{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/203/2030299.htm","path":"chr/ecf/203/2030299.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/203/2030299.htm","text":"CX. To Domnus, Bishop of Antioch. 1857\nWhen I read your letter I remembered the very blessed Susannah, who when she saw the famous villains, and believed that the God of all was present, uttered that remarkable cry, \u201cI am straitened on every side;\u201d 1858 but nevertheless preferred to fall into the snares of slander rather than to despise the just God. And I, sir, have two alternatives as I have often said, to offend God and wound my conscience, or to fall by man\u2019s unjust sentence. The most pious emperor, I think, knows nothing of this. For what hindered him from writing, and ordering the ordination to take place, if in truth it so pleased him? Why in the world do they utter threats without and cause alarm, and yet do not send letters openly ordering it? One of two things must be true; either the very pious emperor is not induced to write, or they are trying to make us break the law and afterwards be indicted by them for illegality. I have before me the example of the blessed Principius, 1859 for in that case, when they had given orders by writing, they punished him for obedience. Moreover the letters which I read on the very day of the letter-bearer\u2019s arrival are of a contrary tenour. For one of the holy monks has written to some one that he has received letters both from the very illustrious guardsman and the very glorious ex-magister stating that the case of the very godly lord bishop Iren\u00e6us will stand more favourably, and in return for this good will they ask prayers on their behalf. I think therefore that a reply ought to be written to the clergy who have written from the imperial city to the effect that 1860 \u201cin obedience to the sentence of the very godly bishops of Ph\u0153nicia, and knowing both the zeal and the magnanimity and love for the poor and all the other virtues of the very godly bishop Iren\u00e6us, and in addition to this the orthodoxy of his opinions, I have ordained him. I am not aware that he has ever objected to apply to the holy Virgin the title \u2018Theotokos,\u2019 or has ever held any other opinions contrary to the doctrines of the Gospel. As to the question of digamy, I have followed my predecessors; for Alexander of blessed and sacred memory, the ornament of this apostolic see, as well as the very blessed Acacius, bishop of Ber\u0153a, ordained Diogenes of blessed memory who was a \u2018digamus;\u2019 1861 and similarly the blessed Praylius ordained Domninus of C\u00e6sarea who was a \u2018digamus.\u2019 1862 We have therefore followed precedent, and the example of men well known and illustrious both for learning and character. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, of blessed memory well aware of this and many other instances, both himself accepted the ordination, and wrote in praise and admiration of it. So too did the leading godly bishops of the Pontic Diocese, 1863 and all the Palestinians.\n\u201cNo doubt has been raised about the matter, and we hold it wrong to condemn a man illustrious for many and various noble actions.\u201d In my opinion it is becoming to write in these terms. If your holiness holds any other view, let what seems good to you be done. I, as they suppose, have undergone one punishment, and am ready by God\u2019s help to undergo yet another. Even a third and fourth, if they like, by the stay of God\u2019s grace I will endure, praising the Lord. If your holiness thinks right, let us see what answer comes from Palestine, and, after considering more exactly what course is to be taken, let us so write to Constantinople.\nThis letter is placed by Garnerius in the end of 447 on account of its allusion to Proclus, who died in October 447, and to the deposition of Iren\u00e6us of Tyre, for which the formal edict was issued in Feb. 448, but which was perhaps rumoured earlier. But by some the death of Proclus is placed a year earlier.\n290:1858 290:1859\nOf the blessed Principius nothing is known. cf. Tillemont, XV. 267.\n290:1860\n\u201cThe phraseology of this letter has given rise to much misapprehension. The use of the first person has led some to suppose that Theodoret, who belonged to another province, was the consecrator of Iren\u00e6us, or that he took part in his consecration, or even with the Abb\u00e9 Martin (le Pseudo-Synode d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se, pp. 84, 85) that it is erroneously ascribed to Theodoret, and was really written by Domnus. It is clear from the tenor of the epistle that it was written by Theodoret, and that the first person is employed by him as writing in Domnus\u2019 name. (Tillemont xv. pp. 871, 872.)\u201d Dict. Christ. Biog. iii. 281 n.\nIt is in consonance with this theory that Alexander of Antioch is described as bishop of this apostolic see, a phrase natural for Domnus to use, but not for Theodoret.\n290:1861\nIt is uncertain who this Diogenes was; he cannot have been Diogenes of Cyzicus, for he was alive and present at Chalcedon in 451.\n290:1862\nNo more is known of Domninus or Praylius. cf. p. 157. \u201cIt is clear from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus (ix, 12.) that by the beginning of the third century the rule of monogamy for the clergy was well established, since he complains that in the days of Callistus \u2018digamist and trigamist bishops, priests, and deacons began to be admitted.\u2019\u201d Dict. Christ. Ant. i. 552.\n290:1863\nThe Pontic Diocese is one of the twelve civil divisions of the Constantinian empire.","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. III: The Ec...","type":"page"}