Letter 53: Severus tells exiled Syrian bishops in Alexandria that canon law permits merciful restoration when the original judges themselves choose leniency.

Severus writes to Cassian, Constantine, Antoninus, and the other Syrian bishops now living in Alexandria. He says that, although he is with them in spirit, he would have preferred either to be present with them bodily or at least to write more often. Exile and danger make even letters difficult. People who live without fear can write whenever they wish; people under constraint sometimes have to restrain even their affection. Yet necessity can cut through those restraints. Paul was bound, but the word of God was not bound, and Severus takes the same courage from that example. He greets them as fellow exiles. Their feet are beautiful, he says, not because they preach publicly, but because by accepting persecution rightly they proclaim the gospel even in silence. Christ, who is persecuted with them, is present with them as their leader and guide. The exiles in Babylon were deprived of the temple and its service, yet the Spirit still dwelt among those who kept the law: Daniel judged rightly, and the three young men praised God in the furnace. How much more, then, must the Spirit be present among bishops settled beside the evangelic throne of Mark in Alexandria, a city known for its fidelity in the faith, and under the guidance of Timothy, the archbishop, whose authority can shelter even Severus himself. From there Severus turns to the case of Paul, formerly bishop of Olba in Isauria. The bishops, he says, have handled the matter well. Their decision does not conflict with the canons. A time of persecution especially calls the church to unusual mildness, to gather its scattered members and close the openings through which unreasonable schisms escape. Canon law must be read according to its spirit and purpose, not with a merely literal harshness. The canons aim to protect lawful judgments, but they do not forbid restoration in every case. He explains the point by citing the canons. A person excommunicated by his own bishop should not be received elsewhere unless his bishop receives him, or unless he appears before a synod, presents a defense, persuades the synod, and receives another judgment. Likewise, a presbyter, deacon, or bishop who has been deprived must not bypass a larger synod and trouble the emperor with his case. If he does, he loses the hope of restoration. The purpose is clear: someone deposed by a smaller synod may have the case heard again by a greater synod, but not if he contemptuously continues ministry or refuses proper judgment while those who deposed him still stand by their sentence. That last condition matters. If the Isaurian bishops who deprived Paul and his companions still maintained the sentence, then canonical severity would have to stand, and no larger synod could simply cancel their judgment. But if the same bishops who condemned them now unanimously choose a more merciful judgment, and if Solon, their metropolitan of blessed memory, also consented, Severus sees no canonical obstacle. The canons forbid another synod from tyrannically overturning the original judges; they do not forbid those original judges from changing to a milder verdict and having that mercy confirmed. The fathers themselves often acted this way for the peace of the churches. At Ephesus, Helladius of Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Dorotheus, and Himerius were deposed along with Nestorius because they shared his impiety. Yet later, when the bishops of the East abandoned their schism and submitted to the council, Paul of Emesa came to Alexandria and asked Cyril to let them remain in the sees they held. Cyril, that champion of orthodoxy, did not deny the seriousness of their fault. He insisted on what was necessary: they had to confirm Nestorius' deposition in writing and confess that the holy Virgin is the God-bearer. Once that was secured, he let the other matter go for the sake of church peace. Cyril himself explained the decision in a letter to the presbyter Eusebius. Some people, he said, were circulating letters supposedly written to him by John, but either they were forgeries or they had been altered to please the Nestorian party. Cyril had not given John communion until John anathematized Nestorius' doctrines in writing, acknowledged his deposition, and accepted the ordination of Maximian. When Paul of Emesa then pleaded for the deposed bishops, Cyril answered that he would not concern himself with them further; they could remain as they were. He forgave even the insults directed against him, because the greater necessity was to end the schism by securing the anathema of Nestorius, recognition of his deposition, and confession of the Virgin as God-bearer. Severus stresses the lesson. Cyril showed this generosity for the sake of unity, even though time later proved that some of those men were incurable. He endured that risk for the higher good of binding together the more important members of the church. Cyril also said that even if Helladius in Tarsus and a few others did not think rightly, that did not condemn those who wished to think rightly; let two or three go if they insisted, so long as the churches everywhere held one and the same faith. For Severus, this precedent governs both Paul and Elpidius. If the bishops can lawfully show mercy to Paul, they should certainly do the same for Elpidius, especially since Paul is said to have attempted high-priestly actions during his deprivation, while Elpidius did nothing of the kind. Severus also recalls the famous case of John of Constantinople. John had been deposed, but because of his reputation for right teaching, and because many in the imperial city had separated from the church over his commemoration, Cyril did not press the point. Though Cyril often defended canonical strictness in his letters, he set the good of church reconciliation above subtle arguments and severe procedure. Severus therefore praises the whole synod. Those who argued for strictness were not wrong to care about the church's public credibility and canonical order. Those who argued for mildness were not acting from laxity, but from a desire to restore peace and gather the dispersed. In such cases the better course is the one that gathers the members of the church, supported by clemency and by the fathers' example in similar circumstances. Nor should the bishops be troubled because they discussed the matter among themselves. Severus refuses to call that division. Even the apostles had disputes. Acts records a serious disagreement over whether Gentile believers had to be circumcised according to Moses, until Peter and James, inspired by God and guided by the prophets, brought the churches to one mind. Paul and Barnabas also disagreed over whether to take John Mark with them. These examples were written for the church's instruction. Human beings will become angry; the important thing is to turn away from anger. So in the cases of Paul and Elpidius, Severus urges the bishops to let mercy prevail. They should be allowed the privileges and title of bishops, but they must not force themselves back into their cities if circumstances do not call for it, since other God-loving bishops have already been lawfully appointed to those sees. They should not claim parish rights there. Severus has been told that they themselves acknowledged this principle in writing, and he regards that as proper and just. They will still receive whatever consolation can be granted consistently with the canons and without useless injury to anyone. He closes by explaining the conditions under which he writes. He is suffering the affliction of a fugitive, unable to set foot freely where he would wish, lacking the books and surroundings that would normally support his work. Still, he remembers the sacred laws and the ancient customs of the churches. For that reason he has received and praised the canonical resolutions the bishops sent about those in Antioch who wish to repent. Their decisions were lawful and proper, staying within canonical limits while also bearing the marks of love and clemency. If anything else of this kind should happen...

To the saintly God-loving brothers and fellow-ministers, the bishops who are under the apostolic see of the city of the Antiochenes, and are now settled in the great Christ-loving city of the Alexandrines, Cassian, Constantine, Antoninus, and the rest, Severus greeting in the Lord. Though I am with your love of God in the spirit, I should have wished to be present in the flesh also, or, while absent in the body, to communicate with you more constantly through this remaining source of comfort, I mean by means of letters, concerning the hope laid down beforehand for those who have believed in Christ. But, since, when men are living without fear, every time is convenient to them for sending letters, but, when they are under constraint or imprisoned, it does not lie in their power to do this, even against their will they check and silence the ardour of affection: but when need demands they then cut the fetters of constraint, and do not submit to the ropes that fall to them among the strong, to speak in the words of the Psalmist/ but move their tongue, and serve the divine law. For this reason Paul used to say that he " endured evil things as an evildoer even to bonds for the Gospel's sake," but that " the word of God was not bound."" Therefore I also the mean one look to that pattern and say, and that very justly, "Though I flee for Christ's sake, yet His word has not tied; for it is present in every place where the law of the Spirit wishes to carry it." Therefore I salute you, and embrace you, the sharers of my flight, whose feet are beautiful, who do not preach,^ but by accepting persecution as the law requires walk aright and follow Him who said, " When they persecute you in this city flee to another "; ^ or perhaps it is better to say that by the very fact of being persecuted you loudly proclaim the gospel, and by the fact of being silent speak. Therefore, since you have been brought to such honour, Christ who is persecuted with you is present with you also, and He is a chief and leader for you in purpose and in, commands. Those who were removed to the land of Babylon, and endeavoured there also to live in accordance with the law, and were bereft of the sacred fane and the service, and did not even sing a song, because it was not lawful to do any of these things outside the tabernacle or outside the sanctuary,5 ^ Ps. XV. 6. - 2 Ti. ii. 9. ^ Is. Hi. 7. * Mt. x. 23. ^ Ps. cxxxvi. 2-4. but Still set themselves to live in accordance with their fathers' customs and to pronounce right judgments had the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, insomuch that the divine Daniel being most divinely inspired from that source convicted those wicked elders, and those three boys not only performed a miracle by exulting in the furnace, the burning effect of the fire having been assuaged, but also sang a prophetic hymn of praise. - * Who is there therefore who will not say with greater justice that the Holy Spirit is dwelling among you, even when you are settled by the evangelic throne of the holy Mark, and are dwelling in a very loyal city, one whose special possession and high honour in addition to its other excellences is correctness and distinction in the faith, and as a chief and leader and counsellor and good teacher of everything that ought ' to be done and counselled you have the saintly Timothy the archbishop of this city, a man who not / only fills the place of my meanness, but is even able:^ to shelter me owing to his high position? Hence also the case of the religious Paul, formerly bishop of Olba in Isauria, has been very well treated by you and brought to a very proper conclusion: and this resolution that you have adopted is not at variance with the sacred ecclesiastical ordinances. For a time of persecution more particularly invites us to be more than ordinarily mild, and to gather together the scattered limbs of the church, and to block the exits of unreasonable schisms. Secondly, if one understand the diataxeis or canonical commands also not according to the letter after the manner of a Jew, but according to the spirit and intention of the church law, one will find that they desire that a bishop who has been unanimously deprived by the synod in the province ^ shall in those cases only be denied restoration in another synod when the synod that has pronounced his deposition remains in the same mind. For the eighty-fourth canon says as follows: "If anyone has been excommunicated by his own bishop, he shall not be received by others unless he has first been received by his bishop himself, or a synod has been held and he has presented himself, and made a defence, and has persuaded the synod and received another verdict. And the same rule applies also to laymen and presbyters and deacons and all that are included in the canon."- The ninetieth canon also says as follows: "If any presbyter or deacon shall be deprived by his bishop, or a bishop also by a synod, and shall dare to trouble the king's ears, - and, when he should betake himself to a greater synod of bishops and offer the pleas which he thinks he has to a larger number of bishops, and accept examination and judgment from them, shall treat these with contempt and trouble the king, these men shall not receive any forgiveness, nor shall an opportunity of defence be allowed them, nor shall they expect any hope of future restoration."^ It is therefore manifest from this too that it is possible for a man who has been deprived by a smaller synod to be received in a greater one if the charges and complaints against him are examined and investigated afresh. It is in a sense similar to this that the eighty-second canon also is to be understood, which says: [Here follows the citation given at 24]. For the substance of these three canons is this: that, when a man has been deprived by a small synod, it is possible for him to discuss the causes of his deprivation before a greater synod and obtain restoration, if the great synod decide to absolve this man. But, if he shall dare after his deprivation to perform any priestly function, even access to a greater synod shall be refused him, if those who have once effected his deprivation continue to maintain the same judgment of deprivation. For the whole purpose of the canons is directed to this; that the verdicts ^ of those who have duly decided shall not be annulled, so long as they continue to maintain their verdict "" which they have pronounced. But, if these men (I mean those who deprived the man) with the same unanimity recede from the unfavourable verdict,"' and betake themselves to another which absolves him, how can anyone doubt that the forgiveness is certainly warranted by law, especially if another synod greater than it also confirms this? If therefore the saintly bishops in Isauria who effected the deprivation of Paul and his companions continued to maintain the same ververdict of deprivation, it is absolutely necessary that the severity of these canons shall prevail, and that the punishment which was inflicted upon them shall be in no point annulled by the authority of a greater synod. But, if they also all alike consented to absolve those who were condemned, and Solon also of saintly memory, the bishop of their metropolis, acquiesced in this decision, we for our part will not show ourselves harsh searchers of the canons, which in no way prevented those who have deprived a man from coming to a more lenient state of mind, but laid down a law and issued a command regarding another synod, saying that it has no right to lay additional commands, to speak in the words of the Apostle, upon the bishops who effected the deprivation, and tyrannically to annul the judgment given by these. We find that the holy fathers for the benefit of the churches often receded and granted an indulgence even after sentence of deprivation had been passed by a catholic and oecumenical synod, for the sake of the general benefit and peace of the churches themselves. For instance in the holy synod at Ephesus Helladius of Tarsus and Eutherius of Tyana, and Dorotheus and Himerius were deprived together with Nestorius, on the ground that they were infected with opinions akin in impiety, and were afflicted with the same madness as he to a greater extent than the others. And yet afterwards, when the bishops of the East had abandoned the unreasonable schism and submitted to the resolutions of the holy oecumenical synod which assembled in the city of the Ephesians, upon Paul bishop of the city of the Emesenes coming to the city of the Alexandrines and on their behalf asking Cyril the chief champion of orthodoxy, a man who in apostolic contests endured dangers even to death, that they might remain in their sees in the position which they actually held he waived the deprivation of the said wicked men, insisting only on this point which was more particularly necessary. I mean that the deprivation of Nestorius should be confirmed by all of them together and in writing, and that they should confess that the holy Virgin is the God-bearer and such conditions as follow upon these. This he stated in the letter to Eusebius the presbyter, in which he wrote as follows: " I have read the letter from your devoutness: and I have found you to be distressed by the supposition that the peace of the churches has been completed upon an unreasonable basis; but I imagined that it was by love that your gentleness was moved. However it is probable that you have no accurate knowledge of the points settled. For certain persons are, I learn, circulating letters purporting to have been written to me by the devout and religious bishop John. But it is probable that either they are forgeries or they contain additions made to please those who hold the opinions of Nestorius. For, in accordance with the resolution of the 1 holy synod in the metropolis of the Ephesians, I did not give him communion until he had anathematized in writing the doctrines of Nestorius, and confessed that he held him to be under deprivation, and assented to the ordination of the devout God-loving bishop Maximian. But when the religious Paul bishop of the city of the Emesenes exerted himself vigorously on - behalf of those who had been deprived, Helladius I mean and Eutherius and Dorotheus and Himerius, and begged that, when the peace of the churches was established, their case ^ also might receive a typos or determination, I used these words: ' I do not take any account of those who have been deprived: but they must remain in the position in which they in fact are now.' But the insult which they levelled against me I have forgiven. For it was not indeed fitting that for this reason and no other the churches should fall into a state of schism and division, when the more necessary point was brought to a conclusion, I mean the requirement that the doctrines of Nestorius should be anathematized and his deprivation acknowledged by those who would not do this before, and they also confessed in writing that the holy Virgin is the Godbearer.'"-^ This generous forgiveness he bestowed, for the sake of the peace and union of the holy churches, upon men who, as the succeeding time showed, were incurable. And yet he endured for the sake of an object that was better and of higher advantage, I mean for the sake of the unification and binding; together of the more important limbs. For in the same letter he added these words also: " For, even though Helladius / in Tarsus and certain others do not think rightly, this i^- ^76. has nothinoto do with those who wish to think what is right. For let two or three go if they wish, so longas the churches everywhere hold one and the same faith." How then are we for our part not bound to regard the mind of those who fed and governed the churches of God with such understanding, and to conclude that the course sanctioned by you in the instance of the religious Paul must also be followed in that of the devout bishop Elpidius, particularly since Paul as I have learned during the time of his deprivation presumed so far as to attempt the performance of high-priestly acts or services, but Elpidius, they say, did nothing whatever of the kind. I forbear to mention also the celebrated case^ of the holy John who was bishop of Constantinople. Since you read church histories, you know that he incurred deprivation; but, because of his reputation for right teaching and in order that those in the royal city who were in separation on account of the mention of his name might be reconciled to the body of the church, the holy Cyril waived the point, being apostolically minded in this matter also. 1 and not seeking his own but that which belongs to ' Christ Jesus,^ and setting the benefit of ecclesiastical P- J77. union and reconciliation against all subtle words and | strict procedure, and that though in letters he often contended for canonical strictness. Therefore I bestow ' all praise upon the whole of your God-loving synod, seeing it both examined the demands of strictness, and at the same also considered the suoo-estions of a benevolent mind. In fact both those who desired strict procedure did so because they took account of preserving an appearance worthy of confidence and suited to the church, and equally also those who inclined to mild measures were not of this opinion because they had anything else at heart than to bring about a bond of peace and to gather together those who were dispersed. However in such cases as these that plan must be followed which gathers together the limbs of the church and has clemency as a superfluous advocate, and the example of the fathers who were thus minded in similar cases, and thus provided for what lay before them. Do not therefore think to yourselves that you did anvthing unreasonable in discussing this matter with one another (it is not right or proper for us to say that you were divided). Did not this happen among the apostles also? The book of the Acts relates that "certain men had come down from Judaea and were teaching the brethren, saying, ' Unless ye are circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot have life ': and, as Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them,"^ the disputation passed to other churches also, until Peter the chief of the apostles and James, who was termed brother of our Lord, but had received the first episcopal office in Jerusalem, were inspired from above, and brought forward the prophetic words, and so put an end to the dispute that had been raised: and they extended their resolution to the other churches also, so that all members of all of them might say the same and think the same. I forbear to say that there was a quarrel not only about doctrines but also about a person between Paul and Barnabas, since the one said that they ought to take John who was called Mark with them on their preaching, while the other said not. These things are written as a pattern for us, in order that we may not fear and be caused to fall. It is not possible that being men we should not be angered: but, if we are angered, we must turn from our anger. Therefore in the case of Paul and Elpidius the devout bishops also let the suggestions of a benevolent mind and the course of forgiveness prevail, and let them share in the privileges and title of bishops, but not thrust themselves into their cities, if the time invite to this, seeing that other God-loving bishops have once been lawfully designated to their sees, nor have any share in the rights belonging to that parish: a principle which, as I have been told, they have in fact with great propriety as well as with much justice acknowledged to you in writing. For they also shall not lack any kind of consolation which, while consistent with the canons, will not cause any useless annoyance or injury to anyone, if it take place here. For indeed "our life is swifter than a runner,"^ as it is written: and "what the day that is coming will bring forth" we know not at all.^ I have written this epistle while suffering the affliction of a fugitive and unable to set foot in.... as it is written and, as.... says, no book and no.... surrounds me. But.... remembering the sacred and.... in [my] memory the laws and customs also that were practised from of old in the holy churches. Wherefore also I have both received and duly praised the resolutions canonically adopted by you and inserted in an epistle concerning those in the Christ-loving city of the Antiochenes who wish to come to repentance. For they were lawful and proper, and such as, while not falling outside the limits of what is lawful, bore the marks of a loving disposition and of clemency. If anything else also of this kind should happen,.........