Epistola VIIII Ad Anysium Thessalonicensem Aliosque Illyrici Episcopos

LETTER IX. POPE SIRICIUS TO ANYSIUS OF THESSALONICA AND THE OTHER BISHOPS OF ILLYRICUM. Asked for a strict judgment concerning Bonosus, he is unwilling to give one; but he orders those whom the Synod of Capua had chosen as judges for him to carry out their office. Meanwhile he confirms that Bonosus was justly reproached and held in horror for his error concerning the children of Mary. To his most beloved brothers ANYSIUS and the other bishops established throughout Illyricum, SIRICIUS. Judges given to Bonosus and his accusers.—I have received your letters concerning Bishop Bonosus, by which you wished to inquire into our judgment, either for the sake of truth or for the sake of propriety. But since the judgment of the Synod of Capua was of such a kind that judges were assigned to Bonosus and his accusers from among his neighbors, and especially the Macedonians, who together with the bishop of Thessalonica were to examine his deeds, we note that the form of judgment could not pertain to us. For if the synod were still intact today, we would rightly decide concerning those matters which the series of your letters contains. It is therefore your task, you who have received this judgment, to pronounce sentence on all matters, and not to give the opportunity for either the accusers or the accused to evade or escape. For you have received the authority of the synod, whom the synod chose for the examination.

Bonosus, intending to break into the church forbidden to him, is dissuaded by Ambrose. — Finally, when Bishop Bonosus, after your judgment, had sent to our brother Ambrose to consult his opinion on breaking into and entering the church forbidden to him, the response was given to him, that nothing should be done rashly, but everything should be conducted modestly, patiently, and in order, and that nothing should be attempted against your sentence; so that you, to whom this synod had given authority, might decide what seemed to you to accord with justice. Therefore, the first thing is that those judge to whom the faculty of judging has been given: for you decide in place of the whole synod, as we have written; it is not fitting for us to judge as if by the authority of the synod. Bonosus’s error concerning the sons of Mary. He favors the Jews. Certainly, we cannot deny that he has been justly reproached concerning the sons of Mary, and that your holiness has rightly abhorred that from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born in the flesh, another birth was poured forth. For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born through a virgin, if he had judged her to be so incontinent that she would defile that generative place of the Lord’s body, that hall of the eternal King, with the seed of human intercourse. For whoever asserts this asserts nothing other than the perfidy of the Jews, who say that he could not be born from a virgin. For if they receive this authority from the priests, it may seem that Mary poured forth many births, and they will strive with greater zeal to attack the truth of the faith.

It is refuted. And where is that which is written, the Lord saying to His mother concerning John the Evangelist, "Woman, behold your son," and again to John concerning Mary, "Behold your mother"? What does this mean, that when the Lord was placed on the cross and was taking away the sin of the world, He also pronounced concerning His mother's integrity? Or what else is said, except that faithlessness should shut its mouth and fall silent, lest it dare to defile the Lord's mother with any insult? Therefore, the same judge, the same assertor of maternal modesty, bears witness that she was betrothed only to the man Joseph, yet she knew the rights of the marriage bed by no custom of conjugal intercourse. For He would not have wished to separate her from the companionship of a husband if she were to receive sons from Joseph. But if this is too little, the Evangelist added testimony, saying that the disciple took her into his own care. Did he then make a divorce? Did he lead her away and take her from her husband? Therefore, how does one who reads this in the Gospel totter and waver like a shipwrecked man? This, therefore, is the son's testament concerning his mother's integrity, this is Mary's rich inheritance of pure modesty, this is the end of all consummation. Finally, He said this, and He gave up the spirit, completing every mystery with the good end of piety.

The governance of the churches has been entrusted. We have also read and thoroughly examined everything concerning the fact that Senecio was given to our brother and fellow bishop Bassus as a partner in governing the church, as well as the other matters on which we await the standard of your judgment. WARNING CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING CANONS. I. Whence and by whom they have emerged. From the Codex Fossalensis, which is now preserved in the Colbertine library, as well as from the ancient collection of the Pithoean codex, the following canons were first published through the efforts of Jacobus Sirmondus. He, because he could not determine with certainty the time at which they were established, deemed them to be relegated to the appendix of volume I of the Councils of Gaul. But where he proved their antiquity with these words, "They are utterly most ancient, as the age of the manuscripts teaches, and especially the arguments of the decrees themselves, which agree with the early centuries of the Church, confirm this," he finally sets forth his own conjecture about their author thus: "And the form of both the decrees and the writing is not inconsistent with the letters of Pope Innocent. Therefore, it might not be an empty opinion if someone were to conjecture that he was their author." Following this conjecture of such a great man, Labbeus first placed these same canons after the letters of Innocent. Thus also for us, since it is by no means permissible to pass over them entirely, no place seemed more suitable at first glance for us to present them.

II. That their author is older than Leo.—Now it is clear that the decrees or responses are those of the apostolic see, which was first consulted by the Gallic bishops; and in that way they pertain to our established practice. Next, that is also not uncertain. That Roman pontiff from whom they issued is older than Leo. For at that time, as is evident from the number, these canons were established when the Roman Church bound only bishops, presbyters, and deacons from among the clergy by the law of continence. Yet in the times of Leo, with Leo himself as witness in letter 14 to Anastasius, n. 7, "not even for subdeacons is carnal marriage permitted." Indeed, that same pope speaks in the cited passage in such a way that he is understood not to be the first to impose the law of continence for subdeacons, but to confirm a law laid down by others and already received in practice. And indeed in the Codex of Canons of the African Church, c. 4, Faustinus, bishop of the Church of Potentia, and legate first of Boniface I and then of Celestine, is recorded as having said in the African council: "It pleases that a bishop, presbyter, and deacon, or those who handle the sacraments, should abstain from their wives as guardians of chastity." To which words if we add those of the same Codex, chapter

It is established—and this has been confirmed in various councils—that subdeacons who handle the sacred mysteries, as well as deacons, presbyters, and even bishops, in accordance with earlier statutes, are to abstain from their wives." Thus Faustinus will be seen to have judged that subdeacons also are bound by continence, according to the prescription and custom of the Roman Church. Yet it must not be concealed that in the canon of the Fifth Council of Carthage, from which the preceding words were transferred into the aforementioned codex, no mention is made of subdeacons, but it simply reads: "It is established that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, according to the earlier (or own) statutes, are to abstain even from their wives." However that may be, at least it remains beyond doubt that in the age of Leo marriage was by no means permitted to subdeacons. That even the Gauls approved and received into use in the fifth century and thereafter that law which denies the license to marry to presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, is attested by the Council of Vannes, held in the year [of the council], canon 2; the Council of Agde, canon 39; the Second Council of Orleans, canon 2; the Fifth Council of Orleans, canon 4; the Second Council of Tours, canon 10; and the Council of Auxerre, canon 20.

III. Those canons can be ascribed either to Innocentius or to Siricius. Now if we examine the appended canons in relation to the writings or decrees of the supreme pontiffs who preceded Leo, we will find that they fit no one more than either Innocentius or even Siricius. Certainly in these canons, no. 5, and in Innocentius’s letter 2, no. 12, the same rule concerning continence is prescribed for priests and deacons. The same is also prescribed concerning veiled or not yet veiled virgins who have fallen away from their purpose, both in these canons, nos. 3 and 4, and in the aforementioned letter, nos. 8 and 9. Likewise, just as the author of these canons judges as unworthy of the priesthood those “who have served in secular military service after becoming faithful” or “who have exercised secular authority,” so Innocentius, in letter 3, nos. 6 and 10, denies admission to the honor of clerical office to those “who have been engaged in forensic practice after receiving the grace of baptism” or “who have served in the military after baptism.” Again, what is decreed in the same letter, no. 4, against certain persons who had usurped the power of ordaining bishops in other men’s churches, agrees perfectly with what is censured below, no. 6. But these arguments are not so peculiar to Innocentius that they do not apply no less aptly to Siricius.

If anything can be inferred from the place which these canons occupy in the archetype, since the Council of Telensis or Teleptensis, that is, the letter of Siricius read in that council, follows immediately after them, some weight is added thereby for ascribing them either to Siricius or to Innocentius. IV. That they are to be attributed to Siricius. To which of them they were to be assigned, we had at first left to the judgment of scholars; indeed, because the opinion of Sirmondus and Labbeus had already prejudged in favor of Innocentius, we had thought they should be relegated to the end of the writings of this pontiff, without prefixing his name, until something more certain should appear. But when we came to an examination of the individual canons, we found so many things that specifically agree with Siricius that we were thoroughly persuaded that they cannot be denied to him. First, in these canons a commendation of traditions is prefixed, just as in the letter of Siricius, and against those who introduce new observances, the same passage from Matthew 5:9 is employed in both places. Then, just as in letter V, no. I, Siricius again, commending traditions, professes that he is not imposing new precepts, but is confirming what was established by Apostolic and patristic constitution, so there it is said that not new constitutions, but ancient traditions are to be rendered to each proposition.

Thirdly, expressions peculiar to Siricius are repeatedly found in these canons, such as *qua de re* for *quare*; *charissimi* with the addition *mihi* for the simple word *charissimi*; *remissio peccatorum* for *baptismo*. Moreover, Siricius is accustomed to introduce the observance of traditions by admonishing and entreating rather than by commanding. "Lest this happen further," he says in letter 6, no. 5, "I admonish." And in letter 5, no. 3: "But to the polluted and the unfaithful nothing is pure. For this reason I exhort, I admonish, I entreat, that this disgrace be removed." This manner of his agrees with what we hear in these canons, no. 1: "Wherefore, my dearest ones, that it is not fitting to entrust the mystery of God to men of this kind, polluted and unfaithful, the reverence of religion itself persuading, I admonish." Who also in these canons, no. 9, declares the following: "That there ought to be one confession of Catholic bishops, apostolic discipline has composed (perhaps *has enjoined*). If, therefore, there is one faith, one tradition ought to remain; if there is one tradition, ought not one discipline be preserved through all the churches?" Does not Siricius himself seem to be the one who, more concisely, touches upon the same thing in letter 6, no. 5, in this manner: "I declare that, having one faith, we ought also to think alike in tradition?" It would be too long to subjoin here all the points in which these canons and other letters of Siricius agree. It will be enough to have pointed out these few things, so that each person may more easily turn his attention to detecting the rest.

But what these canons exhibit in common with Siricius and Innocentius, whether in words or in sentences, are referred to Siricius by the stronger right, because he preceded Innocentius, and it is established that this pope borrowed much from him. V. Whether the question which Innocentius says has not yet been defined by his predecessors is settled by these canons. That may cause concern, how Innocentius, in letter 6, chapter 3, when a question was proposed concerning those who, after baptism, administered and either only inflicted tortures or also pronounced a capital sentence, was able to respond, "We read nothing defined by our predecessors on these matters," if we attribute to Siricius these canons in which a similar question seems to be defined. Yet if the matter is examined more closely, there is no slight dissimilarity in the two questions. For concerning those who administered, in Innocentius's letter it is asked whether they are to be admitted to communion, but in these canons whether they are also to be admitted to episcopal dignity. In the same canons we are also taught that they are to be joined to the altars only after performing penance, not specifically because they exercised such a judicial office, but because they participated in or even presided over games and superstitious spectacles. But also from the different manner of responding in each writing, it is easily argued that they do not have a single author. For Innocentius dares to define nothing; in these canons, however, nothing is left undefined.

VI. With what caution they were corrected. Therefore, although the unskilled hand of the scribe has not a little disfigured the appearance of this document, it has not, however, so disfigured it that it cannot be recognized at all. Sirmond desired more correct copies by which it might be emended; but, deprived of their help, his hand could not refrain from attempting to correct some things from his own resources. Yet his effort was not successful in all respects. For this reason, forced to return to the appearance of the archetype, we have considered it sufficient to indicate in their places which reading seemed preferable. And we have found not only many errors, but we also suspect that certain things have been moved from their place, especially that which is inquired about in no. 14, concerning one who has married his maternal uncle’s wife. VII. The agreement of matters treated in the Second Council of Arelate with the decrees set forth in this letter is to be noted. Its canon is concerning one who has been made bishop without the knowledge of the metropolitan; canon 7, concerning those who castrate themselves; canon 8, concerning those who presume to receive an excommunicated person, whether cleric or layman, of another after the interdict; canon 52, concerning girls who have vowed themselves to God, if they have voluntarily passed over to earthly marriages.