To Anatolius, Deacon at Constantinople.

Epistle XLVII.

To Anatolius, Deacon at Constantinople.

Gregory to Anatolius, &c.

Thy Love has written to me that our most pious lord orders a successor to be appointed to my most reverend brother John, bishop of Prima Justiniana, on account of the ailment of the head from which he suffers, lest perchance that city, while without the jurisdiction of a bishop, should be ruined by its enemies, which God forbid.  And yet the canons nowhere enjoin that a bishop should be superseded on account of sickness.  And it is p. 69 altogether unjust that, if bodily ailments come on, the sick person should be deprived of his dignity ¹⁶² .  Accordingly this thing can by no means be done through us, lest sin should come upon my soul from his deposition.  But it is to be suggested that, if he who bears rule is sick, an administrator may be found, to undertake all his charge, and maintain and fill his place, without his being deposed, in the government of the Church and custody of the city; so that neither may Almighty God be offended nor the city be found to be neglected.  If, however, the same most reverend John should haply on account of his ailments request to be relieved from the dignity of the episcopate, it should be conceded on his presenting a petition in writing.  But otherwise we are altogether unable, with due regard to the fear of Almighty God, to do this thing.  But, if he should be unwilling thus to make petition, what pleases the most pious Emperor, whatever he commands to be done, is in his power.  As he determines, so let him provide.  Only let him not cause us to be mixed up in the deposition of one so situated.  Still, what he does, if it is canonical, we will follow.  But, if it is not canonical, we will bear it, so far as we can without sin of our own.

Footnotes

69:162

Cf. XIII. 5 for a similar assertion of the unlawfulness of superseding a bishop, except at his own request, when incapacitated by illness.  See also VII. 19.  In this epistle may be observed Gregory’s habitual deference to the Emperors, whose subject he ever declared himself to be, even in matters of ecclesiastical import, together with his avoidance of giving his own sanction to anything he regarded as irreligious or uncanonical.  Similarly in the case of an imperial prohibition of soldiers becoming monks.  See III. 65; VIII. 5; X. 24.  Cf. also IV. 47, in the case of Maximus of Salona.  We find him, however, in a letter to the empress, in which this case of Maximus is referred to (V. 21), making a respectful protest against imperial interference in matters of ecclesiastical cognizance.