Letter 5: To the most blessed Emperor and most merciful prince Theodosius — Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy.

To the most blessed Emperor and most merciful prince Theodosius, Ambrose and the other bishops of Italy. 1. We knew that your holy mind was devoted to Almighty God in pure and sincere faith; but you have heaped up fresh benefits, in that you have restored the Catholics to their churches, august Emperor. And would that you had restored the Catholics themselves to their ancient reverence, so that they should make no innovation against the prescriptions of our forefathers, nor rashly either rescind what ought to be observed or observe what ought to be rescinded. And so we groan, more perhaps in grief than in want of forethought, that it could prove easier to expel the heretics than to bring about agreement among the Catholics. For how great a confusion has lately arisen cannot be set forth. 2. We had written some time ago that, since the city of Antioch had two bishops, Paulinus and Meletius, whom we supposed to be in harmony of faith, either peace and concord should be established between them with the ecclesiastical order preserved intact, or else, if one of them should die while the other survived, no successor should be put in the place of the deceased while the other survived. But now, Meletius being dead and Paulinus surviving, the latter whom the fellowships handed down without offense from our forefathers attest to have remained in our communion, contrary to right and to ecclesiastical order one is asserted to have been, in the place of Meletius, not so much chosen as a successor as imposed over him. 3. And this deed is alleged to have been done with the consent and counsel of Nectarius, whose own ordination we do not see by what order it was carried out. For when, at the recent council, Maximus had made it known, by the reading of the letters of Peter, a man of holy memory, that the communion of the Church of Alexandria continued with him; and had shown by clear testimony that his ordination had taken place within private dwellings, because the Arians still held the church buildings, with the mandating bishops performing the ordination, we had nothing, most blessed of princes, on which we could doubt concerning his episcopate, since he testified that force had been brought against him, who resisted it, by very many even of the people and the clergy. 4. Nevertheless, lest, with the parties absent, we should seem to have presumptuously defined anything, we thought that your Clemency should be informed by a letter sent, so that provision might be made for him in the interest of public peace and concord; for in truth we observed that Gregory was by no means, according to the tradition of the fathers, claiming for himself the priesthood of the Church of Constantinople. We therefore, in that synod which seemed to be prescribed for the bishops of the whole world, judged that nothing ought to be rashly decided. So much so that, at that very time, those who declined the general council and are said to have transacted business at Constantinople, when they had learned that Maximus had come from those parts to plead his cause in synod (which, even if a council had not been appointed, by the right and custom of our forefathers, as also Athanasius of holy memory, and formerly Peter, bishops of the Church of Alexandria, and very many of the Easterners did, so that they might be seen to have had recourse to the judgment of the Church of Rome, of Italy, and of the whole West); when, as we have said, they had ascertained that he wished to make trial of his cause against those who had refused his episcopate, they ought certainly also to have awaited our judgment concerning him. We do not claim a prerogative of examination, but there ought nonetheless to have been a sharing in a common decision. 5. Finally, it ought first to have been settled whether it seemed that the priesthood was to be taken away from this man, rather than conferred upon another; and this above all by those of whom Maximus complained that he had been either abandoned or wrongfully assailed. And so, when our fellowships received Bishop Maximus into communion, since it was established that he had been ordained by Catholic bishops, we did not think that he ought to be removed from his claim to the bishopric of Constantinople. We judged that his allegation ought to be weighed with the parties present. But as for Nectarius, since our humble selves have lately learned that he was ordained at Constantinople, we do not see that our communion coheres with the Eastern parties; especially since Nectarius is said to have been straightway deprived, without the fellowship of communion, by the very men by whom he had been ordained. 6. This, then, is no small scruple. Nor does any contention over domestic zeal and ambition trouble us, but the communion, loosened and dissolved, disturbs us. Nor do we see that it can be settled otherwise, unless either he who was ordained first be restored to Constantinople, or else there be held in the city of Rome a council of ourselves and of the Easterners concerning the ordination of the two. 7. For it does not seem unworthy, Augustus, that those should undergo the consideration of the bishop of the Roman Church, and of the neighboring bishops and those of Italy, who thought that the judgment of the one bishop Acholius alone was so to be awaited that they considered he ought to be summoned to Constantinople from the Western parts. If anything has been reserved to this one man, how much more ought it to be reserved to many! 8. We, however, having been admonished by the most blessed prince, the brother of your Piety, to write to your Clemency's authority, request that, where there is one communion, there should be willingness for the judgment also to be common, and the consensus to be in agreement.

EPISTOLA XIII. Actis Theodosio gratiis de restitutis in basilicas orthodoxis, et dolore suo propter Ecclesiae turbas significato, episcopum Antiochiae mortuo Meletio subrogatum queritur: et ut Nectarius Constantinopoli post Maximum ordinatus loco cedat, vel de utriusque ordinatione in synodo Romae pronuntietur, petit. Beatissimo Imperatori, et clementissimo principi THEODOSIO, AMBROSIUS et caeteri episcopi Italiae. 1. Sanctum animum tuum Deo omnipotenti pura et sincera fide deditum sciebamus: sed recentibus cumulasti beneficiis, quod catholicos Ecclesiis reddidisti, Imperator Auguste. Atque utinam catholicos ipsos reverentiae veteri reddidisses, ut nihil novarent contra praescripta majorum, nec temere vel servanda rescinderent, vel rescindenda servarent. Itaque dolentius forte quam inconsultius ingemiscimus, Imperator, facilius expelli potuisse haereticos, quam inter catholicos convenire. Quanta enim nuper confusio facta sit, explicari non potest. 2. Scripseramus dudum, ut quoniam Antiochena civitas duos haberet episcopos, Paulinum atque Meletium, quos fidei concinere 815 putabamus, aut inter ipsos pax et concordia salvo ordine ecclesiastico conveniret: aut certe, si quis eorum. altero superstite, decessisset, nulla subrogatio in defuncti locum, superstite altero, gigneretur. At nunc Meletio defuncto, Paulino superstite, quem in communione nostra mansisse consortia, quae a majoribus inoffense ducta, testantur, contra fas atque ecclesiasticum ordinem in locum Meletii, non tam subrogatus, quam superpositus asseritur. 3. Atque hoc factum allegatur consensione et consilio Nectarii, cujus ordinatio quem ordinem habuerit, non videmus. Namque in concilio nuper, cum Maximus episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae communionem manere secum, lectis Petri sanctae memoriae viri litteris, prodidisset; ejusque intra privatas aedes, quia Ariani Ecclesiae basilicas adhuc tenebant, secretum esse, mandatoribus episcopis ordinantibus, dilucida testificatione docuisset, nihil habuimus, beatissime principum, in quo de episcopatu ejus dubitare possemus; cum vim sibi repugnanti a plerisque etiam de populo et clero testatus esset illatam. 4. Tamen ne, absentibus partibus, praesumpte aliquid definisse videremur, clementiam tuam, datis litteris, putavimus instruendam; ut ei consuleretur ex usu publicae pacis atque concordiae; quia revera advertebamus Gregorium nequaquam secundum traditionem patrum, Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae sibi sacerdotium vindicare. Nos igitur in synodo ea, quae totius orbis 816 episcopis videbatur esse praescripta, nihil temere statuendum esse censuimus. Adeo ipso tempore qui generale concilium declinaverunt, Constantinopolique gessisse dicuntur; nam cum cognovissent ad hoc partium venisse Maximum ut causam in synodo ageret suam (quod etiamsi indictum concilium non fuisset, jure et more majorum, sicut et sanctae memoriae Athanasius, et dudum Petrus, Alexandrinae Ecclesiae episcopi, et Orientalium plerique fecerunt; ut ad Ecclesiae Romanae, Italiae, et totius Occidentis confugisse judicium viderentur); cum eum, sicut diximus, experiri velle adversum eos, qui episcopatum ejus abnuerant, comperissent; praestolari utique etiam nostram super eo sententiam debuerunt. Non praerogativam vindicamus examinis, sed consortium tamen debuit esse communis arbitrii. 5. Postremo prius constare oportuit, utrum huic abrogandum, quam alii conferendum sacerdotium videretur; ab his praesertim, a quibus se Maximus vel destitutum, vel appetitum injuria querebatur. Itaque cum Maximum episcopum receperunt in communionem nostra consortia, quoniam eum a catholicis constitit episcopis ordinatum, nec ab episcopatus Constantinopolitani putavimus petitione removendum. Cujus allegationem praesentibus partibus aestimavimus esse pendendam. Nectarium autem cum nuper nostra mediocritas Constantinopoli cognoverit ordinatum, cohaerere communionem nostram cum Orientalibus partibus 817 non videmus; praesertim cum ab iisdem Nectarius dicitur illico sine communionis consortio destitutus, a quibus fuerat ordinatus. 6. Non mediocris igitur hic scrupulus. Nec quaedam nos angit de domestico studio et ambitione contentio, sed communio soluta et dissociata perturbat. Nec videmus eam posse aliter convenire; nisi aut is reddatur Constantinopoli, qui prior est ordinatus: aut certe super duorum ordinatione sit in urbe Roma nostrum Orientaliumque concilium. 7. Neque enim indignum videtur, Auguste, ut Romanae Ecclesiae antistitis, finitimorumque et Italorum episcoporum debeant subire tractatum, qui unius Acholii episcopi ita exspectandum esse putaverunt judicium, ut de Occidentalibus partibus Constantinopolim evocandum putarent. Si quid uni huic reservatum est, quanto magis pluribus reservandum est! 8. Nos autem a beatissimo principe fratre tuae pietatis admoniti, ut tuae clementiae scriberemus imperio; postulamus ut ubi una communio est, commune velit esse judicium, concordantemque consensum.