Letter 17: Gelasius had come to perceive that the Greeks would persist in their obstinacy.

A memorandum of Pope Gelasius to Faustus, the master [of offices], who was discharging the duty of a legation at Constantinople. What was objected by the Greeks - and most of all their pretext that Acacius had been condemned contrary to the canons - Gelasius refutes, and he vindicates the supreme jurisdiction of the Apostolic See. 1. I too have perceived in my mind that the Greeks are going to remain in their obstinacy; nor can this seem unexpected to anyone, since it is among the things foretold in advance. For this reason it is not so much on account of matters of religion that they are eager to oppose the public arrangements, but rather, through the occasion of the royal legation, they are contriving to overturn the catholic faith, and by such a bargain they strive to furnish what is hoped for. 2. But what does the emperor mean by it, when he says that he has been condemned by us, although in this matter even my predecessor by no means so much as touched his name, but moreover, when, having attained the chief place of royal power, he set forth that he rejoiced in the rescript of his accession to empire, and I, having received no writings whatever from him, took care - as you know - to greet him with honorific letters? The priests of my predecessor removed from the apostolic communion those who confessed with their own voice that they had communicated with prevaricators. If it pleases these men to mingle themselves with the condemned, it cannot be imputed to us; if he wishes to depart from them, all the more can he not be condemned by us, but rather be admitted to the grace of sincere communion. It pertains indeed to the Roman senate that, mindful of the faith which it remembers it received from its forefathers, it should shun the contagions of an external communion, lest - which God forbid - it be made an outsider from the communion of this Apostolic See. 3. They propose that pardon ought to be granted to them. Let it be read - from the time that there has been the Christian religion - or at least let an example be given, that in the Church of God by any pontiffs whatsoever, by the apostles themselves, by the Savior himself in the end, pardon was granted to any except to those correcting themselves. But it is heard neither read at all nor said under this heaven, what is uttered by their voice: "Grant us pardon, so that nevertheless we may persist in error." This too is a small matter. Let those show, who strive to set the canons against us: by what canons, by what rules, by what reading, or by what document, whether from our elders, or from the apostles themselves - whom there is no doubt to have rightly been more powerful - or from the Lord Savior himself, who is believed to be about to judge the living and the dead, this was ever done, or is commanded to be done. We read that Christ raised the dead; we do not read that he absolved the dead in error. And he who certainly alone had the power of doing this, commands the blessed apostle Peter principally: [Matthew] "Whatever you shall bind upon the earth shall be bound also in the heavens, and whatever you shall loose upon the earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Upon the earth," he says; for in this binding he nowhere said that one deceased is absolved. Therefore what has never been done, we are afraid even to conceive in our mind, knowing that it cannot wholly be excused in the divine judgment. But if, as they now pretend, they are going to divide themselves from the Roman church, they are shown to have done so long ago already. 4. As for Euphemius, I marvel if he himself does not perceive his own ignorance, who says that Acacius could not have been condemned by one man. Does he then not perceive that, according to the form of the synod of Chalcedon, Acacius was condemned? Either he does not know it, or he dissembles that he knows it. In which synod assuredly, through the numerous sentence of the priests, it is established that the authors of this error were condemned; just as in each and every heresy from the beginning of the Christian religion it is shown by the manifest reason of things both to have been done and to be done, and that my predecessor was the executor of an old enactment, not the author of a new constitution. This it is permitted to do not only to the apostolic prelate but to any pontiff whatsoever, namely to separate from catholic communion any persons and any place whatsoever according to the rule of the heresy itself previously condemned. For Acacius was not the inventor of a new or peculiar error, such that new decrees should proceed against him, but he mingled himself by his own communion with another's crime. And so it is necessary that he should have fallen back, by a just balance, into that sentence which, with his successors, the author of the error had received through synodal agreement. 5. They set the canons against us, while they do not know what they are saying. Against these very canons they betray that they go, in that they refuse to obey the first see when it counsels what is sound and right. Those very canons are the ones which willed that the appeals of the whole Church should be referred to the examination of this see, but ordained that from it there should nowhere at all be any appeal. And by this they decreed that it should judge concerning the whole Church, but should itself come to the judgment of no one, nor that it should ever be judged by its judgment; and they established that its sentence ought not to be dissolved, but rather commanded that its decrees be followed. In this very cause Timothy of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch, Peter, Paul, John, and the rest - not only one, but assuredly several bearing the name of priesthood - were cast down by the authority of the Apostolic See alone; of which thing even Acacius himself is shown to be a witness, who stood forth as the executor of this injunction. And just as it is manifest that the Apostolic See did this according to the synodal form, so it is most certain that no one could resist it. In this way, therefore, falling back into the fellowship of the condemned, Acacius was condemned, by which he had executed the condemnation of those very men before he became a prevaricator. 6. They have dared to make mention of the canons to us - against which they are shown always to have gone by ever pursuing illicit ambitions. By what synod, or according to the form of what synod, did they expel John the Alexandrian from the church to which he had been ordained? Who, by no evident causes, could neither before be convicted, nor afterward, when appealing, be accused even in a competent court. But if they say, "the emperor did this" - by what canons, by what rules was this very thing enjoined? Why did Acacius consent to so depraved a deed, when divine authority says: [Titus 3] "Not only those who do depraved things are guilty, but also those who consent to those doing them"? By what canons or by what rules was Calendio excluded, or the foremost catholic priests of the various cities? By what tradition of the elders do they summon the Apostolic See to judgment? Or ought the bishops of the second and third see and the rest of the priests, well conscious of right within themselves, to have been driven out, and ought he who stood forth as the enemy of religion not to have been driven out? Let them see, then, whether they have other canons by which they may carry out their follies. But as for these canons, which are celebrated as sacred, as ecclesiastical, as legitimate - not only can they not summon the Apostolic See to judgment [...]: and ought the bishop of the city of Constantinople, which assuredly through the canons received no name among the sees, falling back into the communion of the faithless, not to have been removed? Or, those who are said to have lied to a man, the emperor, and those who are alleged to have injured the emperor, ought they to have been driven out; and ought not Acacius, offending against God - who is the highest and true emperor - and striving to mingle the sincere communion of the divine sacrament with the faithless, to have been excluded, according to the synod by which this faithlessness was condemned? But, willing or unwilling, by its judgment the ancient enactments of the canons are confirmed. But these religious and perfect men strive, namely, to snatch from the Apostolic See the power granted to it according to the canons, and contend to usurp it against the canons. O masters and guardians of the canons! It is in no way lawful for us to enter into combat with men of another communion, since divine Scripture proclaims: [Titus 3] "A heretical man, after a first and second correction, avoid, knowing that such a one is perverted, condemned by his own judgment." Behold, let them recognize that the heretic is condemned not only by another but also by his very self! 7. But this is exceedingly shameless, that they pretend Acacius asked for pardon, and that we proved difficult. Your brother, my son the illustrious man Andromachus, is a witness - who was also abundantly instructed by us to exhort Acacius to come to his senses, laying aside his obstinacy, and to return to the fellowship of the Apostolic See, and who testifies that under oath he dealt with him with great efforts, and that he could not be turned aside to those things which are right, as is proved by the outcome of events. Let proof certainly be produced of when he sent, when he asked for pardon, and promised that he would show his correction to us. Unless perhaps he had this mind, which we perceive his successors to have, namely that, even if he should ask for pardon, he would wish it to be granted to him in such a way that he would nonetheless persist in error: in which case assuredly he would seem not so much to be received by us, as we rather would be drawn over into his depravity. What guilt do they assert that they would confess before the contest? If there is guilt, assuredly it must be corrected. If they do not think it must be corrected, they declare the guilt falsely; unless - what is more unhappy - since they both confess the guilt and do not judge it must be corrected. 8. This too it pleased me to laugh at, that he says: "if it shall be necessary to ask for pardon"; supposing, namely, that he would then necessarily ask pardon for his sin, if we should grant him that he not cease to sin - nay rather, which God forbid, should bring it about that we too consent with him to sin. I know not among what prodigies of the world this utterance could be admitted. A fault from the past can be remitted, with correction without doubt following. For if henceforth perversity is allowed to remain, it is not the kindness of one remitting, but the flattery of one consenting. 9. It is no wonder if these men presume to blaspheme the see of the blessed apostle Peter, who either bear such monsters in their heart or pour them forth from their mouth, and moreover pronounce that we are proud, when the first see does not cease to offer them whatever there is of piety, while they trust that they can even subjugate it itself with an insolent spirit. But it is no wonder that men captive in mind do these things. Thus the frenzied are wont to consider as enemies, or to strike, any who treat them. Yet I ask of these men: the judgment which they put forward, where could it be conducted? Surely among themselves, so that the same men are enemies and witnesses and judges? But to such a judgment not even human affairs ought to be committed, much less the integrity of the divine law. If it is as much as pertains to religion, the sum of all judgment is owed to none but the Apostolic See according to the canons; if it is as much as pertains to the power of the world, that power ought to learn from the pontiffs and especially from the vicar of blessed Peter the things which are divine, not itself to judge those same things. Nor does anyone, however most powerful in the world - who nevertheless is a Christian - presume to claim this for himself, unless perhaps persecuting religion. Yet what would they say, if they were not in all things vanquished by their own documents? Let them therefore keep their follies to themselves, unless they come to their senses, rather considering that the voice of Christ is not superfluous, which asserted that the gates of hell would never prevail against the confession of the blessed apostle Peter. 10. Wherefore we do not fear that the apostolic sentence should be dissolved, which both the voice of Christ and the tradition of the elders and the authority of the canons confirm, so that it itself should always rather judge the whole Church. Let them consider rather - if there is any sense of religion in them - lest, in no way laying aside their depravity, they be condemned before God and men by the perpetual constitution of the Apostolic See. And it is said to have been thus defined; that henceforth nothing be said about the matter, as though even now - just as you know - I have judged that they should be specially addressed in my name. Nor plainly is an engagement to be entered upon with these men who do not correct themselves, just as combat is to be refused with the followers of other heresies as well. But we pray with continual vows that you may return here safe and sound as quickly as possible, by the favor of the Divinity.

* . sea Gelaaii papae commonitorium ad Faustum magistrum fungentem ^^'^^ ^' legationis offloio Constantinopoli. Quae a Graecis oijiciebanturt maxime vero quod Acacium praeter canones damna- tum esae obtendehtmt^ 0etimug refelHty ac sedis apostoHcae supremam vindicat Jurisdictionem. 1 . £go quoque mente percepi Graecos in sua obstinatione man- guros^ nec*) cui velut insperatmn videri potest, quod est in ante praecc^nitmn. Quapropter nqn^) tam propter religionis causas stu- dent dispositionibus publicis obviare, sed potius per occasionem legationis regiae catholicam fidem moliuntur evertere^ et tali com- mercio ^) nituntif^ sperata praestare. 2. Quid sibi vult autem, quod dixerit imperator, a nobis se fcligJQge^) damnatum^ cum super hac parte et decessor meus non notiBsiiua quam hoc loco aptiHsiiua niedium quemdam t'ont«m minime Bibi poslalafit. •) I* F» a* ne cui, moxque D* F«* F" 0* 0' inspiruium, b v^ d* quod est ante. «) Ita D* P* F» N* 0* a'; ahi editi (etiam d*) nonjam. Hinc apparet, impera- torem Theodorici respondisse legatis, seBC quominus ipsis concederet, quod iUi aid ItaUae utilitatem petebantt religionis, hoc est dissidii, quod Graecos inter et BomaaoB intercedebat, causis detineri. ') Ita d* d* cam mss., alii editi commento. Quae hic legatio regia, in epistola ■equeoti Ugatio pubKca appellatur: quae videhcet a Theodorico rege non eccle- ' naiBticae sed pablicae rei causa destinata erat. lu eo autem Gelasius Graecos tuipis eommercU arguit, quod eorum obtentu, quae legati sibi ab ipsis praestari petebant ad publicae rei commoditatem , ipsi sibi a Romanis vicissim concedi Tolebant, onde et fidei inferrent et religioni perniciem. (a. 493.) solum miniine nomen ejus attigerit, sed iusuper quando princiF^^ adeptus regiae potestatis exseruit^), in ejus se rescripsit imperii P''^. motione gaudere, et ego nulla ipsius unquam scripta percipieni^^ honorificis eum, ut nostis, litteris salutare curaverim? Decessore^ mei sacerdotes, qui praevaricatoribus se communicasse propria vocc eonfessi sunt, a communione apostolica submoverunt. Si^) isti p\a- cet se miscere damnatis, nobis non pot^^st imputari', si ab eis velit abscedere, tanto magis a nobis non potest esse damnatus^ sed potiYis ad gratiam sincerae communjonis admissus. Ad senatum vercper- tinet Romanum, ut memor fidei, qutun a parentibus se suscepisse meminit, contagia vitet communionis extemae^ ne a commnnione . hujus sedis apostolicae, quod absit, reddatur externus. 3. Veniam sibi dari debere') propdnunt. Legatur^ ex quo est religio Christiana, vel certe detur exemplum, in Eccle^ia Dei a qui- buslibet pontificibus, ab ipsis apostolis, ab ipso denique Salvatore veniam nisi corrigentibus^) fuisse concessam. Auditum autem sub isto coelo nec legitur omnino nec dicitur, quod eorum voce depro- mitur: Date nobis veniam, ui iamefi nos in errore duremus. Id quoque. parum^) est. Ostendant, qui nobis canones nituntur opponere: qui- bus hoc canonibus, quibus regulis, qua lectione, quove documento, sive a majoribus nostris, sive ab ipsis apostolis^ quos potiores me- rito fuisse non dubium est, seu ab ipso Domino Salvatore, qui judi- caturus creditur vivos et mortuos, sne factum est imquamy vd faciendum esse mandatur. Mortuos suscitasse legimus Christum, in errore mortuos absolvisse non legimus. Et qui certe*®) hoc faciendi solus habuit potesiitem, beato Petro principaliter mandat apostolo: Matth. Quae ligaveris super terram, ligata erunt et in coeliSj ei quae soherit ' ' super terram, soluta erunt et in coelo, Super terram, inquit; nam in' hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi. Quod ergo nun- quam factum est, vel mente concipere formidamus, scientes in di- rint. Ipse potius Anastasius se damnasse dicenduB est, quatenoB commumonein damnatam catholicae commuuioni praetulit, nec ab illa ullis monitiB etiaiiai observantia plenis deterreri valuit. Eamdem calumniam et adversuB STnuna* cLum, ut iu epistola ejus 10 n. 10 visuri summus, idem imperator insbui- ravit. ') Verbimi debeve, in cc omisauni, revocatur ex mss. Ab imi^eratore oot- ptub sermo nuuc ad ceteros damnatorum communioni addictos convertitur. j^^l vino judicio nou posse penitus excusari. Si autem^ quod nuuc prae- (a. 49S.) ^i^y^f tendunt, a Bomana se ecclesia divisuri^^) suut; id jam dudum fecisse monstrantur. 4. Euphemius*^) vero miror, si ignorantiam suam ipse nou perapicit, qui dicit Acacium ab uno uou potuisse damnari. Itane non perspicit, secundum formam synodi Calchedonensis Acacium fiuisse damnatum? Nec^^) novit, aut se nosse dissimulat? In qua utiqae per numerosam sententiam sacerdotum erroris hujus auctores constsd fuisse damnatos; sicut in umiquaque haeresi a priucipio Chhstianae religionis et factum fuisse et fieri, manifesta rerum ra- tione monstratur^ decessoremque* raeum exsecutorem fuisse veteris constituti**), non novae constitutionis auctorem. Quod non solum praesuli apostolico facere licet sed cuicunque pontifici, ut^-*) quos- Jibet et quemlibet locum secimdum regulara haereseos ipsius ante damnatae a catholica communione discernant. Acacius quip])^ non fuit novi vel proprii inveutor erroris, ut in eimi nova scita proce- df^rent '*^), sed alieno facinori sua conimimione se miscuit. Itaque necesse est, ut in illam reciderit justa lance sententiam, quara cum suis successoribus per convenientiam^^) synodalera susceperat auctor eiToris. 5. Nobis oppouunt canones, dura nesciunt quid loquantur. «*) Ita 0* 0« c«; D' D^ D^ D* d^ se dwisuros ecclesiae (D^ F'^ F'" se ccclesia divi- r>, D* D*' se excisuros ecclesia hoc quod jam; d* sc ccclcsia excisuros; hoc Jam; editi eccletia te sunt divisuri. Tum K^ fuisse monstrantur. «» ) N' Euphimium, D« F'» F™ Eufimius, D' //eophimius. ^^ Editi (exceptiH d* d') nec novit eam^ nuUo niB. ButiVagante. N(?que vero Eapheniirus dissimulabat, se nosse aynodum Calchedouenseni , quam propu^a- bat, sed dissimulabat, se noBse, Acacium secundum hujus synodi formam fuisse damnatuin. Ex hoc loco augurari licet, Euph(uuii luijus potissimum esse objecta, qoae Gelaaiua variis in scriptis dihiit, illumque eorum, qui hitam adversus Aca- ciom «ententiam irritam volebant, ducem exstitisse. ^») D« D^ 0' O^ (K>?) V ut (deest in V) quos liccl ut (V et) quemlibet; D« D» F* F* N* ^uos licet quemtibet^ 0'* quo scilicet quemlibet , D* quos scilicet quemlibet se- cmmfiMM expuncto postera mauu locum, sicut et d' et quemlibet locum sujij^ressit, et mox damnaios scripsit (N' damna). 0' cnicunque quoslibet quemlibet locum. «•) Sic meliores^msB. cum d' d«; N^ D» D« i,,Pith. Reif. olim s. Petri Pictav:') D» prmecedereni , editi prodirent. His concinit et Gratianus, qui totum hunc locum «nopte ingenio c. 1 C. 24 qu. 1 summatim perstrinxit. *») K* {^fHemigianus''^) b per conniventiam, mal«. O' {,,Remensis**) per conven- tionem. Hoe sibi vult; ciun erroris auctore ejusdem etiam successores et asse- clas conunmii sjnodi sententia fuisse perculsos. Simih loqueudi ratione FeUx 11 epiflt. 17 n. 4 cavere se ait, ne in successoribus haereticorum reparasse videatur, quod in eorwn, auctoribus certum est fuisse damnatum. (a. 493.) Contra quos hoc ipso venire se produnt^ quod primae sedi sana rectaque suadenti parere refugiunt. Ipsi sunt canones^ qui appella- tiones totius Ecclesiae ad hujus sedis examen voluere defeni, ab ipsa vero nusquam prorsus appellari debere sanxerunt. Ae per boc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare^ ipsam ad nullius commeare judicimny nec de ejus unquam praeceperunt *^) judicio judicari^ sententiamque illius constituerunt non oportere dissolvi; cujus potius sequenda de- creta mandarunt. In hac ipsa causa Timotheus Alexandrinus et Petrus Antiochenus, Petrus^®), Paulus, Johannes et ceteri , non solum unuS; sed plures utique nomen sacerdotii praeferentes, sola sedis apostolicae sunt auctoritate dejecti; cujus rei testis etiam ipee docetur Acacius^ qui praeceptionis hujus exstitit exsecutor. Quod utique sicut apostolicam sedem juxta formam synodicam fecisse ma- nifestum est^ sic neminem resultare potuisse certissimum. Hoc igi- tur modo recidens in consortium damnatorum est damnatus Acacius, quo eorum damnationem, antequam praevaricator exsisteret^ fuerat exsecutus. 6. Nobis ausi sunt canonum facere mentionem; conira quos semper^^) ambitionibus^ semper illicitis studendo isse monstrantur. Qua ipsi synodo vel secundimi cujus synodi formam Alexandrinum Johannem^*) de ecclesia, cui ordinatus fuerat, expulerunt? Qui nullis causis evidentibus nec ante convinci*'), nec postea proYOcans^ etdam in judicio competenti potuit accusari. Quod si dicunt: imperaiar hoc fecil\ hoc ipsum quibus canonibus, quibus regulis est praece- ptum? Cur huic tam pravo facto consensit Acacius, quum auctoritas <^) 2|3(D^D*'?) receperuni. GelaBius hoc loco SardicensiB synodi canonsi 4 et 6 memorat. '^) d' hinc removit voces Petrus Paulusy quamvis exsistant in onuiibiiB wi^, Hic maxime respicere videtur Gelasius ad Simplicii epist. 7 n. 2, ubi pontifex Acacio nomina eorum recenset, quos suggestione ipsius Acacii in exBiliam pel- lendoB judicabat, inter quos memoratur Paulus Ephesiis ordinatos, sicut et ceieEi hic nominati praeter alterum Petrum ; hunc autem intelligimus Timothei Aelmi sociimi ac successorem, quem ideo ceteris adjiciendum duxerit GelasioB, qoia et ipsum postea Acacius Simplicii jussis obsecutus ejiciendum curavit. — Deinde pd pm yi qZ qjiQ^ jjjii q^^i corum damnationem. *') Qui Talaja cognominatus est, qui videlicet, Alezandria ezpulBOB, ■edeni apostolicam appelavit ac Felici libellum adversus Acacium obtulit. *') 0' 0' 0* conventus nec posiea provocaius. divijaa dicat : Non soium qui faciunt prava reos esse, sed et qui con- (a. 493.) seniiuni /acientibus, Quibu3 canonibus^^) quibusve regulis^Calendion ^™- exclusus est^ yel primi urbium diversarum catholici sacerdotes? Qua ' traditioiie majorum apostolicam sedem in judicium vocant? An se- cimdae sedis antistites et tertiae ceterique bene sibi conscii sacer- dotes depelli debuerant^ et qui exstitit religionis inimicuS; depelli non debuit? Yiderint ergo^ si alios habent canones^ quibus suas in- eptias exsequantur. Ceterum isti^ qui sacri^ qui ecclesiastici^ qui legitimi celebrantur, non^^) solum sedem apostolicam ad judicium Tocare non possunt . . . : et Constantinopolitanae civitatis episcopus^ quae utique per canones inter sedes nullum nomen^^) accepit^ in communionem recidens perfidorum, non debuit submoveri? An, qui homini mentitus^) dicitur imperatori^ et qui imperatorem laesisse perhibentur^ depelli debuerunt: et in Deum, qui summus et verus est imperator, Acacium delinquentem sinceramque communionem dirini *^) sacramenti studentem miscere cum perfidis, secundum sy^ nodum^ qua haec est damnata perfidia; non oportebat exchidi? Sed Telint nolint^ ipsius^^) judicio antiqua canonum constituta firman- tar. Sed Tiri religiosi atque perfecti^ secundum canones concessam ••) a canonici corrupte. Locum ipBum illuBtrant haec Felicis II epist. 11 n. 5: Qui (Acadaa) Calendione episcopo nuper ejecto, Petrum toties et a se anie damna- im ejus misii ecclesiam, ita ut piurimi, si verum est, catholici cesserini relictis sedibuM saeerdotes. Hi vero a Theophane pag. 207 recensentur: Nestor Tar- CyruB Hierapolitanua , Johannes EyreBtenBiB, RomanuB ChalcydiB, Euse- SamosatenuB, Julianus Mopsvestenus , Paulus Constantinae , Manus Heme- seu Himeriae, Andreas Theodosioi^olis episcopi. ••) Ita omnes mss. (etiam F** F™ 0' V) c' d* d*, quod indicio est, nonnihil desiderandmn esse, etsi in mss. nuUa lacuna notetur. Ed. al. suppresserunt 9on soium. Mmt, h. e. Bomanam, Alexandri£am et Antiochenam. ••) d* d* mentiti dicuntur imperatori et qui imperaiorem laesisse perhibentur: relnctaniibuB omnibus aliis libris et historiae veritate. Nam solus Johannes Ta- laja mendacii arguebatur, eumque Zeno hoc obtentu deponi jussit, quod se Ju- reJMrando ohstrinxisset , nunquam se Alexandrinam sedem affectaturum, ut loquitur £Tagriu8 lib. 3 cap. 12. Quocirca Simplicius epist. 18 n. 2 redditam sibi testa- tur imperatoris sacram , in qua Johannem tamquam perjurii reum sacerdotio per- Mbe^ indignum. Ceteros autem episcopos superius not. 23 nominatos idem im- perator spede quidem collati in tyrannos favoris, sed revera Ilenotici ab iis rejecti cmmMa digniiate amoveri jussit^ ut notat Theophanes pag. 207. Quocirca hi impe- ntorem dicebantur laesisse, quatenus Illi Leontiique rebellioni favisse praeten- debantar. ^ Hujofl scOicet indicium ac testimonium est pubUca nominis Petri damnati in eo altari recitatio, in quo divinum sacramentum peragi£ur. (a.493.)sedi apostolieae pot^statem niminim conantur eripere, et sibimet Tit- 3, eam contrft canones usurpare contendunt. 0 canonom magistios ' atque custodes ! Nobis nulliun fas est inire certamen ciim hominibus communionis alienae^ divina Scriptura praedicante: Hominem haere' ticum post primam et secundam correptionem devita, sciens quod kuju^ modi delinquat, proprio judicio condemnatus, Ecce coguoscant, quia non solum ab alio sed a se quoque ipso damnetur haereticus! 7. Illud autem nimis est impudens^ quod Acacium veniam pasiuiasse coniingimt, et nos exstitisse difficiles, Testis est frater vester, filiiu meus vir illustris '^^) Andromachus, qui et a nobis abimdanter in- structus est, ut cohortaretur Acaciiun deposita obstinatione resipi- scere et ad sedis apostolicae remeare consortium, quique se sab jurejurando magnis**") cum eodem molitionibus egisse testatar^ nec ad ea quae recta sunt potuisse deflecti, sicut rerum probatur eflfecta. Certe proferatur indicium, quando miserit, quando veniam postalariti correctionemque suam nobis promiserit exhibendam. Nisi forte hanc animum gessit, quem successores ejus habere perspicimus, ut*^) ta- men, etsi'veniam postularet, sic sibi vellet impendi, ut nihilominos in errore persisteret: ubi utique non tam a nobis recipi videretaTi quam nos potius in suam traduceret pravitatem. Quem reatwn se confessuros asserunt ante certamen? Si reatus est, utique corrigen- ' dus est. Si corrigendum non putant, fallaeiter se reatum perhibent**) \ tiqua canonum conslilutione (0- instituiione) firmabuntur. D' ipsius . . . cowstUutione i mahuntur. F<* F" d' d* ipsius judicin (F** F"" judici) antiqua canonum firmantur (D' F<* F"» N' firmentur). In editis aliis, ipsius judicio antiquae constitutiones firmabuntur. Hoc Bibi viilt Gelasius: vetera canonuin cODstitaia, qm- biis Hupra n. 4 in unaquaque haeresi a principio Christianae religionis fachim /Unff dicebat, ut una cum haeresis auctoribus eorum etiam successores condemiyir rentur, ipsius Calchedonensis synodi firmata esse judicio, adeoque et eo rpsb damnatam esse Acacii perfidiam. *'^) In mss. inluster vel inlustris, quemadmodum et in antiqiiis diplomatibQi eadem vox pingi solet. Is putatur Andromachus LupercaHorum defeusDr, adveiBOB quem exstat Gelasii tract. VI. Barouius autem illud a nohis abundanter inMtructms ttt \ interpretatur a sede apostolica-, ratus Gehisium id per so praestare non potoiaBei quum antequam pontifex crearetur, Acacius vita excessisaet. Sed quid obst»- bat, quominus vivente Felice id etiiun per se praestaret, maxime quum in renui ecclesiasticarum partem, ut observavimus , vocatus esset? Non est tameu pror> : 8U8 respuenda eruditi cardinalis explicatio, modo nec rejiciatur altera. Ceto- ' rum et ipsi FeHci in neganda venia pertinaciam objecerimt Graeci. Quapropte is papa epist. 14 n. 3, seu ejus nomine Gelasius, rescripsit: non sumus peTrtinmte$, \ sed dogmata paterna defendimus. ^') Sic cum N^ d* corroximus, quum D* D^ D' ut tam tos *i, D* tawiem m i^ reliqui (F-* F"» 0' V et D" sec. cur.) sicut editi tamen si, d* ut tametsi. •*) d' inserit non, minus recte. — In seqaentibuB ad pereonam £iiph< (n. 4) revertitur. EPI8T0LA 10. 347 i ; nisi, quod est infelicius, quum et fatentur reatum, et iion (a. 493.) aestimant corrigendum. 8. IUud quoque me ridere libuit, quod ait: si neces^se fuerit veniam posttdare; existimans nimirum, tunc se peccati veniam ne- cesaario^) postulare, si ei concedamus ne peccare desistat, immo effciam, quod absit, cum eodem consentiamus nos quoque peccare. Nescio, inter quae mundi prodigia haec vox possit admitti. Remitti culpa de praeterito potest, correctione sine dubio subsequente. Nam si deiiiceps sinitur^*) mansura perversitas, iion est benignitas remit- tentis^ sed consentientis assentatio. ^^) 9. Non est mirum, si isti sedem beati Petri apostoli blasphe- mare praesumimt, qui talia portenta vel corde gerunt vel ore difftm- dnnt^ et nos insuper superbos esse pronuntitint, quum eis prima sedes^ quidquid est pietatis, non desistat^®) offerre, illi etiam ipsain protervo spiritu subjugare se posse confidant. Sed captos mente facere ista non mirum est. Sic phrenetici solent niedicantes quos- que vel hostes putare vel caedere. Quaero tamen ab his, Judi- Ciwn quod praetendunt, ubinam possit agitari: au apud ipsos, ut iidem sint inimici et testes et judices? Sed tali judicio nec humana debent committi negotia, nedum divinae legis integritas. Si quan- tum ad religionem pertinet, non nisi apostolicae sedi juxta eanones debetur summa judi^ii totius; si quantum ad saeculi potestatem, illa'^) a pontificibus et praecipue a beati Petri vicario debet cogno- Bcere^ quae divina sunt, non ipsa eadem judicare. Nec sibi^^) hoc q^oisquam potentissimus saeculi, qui tamen Christianus est^ vindicare praesumit^ nisi religionem forsitan persequens. Quid tameii dice- rent^ si non chartis suis in omnibus vincerentur? Ineptias itaque fluas sibi servent, nisi resipiscant, potius cogitantes Ohristi vocem non esse superfluam, quae confessioni beati Petri apostoli inferni^^' • porias nunquam praevalituras asseruit. 10. Quapropter non veremur, ne apostolica sententia resolva- •■) D' omittit necessario, moxque a sic ei, Paulo antea piurior esaet oratio: mi^ se $i nectsse fueril eic, ^ i. e. permitHtur permanere. c^ c» c*<> finitur, D' D» D« D'^ F^* F"» a fingitur, ••i Ita D« F*» F™ 0» V c' d' d«; c^ c« c"^ resistat. Moxque lectionem D^ secuti raxnus, quum alii mss. D F<* F" V d* illi eliam ipso, O' ot oditi il/i cam ipso (d* omitt. ipso). Deindo d' phrenetici quique, cc veint /tosics. ") N* ille ... non ipse. Moxque b cognosci, praeter fidem librorum omnium et tententiam ipains Gelasii; cf. ep. 12 n.2 et 3. Eadem mente ad Zenonem FelixII epiBt. 8 n. 5 jam scripserat: Puto autem, quod pietas tua ... ita humanarum sibi re- nan fatHgUtm naverit esse commissum, ut tamen ea, quae divina sunt, per dispensa- tcres divinUua aiiributos percipienda non ambigat, (a. 493.)tur, quam^) et vox Christi et majorum traditio et canonum fu" auctoritas, ut totam potius Ecclesiam semper ipsa dijudicet. cogitent ' magis^ si quis iu eis religionis est sensus, ne pravitatei^ suam nullatenus deponentes, apud Deum hominesque sedis aposto^^ licae perpetua constitutione damnentur. Sic autem dicitor fuiss^^ diffinitum; ut deinceps de negotio nihil dicatur, quasi vel nunc eos^ «r quemadmodum nostis, meo duxerim nomine specialiter alloquendoe. -^ Neque plane cum istis non corrigentibus ineimda congressio, quem- admodum cum aliarum quoque haeresum sectatoribus dimicatio re- nuenda. Vos^^) autem salvos et sospites quantocius huc revertd, continuis Divinitatem yotis expetimus, ■