one who was powerful for persuading that same opinion, he writes: "I most gladly embrace your kindness, that you have deigned to send me, as you write, to Bonosus and Jason, most learned men, even across the sea, to bring back abundant fruits from their disputations." From this it is also permitted to infer that that heresiarch was still alive when Augustine wrote these things.

Certainly, from those various testimonies it is evident that there existed a certain Bonosus, who gave his name to the sect of the Bonosians; and these are listed together with the Ebionites and Paulianists, and are called new Photinians for the same reason, because together with them they denied the divinity of Christ. But this error is no different from the perfidy of the Jews, which Siricius attributes to Bonosus. Therefore, the leader of the Bonosians ought not to be considered other than Bonosus, whom the same pope reproves. For this reason, Ambrose, in his book *On the Institution of the Virgin*, against the objections of Bonosus—whom he does not name, but rather clearly designates—from the beginning of the chapter to the end, establishing the perpetual virginity of Mary, in chapter 10 and the middle of chapter 12, refutes those who attack the equality of the Trinity and the divinity of the Son, and finally, in the last part of the chapter itself, returns to asserting the integrity of Mary; nor does he add anything from which he does not indicate that the same heretics are refuted by him. This lapse was indeed prone to occur, so that whoever had once spread the rumor that sons were procreated from Mary would proceed to the point of preaching, with Ebion and the Jews, that Christ was born in no other way, and that he was "a common man born from Mary and Joseph.

VIII. Bonosus is to be considered the bishop of Sardica. Now if Bonosus is one person, why should we not consider him the bishop of the Sardican church rather than of the Naissitan church, since there is the clear authority of Marius Mercator, who lived in those times, calling him the Sardican, and nothing can be opposed to such an open and weighty testimony except mere conjecture, derived from the fact that Bonosus is said to have ordained Naissitan clerics, and the canons forbid ordaining clerics of another church? But that conjecture is all the weaker because Bonosus, in order to gather more supporters, as Innocentius testifies in letter 17, no. 12, "made illicit ordinations everywhere and without any examination." Moreover, the canons would require that if Bonosus had been the bishop of Naissus, his case would have been referred to the Sardican prelate as his metropolitan, not to neighboring bishops. For the supreme pontiffs entrusted cases that might arise in the churches of Dacia Mediterranea, Dacia Ripensis, Moesia, etc., to the bishop of Thessalonica to be judged in their stead, but they wished this to be done "saving their primacy," as Innocentius testifies in letter 13 to Rufus, no. 3, in explicit words. But the case of the Sardican bishop, who was the metropolitan or primate of the province of Dacia, ought to have been judged by the bishop of Thessalonica, who had been appointed "first among those primates," as Innocentius says in the cited passage.

Therefore, the Synod of Capua preserved the full authority of Anysius in this matter when it referred Bonosus’s case to him. At the same time, that same synod observed the custom of the canons, which require that judges for bishops be chosen not from a distant province but from a neighboring one, and specifically of the Antiochene and Sardican canons, since it wished that judges from Macedonia be especially joined to Anysius. IX. The Judgment of Anysius against the Bonosians.—What the judgment of Anysius was, we learn from the letters of Innocentius. Namely, he condemned Bonosus in such a way that those who had been ordained by him, if they wished to be joined to the Church after condemning his error, would be gladly received. From this judgment, the Second Council of Arles rightly observed in canon 17 that it is clear that the Bonosians are baptized in the Trinity. For this reason, although that same council acknowledges that the Photinians or Paulianists and the Bonosians come from the same error, it nevertheless decreed that the Photinians or Paulianists must be baptized, but that the Bonosians, if upon being questioned they confess our faith with their whole heart, are to be received into the Church with chrism and the imposition of hands. However, not abiding by such a solemn judgment, Bonosus did not cease to ordain new clerics from anywhere, and even to contaminate some already ordained in the Catholic Church by repeated ordination; this was the cause and occasion of the new disturbances and of the letters of Innocentius, as we shall see there.

Perhaps we will seem rather long-winded, but we have considered it worthwhile to explain a matter not yet sufficiently disentangled by the learned, so that light may also shine upon the aforementioned letters of Innocentius.