Letter 31: Gelasius expresses great surprise that his correspondents are treating as a new and difficult question what he...

To his most beloved brothers, all the bishops established throughout Dardania, Gelasius. 1. We have wondered greatly that your charity desires to know, as though it were a new and seemingly difficult question, and as yet something unheard of, why the communicants of the Eutychian plague, having nothing to answer for the obstinacy of their own perdition, now convicted by frequent reasoning, mutter only out of contentiousness: not because what they prattle is of any importance, but because they find nothing at all to say. Here we marvel the more that those who have been instructed in catholic sentiments still cling to this, than that those who have fallen away from the truth and have strayed from the ancient tradition of the Church should hold out profane novelties of words and the follies of a perishing perversity: whereby, as your charity has reported, they keep boasting that Acacius is therefore not to be thought justly condemned, because he does not appear to have been deposed by a special synod, and over and above this they childishly heap up the madness of their own vanity, adding: especially the pontiff of the royal city. Wherefore, spurning the foolishness of empty complaints, you ought to run through the record from the blessed apostles themselves and to consider prudently that our fathers, namely the catholic and learned pontiffs, in each heresy raised up at any time, whatever they sanctioned for the faith, for the truth, for catholic and apostolic communion, in accordance with the path of the Scriptures and the preaching of our forebears, once a council had been gathered, willed thereafter to stand unshaken and firm, and did not permit, in that same case, that what had been settled should again be reopened by any recent presumption: most wisely foreseeing that, if it were permitted to anyone to repeat decrees made for salvation, no constitution of the Church against each and every error would stand firm, and every settled definition would always be disturbed by the same recurring furies. For if, even when the boundaries of synodal rules once laid down have been fixed, the shattered plagues do not cease to lift themselves up again with renewed contests against the foundation of the truth and to strike all the simple hearts: what would happen if it were thereupon permitted to the faithless to enter into a council, when, however manifest that truth may be, falsehood never lacks something pernicious to bring forth, even if it be deficient in reason or authority, yet never yielding in mere intention? 2. Our forebears, perceiving these things by divine inspiration, necessarily took precaution that whatever a synod, once held, had promulgated against any heresy for the faith, for communion, for catholic and apostolic truth, they should not allow to be mutilated by new reopenings after these things, lest occasion should be given to the wicked of overturning what had been established as a remedy; but, with the author of any madness, and likewise the error itself, condemned, they judged it sufficient that whoever should at any time prove to be a communicant of this error should be bound by the principal sentence of his condemnation; since anyone might manifestly be recognized either by his own profession or by his communion. And to pass over earlier matters for the sake of brevity, which a diligent inquirer will easily be able to trace: the synod condemned Sabellius, nor was it necessary that, in order that his followers should afterward be condemned, individual synods should be celebrated man by man, but by the tenor of the ancient constitution the universal Church judged that all who proved to be partakers either of his depravity or of his communion should be repudiated. So, on account of the blasphemies of Arius, the form of the faith and of catholic communion having been set forth by the Council of Nicaea, it concluded, without reopening, that all the Arians, or whoever should fall into this plague either by consent or by communion, should be condemned. So the synod, once held, condemning Eunomius, Macedonius, and Nestorius, did not permit recourse to new councils any further, but the Church repudiated, by the synodal boundary handed down to it, all who in any manner whatsoever fell back into these blasphemies; nor is it ever manifest that it rightly yielded, under the compulsion of any necessity, so as to profane by new presumption what had been salutarily established. Nor does it escape us that in the storm of the Arian persecution very many pontiffs, breathing again from exile once peace had been restored, throughout certain provinces, with their brethren gathered together, composed the churches that had been disturbed; yet not so as to change whatever that Council of Nicaea had defined concerning the faith and catholic communion, nor to strike down with a new condemnation anyone who had lapsed, but by the tenor of that decree they judged him condemned unless he had recovered his senses, and it was consequent that, unless he corrected himself, he would without doubt be subject to condemnation. 3. These things having been duly weighed, as has been said, from the paternal tradition, we are confident that no one who is now truly a Christian is ignorant that the constitution of each and every synod, which the assent of the universal Church has approved, no see ought to carry out more than the rest, than the first, which both confirms each synod by its own authority and guards it with continued moderation, on account, namely, of its own primacy, which the blessed apostle Peter received by the voice of the Lord, the Church nonetheless following, and has both always held and retains. While this see had ascertained by sure indications that Acacius had withdrawn from the truth, not believing this for a longer time, inasmuch as it had known him to have been an executor of its necessary disposition against the heretics, for nearly three years, with letters sent, it did not cease to admonish the same man, as the writings dispatched familiarly through various persons testify. To these he at first, proposing in a fixed silence to make no reply, finally at some point, with letters sent, professed that he had been mingled in communion with Peter of Alexandria, whom, as executor of the apostolic see at its request, he himself too had condemned, without the cognizance of the apostolic see. But the see of blessed Peter, which knew that it had condemned Peter of Alexandria only and had not absolved him, did not receive this; and therefore, lest through Acacius it should be drawn into fellowship with Peter as well, it removed him too from its own communion, and by many bonds rendered the transgressor alien from its own society. 4. Here, if an examination is sought, there was now no need of a judgment, after he himself had confessed by his own letters. If the weight of authority is inquired into, by the tenor of the Council of Chalcedon the execution of that definition is found, whereby, having become the communicant of the error there condemned, he nonetheless proved to be a partaker of the prefixed condemnation; since the same error which has once been condemned together with its author carries, in any partaker whatsoever who has become party to a depraved communion, both the execration and the penalty of it. By this tenor Timothy too, and Peter of Alexandria himself, who were seen to have certainly held the second see, are shown to have been condemned, the synod not being repeated but by the authority of the apostolic see alone, Acacius himself also requesting or carrying it out. 5. But if perhaps it should be said that it ought to be established whether Acacius communicated with error or with prevarication, we briefly furnish a response to this: either let them themselves show that Peter was truly and lawfully purged and rightly separated from all contagion of the heretics, when Acacius communicated with him, if they think Acacius his communicant is in any way to be excused; or, if (what is more true) they have not lawfully and fittingly proved Peter to have been expiated, it remains that, by his unexpiated state, the one too who communicated with him was infected. Nor do we keep silent about what the whole Church throughout the world knows: that the see of blessed Peter the apostle has the right of loosing what has been bound by the sentences of any pontiffs whatsoever, inasmuch as it has the right of judging concerning the whole Church, nor is it permitted to anyone to judge concerning its judgment; since the canons have willed that appeal be made to it from any part of the world, but from it no one is permitted to appeal. Wherefore it is sufficiently established that Acacius had no pontifical right of loosing the sentence of the apostolic see without any cognizance of it. By what synod, certainly, did that man presume this, which not even thus would he have it lawful to do without the apostolic see? Bishop of what see? Pontiff of what metropolitan city? Was it not of the parish of the church of Heraclea? If it was indeed permitted to him, without a synod, to break the sentence of the apostolic see, no consultation of it having been sought, was it then truly not permitted to the first see, executing the constitutions of the Council of Chalcedon as was fitting, to thrust down such a prevaricator by its own authority? But neither do we pass over this, that the apostolic see has frequently, as has been said, in the manner of our forebears, even without any preceding synod, had the power both of loosing those whom a synod had unjustly condemned, and of condemning, no synod existing, those whom it behooved. For the Eastern synod had adjudged Athanasius of holy memory, whom nonetheless, excepted, the apostolic see absolved, because it did not consent to the condemnation by the Greeks. Likewise the synod, even of catholic prelates, had certainly condemned John of Constantinople of holy memory, whom in like manner the apostolic see, even alone, because it did not consent, absolved. And likewise it absolved Flavian, pontiff of holy memory, condemned by an assembly of the Greeks, by like tenor, because the apostolic see alone did not consent; and rather, by its own authority, it condemned Dioscorus, prelate of the second see, who had there been received, and by not consenting it alone removed the impious synod, and alone decreed, for the truth, that the Council of Chalcedon should be held. In which, therefore, it alone had the right of absolving those whom the synodical decrees had struck down; so also without a synod, in this same case, it is known to have condemned many even metropolitans. [7.] But if anyone reprehends these things done by the apostolic see, or done in accordance with the synod, besides that he is convicted by the ancient proof of the matter, in the meantime he will much more confess that it was not permitted to Acacius. Let him say, then, by what synod he judged that the prelate of the second see, of whatever sort, but certainly catholic and ordained by catholics, nor in any way impeached concerning the catholic faith and communion, should be excluded; and that Peter, a manifest heretic, condemned also by his own execution, should be substituted for a catholic pontiff. By what synod did he have Calendion, bishop of the third see, expelled, and nonetheless suffered, by his own disposition, that Peter, so manifest a heretic that he openly pretended not even to communicate with him, should be substituted for him? By what synod, finally, throughout the whole East, with the orthodox cast out, stained by no crime, did he, by his own provision, put under everyone who was depraved and involved in crimes? By what synod did the abominable plunderer invade so many privileges belonging to others? But books would not suffice, if we should endeavor to write out one by one the tragedies of his which he enacted throughout the churches of the whole East. 8. Do they think that this argument of his is to be opposed to us, that he tried to cast his own crimes upon the imperial person? Why did the same man, when he wished, withstand the tyrant Basiliscus, certainly a heretic also and vehemently hostile? Why did he not subordinate his own will to the emperor Zeno himself, since he refused openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch? Behold, he was able to resist in other matters, if he wished. Does not the apostle say: not only those who do, but also those who consent to the doers, are alike entangled by the same guilt? But, to omit those things which are to be explained more at length, what of the fact that Zeno the emperor himself professes by his own letters that he had done all things by the counsel of Acacius, nor does Acacius himself testify by his own letters that this deceives him, who both wrote that he had done all things rightly nonetheless, and did not keep silent that these same deeds were done by his own counsel! As though indeed Acacius proved a prevaricator only in the communion of Peter of Alexandria, and not in all those whom either he caused, the catholic pontiffs having been driven out, to be set, like a tyrant, over whatever churches, or with whom, when thus set up, he was mingled in perverse communion, those who by this very fact were, according to the canons, to be expelled from ecclesiastical communion, in that they suffered themselves to be associated as successors while the priests were still living! And who that is a Christian would not perceive that, the catholic pontiffs having been cast down from their own see, none but heretics could be brought in? With all of whom Acacius was either the author of their being substituted, or, when they were substituted, he came as their communicant, with these, namely, who in no way differed from the communion of heretics. Why then, even when he saw these things being done, did he not, as he had already done under Basiliscus, take care to refer them to the apostolic see, so that, if he himself alone could not avail, the things befitting religion might, with counsels and discussions joined with the same see, be set forth before the emperor? For if Basiliscus, as has been said, a tyrant and a heretic, was vehemently broken by the writings of the apostolic see and recalled by many from his excesses, how much more could the lawful emperor, who wished to seem catholic, have been mollified, together with the apostolic see, by the moderate suggestion also of all the pontiffs: especially since he was the special favorer and lover of the same Acacius, and was shown by his own letters to have extolled with great praises both Acacius himself and Pope Simplicius of holy memory, because they had most steadfastly resisted the heretic? Why did Acacius keep silent so long amid these matters, unless because he in no way wished to be hindered in what he desired to be fulfilled? 9. Let us suppose, however, that even if no synod had preceded, of which the apostolic see might rightly become the executrix, with whom was a synod concerning Acacius to be entered upon? Was it with these, who were already held partakers with Acacius, and, throughout the whole East, with the catholic priests violently shut out and relegated to various exiles, were evidently associates of external communion, transferring themselves to these fellowships before they consulted the decrees of the apostolic see? With whom, then, was a synod to be entered upon? The catholic pontiffs had everywhere already been driven out, and there remained only the associates of the faithless, with whom now it was not even permitted to hold an assembly, the psalm saying: I have not sat in the council of vanity, and with those who do iniquity I will not go in. Nor was it of ecclesiastical custom to mingle a council with these who have a communion polluted and intermixed with the faithless. Rightly, therefore, by the form of the Council of Chalcedon, this prevarication was repelled, rather than that it was brought to a council, which neither was there need to hold after the first synod nor was it permitted to hold with such men. For they could not be ignorant of what was being done concerning the catholic faith, if they were willing to understand it, when they saw the catholic pontiffs, with no discussion of a synod, with no council, especially when they should weigh that the causes were new, being driven out throughout the whole East; and the rest could discern from the character of those men what they should beware of. It remains, therefore, that it is clear they were of that party, to which they gave themselves over after so many proofs, and that deservedly they were now not to be consulted by the apostolic see and the rest of the catholics, but rather to be marked. 10. We have laughed, moreover, that they wish a prerogative to be procured for Acacius, because he was bishop of the royal city. Did not the emperor at many times reside at Milan, at Ravenna, at Sirmium, at Trier? Did the priests of these cities usurp anything for their own dignities beyond the measure of old allotted to them? Did Acacius, in order to exclude John from Alexandria, any man whatsoever, yet catholic and ordained by catholics, and to receive Peter, already detected in heresy and condemned, without consultation of the apostolic see, presume to seize this boldly, with at least some synod held there; or, in order to drive Calendion from Antioch and again to admit the heretic Peter, whom he himself had condemned, without the cognizance of the apostolic see, is he shown to have done this by any synod? If indeed it is a question of the dignity of cities, the dignity of the priests of the second and third see is greater than that of his city, which is not only not numbered among the sees, but is not even reckoned among the rights of metropolitans. For as to what you say of the royal city, the power of the secular kingdom is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities another. For just as, however small, a city does not diminish the prerogative of the present kingdom, so the imperial presence does not change the measure of religious dispensation. Let that city be illustrious by the power of the present empire, religion under the same is then firm, then free, then advanced, if rather, with it present, it holds its own measure without any disturbance. 11. But let it perhaps be said of Alexandria and Antioch that, for certain causes, the prince rather, not Acacius, commanded those things which were done. But it would have befitted a Christian prince to suggest the priest, especially him by whose familiarity and favor he enjoyed, that the vindication of his injury and insult would be safe, only on condition that the Christian prince should allow the rules of the Church to be guarded, since a new case had arisen in both pontiffs, and would consequently demand a new discussion. And, as it had always been effected, judgments concerning priests should proceed from a priestly council, lest priests of whatever sort, even if with error humanly occurring, yet not exceeding against religion in any way, should be seen to be struck down by a secular power. Were not these just things to be suggested to the prince? Sublime in the honor of the royal city, if he had become loftier than that royal city, so much the more in these matters to be suggested ought he to have been more steadfast. But if in these things which were to be put forth for religion he proved contemptible and despised, and either slothful or not having the confidence to make them known, in what was he made greater through the royal city? Nathan the prophet openly and publicly, to the face of King David, announced the error committed, and did not keep silent that he had committed it, and, when he was corrected by confession, consequently absolved him. But this good man and excellent priest showed himself to such a degree both able to suggest and proved himself unwilling, nay rather disclosed himself to have favored, that the emperor both did not keep silent that he had done all things by his counsel, and he himself extolled the emperor with great praises when he did these things, and betrayed himself to have been a partaker in these deeds being done. 12. But be it so: let Calendion have removed the name of the emperor, let John be accused of having lied to the prince: yet, since these were new causes, a new ecclesiastical discussion ought to have arisen. Or, those who were said to have sinned against a man, the emperor, ought they to have been deposed with no synod intervening; and against God, who is the supreme and true emperor, ought not Acacius, offending 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 has been condemned? What of the catholic priests driven from innumerable cities throughout the whole East, and the heretics substituted? Certainly the causes were new, and consequently a new synod was owed to these. Why did it not then come to mind that, in such causes, at least some synod should be sought from the prince to be celebrated, so that, by whatever colored judgment of the ecclesiastical tradition the pontiffs were being everywhere seen to be excluded, not only the priests of whatever cities, but the metropolitan prelates also without delay? In all these matters, when he did not resist by the suggestion that he could have made, Acacius consented, communicating with all who had been substituted as heretics in the place of catholics. But the apostle says that not only those who do, but also those who consent to the doers, are without doubt to be enrolled as guilty. Was it permitted, then, to the secular power, and, with Acacius consenting to such deeds, without any synod (which the very novelty of the matter demanded), without consultation of the apostolic see, to accomplish these things; and was it not permitted to the apostolic see, according to the tenor of the Council of Chalcedon, in an old case indeed and an old constitution, the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon having been condemned by a just definition, to expel Acacius, communicating with them, from its own communion? 13. But Acacius, they say, could not oppose the princes. Why did he oppose Basiliscus, because he wished? Why did he not lend his assent to Zeno himself, lest he should be seen openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch, although he did this secretly? Behold, the emperor did not resist him resisting, behold, he did not bring force upon him unwilling, behold, he granted manifest contagions to him refusing them; finally, why, for so long a time, when these things were being done or he learned they were to be done, did he not take care to refer them to the apostolic see, by which he knew the care of those regions had been delegated to him? But he was made the praiser of the deeds before he either forewarned that such things were to be attempted, or resisted lest they should be attempted, as he had already done under Basiliscus. Why did he consent to communicate with those others, who, the catholic priests having been driven out, had without doubt been substituted as heretics in the individual cities? Finally, if he himself failed in his own duties, and did not take care to do what would befit a catholic priest, did the apostolic see therefore have either the power or the duty to pass over what pertained to it? 14. In whatever manner, it repudiated the accomplice of the heretics, and removed the partaker of external communion from its own communion, nor was there need of a new synod, since the form of the old constitution sufficiently prescribed this; nor was it needful that these things to be done should be made known to the bishops of the East, who both, from the expulsion of catholics, which was carried on in the cause of the faith, it is manifest were not ignorant, and, by communicating with the substituted heretics, had consented to such a deed. Nor is there doubt that, being made partakers of external communion, and therefore with them now neither could nor should the decrees of the apostolic see be discussed. Behold, they acknowledged, among those who most steadfastly persevered in their profession, what was owed to the catholic faith and communion. Behold, they acknowledged in what manner, by withdrawing from such men, nay rather by contriving things contrary to such men, Acacius had deviated from the catholic faith and communion, and that they had together with him subjected themselves to error. Behold, they acknowledged for what just causes, for the catholic and apostolic faith and communion, to which both those who had stood firm in it were conformable, and those who opposed those standing firm were taught to be alien from the same, Acacius was removed by the authority of the apostolic see; and likewise, with him, whoever proved to be his accomplices; and that he was deservedly separated by that see from communion with these, from which he himself first, with his own consorts, is known to have separated himself by departing from the catholic pontiffs; and rightly that man received the sentence of condemnation, to be promulgated to the rest of his consorts, who alone, on behalf of all his consorts, professed by letters sent to the apostolic see that he had fallen back into communion of faithlessness. With whom, if the Eastern bishops had communicated before he referred the matter hither, they were certainly without doubt proved to be involved in like guilt, and rightly through him they received the sentence of transgression, as having been made, together with him, of external communion. Who certainly ought now not to be consulted as men of our communion, but to be repudiated as set in the opposite fellowship. But if they had not communicated before Acacius referred the matter hither, both they ought to have marked the one communicating, and they themselves rather to have referred concerning the same hither, and to have deservedly approved him as struck down by the vigor of the apostolic see, and to have held concord rather with that apostolic see and with those so many catholic pontiffs. But because they had departed from the fellowship of those men and had chosen to communicate with their successors, therefore they in no way were conformable with the apostolic see, because they had fallen into the lot of the prevaricator Acacius, and saw themselves without doubt to be consequently bound by his sentence. On this account they did not wish him to be seen condemned, because they knew themselves condemned in the same prevarication, in which they persist in remaining even today. But just as these, constrained by a like condition, cannot judge their own accomplice not to have been justly condemned, nor competently absolve the guilty as guilty; so, that prevaricator having been justly condemned, these too lie prostrate, struck by like condemnation, nor, unless they recover their senses, will they thereafter be able to be absolved at all: because, just as through one of them writing the transgression of them all was published, who had fallen back into the same action of faithlessness, so in one and the same man, who had written on behalf of all, or by writing had betrayed the wills of all, the transgression of all was punished. 16. We judge that these things suffice sufficiently and abundantly for the instruction of your charity, although we strive to set forth the same more at length, if the Lord shall grant the means: so that each of the faithful may both acknowledge that the apostolic see has decreed nothing precipitately, which God forbid. Yet that sentence dispatched against Acacius, even if it is proved to have been lawfully set forth only in the name of the apostolic prelate, of whose power it certainly was, especially since it appeared to be needing to be directed secretly, lest, with guards everywhere set out, the salutary disposition, hindered by any difficulties, should not be able to have its necessary effect: yet because, with the orthodox everywhere cast down and with the heretics only and their consorts now left behind, in the East the catholic pontiffs either were not at all remaining or held no liberty, the assembly of priests of the many catholics in Italy reasonably knew that the sentence had been set forth against Acacius. Which assembly of pontiffs convened not against the Council of Chalcedon, not as a new synod against the old and first, but rather, according to the tenor of the old constitution, was made a partaker of the apostolic execution: so that it may sufficiently appear that the catholic Church and the apostolic see, because it could no longer do so elsewhere at all, where it could and with whom it could, omitted nothing at all that pertained to fraternal concern for an undefiled and sincere communion.

Gelasii papae ad episcopos Dardaniae. a 496 d. i Febr. Batioiui*) reddendae: Acaoinm a eede apoitoUoa oompetenter ftdsM ^^«»m^*»»— p^j Dilectissimis^) fratribus universis episcopis per Dardaniam constitutis Gelasius. 1. Valde mirati sumuS; quod vestra dilectio quasi noTam et^ veiuti difficilem quuestionem et adhuc tamquam inauditum quidpiam nosse desideraty quod Eutychianae pestilentiae communicatores, uon habentes quod pro suae perditionis obstinatione respondeant, fre- . quenti jam ratione convicti^ misera^) conteutione sabmurmnrant; ; non quia sit alicujus momenti quod garriunt, sed quia non inve- ! ') X* professinnis ^ moxque Q* mis$am. Notandnm, qao pacto dicai Gelaaiai primo , basilicam ad cuHum processionis adduclam Beu praeparatam , deinde hmic cultum BiuipeDsum, quatenus suspensae sint miBsae, innuat; postremo eomdeii processionis cultum tuuc perfectum fore doceat, quum in basilica dedicata cimi misBarum celebritate integer huberi poterit populi conventus. Hinc enim proceMti»' nui voci quae potestas sit, intelligitur. N^c dubium videtur, quin ex more ?•- terum, quibus de sacria mysteriis aliter atque tectis verbis loqaendi religio erat, originem duxerit hic usus. Uaec ab actu autem, quo cleras ac popoloi ad illa celebranda procedebat, dicta sunt processio, quemadmodum a verbo, qoo fidelium coetus ab eorum celebratioue dimittebatur , ntissae seu missarum oomea o>)tinueruut. ') X' (/uorum. ') Ita D^. In DiD^F^^F^^N^ Incipit rationis ... damnaium; quiboB D< !)• d" addunt : nec posse tfucmquam sine disn-imine animae suae ejus communwnis partieipem fieri, Sub finem omues repetunt: Eaplicit rationis ... damnatum nec posse ... e/Jlri <) Ita mss. D 0 Nf, quibus favet Facuudus lib. 5 c. 4 epistolam isiam al univej-sis episropis pcr Darduniam constitutis scriptam hiudanB. Q* Q* Gelasuit epi' scopis Pardaniac, c*' c'" Gcla.sius cpiscopus urbis Homae ad Dardanon. In D* baeo et 8ui>eriu8 prima inscriptio deest, ita ut nec a quo nec ad quem data sit com- pareat. Unde forte factuni, ut llincmarus LaudimeusiB ejusmodi exemplari ostti, testimonium no.strae epistolae tiimquam cx cpistola Oelasii ad Amasiasiam prim- cipem laud(it. ■») c'»^'" omittunt ct, moxque F«» F"° N^ (D< 0') desiderans ... qM pro, 0* desideratis. BPISTOLAE 26. 26. 393 nimit penitiis, quid loquantur. Ubi magis eos^ qui eatholicis sensi- a. 495. bus institnti sunt^ adhuc haerere miramur^); quam illos^ qui a veri- tate exciderunt et ab antiqua Ecclesiae traditione sunt devii, pro- fanas vocum novitates et ineptias caducae perversitatis obtendere: qnibus eos vestra dilectio retulit jactitare, ideo Acacium^) non puiare jure damnaium, quod non speciali synodo videaiur fuisse dejecius; et insnper dementiam suae vanitatis accumulare/ pueriliter adjicientes: praecijme pontificem regiae civiiaiis. Quapropter stidtitiam respuentes inanium querelarum^ percurrere vos oportet ab") ipsis beatis aposto- lis et considerare prudenter, quoniam patres nostri catholici®) do- ctique pontifices in unaquaque haeresi quolibet tempore suscitata, quidquid j)ro fide, pro veritate, pro comniunione catholica atque apostolica secundum Scripturarum tramitem praedicationemque ma- jorum facta semel congregatione sanxerunt, inconvulsum vohierunt deinceps firmumque constare; nec in eadem^) causa denuo, quae praefixa fuerant, retractari qualibet recenti praesumptione permise- runt: sapientissime praevidentes, quoniam si decreta salubriter cui- quam liceret iterare, nullum contra singulos quosque prorsus errores stabile persisteret Ecclesiae constitutum, ac semper iisdem^^) furo- ribus recidivis omnis integra definitio tiu*baretur. Nam si limitibus etiadi praefixis positarum semel synodalium regularum non cessant elisae pestes resumptis certaminibus contra fuudamentum sese veri- tatis attollere et simplicia quaeque corda percutere, quid fieret, si •) G* Acaciu non putaret dampnatu. c c jactiiare, Ideo Acadum non putare, et mox cum N' 0* accumulant, ^ Q* Q* ad ipsos beatos Apostolos, minus bene. Vult namque Gelasius Dar- danos ea, quae ab apostolorum temporibus ad sua usque gesta sunt, percurrere, ut binc compertum habeatur, quo pacto danmati)3 erroris auctoribus, illorum ooDflortefl et asseclae, nuUa speciali synodo congregata, pariter cum eis con- demiiati, sint: sicut in unaquaque haeresi a principio Ckristianae religionis et factum /idMse ei fieri manifesta ratione monstratur^ ut loquitur epist. 10 n. 4. Unde appa- ret, liic perinde esse ab ipsis beatis aposlolis, atque a principio Christianae reli- gtonU. Inde Orientaliam objectum eadcm ratione, licet aliis verbis, Gelasius in mox dicta eitistola 10 diluit. Jam et Felici II, ut ex ejus epistola 11 n. 4 liquet, objecerant, Acacium ab uno non potuisse danumri. Quod ille simpliciter sic intel- lexit, quaai sententiam, quam e synodo Romauo adversus Acacium dixit, ab ipBO aolo et sine synodo dictam existimarent , quum hoc potiiis vellent, nequa- qaam ab eo, non convenieutibus simul in uuum aUarum etiani sedium praesuU- bos, Acaciam damnari potuisse. Qi addimus pro fide. Paulo ant^a d* resnscitata. •) N* O* Q' in kac eadem, moxque F<* F° /ixa, et cum N^ pervidentes, Q* d* promdenUM, ^^ O' hisdem furoris rekdui, moxque d* omittit etiam. Q' praeswnptis certa- mimdus. a. 495. submde fas esset perfidis inire eoncilium: quum quaelibet ^^) illa ma- uifesta sit veritas, nunquam desit quod perniciosa depromat et fal- sitaS; tametsi ratione vel auctorite deficiens^ sola tamen intentione non cedens? ' 2. Quae majores uostri divina inspiratione cementes, neces- sarie praecaverimt, ut^^) contra unamquamque haeresim qaod aeta sjnodus pro fide^ commuuione et veritate catholica atque apoefadica decrevisset^ non sinerent novis posthac retractationibus mutilari, ne pravis occasio praeberetur quae medicinaliter fuerant statuta pii- sandi; sed auctore cujuslibet insaniae ac pariter errore danmaio sufficere judicarunt, ut quisquis aliquando hujus erroris communica- tor exsisteret, principali sententia damnationis ejus esset obstrictns* quoniam manifeste quilibet vel professione sua vel communioiie*^ posset agnosci. Et ut**) propiora taceamus, quae diligens inquis^' tor facile poterit vestigare, Sabellium damnavit synodus, nec «^^ sectatores ejus postea damnareutur, necesse fuit singulas viritiJC synodos celebrari, sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cunctos, q"* vel pravitatis illius vel commimionis exstitere participes, anive Ecclesia duxit esse refutandos. Sic propter blasphemias Arii fb: fidei communionisque catholicae, Nicaeno prolata conventu, Arian^* omues, vel quisquis in hanc pestem sive consensu*^) sive comiiLr^ nione deciderit, sine retractatione conclusit. Sic Eunomium, M donium, Nestorium synodus semel gesta condenmans, ulterios nova concilia venire non sivit, sed universos quocunque modo haec^®) consortia recidentes tradito sibi limite sjnodali refuta^ Ecclesia; nec unquam tecte cessisse manifestum est, qualibet sitate cogente, novis*') ausibus, quae fuerant salubriter constitaifc temerasse. Propterea*^) in tempestate quoque persecutionis Ariai^ - plurimi catholici sacerdotes de exsiliis pace reddita respirantes''), ^3 <•) lU G' D» F«» F«» N^ Q» d»; alii editi cum W 0» quamlibei Ula (0» c« H'" UUus), Deinde D« F** F"» N^ Q» depromai falsiias etsi ... inientione (inteMiTi etiam G', alii editi contenlione). '») rta D' Y^ F" G' W Q». Editi ut quae (d« quod) conira ... haeresim ct (d' acta, 0* c' coacta semel) . . . apostolica promulgasset ... posi haec novit^ Q' w^^ cinalia ... ac pari errore. *') D* communicatione. '*) Mss. D F<* F"» 0 brevioris formae addunt breviiatis causa, Deinde coni- ^ propiora praetulimus, ubi alii (etiani Q*) priora. '^ D N^ d* noviter quae, 0' ausibusj alii editi novis ausibus. Q* remeasse.^ •^) D d* brev. form. Non autem nos latet in iempesiaie perseeuiiomt plurimos pontifices de etc. *•) lidem: per certas provincias congregatis secum fratribus ecdesias comi BPISTOLA 26. 395 catlioUcis nihilominus fratribus ecclesias composuere turbatas; a. 495. ]xk xion tamen illius synodi Nicaenae quidquid de fide et communione D&iiltolica et apostolica definierat immutarent^ nec nova quemquam prolapsum damnatione percellerent, sed illius tenore decreti', nisi i-esipmssent; censerent esse damnatos. 3. Qoibus conve^ienter, ut dictum est, ex paterna traditione perpensis confidimus, quod nuUus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret, uniuscujusque sjnodi constitutum, quod universalis Ecclesiae pro- l>aTit assensuS; non^^) aliquam magis exsequi sedem prae ceteris oportere; quam primam, quae et unamquamque synodum sua aucto- ritate confirmat et continuata moderatione custodit, pro suo scilicet principata, quem beatus Petrus apostolus Domini voee perceptum'*), Ecclesia niliilominus subsequente, et tenuit semper et retinet. Haec dam Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a^^) communione catholica deTiftsse, diutius ista non credens, quippe quem noverat exsecutorem saepe necessariae dispositionis suae contra liaereticos exstitisse, per trieimium fere litteris destinatis eumdem monere non destitit, sicut per diversos /missa frequenter^^) scripta testantur. Quibus ille qatun^) dedito silentio diu non respondere proponeret, episcopalis qaoqae directa legatio est; ac nihilominus pagiua destinata, quae praemoneret eum suorum ante meminisse gestorum, et quae primitus et moi omittnnt ei apostoHca. Deinde iidem nisi resipuissel, Judicare (d* judi- ^^"f^e) damnaiwtt, essetque consequens, ut nisi corrigeret» damnationi procul dubio '^J^eret. "*) Iidem et Q^ mtUam magis, 6* omittit non. *') Ita mss. G^ D N' Q* d' (Q' et ecdesia). Coust. legisse in suis mss. vide- ^ P^oeceptian (ita ctiam 0*), quod coiifirmat illiB Symmachi epist. 6 u. 2: ejus yPj^nsnjsichi) sedi primo Petri apostoU meritum vel principatus, deinde secuta Jussione '■^ JussionenC) Domini venerandorum conciliorwn auctoritas singularem in ecclesiis ^*^ potestatem. Ubi Petri principatus ad Domini praeceptum refertur, quod ^l^sia deinde Becuta sit atque auctoritate sua finnavit. Vide infra epist 42 n. 1 *') lidem famUiariter, Tum multo jejunior quam in eo, quod sequimur, rerum **^^tio Bubjicitur; quam secundum D N^ 0' 0* apponimuB. Acacium dispositio- ^ H^ostolicae sedis contra haereticoB exsecutorem exBtitisse, ipsiuB ad Simpli- ^ym epistola 8 testis est. Ubi vero ad haereticorum communionem defecit, et o^pUcius ab anno 482 et deinceps Felix ab anno 484 eum monere non desti- t«TWlt. ^ ^'mqum dedito redpimus cum dedito h. e. affectato seu, ut Felix II epist. 2 ad '^^''"Mnet Acacium n. 2 loquitur, obstinato. Is quo pacto nunc per triennium ahas ptT quhnquennitim admonitus dicatur, in Gelasii epist. 1 not. 34 explicuimuB. — Wem in exemplaribus brevioris formae D N^ d* primum tamquam dedito . . . pro- V^^ 0* 0* 0* quum primum tamquam dedito . . . proponeret . . . sua communione se- ■** — Qruie deinde memoratur legatio et pagina destinata est Felicb epistola 2 P*' Vitalem et IfiBennm transmiBsa. a. 495. pro fide catholica desudasset, oportere respicere : contestans et blan- diendo pariter et miiiando, ne se a corpore catholicae unitatis ab- scinderet; simulque quoniam hunc Johannes secundae sedis antistes gravibus j^ulsaret objectis, ad primae sedis audientiam cohortatus^ est vel venire debere vel mittere. Licet enim synodus iteranda noo esset, tamen congrueret, ut cujuslibet civitatis episcopus primae sedis judicium non vitaret^^, ad quod convenerat secundae sedi^ antistes, qui nisi a prinia sede non posset audiri. Praecipue ^ qi|j praejudicatis animis nulla synodo a Graecis fuisset exchisus, eiJain apud^eos causam suam nec posset omnino dicere nec deberet. Qom nec ab inferioribus episcopis potior, nisi a prima sede, sicut dichai i est, vel discuti potuisset vel, si ita ratio postulasset, addici; eiiani [ cunctis Orientalibus episcopis eum ipso Acacio in Petri conunimio- nem recidentibus, secundae^^) sedis episcopiLS catholicus ab exteraae •* communionis hominibus esset nuUatenus judicandus. Sed Acadui , non sohim despexit satisfaeere postulatis, verum etiam ipsam legir ' tionem sedis apostolicae blandimentis, praemiis perjuriisque dece- ptam, quibus ei cum imperatore promisit, integram praesuU^) ap>' stoUco causam de omnibus esse servandam, Petri communione jA- hitam redire perfecit: in tantum se(Us ajwstolicae despiciens pote" ^ statem, ut non sohim ejus auctoritati non cederet, sed etiam potim in consortium conmuuiionis externae per legatos suos niteretur ilh ducere, fieretque apostoHcae sedi necessitas eos ipsos, quos direxeiaii Orientale« suiira in fine numeri 1 obtendebant, scilicet sine spedaii tynodo i^ mnari non defmisse pruevipue pontificem regiae civitatis^ ait: congruere^ ut rmjuMiSkii civitatis episcopus primae sedis judicium non viiarety non simpliciter, sed ubi st- cundae sedis hniistes injtiste expulsus ct primum appellans ad ejus judicimii jaB convenisset. — Porro G' Q' qui in ista prima sede. ") c" ad marg. forte ,,cum praecipue*\ Deinde editi quia ab inferioribms, re- pugnante sensu et G' Q' cerdotes honore pariter et communione privare, ne tali contagione a. 495. ieretur infecta, satisque monstraret;- non se Acacii specialiter Lsse persouam, sed respuere foedera perditorum, quae etiam in suis atificibus^®) detestata convenienter horreret. Nihilominus autem teris sois^^) Acacius indicarat; et in Alexandrini Petri se commu- mem, quem expetita sedis apostolicae auctoritate essecutor ipse oque damnaverat, sine ejusdem apostolicae sedis consultatione >mptissime recidisse, et accusationem Johannis laudesque Petri >prio sermone deferre. De quibus, si utique confidebat, magis [ venire vel niittere debuisset, ut et praesentem de mendaciis, eie dicebat, posset confutare Johannem, et praeconia Petri quae ^esserat rationabiliter allegaret. Quod quum minime fecerit; satis denter ostendit, nec Johannem se posse convincere, nec legitime ieptum Petrum habere fiduciam perdocendi; solumque sibi mon- avit inesse propositum lacerandi catholicos haereticosque laudandi, eque eorum potius, quos laudabat, docuit esse participem, quam JioUcorum, quos nitebatur decolorare, consortem: tulitque de se e judicium, quum damnati hominis communione pollutus, danina- lais ejus factus est particeps. 4. Ita et sedes apostolica, quod ad necessariam diligentiam re- ceret, nil omisit, et Acacius secundum formam synodi Calchedo- aas, qua error cui communicavit elisus est, sicut de haeretico □oine scriptimi est, suo judicio condemnatus apparuit, justeque les apostolica, qnae utique se Alexandriuum Petrum danmasse n etiam solvisse meminerat^^), ne per Acacii pristinam commu- 3iiein Petri quoque collegium, cui Acacius communicaverat, inci- ^ret, ipsum competenter Acacium a sua communione submovit. uapropter utrum errori vel praevaricationi communicaverit Acacius, oid opus erat nova discussione cognoscere, quum.jam litte^s suis saet ipse confessus, ac, sicut scriptum est, Ore tuo jmtificaberis et ^^ 37. ^^ iuo condemnaberis , verborum suorum vinculis et reus ' teneretur fi^ jwe plectendus? Cur ipse in nova causa^^), quam synodus nulla piaecesserat, Johannem, quem suis litteris impetebat, qualemcun- qne^) secundae sedis episcopum, in primae sedis beati Petri apo- ") Ita G« Qt Q«. Editi memorat. ^ ) Hoc est, ea erat Jobannis causa, quam nulla synodus definierat. Quo- ^^wa niiiiiig non erat Acacii causae, quae quum concilii Calcbedonensis decreto J^^^^^rteretur, caosa vetus et jam judicata appellari poterat. ) Vocabolo qualemcumque uti affectat Gelasius ex sententia adyersariorum, ^ eum ut perjurii reum episcopali bonore indignum dictitabant. a. 495. stoli judicio confutare despexit; et ut causam diceret, seu per * seu^^) per summissam jjersonam, vel venire vel destinare conten psit: indignum habeiis eujuslibct civitiitis antistes^ ad primae sed venire judicium, ad quod secundae sedis cerneret yenisse pontifieei quod Anatolius Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopus missis legati nibus pro sua persona fecisse^'') monstratur? Ecce etiam in \ parte vocem non^") habet conquerentis. Ecce, inquam, ad leg mum est vocatus examen, ubi vel suas partes justis allegationi defensaret. Si ille apostolicae sedis refugit examen iu Johfti catholici j^ontilicis negotio vestigando, quemadmodum sedes iqpo lica de receptione Petri haeretici sua auctoritate resoluti Ac fuerat secutura judicium ? Ail sedem a}>ostolicam congruebat pa ciae Heracliensis ecclesiae, id est Gonstantinopolitani pontificiS; quormnlibet aliorum, qui cum eodem vel propter eum fuerant < gregandi, judicium praestolari, quum*^^) apostolicae id est pri sedis audientiam Constantinopolitanus episcopus declinaret? utique etiamsi metropolitani esset jure sufiPultus, etiamsi inter » haberet locum, primae tamen sedis cognitionem fas non habmt futandi; ad quam secundum canones appellante secundae sedis tistitc; Yocabatur ad nostrorum^^) causam. Hoc ipso satis oste reum se esse confessum, qui ad legitimum judicium postulatus ad contempsit; nec poterat ultra ditferri, ne, sicut dictum est, ant illius communione durante, quum sese jam sociasset exteniae, s quoque apostolica per eum poUueretur contagiis perfidorum, digu que esset; vel praevicatorem vel contemptorem judicii compete manifestissime scilicet de suo negotio desperantem, a catholica a apostolica integritate et communione secludi. Hic si exami] ^•') Sic mss. (Q' Q* 6*). At editi seu per aiium vel, Mox consulto ait siua cujuslibet sedis antistes, propterca quod Baperios objidebant praeci/me ficem regiae civitatis. '^) Qui scilicet Leonis epistola GU ad Theodosium praemonitoB ei n gessit, uti fidem facit ejusdem epistola 80. ") Ita G* Q' Q*. Editi non habent conquerentes. Certe et quae antec et quae sequuntur, de 4mo Acacio sermouem esse indicant. Simili loq ratioue ex jurecousultis petita synodus Romana apud Symmachum epist. 6 permittit vocem contradictionis afferre^ et condlium Carthaginenfle Y e. 1 tuit, ut qui intra annum causam suam purgare contempserint , nuUa eanam M slea penitus audiaiur, hoc est, cuivis interpellationi aditus exdudatur. 'Vm hau. n epiflt. 1. juaeritur, jam judicio non erat opus, posteaquam et litteris suis"^") a. 496. pse confessus est, et legitimum judieium voeatus adire pertimuit. ii auctoritatis pondus inquiritur, Calchedonensis synodi tenor, cum tpofitolica sede consentiens, et illius definitionis exsecutio reperitur, [uo^*) damnati illic erroris communicator eflfectus, praefixa nihilo- ainas ibidem particeps damnationis apparuit: quoniam idem ipse rror, qui semel est cum suo auctore damnatus, in participe quo- Ibet pravae communionis effecto et exsecrationem sui gestat et oenam. Hoc tenore etiam Timotheus Aelurus atque ipse Alexan- rinus Petrus, qui secundam certe sedem quoquomodo*'^) tenuisse idebantur, non repetita synodo sed auctoritate tantummodo sedis pcstolicae, ipso quoque Acacio postulante vel exsequente, probantur ise damnati. 5. NunC*^) autem ipsi doceant, Petrum legitime fuisse purga- Lin et ab omni haereticorum comtagione rite discretum, quum ei >iimiunicavit Acacius, si ejus communicatorem putant Acacium ali- iiBtenus excusandum. Aut si, quod magis est verum, convenienter bque legitime Petrum probare non potuerunt expiatum (propter iiod etiam ad apostolicae sedis judicium Acacius vel venire vel de- tiiiare non ausus est); restat, ut ejus'**) inexpiatione fuerit, et qui i communicavit, infectus. Non reticemus, quod cuncta per mun- lum novit Ecclesia, quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata ponti- 6cmE sedes beati Petri apostoli jus habeat resolvendi, utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi, neque cuiquam de ejus liceat jiidicare judido; siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellari voluerint, ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus. Qua- *") QuibuB videlicet Petri communionem se suBcepisse cum elogio ejus re- Qimtiabat. Mbb. brevioris formae hunc locum ita habout: postguam Htteria suis ^f^tonftuus esl. Si auctorilatis, Siimliter sequentia contrahunt, quae ex au- ctoritate Q' Q> praebemuB. ' *') Ita 6* Q*; editi reperitur condemnati. ^ H" 0* OMJ* Q* hic praemittunt: Quodsi utrum errori vel praevaricationi W Q' praedicatione) commumcarit (H*' 0* communicamt) Acadus , forsitan dicatur •P^uiite eonstare^ breviter praebemus ad ista responsum. Aut enim ipsi doceant ^ ^ deinceps. Quod additamentum ex primario exemplo repetitum secundis Gdaab carig recte castigatum atque suppressum est. Deinde 0* 0* si ut (D* N' a. 495. propter satis *^) constat, Acacium nullum liabuisse pontificimn, sen- tentiam sedis apostolicae sine ulla ejus notione solvendi. Dicant certe : qua synodo hoc ille praesumpsit, quod nec sic quidem abBqne apostolica sede fas haberet efficere? Cujus sedis episcopus? Cujui j metropolitanae civitatis antistes? Nonne paroeciae Heracliensis : ecclesiae? Si illi certe licuit sine synodo sententiam apostolicae sedis abnmipere nuUa ejus consultatione quaesita, itane vero non licuit primae sedi, Calchedonensis synodi constituta sicut decuit ex- sequenti, hujusmodi praevaricatorem sua auctoritate detrudere? Sed nec illa praeterimus, quod apostolica sedes frequenter, ut dictum eei, more majorum Qtiam sine ulla synodo praecedente et absolvendi, quos synodus inique damnaverat, et damnandi nulla exsistente spodo, quos oportuit, habuerit facullatem. Sanctae memoriae quippeAtha- nasiimi synodus Orientalis addixerat, quem tamen exceptum sedes apostolica, quia damnationi Graecorum non consensit, absolvit. Saa- ctae memoriae nihilominus Johaniiem Constantinopolitanum synodoi etiam cathoUcorum praesulum certe danmarat, quem simih modD sedes apostolica etiam*^) sola, quia non consensit, absolvit. ItemqM sanctae memoriae Flavianum pontificum congregatione danmatma pari tenore, quoniam sola sedes apostolica non consensit, absolni) potiusque, qui illic receptus fuerat, Dioscorum secundae sedis prae* sulem sua auctoritate damnavit, et impiam synodum non coMea- tiendo submovit, ac pro veritate, ut synodus Calchedonensis fierrf^ i sola decrevit. In qua jiontificibus iimumeris, qui latrocinio coirM" | rant Ephesino, veniam poscentibus sola concessit, et in sua perfiA» < permai^entes nihilominus sua auctoritate j^rostravit. Quam congrC" gatio, quae illic pro veritate reparanda collecta fuerat, est secuta: quoniam sicut id , quod prinia sedes non probaveraf, constare nofl j potuit, sic quod iila censuit judicandimi, Ecclesia tota suscepii ^ 6. Ubi etiam consequeiiter ostenditur, quia male gesta syiW' dus, id est, contra Scripturas sanctas, eontra doctrinam patroil» contra ecclesiasticas regulas, quam tota merito Ecclesia non recep ^ et praecipue sedes apostolica non probavit, per bene gestam sp^ dmn, id est, secundum Scripturas sanctas, secundum traditione» , <^) Ita O' Q» Q« cum mss. D 0« 0« N« brevioris formae. Editi ^kiiii i^ ^ constet ... scntentia sedis apostoUcae datnnatum sine .... dicani cerie ... prMV^' pserit. Iste damnatus quidem Petrus Mongus diceretur. Deinde Q* quodofOitt licOs sedi frequenler dictum est (c. 7 ad marg. datum est), Flavianum pontificum (00* pontificeni) Graecorum ... sola submovii. Hic notatBT coucilium seu latrociuium Ex^hesiuum, cuju8 adeoque Fiaviani damnatioiii pabn intercesserimt apostolicae sedis lcgati. In iis, quae mox sequuntor, per dmi fere coluumas inde a verbis In qua usque ad u. 7 Dicat ergo in exempkxibai brevioris formue res summatim tantum constringuntur. inun, secundum ecclesiasticas regulas pro fide catholica et com- a. 495. uione prolatam, quam cimcta recipit Ecclesia^ quam maxime sedes stolica comprobavit; ut debuerit et potuerit immutari; bene vero iam synodum juxta supradictum modum nova sjnodo nuUatenus nitandam. Proinde si Eutjchen fatentur haereticum, male ge- i apud Ephesum synodum, qua est receptus, pariter fatebuntur, erbene*^) gestam synodum Calchedonensem, qua Eutyches vel eo sentientes talia sunt rejecti, velint nolintque consentient; e ideo bene gestam synodum novis exagitationibus refricari non sse cognoscant. Qui si forsitan dixerint; eo tenore Ephesinam ue synodum non licuisse mutari ; rursus haec eadem^ quae supra ompsimuS; planius repetita perpendantur^ id est: quia contra 1, contra veritatem communionemque catholicam vereque Chri- lam non recte sit gesta synodus, legitima synodo pro fide, veri- communioneque catholica vereque Christiana modis omnibus idenda est, et injusta synodus justa synodo submovenda. Pro , autem et veritate et communione catholica bona synodus (]ue Christiana semel acta nulla nec potest nec debet novae di iteratione conveUi, sed secundum bene gestam synodum re- ue praefixam; si quis ab ejus tramite deviarit, consequenter ac denter ejus definitione plectendus, meritoque illius subjacet con- itifl. Nec opus est per singulos quosque deviantes jureque ple- idos novas rursus synodos ink^oduci ; quum ex illius tramite, quae x)rem cum errore damnavit, quisquis quolibet modo, quolibet lo complex ejusdem fuerit factus erroris, ut ejus se contagione uerit, competenter et particeps ejusdem damnationis exsistat, iqoe poena puniatur obstrictus, cujus maluit inire consortium. Quaero ergo ab his, quid de Eutyche sentiant: fuissene haere- cum, an asseruiit non fuisse? Si non fuisse contendunt, quid Jagibus agunt, quid circuitionibus praestigiisque se contegunt? am se Eutychianos esse pronuntient, ut in ejus sacrilego furore victi, veritatis molibus obruantur, aperteque cognoscant, non im haec ipsa pestis Eutychiana quantum Christiano dogmati pro- ir inimica, sed quantas alias haereses easque gravissimas in si^a fitate contineat: ut in quibus foveis volutentur, et in quod prae- tium barathrumque mergantur, intelligant. Simul autem si Eu- len haereticum negant, omnimodis publicatur, quod ideo de ibus Eutychianae pesti communicantibus suppresso veluti hoc errore contendujit, ut nos per taliura nominum^^), quod absit, ias captiosasque tendiculas in Eutychetis insaniam nitantur in- ) Editi et per bene gestam, ... guod Eutyches; castigantar ex mss. ) G' Q* Q' nominum, editi hominum. Moxque a' computantur corrigenduin TOLAK BOMAN. POHTIF. I. " 26 a. 495. ducere : quod quidem etiamsi non negent, sive scientes sive nescien- tes facere confutantur. Sin vero et Eutychen haereticum negare j non audent^ restat^ ut contra catholicam fidem non synodum nim- cupandam^ sed conspirationem potius perditorum fuisse oonsentiint^ quae apud Ephesum Eutychete reducto perculit sanctae memoriie Flavianum^ cunctosque qui iliic aderant sacerdptes oulitari terroie compulerit tanto sceleri praebere consensum. Atque ideo nobis ne- cesse est pravam perversamque conspirationis illius et latrocinalem fuisse perhibeant actionem^ eamque debuisse modis omnibus aboleri; et ideo justam^ bonam^ veraciter Christianam Calchedonensem syno- dum processisse definiant in his, quibus Eutychete depulso cum 8QD fautore Dioscoro haeresim eorum erroremque damnarit. Hanc eigo synodum^ ut dictum est^ bonam, veram, justam Christianamqoe esse non dubitant; per quam illa noxia sit remota. Perspiciant eigo tandemque concedant^ *quod quisquis ab ejus justae et ChristianM veraeque synodi fide, communione et veritate deviaverit, vel ab e» deviantibus communionem miscuerit, sufficienter atque competentff secundimi ipsius definita teneatur obstrictus: quoniam mala synodni bona debuit submoveri, bona vero synodus nulla causa est, CB aiia debeat synodo retractari; ne ipsa retractatio ejus constitali> deroget firmitatem. Proinde quicunque congregationis Ephesinii tenentur affectu, quid adhuc Acacii tantummodo nomen obtendnni^ et ilon palam se^-*) sectatores Eutychetis, qui illic receptns fuent» profitentiu'? Quod si refugiimt, atque Eutychen se perhibent exse- ' crari, simul ergo et Ephesinam, qua niale receptus est, conspiratio- nem jure cassatam; et Calchedonensem synodum^ qua rejectos eiky merito consentient institutam; atque ita synodum^ qoae pro ttl catholica sit praefixa, secundum veterum formam, sicut dictam «it| perspicient novellis non j^otuisse quaestionibus ventilari, sed juxta qoB tenoreni semel legitime justeque depromptum et jure probari redi sectantes, et scntientes contraria refutari. Quod sedes apostoEoi| sicut decuit, antiqua traditione custodiens, non synodmn duxit ite- randam^ sed in ejus praevaricatore pellendo hanc eamdem synodom potius exsequendam. 7. Quapropter si quis adhuc secundum Calchedonensem syna- dum haec ab apostolica sede gesta reprehendit, praeter qaod et hM| quam superius adstniximus, et midiiplici potest ratione convindy multo magis tamen Acacio non licuisse fatebitiu" ista tentare. Dieat ergo, qua ipse^^) synodo Johannem secundae ^jedis antistitem, qna- lemcunque, certe catholicuni et a catholicis ordinatom nec de catho- '^) Editi (exc. d« d«) omittimt ipse. EPI8T0LA 26. 403 lica flde et communione aliqaaienns impetitum; duxerit excluden- a. 496. dtuD, et haereticam manifestum Petrum sua quoque exsecutione danmatum pontifici catholico permiserit subrogari'!)-, quum etiamsi reus manifestus esset Johannes, post eum saltem catholicum con- Feuisset praefici sacerdotem, sicut ipse quoque ^suis sacris sanctae memoriae Timotheo catholico in Alexandria faciendum promisisse le^tnr imperator. Qua synodo tertiae sedis episcopum Calendionem idemexpelli fecit Acacius^^)^ ac nihilominus eidem Petrum tam hae- retacom manifestum, ut eidem palam nec se communicare praetende- e*^ saa passus est dispositione substitui? Qua denique per totum >nentem synodo ejectis orthodoxis nuUo^^) crimine maculatis^ pra^ quosque et criminibus involutos sua prorisione supposuit? Qua Lodo tot aliena privilegia^^) nefandus populator invasit? Sed libri sufficient; si tragoedias ejus, quas per ecclesias totius Orientis :«rcTiit, singillatim ^^) sfiribere moliamur. 8. An iUud ipsius argumentimi nobis existimant opponendum, facinora sua in imperialem nisus est jactare personam? Cur a^lor quando voluit; obstitit Basilisco tyranno^ certe et haeretico eliementer infesto? Cur ipsi iinperatori Zenoni^ quia palam Antio- j3.^o Petro noluit communicare^ suam non subdidit voluntatem? Soce potuit^) et in aliis resultarC; si vellet! Sed ut ea quae latius espHcanda sunt omittamus^ quid^^), quod ipse Zenon imperator lit- ^imr. EFagrins m, 12, ubi narravit: qui Johannes legaiut migsus est Constanti- *0po&, peHtums a (Zenone) prindpe, ut si forte episcopus ipsorum (Timotheus) ***v akiisiet, lieerei civibus Alexandrinis etun, quem vellent, episcopum eligere; ad- jiagit: Imperator lege lata sanxit, ut post mortem Timothei is esset episcopuSy quem ^trui el populus suis suffragiis elegissent. Hoc est igitur , qnod imperator ille suis "^ promiaisse nnnc memoratur. led et monackas et populum urbis regiae adversus Basiiisrum . ut qui haeVeticus esset^ e&iuitasu^ ETagrinB lU, 7 Zacharia quodam auctore tradit. Mox Q* post vellet tu5^^i An non apostolus dieit, non solum qui faciunt, sed et qui consentiunt facien- atm, reatu pariter sunt irretiti? Sed ut etc. Etiam in his sequimur G^ '»'') Editi quidquid ipse. Mox Q< recta, Q* eonscribit. Gelasius tum Zenonis tam Acadi litteras hic memorat, quas legatis Miseno et YitaJi post praevari- ^^stionemnredemitibuB ad Eelicem dederunt, de quibus in notitia epistolarum 26* a. 495. teris suis profitetur, cuncta sese ex Acacii gessisse consilio, ^^c hoc eum fallere litteris suis ipse pariter testatur Acacius^ qt-^ et eum nihilomiuus universa recte gessisse conscripsit, et suo coi^ nilio haec eadem gesta non tacuit? Quasi vero tantum in Alexancr3riiu Petri communionc Acacius praevaricator exstiterit, et non in OBamii- bus, quos vel fecit depulsis catholicis pontificibus tamquam tyrannns ecclesiis quibusque praeponi, vel taliter praepositis perversa eozn- munione permixtus est; qui hoc ipso secundum canones fueranfc ab ecclesiastica communione pellendi, quo*^^) sc passi sunt successoxw vivis sacerdotibus adhiberi! Quis autem non perspiciat Christiaiiufl, quod catholicis pontificibus propria sede dejectiB non nisi haerefcici potuerint introduci? Quibus tamen cunctis vel auctor fuit Acaci"**^. subrogandis, vel subrogatis communicator accessit, his utique, qf ^^ a communione haereticorum nuUatenus discrepabant. Cur ergo quum haec fieri videret Acacius, non sicut sub Basilisco jam^') cerat, ad apostolicam sedem referre curavit, ut si solus ipse no poterat, junctis^'^*) cum eadem consiliis atcjue tractatibus, apud i peratorem possent quae religioni competerent allegari? Nam si Ba-^ siliscus, ut dictum est, tyrannus et haereticus scriptis apostolicae^ scdis vehementer infractuS est et a plurimis revocatus exeessiboB, quanto magis legitimus imperator, qui se catholicum videri volebat, l)otuit cum apostolica sede cunctormn quoque pontificum moderata suggestione mitigari; praecipue quum ejusdem Acacii esset specialis fautor et amator, et (pii litteris suis tam ipsum Acacium quani sanctae memoriae papam Simplicium magnis laudibus extulisse®*) doceretur, quod haereticis constantissime restitissent. Cur tanto tem- pore Acacius inter ista conticuit, nisi quia praepediri nolebat ulla- tenus, quae pro haereticis desiderabat impleri? non exBtautium Felicis II n. VIII et IX egimus. His concinit et EvagriaB, qui ubilib. 3 c. 12 enarravit Zeuonem jussissc, ut Alexandrina sede» Petro resliiKeretwr, dum' modo ille J/enotico suo suhscriheret ct Proterianos in commumonem susdpere vohds- setj statim initio c. 13 lianc dispositioncm consilio Acadi regiae urbis cpiscopi factam testatur. Immo Ilenoticum ipsum ab Acacio dictatum esse fama erat, ut Theoplianes pag. 202 memoriae mandavit. De qua relatioue, quae in notitia non exstantium Simplidi scriptorom n.YIob- seryata sunt, recolo. °^) Ita editi cum G^Q' d^. D^ cunctis cum eodcm et omittit possenl, nnde d* cunclorum ... altegarentur ^ 0' conjunctis — aUegarentur. Mox Q' infecius, ^'^) G' cum editis extulisset doceretur ... restituisset , unde a* cum Q' Q« no- stram lectionem praetulisse videtur; d* cum niss. brcY. form. exluHsset qyod, Ad eumdem litterarum Zeuonis locum respiciens Felix II opist. 2 n. 4. Acacio prae- cijnt, ut cidem imperatori scripta illa ofierat, quibus, inquit, decessorem metm eximia iaude sustulit, eo quod haereticam tyrannidcm veriiatis assertione eonfoderil. ^criptorum eorumdem rursum Polix mcminit epist. 1 n. 6. EPISTOLA 26. 40& ■ ' 9«. Ponamus tam^n, €;|iamsi niilla synodus praecesfiiBsety.cujus apo- a. 495: stolica sedes recte fieret exsecutrix; cimi quibus erat de Acacio synodus ineunda? Numquid cimi his, qui jam partici})es tenjebautur Acacio^ et per Orientem totum catholicis sac^dotibus violenter exclusis per- que exsilia diversa relegatis, socii evidenter exsistebant comnumionis exteraae, prius se ad haec consortia transferentes, quam sedis apo- stolicae scita consulerent? Cum quibus ergo erat synodus ineunda? Gatholici pontifices fuerant undique jam depulsi, solique remanse- raxit socii perfidorum, cum quibus jam nec licebat habere conven- tum; quia mqris ecclesiastici omnino non esset, cum his, qui pollu- tBxn communionem tenerent permixtamque cum perfidis , ulhun noiacere concilium, propheta quoque dicente: Non sedi in^''') concilio^f^^ panitaiis et cum iniqua gerentibus non iniroibo, odivi congregationcm maiignorum et cum impiis non sedebo, Recte igitur per Calchedo- nensis synodi formam hujusmodi praevaricatio repulsa est potius, quam ad concilium, quod nec opus erat post primam synodum nec cum taUbns habere licebat, adducta est. Nam et quid ageretur de fide catholica, si intelligere voluissent, ignorare non poterant, quum ^derent catholicos pontifices nuUa synodi discussione, nullo concilio, pTaecipue quum novas causas esse perpenderent, toto Oriente de- pelli; et ceteri quid caverent, ex illoriun discere qualitate potjiisseut. Beetat igitur, ut illius ^) partis eos fuisse sit clarum, cui se post tot experimenta dederunt, meritoque ab apostolica sede ceterisquo («thoKcis non jam consulendi erant potius, sed notandi. 10, Risimus autem, quod praerogativam volunt Acacio compa- rsai, quia episcopus fuerit regiae civitatis. Nmnquid apud Medio- lanum, apud Ravennam, apud Sirmium, apud Treviros miUtis tem- poribus non constitit imperator? Numquidnam**^) harum urbium sacerdotes ultra .mensuram sibimet antiquitus deputatam quidpiam ^*} Q* cum concilio et omittit odivi — sedebo. Mox editi viderant. Sequimur G« Q». •*) Q' Q* Hfumquid jam harum. Ab Alexandro Antiocheno autistite Jnnocen- tra» olim conBultuB, utrum divisis imperidli judivio provinciiSy ut duae metropoles /Umit "'^ duo metropolitani episcopi deheant nominari, respondit epist. 24 n. 2: Non ggMC e re vifum est, ad mohilitatem necessitatum mundanarum Dei Ecclesiam commulari hanoreeque aut divisiones perpeti etc. Huic decreto , quod etiam omnem in ecde- Biasticis ordinibus commutationem solo rerum saecularium intuitu cxcbidit, con- sentanens est Calchedonensis can. 12. 406 8. QELASU PAPAE a. 495. suis digiiitatibus usurparunt? Numquid AoaciuB, ut Johannemqai lemlibet hominem, catholicum tamen a catholicis ordinatmn, c Alexandria excluderet^ Petrumque in haeresi jam detectum it^i damnatum absque sedis apostolicae consultatione^^) reciperet, aliqi synodo saltem illic habita hoc audacter arripuit? Ut Calendioiia de Antiochia peUeret, haereticimique Petrum, quem ipse quoqi damnaverat, absque notitia sedis apostolicae rursus admitteret, 9^ qua synodo id fecisse monstratur? Si certe de dignitate agitor chi tatum, secundae sedis et tertiae major est dignitas sacerdotoi quam ejus ciyitatis^ quae uon solum inter sedes minime numentc sed nec iiiter metropolitanorum jura censetur. Nam quod didll regiae^) civitatis, alia potestas est regni saecularis^ alia ecdesiir carum distributio dignitatum. Sicut enim quamvis parva cifit praerogativam praesentis regni non minuit, sic imperiidis praeseiri mensuram dispensationis religiosae non mutat. Sit dara vel*^) or illa potestate praeseutis imperii, religio sub eodem tunc firma, ta libera^ tunc provecta consistit, si potius hoc praesente propiii teneat sine ulla perturbatioue mensuram. Postremo si sibi de i: peratoris praesentia blandiuntur; et inde putant Gonstantinopolitai] civitatis episcopis potiorem fieri posse personam, audiant Marciani ejusdem principem civitatis, posteaquam pro augmento urbis ipc sacerdotis intercessor accedens contra regulas obtinere nihil poii sanctae memoriae papani Leonem summis laudibus prosecatum, qi canouum regalas violari nuUa fuerit ratione perpessus. Audii Auatolium ejusdem sedis autistitem, clerum potius Constantinop tanum quam se tentasse talia, confitentem; atque in apostolici pr sulis totum dicentem positum potestate: ipsum beatum papam L nem sedis apostolicae praesulem, cujus synodus CalchedonAE auctoritate finuata est^ quidquid ultra, quam ab eodem pro fide communione catholica atque apostolica illic agendum constaret e delegatuni; per occasionem congregationis iUius praeter ^ncaai canoues nova videretur actione tentatum^); competenti refutati< ••) Ita G< Q< cum D N^ d<; vulgati omittunt regiae civituUi. ®^) Vulgati clara urhs . . . religio tunc 9ub eadem firma, contra G* Q*. MoK quae a verbis Postremo si usque ad n. U sequuntur, in msB. brev. fbnn. diii Quae ibidem memorantur Marciani et Anatolii epistolae, inter Leoninai i epiBt. 110 et 182. ?scaa«e: eaque nibilominus etiam sub sanctae memoriae papa Sim- a. 495. jHm legatum sedis apostolicae sanctae memori^e Probum Canusinae Jffhw epjscopum, Leone*^) principe tunc petente praesente, dotuisse flttDatenus posse tentari, neque his prorsus praebuisse consensum. Abpte ideo non ad civitatis cujuslibet respiciant qualitatem, sed ^Bodam dispensationid ecclesiasticae paterna traditione firmatum CQHvementer observent. 11. Dieatur autem de Alexandrino et Antiocheno episcopis, Wtifi ex ^causis principem magis illa, quae gesta sunt, non Aca- ium praecepisse. Sed principi Christiano decuerat suggerere sacer- ^tem, maxime cujus familiaritate et favore fruebatur, salvam fore ? ejosdem injuria contumeliaque'^) vindictam, tantimi ut Ecclesiae ii.eret Christianus princeps regulas custodiri ; quia et nova in utro- ie pontifice causa esset exorta, et novam discussionem consequen- r inquireret, et sicut seraper esset efiectum, divinae pariter leges unanaeque censerent, ut sacerdotah concilio de sacerdotibus judicia ■ovenirent, non a saeculari viderentur qualescunque »pontifices, etsi wte bumanitus accedente^*), non tameu religionem ullateuus ex- iprobavit, contra Comtantinopolitani episcopi ambitionem, non contra sententiam per epistolam Ibae prolatam (.iicta esse. Id vero iinum palam et aperte rejicit ao, quod praeter Nicaenos cauones ibi tentatum fiiit. Nec aliquid amplius hic ^laBiQB memorat. Sed ex hoc Facundi loco confici manifeste arbitramur, ictiiiB epistolae hiyus exeraplar authenticum habendum essc. Siquidem testi- lOniam Gelasianum quod laudat, integrum In co exstat, quum vix prima ejus ^rba reperire ait in altero. •) Baronius higQS loci auctoritate ad auuum 407 obscrvat, Leoneni impera- ^ran, qnum neque a Leone papa neque ab ejus successoro Hilaro obtinere ^faoMet, ut rata haberent Calchedouensis syuodi de Coustantinopolitanae ec- ^^•aae pririlegiis decreta, hoc a Simplicio, statim atque eorum locum adeptus b4^ coDatom esae impetrare ; eaque de causa missum osse a mox dicto papa le- •ten, qui petitis consensum praeberi non posse edoceret. ") Zeno et Johannem Alexandrinum et Calendioueni Autiochenum sibi in- ■^OBOi et contumelioBOs exstitisse querebatur, et hunc quidem ut perfidmn et ^Unicis Buis devinctum, illum vero ut perjurum ct sacramenti, quo se coram P«o obligarat, violatorem. Num aequa esset illius expostulatio, non expendit **JMiQ8, sed hanc synodi cognitioni, ut Ecclesiae regulae postulabaut, servau- ^^ fiiiflse adstrait. ") In qoibnBdam mss. acddente, Deinde in altero non tamen contra religio- ^ Acceesione particulae contra sententia eMdtur Gelasii menti contraria. ntttom enim asserit, sacerdotes a saecularibus minime judicandos csse. Deinde Czeiptionem a^ungit, modo eorum culpa religionem non excedat, hoc est, re- i^ioius fimbns contineatur. Et haec quidem conceptio consentanea cst princi- wna edictis. Nam Theodosius junior apud Sirmondum app. cod. Tbeod. cap. 3, W edixit: habeni iUi judices suos, nec quidquam his publicis commune cum legibus; ll^^t: guttnium ad causas tamen ecclesiasticas pertinet, quas decet episcopali aucto- Me decidL Ita intelHgendum, et quod s. Martiuus apud Treviros constitutus, rero Salpicio hist. II, 50 teste, Maximo imperatori ajebat, novum esse et inaudi- 408 -S. GELASII PAPAE a. 496. cedentes^ potestate percelli. An^^) et haec juxta rationem jjm Buggerenda non erant? Begiae civitatis honore sublimis, si fa erat ille regia civitate sublimior^ tanto magis in his suggeR debuit esse constantior. Si autem in his, quae pro religione fiK exsereuda^ exstitit coutemptibilis atque despectus, et aut segnifl fiduciam non habens intimandi; in quo per regiam civitatem n effectus est? An ut per ea suae praevaricationis exerceret p tjrannidem^ quam causas religionis legitime procuraret? Na "lo^f' propheta palam publiceque in facie regi David et commissum nuntiavit errorem, et ipsum commisisse non tacuit, et confesi correctum consequenter absolvit. Beatae memoriae Ambrosius, diolanensis sacerdos ecclesiae, majorem^^) Theodosium imperat a communione publice palamque suspendit^ atque ad poenitei redegit regiam potesta1;em. Beatae memoriae papa Leo, sicut tur, imperatorem Theodosium juniorem Ephesino ktrocinio 1 coarguit excedentem. Sanctae memoriae quoque papa Hilanus themium imperatorem^ quvim Philotheua Macedonianus ejus fai ritate suffiiltus diversariun conciliabula nova'^^) sectarum in H vellet inducere, apud beatum Petrum apostolum palam, ne id 1 clara voce constrinxit in tantum, ut non ea facienda cum inte tione sacramenti idem promitteret imperator. ' Sanctae men nihilominus papa Simplicius^ et post eum sanctae memoriae Felix, non solum Basiliscum tyrauuum^ sed etiam imperatorei noilem pro iisdem ipsis excessibus auctoritate libera saepius^ tum nefaSj ui causam Ecclesiae judex saeaili Judicaret. Quacnaio aotem .occleaiastica diccretur, Ambrosius epist. 21 ad Valentinianum jnniorem i plicat, ubi Yalcntiuiani I laudat edictum, quo sanxit, in causa fidei vel 4 stici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere , qui nec munere impar sii nec Jur milisy hoc est Ambrosio interpreto : sacerdotes de sacerdotibus votuii Judiem- etiam si alias quoque argueretur episcopus, et morum esset examinanda comm haec voluit ad episcopale judicium pertinere. Ad .mores autem attinebat J< ct Calendionis causa, ncc depositionis poena nisi episcopali judicio pled rant. Vide epistolam scqucntem n. 9 et 10, et quae ad epistolam 23 obi mu8 recole. ^-^) Editi majori Theodosio communionem; emendantur ex mas. Q*Q'. haec omnia a verbifi Beatae memoriae Ambrosius usque ad mam/esitm esi brev. ibrm. desunt. ^-') Hoc ita est iutolligendum, ut Basiliscum quidem tyrannum solos cius semcl epist. 3 increparit, Zenonem vero imperatorem quum idem Sii tum Felix saepius coarguerint ita libera auctoritate, ut modestia et reri qua x^rincipes alloqui docet, non deceset. Qui autem illoram ad" Zeiioi t • crepasse noecuniur ; flecidque potuisset , nisi Constantinopolitani a. 495. praesulis accenderetur instinctu^ qui particeps extemae communionis effectuS; necessario, in quod inciderat^ jam fovebat^ malens in suae . praeyaricationis obstinatione persistere-; quam curandus^d salubria remeare^ sicut ipse rerum probavit eventus, Ecce nuper Honorico'^), regi Yandalicae nationis, vir magnus et egregius sacerdos Eugenius Carthaginensis episcopus multique cum eodem catholici sacerdotes coDstaiiter restitere^*^) saevienti, cunctaque extrema tolerantes ho- dieque persecutoribus resistere non omittunt. Nos quoque Odoacri barbaro haeretico regnum Italiae tunc tenenti^ quum aliqua non fa- eienda praeciperet'*), Deo praestante nullatenus paruisse mani- fesiom est. Hic autem vir bonus Acacius et sacerdos eximius in tantum se et suggerere potuisse monstravit et noluisse deprompsit, muno favisse patefecit, ut et imperator cuncta se ex ejus gessisse oonsilio non taceret, et ipse imperatorem magnis praeconiis elevaret i«ta facientem; seseque prodidit his agendis rebus fuisse participem. 12. Sed esto, Calendion imperatoris nomen abstulerit'^), Jo- hannes principi mentitus fuisse jactetur; quae tamen quum novae teru jam laudatas, quae hic dicuntur, cnm epist. 43 ct 44 Lconis ad Theodo- wani contulerit, in eo quod proxime assertum est, Theodosiura scilicet a Leonc nbere fuisse correptum, nihil falai deprehendet, nedum id cum Quesnello Msia- "^um censeat *•) Legendum Hunerico; tum Q* Q' regiWandalorum. Ab hoc rege anno 483 ^^*i 20 die Eugenio Carthaginensi traditum est edictum, cui ille praesul, mul- ^^ue cum eo, non cedendum ratus, exsilium cum eociis variasque aerumnas pati ^*^mt, ut ex Victoris Vit. lib. 2 n. 13 ss. notum est. Quamvis autem Hunerico **^o 484 exstincto Guntamondus seu Gontabondus cjus succcssor ciun catholicis "^tiuB egerit, eos tamen vexare haeretici episcopi non desistebant. *^ In vnlg^tiB reiisierent, in mss. resistere^ G' consistere, Q' egregius sacerdoi ^'^i^mter retistere saetnenti, Oratiouis series manifestc postulat restitere. ^■) Odoacer aliqua non facienda praecepit, quum anno 483 proxime post exi- •**Ji Simplicii papae scriptura data, quae auno 502 in condlio Romano sub •^^^Umachp recitata est, interdici constituta capitis poena voluit, ne sine ipsius ^*»8nltatione Romani pontificis fieret electio, neve futuro pontifici ac secuturia '^^iin:! ecclesiae praedium alienandi potestas essct. De hac scriptufa quominus ^ loqni Gelaaius intelligatur, niliil vetat, maxime quum illam tum ratam non **""> Bequentiam pontificum electiones ac praedictae synodi sub Symmacho fidem faciant, i^ec dubitare nos sinant, quae habcmus Felicis II gesta, quin ^o temporia Gelasio praecipuus in clero et ih Ecclesiae negotiis locus fuerit. etiam compositus est iUius sermo, ut quod non solus, sed quod cum aliis ^ricia fecisBet, memorare videatur. Vide apud Symmachum epist. 6 n. 4. 'f) Hoo e«t: e diptychis, ut ex his epistolae 27 sequcntis n.8 colligitur: Num- omnes, quos memorammust episcopi imperatori mentili sunt, numquUl omnes im~ nomen ex diptychis abstulerunt?i Horum igitur crimiuum postremum iioni, primiun Johanni affingebant. Idco autem Calendion, ut Evagrius ►- 3 cap. 16 acribit, Zenoni in odium venit, quia ////, Leontii et Pamprepii, qui Zenonem tyrannidem sumpserunt, partes fovisse existimahatur ^ vel potius, obsQrvat Liberatus cap. 18, praetexebatur. 410 - S. QELASII PAPAE • A.495. essent cansae, iiova debiiit ecclesiastica provenire discussio. kf^ ^ in hoininem imperatorein peccasse dicebantur, nulla interven-^*J^'* synodo dejici debuerujit; et in Deum, qui summus et verus esfc ™' perator, Acacium delinquentem sinceramque communionem diviai **' cramenti'^") studentem miscere cum perfidis, secundum syuodum, 9*^ haec est damnata» perfidia, non oportebat expelli? Quid de innupjeK^ per totum Orientem catholicis sacerdotibus propria sede depulais, ^^ indubitanter haereticis intromissis? Novae certae erant causae; e#^^ his consequenter nova synochis debebatiu:. Cur tuuc uon venit in ^ mentem, ut in talibus causis peteretur a principe saltem qualiscun- que synodus celel)randa: ut quocunque vel colorato judicio traditio- nis ecclesiasticae passim pontifices viderentur excludi^*), non solum quanimcunque urbium sacerdotes^ sed metropolitani incuuctanter antistites? His onuiibus quum non restitit suggestione qua potuit, consensit Acaciun, communicando cimctis, qui in catholicorum locum Rom. haeretici fuerant subrogati, Apostolus autem dicit, non solum qta * ' faciunt, sed etiam qui consentimt facientibus , reos indubitanter adscribi. An haec licuit saeculari potestati^ et actis talibus Acacio consentiente®^) absque ulla synodo, quam ipsa rerum novitas exige- bat; absque sedis apostolicae considtatione perficere; et sedi apoBto- licae non licuit, secundiun tenorem synodi Calchedonensis in veteri utique causa et veteri constituto juxta definitionem damnata^ inimi- cis synodi Calchedonensis Acacium commimicantem a sua commu- nione depellere? 13. Sed inquiunt: Acacius principi obviare non potuit. Cur Basi- lisco, quia voluit, obviavit? Cur ipsi Zenoni, ne palam Petro Antio- cheno, quamvis latenter***) hoc fecerit, conimunicare videretur, non commodavit assensum? Ecce resultanti nou institit imperator, ecce vim nolenti non intulit, ecce refugienti contagia manifesta concefisit! Postremo cur tanto tempore, quum ista gererentur vel gerenda co- gnosceret, non ad sedeni apostolicam, a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatam, referre maturavit? Sed prius laudator factus est ipse gestorum, quam vel praemoneret talia esse tentanda, vel ne tentarentur obsisteret, sicut sub Basilisco jam fecerat. Our iUis ceteris communicare consensit, qui depulsis catholicis sacerdo- tibus indubitauter haeretici siugulis urbibus fuerant substituti? Bo ipsum, sed per Petrum Aloxandrinum cum Antiocheno commmiicabat. Moz Q* non resittit resuUanti imperator. i^ostremo ille defiiit suis partibuS; et quae^^) sacerdoti catholico a. 495. ompeterent, agere fastidivit; ideo sedes apostolica^ quod ad eam- lexxL pertinebat, yel potuit vel debuit praeterire? 14. Quolibet igitur modo haereticorum complicem refutavit^*), b consortem communionis extemae a sua communione dimovit; nec. E>i3S fuit nova synodo, quum veteris constituti sufficienter hoc®*) praescriberet; nec opus fuit, ut haec scienda Orientis epi- 16 intimaret; quos ex e^pulsione catholicorum, quae agebantur causa fidei, non ignorasse manifestum est, et communicando reticis subrogatis facto tali consensisse. Non dubium est etiam, extemae communionis efiectis nec potuisse nec debuisse sedis p«^)6tolicae scita tractari. Ecce agnoverunt in eorum professione, constantissime perdurarunt, quid fidei communionique catholicae retur. Ecce agnoverunt, quemdadmodum a talibus recedendo, iO talibus contraria moliendo, a fide et communione catholica r-^arit Acacius, seque pariter cum eodem errori subdiderint. Ecce r-^overunt; quam justis ex causis pro fide et communione catholica ue apostolica, cui et illi qui in ea perstiterant congmebant, et qui perstantibus obviabant; ab eadem docebantur alieni, sedis ^ostolicae auctoritate sit remotus Acacius, (ad cujus praecipue vo- »tw examen vel venire vel mittere non curavit, ut se de^his omni- yK%Bf ut confidebat, absolveret), ejusque pariter quicunque complices e^xstiterint. Atque ab illa merito cum his communione discretus, J^ qoa se ipse primum cum suis consortibus a catholicis pontificibus iiscrepaiido cognoscitur separasse: jureque sententiam ille damna- wonk excepit ceteris®^) consortlbus promulgandam , qui solus pro <wmibug suis consortibus in conmiunionem se recidisse perfidiae ad •posloKcam sedem missis litteris est professus. Cui Acacio si com- DMuiicaverant Orientales episcopi antequam huc referret^^), pari roque reatu sine dubio probabantur*^) involvi, jureqiie per illum ^ transgreasionis sententiam suscepferunt tamquam facti cum eodem •^ Ita P* P- G' (*) N» Q' d«; vulg. haec Mox Q' a' et expulsione, ^ Editi eeierisque consortibus cum suis consortibus promulgandam; castigantur 0X 0188. ad Felicem mitteret relationem, qua se Petri commimionem suscepisse cum ejus- dem Petri encomio significavit. Qua rclatione propriam ipse perfidiam confes- fiif jnstam sententiam excepit, quae in ceteros ejusdem perfidiae consortes la- ••) Ita G* Q*. Vulg. probabatur. Mox editi ipse de eodem, et Q' a' cumgue ftde aposioHea, 412 ^ S. GELASII PAPAE a. 495. communioiiis externae: qui utique non consuli tamquam no^s^trae conimunionis homines jjim deberent, sed tamquam in coutraric» po- siti consortio refutari. Si vero non communicaverant ant^qi^vaiD Acacius huc referret, et communicantem notare diebuerant, et ipsi de eodem potius huc referre, atque apostolicae sedis vigore perculsum merito comprobare, cumque ea sede apostolica tantisque illis catiho- licis pontificibus magis tenere concordiam. Sed quia ab illonJ.ffl societate desciverant et eorum successoribus^^) communicare dele^^ rant, ideo cum sede apostolica minime congniebant. Quia iu sort^^ reciderant praevaricatoris Acacii, et illius se sine dubio pervidelw^^^ sententia consequenter adstringi, ol) hoc eum videri nolebant damnatum, quia se cognoscebant in eadem praevaricatione damn tos, in qua hodieque manere persistunt. Sed sicut ii simili con^^^ tione constricti complicem suum non possunt judicare non jure d^^ i mnatum, neque rei^^) reum possunt competenter absolverej sic iUr^*^ juste praevaricatore damnato ipsi quoque pari jacent damnation^ - prostrati, neque nisi resipiscentes inde poterunt prorsus absolvir^ quia sicut per unum scribentem eorum onmium vulgata transgres- ^ sio^^) est, qui in eamdem perfidiae reciderant actionem, sic in uno eodemque, qui pro omnibus scripserat vel scribendo omnium prodi- derat vohintates, transgrossione pimita pariter quoque cum eodem vel in eodem est complicum transgressio punita cunctorum. Quae tamen sententia in Acacium destinata, etsi nomine tantummodo praesulis apostolici, cujus erat utique potestatis, legitime^^) probatur esse deprompta, praecipue quum secrete dirigenda videretur, ne cu- stodiis ubique praetentis dispositio salutaris quibuslibet difficultaiibus impedita necessarium habere non posset eftectum ; tamen quia ortho- doxis ubique dejectis et haereticis tantummodo eorumque consortibus jam relictis, in Oriente catholici pontifi^ces aut residui oninino non essent aut liullam gererent libertatem, plurimorum in Italia catholi- ") Ita G"; vulg. omitt. rei. EPISTOLAE 26. 413 conim congregatio sacerdotum rationabiliter in Acacium senteutiam a. 495. GOpiont foisse prolatam. Quae congregatio facta pontificum non contra Calchedonensem^ non tamquam nova synodus contra veterem primamque convenit^^), sed potius secundum tenorem veteris consti- tati particeps apostolicae exsecutionis effecta est : ut satis appareat, Ecdesiam catholicam sedemque apostolicam, quia alibi jam omnino oon poBset; ubi potuit et cum quibus potuit, nihil penitus omisisse, faod ad fratemum pertineret pro intemerata et sincera conmiunione tnetatam. 15. Q«ae quum universa noverint qui videntur ecclesiis Orien- talibos nunc praeesse, propterea Christianam rej)arari legitima cu- ntione refugiunt unitatem^ quia occasionem dissensionis hujus suis imbitionibus suffi*agantem deponere jam recusant, quia sine aucto- rilate sedis apostolicae omnium ecclesiarum passim jura confundunt, Biagis eligentes in errore persistere, quam praesumptionum suarum perdere facultatem, plus usurpationum suarum licentiam diligentes, l«am divini judicii tenentes corde respectum. In quo necesse est, 'dint noUnt, tam de fidei communionisque catholicae sinceritate B^lecta, quam de patemis canonibus evidenter irruptis recipiant IQod merentur, nisi dum hic tempus admittit, haec damnationis Memae pericula correctis mentibus studeant declinare^ ut possint ftoi tales permanere, quibus insolubilis est lata sententia, sed a (ahlms recedentes, ab eadem sententia non teneri: quae sicut in ffrore durantibus nunquam solvenda praefixa est, sic ab his erit aliena^ qui exstiterint puniendae pravitatis immunes. 16, Haec vero ad instructionem vestrae dilectionis satis abun- deqne suffieere judicamus, quamvis eadem latius, si Dominus con- eesserit facultatem; studeamus exponere: quatenus et fidelium quis- qoe cc^noscat, nihil apostolicam sedem, quod absit, praepropere eensaisse, et non habere, quod juste possit oppouere, perversa do- eeator improbitas. Recte autem faciet vestra dilectio, ut ista quae scribimus, pariter catholicis et contraria sapientibus innotescant: qjoo et sanis necessaria firmitas, et male sanis competens medicina praebeatur. Data Calendis Februarii consulatu Viatoris'*^^) viri clarifwinii. ••) Ita G* Q' Q*: editi cognovU, Haec dicta ad illam referri possunt Byno- dam, qnae menBe Octobri anni 485 Bomae congregata rationabilUer in Acaciwn mnieniiam cognovH fuis»e (anno superiore) prolatam. Probabilitor tamen ad eam periiiieni, qoae anno 484 convenit, quac quidem uegatur nova si/nodus, quia non ftamy nt de nova causa necdum judicata pronimtiaret, congregata est, quam ut Opostolicae sedis decreta concilii Calchedonenais exsequentis testis et particeps Ideoque dicitur, sententiam adversus Acacium rationabiliter prolatatn. cogno ■ }, quia quam protulit Felix, utaequitati et CalchedonenBium patrum judicio eoagentaneam suo calculo apptobavit. ••) Ita O' {eons, Viatoris vc) h. e. anno 495. Editi P'ictore v. c. oonsule. a.496. Epistola 26. (Ex editione Balleriniomni.) Dilectissimis fratribus universis episcopis j> Dardaniam constitutis Gelasius. 1. Valde mirati sumus, quod vestra dilectio quasi novam veluti difficilem quaestionem^ et adhuc tamquam inauditum quidpi nosse desiderat; quod Eutychianae pestilentiae communicatores^ habentes quid pro suae perditionis obstinatione respondeant^ quenti jam ratione couvicti; sola contentione submurmurant: n quia sit alicujus momenti quod garriunt, nec inveniunt penitus qc»J loquantur. Ubi magia eos, qui catholicis sensibus instituti sunt, huc haerere miramur, quam illos, qui a veritate exciderunt et antiquae Ecclesiae traditione sunt devii, profanas vocum ncmtaii^i^ et ineptias caducae perversitatis obtendere : quibus eos vestra dH- ctio retulit jactitare, ideo Acacium non putare jure damnatum; qu-^ Don a speciali synodo videatur fuisse dejectus, et insuper dementiflft- suae va^itatis accumulare pueriliter, adjicientes: praecipue pon^^ ficem regiae civitatis, Quapropter stultitiam respuentes inaniumqiV relarum, percurrere vos oportet ab ipsis beatis apostolis et con^ derare prudenter, quoniam patres nostri, catholici videlicet doctiq'^ pontifices, in unaquaque haeresi quolibet tempore suscitata, quidqiV pro fide, pro veritate, pro communione catholica atque apostolL * secundum Scripturarum tramitem praedicationemque majoru^i fw^ semel congregatione sanxerunt , inconvulsum deinceps volueri — - firmumque constare, nec in eadem causa denuo quae praefixa rant retractari qualibet recenti praesumptione permiserint: sapi tissime pervidentes, quoniam si decreta salubriter cuiquam licec^ iterare, nuUum contra singulos quosque prorsus errores stabile sisteret Ecclesiae constitutum, ac semper iisdem furoribus recidi omnis integra definitio turbaretur. Nam si, limitibus etiam praefii^ positarum semel synodalium regularum, non cessant elisae pooU* resumptis certaminibus contra fundamentum sese veritatis attQJler^ et simplicia quaeque corda percutere: quid fieret, si subinde fif" esset perfidis inire concilium, quum quaelibet illa manifesta sit vei^ tas^ nunquam desit^ quod perniciosa depromat faisitas, etsi rati(^ vel auctoritate deficiens^ sola tameu intentione non cedens? 2. Quae majores nostri divina inspiratio^e. cementes, neceBsar^ praecaverunt^ ut contra unamquamque haeresim quod acta isjilM dus pro fidc; communione^ veritate catholica atque apostolica pr^ mulgasset^ non sinerent novis post haec retractationibas mntilt^ ne pravis occasio praeberetur quae medicinaliter ftierant statiz^ pulsandi ; sed auctore cujuslibet insaniae ac pariter errore damnaltf sufficere judicarunt^ ut quisquis aliquando hi:guB erroris Gomm^ [ cator exsisterety principali sententia damnationis ejus esset obstrictus; a. 495. quoniam manifeste quilibet vel professione sua vel communione posset agnosci. Et ut brevitatis causa priora taceamuS; quae diligens inqui- aitDr facile poterit vestigare: Sabellium damnavit synodus^ nec fuit necesse, ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur^ singulas viri- tim synodos celebrari^ sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cun- cb»; qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis exstitere participes^ imiversalis Ecclesia duxit esse refutandos. Sic propter blasphemias Aiii forma fidei communionisque catholicae^ Nicaeno prolata con- mtaj Arianos omnes^ vel quisquis in hanc pestem sive sensu m communione deciderit; sine retractatione concludit. Sic Euno- DiaiDy Macedonium^ Nestorium synodus semel gesta condemnanS; Qlterius ad nova concilia venire non sivit; sed universos quocun- loe modo in has blasphemias recidentes^ tradito sibi limite syno- dili refutavit Ecclesia^ nec imquam recte cessisse manifestmn est^ qwKbet necessitate cogente, noviter quae fuerant salubriter con- ititata; temerasse. Non autem nos latet^ in tempestate persecu- ^atoB Arianae plurimos pontifices, de exsiliis pace reddita respi- notes, per certas provincias congregatis secum fratribus ecclesias «MDposuisse turbatas; non tamen ut illius synodi Nicaenae, quid- loid de fide et communione catholica definiverat^ immutarent, ixet Bo?a quemquam prolapsum damnatione percellerent; sed illius de- *eti tenore nisi resipuisset, judicavere damnatum, essetque conse- iQens, ut nisi corrigeret, damnationi procul dubio subjaceret. 3. Quibus convenienter^ ut dictum est^ ex paterna traditione pcrpensis confidimus^.quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret^ ^lidQScajiisque synodi constitutum^ quod universalis Ecclesiae proba- vit assensuSy nullam magis exsequi sedem oportere prae ceteris/ fUam primam^ quae et unamquamque synodum sua auctoritate con- «mai^ et continuata moderatione custodit; pro suo sciUcet princi- ptto, quem beatus apostolus Petrus Domini voce perceptum, Eccle- *U nihilominus subsequente; et tenuit semper et retinet. Haec dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate de- ^ime, diutius ista non credeus, quippe quem noverat exsecutorem necessariae dispositionis suae contra haereticos exstitisse^ per iom fere litteris destinatis eumdem monere nou destitit, sicut te div^rsos missa familiariter scripta testantur. Quibus ille primum ^iHMpiani dedito silentio nihil respondere proponens, taiidem ali- )lumdo nussis litteris profitetur, se Alexandrino Petro, quem expe- tifai apostolicae sedis exsecutor ipse quoque damnaverat, absque Ipoetolicae sedis notitia conmotunione permixtum. Beati autem Petri iBdaSy quae Alexandrinum Petrum se tantummodo damnasse^ non efuna solyisse noverat, non recepit; atque ideo^ ne per Acacium in a. 495. Petri quoque consortiura duceretur, ipsum quoque a sua commimione submoyit^ et multis moilis transgressorem a sua societate fecit alienum. ■ 4. Hic si cxaminatio quaeritur^ jam judicio non erat opus, postquam litteris suis ipse confessus est. Si auctoritatis pondus in- quiritur, Calcliedonensis syhodi tenore illius definitionis exsecutio reperitur, quo damnati illic erroris commuiiicator effectus, praefixaa niliilominus damnationis particeps exsisteret; quoniam idem ipse er- ror, qui semel est cum suo auctore damnatus, in participe quolibei pravae commimionis effecto et exsecrationem sui gestat et poenam. Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandriuus Petrus", qni secundam certe sedem tenuisse videbantur, non repetita synodo sed auctoritate tantummodo- seilis apostolicae, ipso quoque Acacio po- stulante vel exsequente, probantur esse damnati. 5. Quodsi ; utrum errori vel praevaricationi conununicarit Acacius, forsitan dicatur oportuisse constare, breviter praebemus ad ista responsum: aut enim ipsi doceant Petrum veraciter legitimeqiM purgatum et ab omni haereticorum contagioue rite discretum^ quiim ei communicavit Acacius, si ejus communicatorem putant Acaciom aliquatenus excusandmn; aut si, quod magis est verum, conyenienter at<|ue legitime Petrum non probaverint expiatum, restat^ ut ejus Uh cxpiatione fuerit, et qui ei communieavit, infectus. Nec plane tacemus, quod cuncta per mundum novit EccLesiai quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata pontificum sedes beati Petd apostoli jus habeat resolvendi: utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicanili, neque cuiquam liceat de ejus judicare judicio; ai- quidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte canoues appellari Yolae- \ rint, ab illa autem iiemo sit appellare permissus. Quapropter oon- stat satis, Acacium nullum habuisse pontificium sententiam sedil apostolicae sine ulla ejus notione solvendi. Qua certe synodo hoffi ille praesumpsit, quod nec sic absque apostolica sede fas qui haberet efticere? Cujus sedis episcopus? Cujus metropolitanae tatis antistes? Nonne parochiae Heracleensis ecclesiae? Si illi certft' licuit sine synodo scntentiam apostolicae sedis abrumpere; nulla ejos consultationc quaesita; itane vero non licuit primae sedi^ Calchedihs! nensis synodi constituta, sicut decuit, exsequenti, hujusmodi varicatorem sua auctoritate detrudcre? Sed nec illa praetejimo^f quod apostolica sedes frequenter, ut dictum est, more majorum et-^^ iam sinc uUa synodo praecedente, exsolvendi quos synodus iniq[iA^ damnaverat, et damnandi nulla exsistente synodo quos oportuit, hft- buerit facultatem. Sanctae quippe memoriae Athauasium synodni Orientalis addixerat, quem tamen exceptum sedes apostolica, quifr damnationi Graecorum non consensit, absolvit. Sanctae memoria» niliilominus Jolianneni Constantinopolitanmn synodus etiam nim praesnlom certe damnaverat; quem simili modo sedes aposto- a. 495. a etiam solay quia non consenait; absolyit. Itemque sanctum Fla- knnm ponidficem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore, oniam sola sedes apostolica non consensit^ absolvit; potiusque qui c receptus fuerat^ Dioscorum secundae sedis praesulem sua auctori- e damnayit, et impiam synodum non consentiendo sola submovit, pro veritate ut synodus Calchedonensis fieret, sola decrevit. In qiia er^o sola jus habuit absolvendi eos, quos synodica decreta per- erant, sic etiam sine sjnodo in hac eadem causa plurimos etiam tropolitanos damnasse cognoscitur. Qaodsi quis haec ab apostolica sede vel secimdum synodum ia reprehendit^ praeter quod prisca rerum probatione conyincitur, terim mrdto magis Acacio non licuisse fatebitur. Dicat ergo^ qua le synodo secundae sedis antistitem qualemcunquC; certe catholi- m et a catholicis ordinatum, nec de catholica fide et communione qnatenos impetitum^ duxerit excludendum; et haereticum mani- rtom Petrum; sua quoque exsecutione damnatum; catholico ponti- i permiserit subrogari. Qua synodo tertiae sedis episcopum san- om Calendionem fecit expelli^ ac nihilominus eidem Petrum tam inifestum haereticum; ut eidem palam nec se communicare prae- Qjderety sua passus est dispositione substitui? Qua denique per hnn Orientem synodo, ejectis orthodoxis nullo crimine maculatis^ mfos quosque et criminibus involutos sua provisione supposuit? ■asynodo tot aliena privilegia uefandus populator iavasit? Sed libri m Bufficient^ si tragoedias ejus^ quas per ecclesias totius Orientis uareait, singillatim describere moliamur. 8. An illud ipsius argumentum nobis aestimant opponendum^ BO facinora sua in imperialem yisus est jactare personam? Gur ;itor quando voluit obstitit Basilisco tyrannO; certe et haeretico Bhementer infesto? Cur ipsi imperatori Zenoni; quia palam An- odieno Petro noluit conmnmicare, suam non subdidit voluntatem? ieee potnit in aliis resultare, si vellet. An non apostolus dicit : Rom. km solum qui facimt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus, reatu^'"^'^ writer suni irreHti? Sed ut ea quae latius explicanda sunt omitta- My qnid^ quod ipse Zenon imperator suis litteris profitetur cuncta M ez Acacii gessisse consilio^ nec hoc emn fallere litteris suis ^ qooqne testatur Acacius^ qui et eum nihilominus universa recte iBse conscripsit^ et suo consilio haec eadem gesta non tacuit! vero tantum in Alexandrini Petri communione Acacius prae- nieator exstiterit; et non in omnibus^ quos vel fecit depulsis ca- loGcis pontificibus tamquam tjrannus ecclesiis quibuscunque prae- Baiy vel talrter praepositis perversa communione permixtus est, n boc ipso secundum canones fuerant ab ecclesiastica communione sDendi, quo se passi sunt successores vivis sacerdotibus adhiberi! SPI0TOLAB KOMAV. POHTIF. I. 27 a.495. Quis autem non perspiciat CliristianuS; quod catholicis pont a propria sede dejectis non nisi haeretici potuerunt inti Quibus tamen cunctis vel auctor fuit Acacius subrogandis, y rogatis communicator accessit, his utique^ qui a communione tenus discrepabant. Cur ergo vel quum haec fieri videret, nc sub Basilisco jam fecerat^ ad apostolicam sedem referre cura' si solus ipse non poterat^ junctis cum eadem consiliis atque tibus apud imperatorem possent^ quae religioni competereni gari ? Nam si BasiliscuS; ut dictum est^ tjrannus haereticus ! apostolicae sedis vehementer infractus est et a plutimis re^ excessibuS; quanto magis legitimus imperator^ qui se catl videri volebat^ potuit cum apostolica sede cunctorum quoque ficum moderata suggestione mitigari : praecipue quum ejusdem esset specialis fautor et amator^ et qui litteris suis tam ipsu cium quam sanctum papam Simplicium magnis laudibus ext quod haeretico constantissime restitissent? Cur tanto tempoi cius inter ista conticuit; nisi quia praepediri nolebat ullatenui desiderabat expleri? 9. Ponamus tamen^ etiamsi nulla synodus praecessisset apostolica sedes recte fieret exsecutrix, cum quibus erat de synodus ineunda? Numquid cum his; qui jam participes ten< AcaciO; et per Orientem totum eatholicis sacerdotibus violen clusis et per exsilia diversa relegatis ; socii evidenter exsii communionis extemae^ prius se ad haec consortia transfc quam sedis apostolicae scita consulerent? Cum quibus ergo era dus ineunda? Catholici pontifices fuerant imdique jam depulf que remanserant socii perfidonmi; cum quibus jam nec Iioe1 Psalm. bere conventum, dicente psalmo: Non sedi in concilio vanii " ' ' cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo. Nec ecclesiastici moris ei his^ qui pollutam habent communionem permixtamque cum { miscere concilium. Recte igitur per Calchedonensis synodi i hujusmodi praevaricatio repulsa est potiuS; quam ad conciliua nec opus erat post primam sjnodum nec cum talibus haberi 1 adducta est. Nam et quid ageretur de fide catholica, intelli vellent, ignorare non poterant^ quum viderent catholicos po nulla synodi discussione^ nullo concilio^ praecipue quum novas esse perpenderent , toto Oriente depelli ; et ceteri quid ca ex illorum qualitate discemere potuissent. Restat igitor, i^ partis eos fuisse sit clamm^ cui se post tot experimenta de meritoque ab apostolica sede ceterisque catholicis non jam lendi erant, sed potius notandi. 10. Risimus autem^ quod praerogativam volunt Acacio rari; quia episcopus fuerit regiae civitatis. Numquid apud M num, apud Ravennam; apud Sirmium; apud Treviros multis soii constitit imperator? Numqnidnam harnm urbium sacerdotes a. 495. meiuniram sibimet antiquitus deputatam quidpiam suis digni- 3 nsnrparont? Numquid AcaciuS; ut Johannem quemlibet ho- i; eatholicum tamen a catholicis ordinatum^ de Alexandria eret, Petmmque in haeresi jam detectum atque damnatum sedis apostolicae consultatione reciperet^ aliqua synodo sal- lic habita hoc audacter arripuit; ut Calendionem de Antiochia iret, haereticumque Petrum, quem ipse damnaverat; absque sedid apostolicae rursus admitteret, aliqua synodo id fecisse atar? Si certe de'dignitate agitur civitatum, secundae sedis iae major est dignitas sacerdotum quam ejus civitatiS; quae lum inter sedes minime njimeratur, sed nec inter metropoli- in jura censetur. Nam quod dicitis regiae civiiaUs, alia po- est regni saecularis^ alia ecclesiasticarum distributio dignita- Sicut enim quamvis parva civitas praerogativam praesentis aon minuit; sic imperialis praesentia mensuram dispensationis sae non mutat. Sit clara urbs illa potestate praesentis im- ris, religio sub eodem tunc firma, tunc libera, tunc provecta it, si potius hoc praesente propriam teneat sine ulla pertur- ^ mensuram. .. Sed dicatur forsitan de Alexandrino et Antiocheno, certis sis piincipem magis illa quae gesta sunt, non Acacium prae- . Sed principi Christiano decuerat suggerere sacerdotem, e cujus familiaritate et favore fruebatur, salvam fore de ejus contumeliaque vindictam, tantum ut Ecclesiae sineret Chri- I princeps regulas custodiri, quia et nova in utroque pontifice esset exorta, et novam discussionem consequenter inquireret. edcnt semper esset effectum, sacerdotali concilio de sacerdo- udicia provenirent, non a saeculari viderentur qualescunque D^y etsi errore humanitus accedente, non tamen contra reli- 1 nllatenus excedentes, potestate percelli. An et haec justa \ piincipi suggerenda non erant? Regiae civitatis honore 18 si factus erat illa regia civitate sublimior, tanto magis in ^gerendis debuit esse constantior. Si autem in his, quae pro ae fuerant exserenda, exstitit contemptibilis atque despectus, 9egsn& aut fiduciam non habens intimandi, in quo per regiam em major effectus est ? Nathan propheta palam publiceque in regi David et commissum pronuntiavit errorem, et ipsum sisse non tacuit, et confessione correctum consequenter absol- lic autem vir bonus et sacerdos egregius in tantum se et ere potuisse monstravit et noluisse deprompsit, immo favisse jit, ut et imperator cuncta se ex ejus gessisse consilio non , et ipse imperatorem magnis praeconiis elevaret ista facien- egeque proderet his agendis rebus fuisse participem. 27* a. 496. 12. Sed estO; Calendion nomen imperatons abstnlerit^ Johanne principi mentitus fuisse jactetur: quae tamen qunm noyae easeni eausae; nova debuit ecclesiastica provenire discussio. An qui ht hominem imperatorem peccasse dicebantur; nulla interveniente Sf- nodo dejici debuerunt; et in Deum, qui summus et yerus est impe- perator, Acacium delinquentem sinceramque communionem diiiM sacramenti studentem miscere cum perfidis^ secundum synodum, qoi; haec est danmata perfidia^ non oportebat excludi? Quid per totai Orientem de innumeris urbibus pulsi cathoUci sacerdotes, et haifn* tici subrogati? Novae certe erant causae^ et his consequenter non^: synodus debebatur. Gur tunc non venit in mentem, ut in talibivl causis peteretur a principe saltem ^[ualiscunque synodus eeleb: ut quocunque vel colorato judicio traditionis ecclesiasticae pontifices viderentur exclusi^ non solimi quarumcunque urbium doteS; sed metropolitani incunctanter antistites? EUs omnibus qi non restitit suggestione qua potuit^ consensit Acacius communi cunctis; qui in catholicorum locum haeretici fuerant subrogati. Rum. stolus autem dicit^ non solum qui faciunt, sed et qui consaiMtt^ ' ' facientibus, reos indubitanter adscribi. An haec licuit saecularipiH testati et actis talibus Acacio consentienti absque ulla synodo, qi ipsa rerum novitas exigebat, absque sedis apostolicae consi perficere; et sedi apostolicae non licuit secimdum tenorem 8] Calchedonensis in veteri utique causa et veteri constitnto justa finitione damnatis inimicis syuodi Calchedonensis Aeacium eoi nicantem a sua communione depellere? 13. Sed Acacius, inquiunt, principibus obviare non potuii Basilisco, quia voluit, obviavit? Cur ipsi Zenoni; ne palam Antiocheno, quamvis latenter hoc fecit^ communicare yideretuT; commodavit assensum? Ecce resultanti non restitit imperator, vim nolenti non intulit, ecce refugienti contagia manifesta sit; postremo cur tanto tempore quum ista gererentur vel gerendi gnosceret, non ad sedem apostolicam, a qua sibi cnram regionmn noverat delegatam, deferre curavit? Sed prius lai factus est ipse gestorum, quam vel praemoneret talia esse vel ne tentarentur obsisteret, sicut sub Basilisco jam fecerat illis ceteris communicare consensit; qui depulsis catholicis tibus indubitanter haeretici singulis urbibus fuerant substitaiil Postremo si ille defuit suis partibus, et quae sacerdoti cathc competerent agere non curavit; ideo sedes apostolica, quod ad pertinebat, vel potuit vel debuit praeterire? 14. Quolibet modo haereticorum complicem refntayit et M^ sortem communionis extemae a sua communione dimoyit, nec Q|Wi fuit nova synodo, quum veteris constituti sufficienter hoc forma piifr scriberet; nec opus fuit, ut haec facienda Orientis episoopia intuia' EPiSTOLA 26 (ex bdit. ballerin.) 421 nif qno8 et ezpcilsioiie catholicoram; quae agebautur in causa fidei^ a. 495. !jmb ignorasse manifestum sit; et communicaudo haereticis subro- ptis facto tali consenRisse. Non dubium est etiam extemae com- jmmionis effectos^ atque ideo cum eis jam nec potmsse nec debuisse mJk apostolicae scita tractari. Ecce agnoverunt in eorum profes- Mne qui constantissime perdurarunt^ quid fidei communionique ofiiolicae deberetur. Ecce agnoverunt; quemadmodum a talibus recedendO; immo tali- kn contraria moliendo a fide et commimione catholica deyiarit ieaenis, seque pariter cum eodem errori subdiderint. Ecce agno- imnt; quam justis ex causis pro fide et communione catholica at- Papostolica, cui et illi qui in ea perstiterant congruebant; et illi perstantibus obviabant^ ab eadem docebantur alieni, sedis apo- Mcae auctoritate sit remotus Acacius, ejusque pariter quicunque in&plices exstiterunt; atque ab illa merito communione cum his beretuS; a qua se ipse primum cum suis consortibus a pontificibus eiUiolicis discrepando cognoscitur separasse^ jureque sententiam ille JBDnatioius excepit; ceteris consortibus promulgandam^ qui solus po omnibus suis consortibus in communionem se recidisse perfidiae li apostolicam sedem missis litteris est professus. Cui si commu- neaTerant Orientales episcopi^ antequam huc referret^ pari utique ne dubio reatu probabantur involvi, jureque per eum sententiam hasgressionis susceperunt^ tamquam facti cum eodem communionis intemae. Qui utique non consuli tamquam nostrae communionis IflQiues jam deberent; sed tamquam in contrario positi consortio Hfiitari. Si vero non communicaverant antequam Acacius huc re- jbiety et communicantem notare debuerant^ et ipsi potius de eodem fcic referre, atque apostolicae sedis vigore perculsum merito com- fiobare, cumque sede apostolica tantisque illis catholicis pontificibus llgis tenere concordiam. Sed quia ab illorum societate desciverant, i eonim successoribus communicare delegerant^ ideo cum sede apo- hfica minime congruebant, quia in sortem reciderant praevarica- His Acacii, et illius se sine dubio pervidebant sententia conse- itater adstnngi. Ob hoc eum videri nolebant esse damnatum, quia ' eognoscebant in eadem praevaricatione damnatos, in qua hodie- le manere persistunt. Sed sicut hi, simili conditione constricti, l&l^licem suum non possunt judicare non jure damn^tum, neque i leum possunt competenter absolvere; sic illo praevaricatore juste tnmato, isti quoque pari jacent damnatione prostrati, neque nisi Dpiscentes inde poterunt prorsus absolvi: quia sicut per unum tibentem eorum omnium vulgata transgressio est, qui in eamdem rfidiae reciderant actionem, sic in imo eodemque, qui pro omnibus ipserat vel scribendo omnium prodiderat voluntates, transgressio pnnita cunctorum. a. 495. 16. Quae ad instructiouem vestrae dilectionis satis aboBd sufficere judicamus^ quamvis eadem latius^ si Dominus coneef facultatem, studeamus exponere: quatenus et fidelium qmsqTV gnoscat; nihil apostolicam sedem^ quod absit, praepropere censi Quae tamen sententia in Acacium destinata^ etsi nomine tai modo praesulis apostolici, cujus erat utique potestatis, legitime batur esse deprompta^ praesertim quum secretim dirigenda yidG ne custodiis ubique praetentis dispositio salutaris quibuslibet cidtatibus impedita uecessarium habere non posset efiectum: ( quia orthodoxis ubique dejectis et haereticis tantummodo eom consortibus jam relictis, in Oriente catholici pontifices aut r omnino non essent aut nullam gererent libertatem, plurimon; Italia catholicorum congregatio sacerdotum rationabiliter oo( sententiam in Acacium fuisse prolatam. Quae congregatio pontificum non contra Calchedonensem^ non tamquam noya sy contra veterem primamque convenit; sed potius secundum tei veteris constituti particeps apostolicae exsecutionis effecta e satis appareat; Ecclesiam catholicam sedemque apostolicam^ alibi jam omnino non posset^ ubi potuit et cum quibus potait penitus omisisse^ quod ad fratemum pertineret pro intemerat et sincera communione tractatum.