Letter 4: Ualde mirati sumus, that uestra love quasi nouam el ueluti difficilem quaestionem and adhue tamquam inauditum 5...

We were greatly astonished that your beloved Charity desires to investigate, as though it were some new and likewise difficult question, and as if it were something hitherto unheard of, that very thing about which the partners of the Eutychian pestilence, having nothing they might answer in defense of the obstinacy of their own perdition, now mutter under their breath in wretched contention, though already refuted by frequent reasoning; not because what they prate has any weight, but because they cannot in the least find anything to say. Here we marvel that those who have been instructed in catholic sentiments should still hesitate, more than that those men who have fallen away from the truth and gone astray from the ancient tradition of the Church should put forward the profane novelties of words and the follies of a fleeting perversity, by which, as your Charity reported, they boast that Acacius is therefore not to be reckoned justly condemned, because he does not appear to have been deposed by any special synod, and on top of this they pile up the madness of their vanity, childishly adding above all the words "the pontiff of the royal city." Wherefore, spurning the foolishness of these empty complaints, it behooves you to run through matters from the blessed apostles themselves and to consider prudently that our fathers, the catholic and learned pontiffs, in every heresy raised up at whatever 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 the assembly had been convened, willed thereafter to stand unshaken and firm, nor did they permit what had been settled in the same cause to be revisited anew by any fresh presumption; perceiving most wisely that, if it were permitted to anyone to repeat decrees that had been salutarily made, no constitution of the Church would stand firm against each and every error, and every entire definition would always be thrown into confusion by these same recurring frenzies. For if, even when the limits of synodal rules once established have been fixed, the pests once struck down do not cease, with their struggles renewed, to raise themselves against the foundation of the truth and to strike all simple hearts, what would happen if from time to time it were lawful for the faithless to convene a council, since, however manifest that truth may be, there is never lacking some pernicious falsehood to bring forth, which, though deficient in reason or authority, nonetheless does not yield in sheer obstinacy? Our forebears, discerning these things by divine inspiration, necessarily took precaution that, against each and every heresy, whatever a holy synod had decreed for the faith, communion, and catholic and apostolic truth, they would not allow to be mutilated thereafter by new revisitations, lest occasion be afforded for assailing the things that had been ordained medicinally for evil men; but, the author of any madness being condemned together with the error alike, they judged it sufficient that whoever should at any time become a partner of this error should be bound by the principal sentence of his condemnation, since plainly anyone could be recognized either by his own profession or by his communion. And, to pass over the earlier instances, which a diligent inquirer will easily be able to trace: the synod condemned Sabellius, nor, in order that his followers might be condemned afterward, was it necessary that individual synods be celebrated man by man; but, in accordance with the tenor of the ancient constitution, the universal Church judged that all who had been partakers either of that depravity or of that communion were to be repudiated. So, on account of the blasphemies of Arius, the form of the faith and of catholic communion having been set forth at the council of Nicaea, it concludes against all the Arians, or whoever has fallen into this pestilence whether by understanding or by communion, without revisitation. So the synod, once enacted, condemning Eunomius, Macedonius, Nestorius, did not allow them to come thereafter to new councils, but the Church repudiated all who in whatever manner relapse into these fellowships by the synodal limit handed down to it; nor was it ever rightly manifest that what had been salutarily established was, with any necessity compelling, profaned by new ventures. Therefore, in the storm of the Arian persecution too, very many catholic priests, breathing again after peace was restored from exile, so set in order the churches that had been disturbed, together nonetheless with their catholic brethren, that they did not, however, change anything that the synod of Nicaea had defined concerning the catholic and apostolic faith and communion, nor did they strike anyone with a new condemnation for his lapse, but by the tenor of that decree they judged them to be condemned, unless they had come to their senses. These things being weighed, as has been said, fittingly from the paternal tradition, we are confident that no one who is truly a Christian is now 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 first before the others, which both confirms each synod by its own authority and guards it by continuous moderation, namely on account of its own primacy, which the blessed apostle Peter received by the voice of the Lord, and which the Church, ever following after, both held and ever retains. When this see had ascertained by certain indications that Acacius had deviated from catholic and apostolic communion, not believing these things for a long while, inasmuch as it had known him to have been often the executor of its necessary disposition against the heretics, for nearly three years it did not cease to admonish the same man by letters dispatched, as writings frequently sent through various persons attest. Since he, persisting in an undue silence, proposed for a long time not to answer these, an episcopal legation also was sent, and nonetheless a page was dispatched which should forewarn him to remember beforehand his own deeds, and that he ought to look back upon what he had first toiled for in defense of the catholic faith, testifying both by coaxing and by threatening alike, that he should not cut himself off from the body of catholic unity; and at the same time, since John, the prelate of the second see, was assailing him with grave charges, he was exhorted that he ought either to come or to send to the audience of the first see: for although a synod was not to be repeated, yet it would be fitting that the bishop of any city should not shun the judgment of the first see, before which the prelate of the second see had presented himself, who could not be heard except by the first see; especially since one who, by minds already prejudged, had been excluded by no synod by the Greeks, could not even among them by any means plead his case nor ought to, because he could not, except by the first see, as has been said, be examined by inferior bishops as a superior, nor, if reason so demanded, be adjudged; and since now, with all the Eastern bishops along with Acacius himself relapsing into the communion of Peter, the catholic bishop of the second see was by no means to be judged by men of an external communion. But Acacius not only scorned to satisfy the demands, but even, the very legation of the apostolic see having been deceived by his blandishments, rewards, and perjuries, by which he promised it that the whole case along with the emperor would be preserved unimpaired for the apostolic prelate, brought it about that, having been polluted by communion with Peter, it returned; despising the power of the apostolic see to such a degree that he not only did not yield to its authority but rather strove through his own legates to draw it into the fellowship of an external communion; and the apostolic see was put under the necessity of depriving those very priests whom it had sent of their honor and likewise of communion, lest it appear infected by such contagion, and might sufficiently show that it did not specially hate the person of Acacius but repudiated the compacts of the lost, which it would fittingly abhor as detested even in its own pontiffs. Nonetheless Acacius indicated by his own letters that he had relapsed even into the communion of Peter of Alexandria, whom, with the authority of the apostolic see having been sought, he himself too as executor had condemned, most readily without consultation of the same apostolic see; and that he relayed in his own discourse the accusation of John and the praises of Peter. If indeed he was confident concerning these things, he ought rather either to have come or to have sent, so that he might both refute John, who was present, concerning the lies he was speaking, and rationally allege the encomiums of Peter which he had set forth. Since he did this not at all, he showed clearly enough that he could neither convince John nor have any confidence in maintaining that Peter, once received, was legitimately so; and he showed that there was in him only the purpose of tearing down catholics and praising heretics, and he taught that he was rather a partaker of those whom he was praising than an associate of the catholics whom he was striving to defame; and he brought judgment upon himself, when, polluted by communion with a condemned man, he was made a partaker of his condemnation. Thus the apostolic see also, as far as concerned necessary diligence, omitted nothing; and Acacius, according to the form of the synod of Chalcedon, by which the error he communicated with was struck down, appeared, as is written concerning a heretical man, condemned by his own judgment; and the apostolic see justly, which assuredly remembered that it had condemned Peter of Alexandria, not also absolved him, lest through the former communion of Acacius it should fall into the college of Peter as well, with whom Acacius had communicated, fittingly removed Acacius himself from its own communion. Wherefore, whether Acacius communicated with the error or with the prevarication, what need was there to learn it by a new examination, since he had already confessed it himself by his own letters and, as it is written: "By your own mouth you shall be justified and by your own mouth you shall be condemned," was both held bound by the fetters of his own words and rightly to be punished? Why did he himself, in a new case which no synod had preceded, scorn to confute John, whom he was assailing by his own letters, of whatever sort a bishop of the second see he might be, in the judgment of the first see of the blessed apostle Peter, and disdain either to come or to dispatch, so that he might plead his case either through himself or through a legitimate person whom he himself might choose? Thinking it unworthy that the bishop of any city should come to the judgment of the first see, to which he perceived that the pontiff of the second see had come, which Anatolius, bishop of the city of Constantinople, is shown to have done by legates sent on his own behalf. Behold, even in this respect he has no voice of one complaining; behold, I say, he was summoned to a legitimate examination, where he ought either to have confuted the one who assailed him or to have defended his own side with just allegations. If he refused the examination of the apostolic see in investigating the affair of John, the catholic pontiff, how was the apostolic see going to follow the judgment of Acacius concerning the reception of Peter the heretic, condemned by its own sentence and not absolved by its own authority? Or did it befit the apostolic see to await the judgment of the parish of the church of Heraclea, that is, of the pontiff of Constantinople or of any others whatsoever, who were to be gathered together along with him or on his account, when the bishop of Constantinople declined the audience of the apostolic, that is, the first see? Who indeed, even if he were upheld by the right of a metropolitan, even if he held a place among the sees, yet had no right to refuse the cognizance of the first see, to which, by an appeal made according to the canons by the prelate of the second see, he was summoned to the cause. Did he not by this very thing show sufficiently that he confessed himself guilty, who, summoned to a legitimate judgment, scorned to be absent? Nor could it be deferred any longer, lest, as has been said, with that old communion of his enduring, since he had already joined himself to the external one, the apostolic see too should be polluted through him by the contagions of the faithless; and it was fitting that one who was either a prevaricator or a despiser of competent judgment, manifestly, that is, one despairing of his own affair, be cut off from catholic and apostolic integrity and communion. Here, if an examination is sought, there was now no need of a judgment, after he both confessed by his own letters and feared to approach the legitimate judgment to which he was summoned; if the weight of authority is inquired into, the tenor of the synod of Chalcedon is found agreeing with the apostolic see, and the execution of its definition, by which he, made a communicator of the error condemned there, appeared nonetheless a partaker of the condemnation fixed there as well, since that same error, which was once condemned together with its author, in any partaker whatsoever made guilty of depraved communion carries with it execration of itself and punishment. By this tenor also Timothy Aelurus and Peter of Alexandria himself, who is seen to have held in some manner the second see, are proved to have been condemned, the synod not being repeated, but only by the authority of the apostolic see, with Acacius himself too demanding it or executing it. Now then let them themselves show that Peter was legitimately and truly purged and rightly separated from all contagion of the heretics, at the time when Acacius communicated with him, if they think Acacius in any way to be excused as a communicator with him; or if, what is rather true, they will not be able fittingly and legitimately to prove Peter to have been cleansed (on account of which Acacius too did not dare either to come or to dispatch to the judgment of the apostolic see), it remains that, by his uncleansed state, he too who communicated with him was infected. We do not keep silent, moreover, about what the whole Church throughout the world knows, namely that the see of the blessed apostle Peter has the right of loosing whatever has been bound by the sentences of any pontiffs, inasmuch as it has the right of judging concerning the whole Church, nor is it lawful for anyone to judge concerning its judgment, seeing that the canons have willed that an appeal be made to it from any part of the world, but no one is permitted to appeal from it. Wherefore it is sufficiently established that Acacius had no pontifical right of loosing the sentence of the apostolic see without any cognizance on its part. Let them indeed say: by what synod did that man presume this, which even so he would not have the right to effect apart from the apostolic see? Bishop of what see? Prelate of what metropolitan city? Was he not of the parish of the church of Heraclea? If indeed it was lawful for him without a synod to break off the sentence of the apostolic see, no consultation of it being sought, was it then truly not lawful for the first see, executing the constitutions of the synod of Chalcedon as was fitting, to thrust down by its own authority such a prevaricator? But we do not pass over even this, that the apostolic see frequently, as has been said, after the manner of our forebears, even without any preceding synod, has had the power both of absolving those whom a synod had unjustly condemned and of condemning, no synod existing, those whom it behooved. For an Eastern synod had condemned Athanasius of holy memory; whom nevertheless the apostolic see exempted and absolved, because it did not consent to the condemnation of the Greeks. Likewise a 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 Flavian of holy memory, condemned by an assembly of Greek pontiffs, by an equal tenor, because the apostolic see alone did not consent, it absolved; and rather it condemned by its own authority Dioscorus, prelate of the second see, who had there been received, and alone, by not consenting, removed the impious synod, and alone decreed for the truth that the synod of Chalcedon should be held; in which to innumerable pontiffs who had fallen at the robbery of Ephesus, begging pardon, it alone granted pardon, and those persisting in their faithlessness it nonetheless cast down by its own authority. Which the assembly that had been gathered there for the restoration of the truth followed, since, just as that which the first see had not approved could not stand, so what it judged was deemed to be judged, the whole Church accepted. Here too it is consequently shown that a badly conducted synod, that is, one against the Holy Scriptures, against the doctrine of the fathers, against the ecclesiastical rules, which the whole Church deservedly did not receive and especially the apostolic see did not approve, both ought to be and could be changed by a well-conducted synod, that is, one set forth according to the Holy Scriptures, according to the tradition of the fathers, according to the ecclesiastical rules for the catholic faith and communion, which the whole Church received, which the apostolic see most of all approved; but a well-conducted synod, in the manner above stated, is by no means to be changed by a new synod. Accordingly, if they confess Eutyches a heretic, they will likewise confess that the synod held at Ephesus, by which he was received, was badly conducted, and that the synod of Chalcedon, by which Eutyches and those holding such opinions with him were rejected, was very well conducted, whether they will or no they will consent; and therefore let them acknowledge that it was not lawful for a well-conducted synod to be rubbed away by new agitations. And if perchance they say that by that tenor the synod of Ephesus too was not lawful to be changed, let them again weigh these same things, which we set forth above, repeated more plainly, that is, that a synod not rightly conducted against the faith, against the truth and the catholic and apostolic and truly Christian communion is by all means to be excluded by a legitimate synod for the faith, truth, and catholic and truly Christian communion, and an unjust synod is to be removed by a just synod; but for the faith and the truth and the catholic and apostolic communion a good and truly Christian synod, once enacted, can and ought to be overturned by no repetition of a new synod, but, according to the well-conducted synod and rightly established, if anyone deviates from its path, he is consequently and sufficiently to be punished by its definition and deservedly lies subject to its constitutions. Nor is there need that, for each and every one who deviates and is rightly to be punished, new synods again be introduced, since from the path of that synod which condemned the author along with the error, whoever in any way, under any title, has been made an accomplice of the same error and has polluted himself by its contagion or communion, fittingly exists as a partaker also of the same condemnation, and is held bound by the punishment of him whose fellowship he preferred to enter. I ask therefore of these men what they think concerning Eutyches: do they assert that he was a heretic or that he was not? If they contend that he was not, why do they act with evasions, why do they conceal themselves with circumlocutions and tricks? Let them openly declare themselves Eutychians, so that, convicted in his sacrilegious frenzy, they may be overwhelmed by the masses of truth and may openly recognize not only how hostile this very Eutychian pestilence is proved to be to Christian dogma, but how many other and those most grievous heresies it contains in its own depravity, so that they may understand into what pits they are wallowing and into what precipice and abyss they are plunged. But at the same time, if they deny that Eutyches is a heretic, it is in every way made public that they therefore contend, the names of the communicators of the Eutychian pestilence being suppressed as if by this very error, in order that by the snares of such names—which God forbid—and their captious entanglements they may strive to lead us into the madness of Eutyches; which indeed, even if they do not deny it, they are confuted as doing, whether knowingly or unknowingly. But if they do not dare to deny that Eutyches is a heretic, it remains that they consent that against the catholic faith it was not a synod to be named but rather a conspiracy of the lost, which at Ephesus, Eutyches having been restored, struck down Flavian of holy memory and compelled by military terror all the priests who were there to lend consent to so great a crime; and therefore it is necessary that they admit that the action of that conspiracy was depraved, perverse, and predatory, and that it ought by all means to be abolished; and therefore let them define that the just, good, and truly Christian synod of Chalcedon proceeded in these matters, in which, Eutyches having been driven off together with his abettor Dioscorus, it condemned their heresy and error. This synod therefore, as has been said, let them not doubt to be good, true, just, and Christian, through which that noxious one was removed; let them therefore perceive and at length grant that whoever deviates from the faith, communion, and truth of this just and Christian and true synod, or joins himself in communion to those deviating from it, is sufficiently and fittingly held bound according to its definitions, since a bad synod ought to be removed by a good one, but there is no cause why a good synod ought to be revisited by another synod, lest the revisitation itself detract firmness from its constitutions. Accordingly, whoever are held by attachment to the assembly of Ephesus, why do they still put forward only the name of Acacius and not openly profess themselves followers of Eutyches, who had there been received? And if they shun this and declare that they execrate Eutyches, then together they will consent that both the conspiracy of Ephesus, by which he was badly received, was rightly annulled, and the synod of Chalcedon, by which he was rejected, was deservedly instituted; and thus they will perceive that a synod which has been established for the faith and communion and catholic and apostolic truth, according to the form of the ancients, as has been said, could not be ventilated by novel questions, but, according to its tenor once legitimately and justly set forth, those who follow what is right are rightly approved and those who hold contrary things are repudiated. Which the apostolic see, as was fitting, guarding by ancient tradition, judged not that a synod was to be repeated but rather that this same synod was to be executed in driving out its prevaricator. Wherefore, if anyone still, according to the synod of Chalcedon, reprehends these things done by the apostolic see, besides the fact that he can be refuted both by this argument which we have established above and by manifold reasoning, much more nevertheless will he confess that it was not lawful for Acacius to attempt these things. Let him say, then, by what synod he himself judged that John, the prelate of the second see, of whatever sort, but certainly catholic and ordained by catholics, and in no way assailed concerning the catholic faith and communion, was to be excluded; and that he permitted Peter, a manifest heretic, condemned by his own execution as well, to be substituted for a catholic pontiff—since, even if John had been manifestly guilty, it would have been fitting that after him at least a catholic priest be set in charge, just as the emperor too is read to have promised by his own sacred letters that this would be done for Timothy the catholic of holy memory at Alexandria. By what synod did the same Acacius cause Calendio, bishop of the third see, to be expelled, and nonetheless substituted for him Peter, so manifestly a heretic that he did not even openly pretend to communicate with him, suffered him to be set up by his own disposition? By what synod, finally, did he throughout the whole East, the orthodox having been ejected, stained by no crime, set under his own provision all manner of depraved men and those entangled in crimes? By what synod did that nefarious despoiler invade the privileges of others? But books would not suffice, if we should endeavor to write down one by one his tragedies, which he carried out through the churches of the whole East. Or do they think that this argument of his is to be opposed to us, by which he strove to cast his own crimes upon the imperial person? Why then, when he willed, did he resist Basiliscus, certainly a tyrant and vehemently hostile as a heretic? Why did he not submit his own will to the emperor Zeno himself, in that he refused openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch? Behold, he could resist in other matters too, if he willed. But, to omit those things which are to be explained more at length, what of the fact that the emperor Zeno himself professes by his own letters that he did everything by the counsel of Acacius, nor does Acacius himself by his own letters deny that this escaped him; who both wrote that he had rightly done all things and did not keep silent that these same deeds were done by his counsel? As if Acacius were a prevaricator only in the communion of Peter of Alexandria, and not in all those whom he either caused, the catholic pontiffs having been expelled, like a tyrant, to be set in charge of various churches, or, mingled by perverse communion with those so set in charge! Who by this very fact ought, according to the canons, to have been driven from ecclesiastical communion, in that they allowed successors to be brought in over living priests. And what Christian would not perceive that, the catholic pontiffs having been cast out of their proper see, none but heretics could be brought in? To all of whom nevertheless Acacius was either the author of their being substituted, or, once they were substituted, joined them as a communicator—to those, that is, who in no way differed from the communion of the heretics. Why then, even when he saw these things being done, did Acacius not take care, as he had already done under Basiliscus, to refer to the apostolic see, so that, if he himself alone could not, with counsels and discussions joined to it, the things that pertained to religion might be alleged 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 from very many excesses, how much more could a legitimate emperor, who wished to seem catholic, have been softened, together with the apostolic see and the moderate suggestion of all the pontiffs as well; especially since he was a special favorer and lover of the same Acacius, and since he is taught by his own letters to have extolled with great praises both Acacius himself and Pope Simplicius of holy memory, because he had most steadfastly resisted the heretics? Why for so long a time did Acacius keep silent amid these things, unless because he did not wish in any way that the things he desired to be fulfilled for the heretics be impeded? Let us suppose, nevertheless, even if no synod had preceded of which the apostolic see should rightly become the executrix: with whom was a synod concerning Acacius to be entered upon? Surely not with those who were already held partakers with Acacius, and, the catholic priests throughout the whole East having been violently excluded and relegated to various exiles, were evidently fellows of an 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 now been driven out everywhere, and there remained only the fellows of the faithless, with whom it was now not lawful even to hold an assembly, because it was by no means of ecclesiastical custom to mingle any council with those who held a polluted communion and one mixed with the faithless, the prophet too saying: "I have not sat in the council of vanity, and with those doing iniquity I will not enter; I have hated the assembly of the malignant, and with the impious I will not sit." Rightly then, through the form of the synod of Chalcedon, a prevarication of this kind was rather repelled than brought to a council, which neither was needful after the first synod nor was lawful to be held with such men. For they could not even be ignorant of what was being done concerning the catholic faith, if they had been willing to understand, since they saw the catholic pontiffs, with no discussion of a synod, with no council, being driven out throughout the whole East—especially since they would have weighed that the causes were new—and the rest could have learned from the character of those men what they should beware. It remains therefore that it is clear that they were of that party to which, after so many proofs, they gave themselves; and deservedly by the apostolic see and the rest of the catholics they were now not rather to be consulted but to be marked out. We laughed, moreover, that they wish a prerogative to be conferred on Acacius because he was bishop of the royal city. Did not the emperor reside for many times at Ravenna, at Milan, at Sirmium, at Trier? Did the priests of these cities ever usurp anything for their own dignities beyond the measure anciently allotted to them? Did Acacius, in order to exclude John from Alexandria—a man of whatever sort, but catholic and ordained by catholics—and to receive Peter, already detected and condemned in heresy, without consultation of the apostolic see, at least have any synod held there? Is he shown to have seized this thing boldly, in order to drive Calendio from Antioch and to admit again the heretic Peter, whom he himself too had condemned, without the knowledge of the apostolic see—is he shown to have done this by any synod? If certainly it is a question of the dignity of cities, the dignity of the priests of the second and third sees is greater than that of his city, which is not only by no means numbered among the sees but is not even reckoned among the rights of the metropolitans. For as to what you say, "of the royal city," the power of the secular realm is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities another. For just as, however small a city, it does not diminish the prerogative of the present realm, 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 stands firm under the same, then free, then advanced, only if it rather holds, this present empire being so, its own measure without any disturbance. Finally, if they flatter themselves concerning the presence of the emperor and from there think that the person of the bishop of the city of Constantinople can be made more powerful, let them hear Marcian, prince of that same city. After the intercessor on behalf of the priest, coming forward for the aggrandizement of that very city, was able to obtain nothing against the rules, he prosecuted Pope Leo of holy memory with the highest praises, because he suffered the rules of the canons to be violated by no reasoning; let them hear Anatolius, prelate of that same see, confessing that the Constantinopolitan clergy rather than he had attempted such things, and saying that the whole matter lay in the power of the apostolic prelate, and that the blessed Pope Leo himself, prelate of the apostolic see, by whose authority the synod of Chalcedon was confirmed, voided by competent refutation whatever, beyond what was established to be entrusted for action there for the catholic and apostolic faith and communion, seemed to have been attempted, through the occasion of that assembly, by a novel action contrary to the Nicene canons; and that nonetheless even under Pope Simplicius of holy memory the legate of the apostolic see, Probus of holy memory, bishop of the city of Canusium, Leo the prince then asking and being present, taught that this could by no means be attempted, and gave assent to these things by no means at all. And therefore let them look not to the quality of any city, but let them fittingly observe the measure of ecclesiastical dispensation confirmed by paternal tradition. But let it be said, concerning the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, that for certain causes it was rather the prince who ordered those things which were done, not Acacius. But it would have befitted a Christian prince to suggest to a priest—most of all one of whose familiarity and favor he enjoyed—that vengeance for the injury and insult done to that very man would be safe, provided only that the Christian prince allowed the rules of the Church to be observed, because a new cause had arisen in the case of each pontiff, and consequently required a new discussion; and, as it had always been effected and as the divine laws and the human alike decreed, that judgments concerning priests should proceed from a priestly council, that pontiffs of whatever sort—even if some error humanly approaching them, yet in no way exceeding religion—should not appear to be struck down by secular power. Or, for the suggesting of these just things to the prince by reason, was he not sublime in the honor of the royal city? If he had been made loftier by that royal city, so much the more in suggesting these things ought he to have been more constant; but if in those things which were to be exerted for religion he proved contemptible and despicable, and either sluggish or not having the confidence to make them known, in what was he made greater through the royal city? Or was it that through it he should rather exercise the tyranny of his own prevarication than legitimately procure the causes of religion? Nathan the prophet openly and publicly pronounced to the face of King David both the error committed, and did not keep silent that he himself had committed it, and consequently absolved him when corrected by confession. Ambrose of blessed memory, priest of the church of Milan, publicly and openly suspended communion to the greater Theodosius, the emperor, and brought the royal power to penance. Pope Leo of blessed memory, as is read, freely reproved the emperor Theodosius the younger, who was transgressing in the robbery of Ephesus. Pope Hilarus also of holy memory openly, before the blessed apostle Peter, with a clear voice constrained the emperor Anthemius, when Philotheus the Macedonian, upheld by his familiarity, wished to introduce into the city the new conventicles of diverse sects, that this should not be done, to such a degree that the same emperor promised, with the interposition of an oath, that those things were not to be done. Pope Simplicius of holy memory likewise, and after him Pope Felix of holy memory, are known to have rebuked with free authority more than once not only Basiliscus the tyrant but even the emperor Zeno for these same excesses; and he could have been bent, had he not been kindled by the instigation of the prelate of Constantinople, who, having become a partaker of an external communion, necessarily fostered that into which he had fallen, preferring to persist in the obstinacy of his prevarication rather than, in need of healing, to return to salutary things, as the very outcome of affairs proved. Behold, recently to Honoric, king of the Vandal nation, a great and excellent man and priest, Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, and many catholic priests along with him, steadfastly resisted his raging, and, enduring all extremes, do not even today omit to resist the persecutors. We too, when Odovacar, a barbarian heretic, then holding the kingdom of Italy, commanded some things that were not to be done, by no means obeyed, by God's granting—this is manifest. But this good man Acacius and excellent priest showed that he both could have made suggestion and declared that he was unwilling, nay, made plain that he had favored, so that the emperor both did not keep silent that he had done everything by his counsel, and he himself extolled the emperor with great encomiums as he did these things, and betrayed himself to have been a partaker in the doing of these affairs. But be it so—let Calendio have taken away the emperor's name, let John be alleged to have lied to the prince: yet, since these were new causes, a new ecclesiastical discussion ought to have arisen. Or ought those who were said to have sinned against the emperor, a man, to have been cast out with no synod intervening, and yet ought it not to have been fitting that Acacius, sinning against God, who is the highest and true emperor, and striving to mingle the sincere communion of the divine sacrament with the faithless, be expelled, according to the synod by which this faithlessness was condemned? What of the innumerable catholic priests throughout the whole East driven from their proper see and undoubtedly with heretics brought in their place? The causes were certainly new, and consequently a new synod was owed for these. Why then did it not come to mind that, in such causes, at least some synod, of whatever sort, should be sought from the prince to be celebrated, so that, by whatever even colored judgment of ecclesiastical tradition the pontiffs everywhere appeared to be excluded—not only the priests of whatever cities, but the metropolitan bishops without delay? With all these things, since he did not resist by the suggestion that he could have made, Acacius consented by 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 those doing, are undoubtedly ascribed as guilty. Was this lawful for the secular power, and, with such things being done, for Acacius consenting, without any synod, which the very novelty of affairs demanded, without consultation of the apostolic see, to bring it to pass—and was it not lawful for the apostolic see, according to the tenor of the synod of Chalcedon, in an old cause indeed and by an old constitution condemned by a just definition, to drive from its own communion Acacius communicating with the enemies of the synod of Chalcedon? But they say: Acacius could not oppose the prince. Why did he oppose Basiliscus, because he willed? Why did he not lend assent to Zeno himself, lest he should seem openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch, although he did this secretly? Behold, the emperor did not press upon him as he resisted; behold, he did not bring force upon him as he was unwilling; behold, he granted manifest contagions to him as he fled them. Finally, why, for so long a time, when these things were being done or he knew they were to be done, did he not hasten to refer to the apostolic see, from which he had known the care of those regions to be delegated to him, but rather became himself a praiser of the deeds before he either forewarned that such things were to be attempted, or, lest they be attempted, opposed them, 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 undoubtedly been substituted as heretics in the individual cities? Finally, if that man failed in his own duties and disdained to do what was fitting for a catholic priest, ought the apostolic see therefore, in what pertained to it, either to be able or to be bound to pass it over? In whatever manner, therefore, it repudiated an accomplice of heretics and removed an associate of an 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 there need that it make known to the bishops of the East that these things were to be done, who, it is manifest, were both not ignorant of the things that were being done in the cause of the faith by the expulsion of catholics, and, by communicating with the substituted heretics, had consented to such a deed. Nor is there doubt that, with men become of an external communion, the decrees of the apostolic see could neither nor ought to have been treated. Behold, they recognized in the profession of those who most steadfastly endured what was owed to the faith and to catholic communion. Behold, they recognized how, by withdrawing from such men, nay by contriving things contrary to such men, Acacius deviated from the catholic faith and communion and they alike with him subjected themselves to the error. Behold, they recognized from what just causes, for the faith and the catholic and apostolic communion—to which both those who had stood firm in it were in accord, and from which those who opposed those standing firm were taught to be alien—Acacius was removed by the authority of the apostolic see (to whose examination especially he, having been summoned, took no care either to come or to send, that he might absolve himself concerning all these things, if he was confident); and likewise whoever were his accomplices, and deservedly was separated from that communion along with these, from which he himself first, by disagreeing with the catholic pontiffs along with his associates, is recognized to have separated himself; and rightly he received the sentence of condemnation to be promulgated to the rest of his associates, who alone, on behalf of all his associates, professed by letters sent to the apostolic see that he had relapsed into the communion of faithlessness. With which Acacius, if the Eastern bishops had communicated before he referred hither, without doubt they were proved to be involved in equal guilt, and rightly through him received the sentence of transgression, as having been made along with him of an external communion, who indeed ought now no longer to be consulted as men of our communion, but to be repudiated as men placed in a contrary fellowship; but if they had not communicated before Acacius referred hither, both they ought to have marked the one communicating and themselves to have rather referred hither concerning the same man, and deservedly to have approved him as struck down by the vigor of the apostolic see, and rather to have held concord with that apostolic see and so many catholic pontiffs. But because they had deserted that society and had chosen to communicate with their successors, therefore they by no means accorded with the apostolic see; because they had relapsed into the lot of the prevaricator Acacius and perceived themselves without doubt to be consequently bound by his sentence, on this account they did not wish him to seem condemned, because they recognized themselves to be condemned in the same prevarication, in which they persist to remain even today. But just as these, bound by a like condition, cannot judge their accomplice to have been condemned unjustly, nor can fittingly absolve a guilty man as guilty, so, that man having been justly condemned as a prevaricator, they too lie prostrate under an equal condemnation, nor will they be able to be absolved thence at all, unless they come to their senses; because, just as through one who wrote, the transgression of all of them was made public who had relapsed into the same action of faithlessness, so in the one and the same man, who had written on behalf of all or who by writing had betrayed the wills of all, the transgression being punished, likewise also together with him or in him the transgression of all the accomplices was punished. Yet this sentence directed against Acacius, even if it is legitimately proved to have been set forth only in the name of the apostolic prelate, to whose power it certainly belonged—especially since it seemed it was to be sent secretly, lest, with guards stretched out everywhere, the salutary disposition, impeded by whatever difficulties, could not have its necessary effect—nevertheless, because, the orthodox having been everywhere cast out, and only heretics and their associates being now left in the East, the catholic pontiffs either were entirely not remaining or exercised no liberty, the assembly of very many catholic priests in Italy reasonably recognized that the sentence against Acacius had been brought forth. Which assembly of pontiffs, having been made, convened not against Chalcedon, not as a new synod against the old and first one, 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 elsewhere it now by no means could, where it could and with whom it could, omitted absolutely nothing that pertained to a fraternal treatment for the inviolate faith and sincere communion. Since those who seem now to preside over the Eastern churches know all these things, they therefore refuse that Christian unity be repaired by legitimate care, because they now refuse to lay aside the occasion of this dissension that supports their own ambitions, by which, without the authority of the apostolic see, they confound everywhere the rights of all the churches, choosing rather to persist in error than to lose the faculty of their presumptions, loving rather the license of their usurpations than holding in their heart regard for the divine judgment. In which it is necessary that, will they, nill they, both for the sincerity of the catholic and apostolic faith and communion neglected, and for the paternal canons evidently broken, they receive what they deserve, unless, while time here admits, they strive with corrected minds to ward off these perils of eternal condemnation, so that they may be able not to remain such, against whom the sentence brought is insoluble, but, withdrawing from such men, not to be held by the same sentence. Which, just as it has been fixed never to be loosed for those persisting in error, so it will be foreign to those who shall prove themselves free of the depravity to be punished. These things, however, for the instruction of your Charity, we judge to suffice fully and abundantly, although we may strive to set forth the same things more at length, if the Lord grants the means; so that both each of the faithful may recognize that the apostolic see has decreed nothing, God forbid, over-hastily, and that perverse wickedness may be taught that it has nothing it can justly oppose. Your Charity will do rightly, moreover, to make these things which we write known alike to catholics and to those who hold contrary views, so that both the necessary firmness may be afforded to the sound and the fitting medicine to the ill-sound. Given on the Kalends of February, after the consulship of Viator, vir clarissimus [most distinguished man].

Ualde mirati sumus, quod uestra dilectio quasi nouam el ueluti difficilem quaestionem et adhue tamquam inauditum 5 quippiam nosse desiderat, quod Eutychianae pestilentiae com- i " 0 Q municatores non habentes, quid pro suae perditionis obstina- tione respondeant, frequenti iam ratione conuieti misera con- tentione submurmurant; non quia sit alicuius momenti quod - garriunt.sed quia non inueniunt penitus, quid loquantur. ubi magis eos, qui catholicis sensibus instituti sunt, adhuc hae- rere miramur quam illos, qui a ueritate exciderunt et ab antiqua ecclesiae traditione sunt deuii, profanas uocum noui- tates ei ineptias caducae peruersitatis obtendere, quibus eos uestra dilectio.rettulit iactitare ideo Ácacium non putare iure damnatum, quod non speciali synodo uideatur fuisse deiectus, 95. — Dat. die 1 Febr. (13 Maii?) a. 495. Hwius epistulae duae extant formae, wna longior, breuior altera; quas inter quaenam ratto inter- cedat, alio loco exponam. Et longiorem quidem praeter codicem V collec- tionis Auellanae exhibent: 1) cod. miscell. Uatsc.lat. 3832 saec. XTI(— R); ὁ 2) collectio Ansehni Lucensis; contuli codd. Uatic. 1364 saec, XII (— 41) εἰ Uatic. 4983 saec. XVI (— A3), quorum consensum significai littera A non adnotalis fere propriis utriusque uitiis; 38) cod. Berolinensis lat. 79 (— B). ediderunt hdnc formam Car. I* 394; Collect. Concil.; BT I 111; Thiel 392; pauca tantum excerpsit Bar. ad a. 484, 37 el 496, 1. DBreuiorem formam (— X) compluribus collectionibus traditam edam 1n Appendice I; quae quas praebet lectiones wartas, earum hic illas tantum adscribam, quae ad iudicandas lectiones codicum VRAB aliquid uidentur conferre posse. 242. Quod acatius iuste et canonice sit dampnatus titulo praefigit A . GALASI EPS VRBIS ROME AD DARDANIOS (DARDANOS α) V: Gelasius epis dardanie ΠΑ, Gelasius epis per dardaniam éonstitutis B 3 et ueluti BA: ueluti V, om. R 5 quod ut ethicenianae B 6 quid VRA: qui B obstinationis B 7 misera contentione VRA: mise- ratione B, sola (cf. $ 4 sub fin.) contentione Σ 9 sed quia non om. B unuerunt (pro inueniunt) B ubi et magis 8 10 qui per catho- licis B — herere in ras. R man. 2 12 antique 8 profanas BX: profanasque VEA uocognouitates B [18 ineptas caduce peruersi- iates B obtendere Σ, obtendera B: obtendunt VRA 14 putare jure (iurae B) BA: putaretur V, putare R XXXV. . 24 970 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardanise et insuper dementiam suae uanitatis accumulant pueriliter adicientes fpraecipue pontificem regiae ciuitatis". Quapropter stultitiam respuentes inanium querellarum per- currere uos oportet ab ipsis bealis apostolis et considerare prudenter, quoniam patres nostri catholici doctique pontifices s - in unaquaque haeresi quolibet tempore suscitata, quidquid pro fide pro ueritate pro communione catholica atque apostolica secundum scripturarum tramitem praedicationemque maiorum facta semel congregatione sanxerunt, inconuulsum uoluerint deinceps firmumque constare nec in eadem causa denuo quae i praefixa fuerant retractari qualibet recenti praesumptione per miserint, sapientissime peruidentes, quoniam, si decreta salu- briter cuiquam liceret iterare, nullum contra singulos quosque prorsus errores stabile persisteret ecclesiae constitutum ac - semper isdem furoribus recidiuis omnis integra definitio tur- js baretur. nam 81 limitibus etiam praefixis positarum semel synodalium regularum non cessant elisae pestes resumptis certaminibus contra fundamentum sese ueritatis attollere et simplicia quaeque corda percutere, quid fieret, si subinde fas esset perfidis inire concilium, cum, quaelibet illa manifesta Ὁ sit ueritas, numquam desit.quod perniciosa depromat falsitas, tametsi ratione uel auctoritate deficiens, sola tamen intentione non cedens? quae maiores nostri diuina inspiratione cernentes necessarie praecauerunt, ut contra unamquamque haeresem ..1 clementiam V acumulent B 2. praecipuae B — 3 inauium V 4 ad ipsos beatos apostolos 4 5 catholi B catholici uidelicet? X 6 suscitat& B, sciscitata 4 7 cummunione B epls (pro apostolica) B, sed e in a correcta uidetur 9. uoluerunt EA 10 constantare B in hac eadem B et A cum parte codicum X denuo VRAZ: deuina ἐν . diuina corr. B 11 retractari om. B. perniserunt EA . 12 pro- uidentes RA derecta B 18 licet itarare B 14 errore B. per- sisteret ΠΑ͂Σ: persistere VB — 15 hisdem VE man. 2 A! 17 aeli- sae pestis δ. resupertis B 18 esse B 20 quamlibet R, qualibet 4 21 depromat BEA: depromat et V — 22 rationem B 28 spiratione B (add. man. 2) unamquamque BEAE: quamque V heresim JB et pars codd. E 15 Epist. XCV 8—8. 371 quod aeta synodus pro flde communione et ueritate catholica atque apostolica decreuisset, non sinerent nouis posthac retrac- lationibus mutilari, ne prauis oceasio praeberetur quae medi- cinaliter fuerant statuta pulsandi, sed auctore cuiuslibet insaniae ae pariter errore damnato suffieere iudiearunt ut, quisque aliquando huius erroris communicator existeret, principali sententia damnationis eius esset obstrietus, quoniam manifeste quilibet uel professione sua uel communione posset agnosci. et ut priora taceamus, quae diligens inquisitor facile poterit 6 uestigare, Sabellium damnauit synodus nec, ut sectatores eius postea damnarentur, necesse fuit singulas uiritim s8ynodos celebrari sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae eunetos, qui uel prauitatis illius uel communionis extitere participes, uni- uersalis ecelesia duxit esse refutandos. sic propter blasphemias Arrii forma fidei communionisque catholieae Nieaeno prolata conuentu Árrianos omnes uel quisquis in hanc pestem siue sensu seu communione deciderit sine retractatione concludit. 7 sie Eunomium, Macedonium, Nestorium synodus semel gesta 8 condemnans ulterius ad noua concilia uenire non siuit sed uniuersos quocumque modo in haee consortia recidentes tradito sibi limite synodali refutauit ecclesia nec umquam recte ces- l, quod acta VEAZ: coacta B acta semel synodus A fide et comm. R 2 nouis E man, 2 in ras., nobis B posthec BB, post haee € retractionibus mitilari B 8 pra (im fime uersus pro prauis) .B prebetur .B 4 instituta .B euius cuiuslibet" B 5 ac pari .4, hac patri E quisquis A man. 2 6 commucator B extiteret πὶ 7 esset om. A obstrectus B quoniam V BE: qua ras. ex quà E, qua.4A 8 sue V possit agnoscere B 9 et om. B priora BAX: propriora V, propiora E ante priora inserunt breuitatis causa AX inquaesitor B possit B 10 uestigare ΚΣ: inuestigare BRA — sca* bellium Β 11 singulariter synodus .B 12 tenorem B qui uel (ul V) VRAE: uel qui B. 18 prauita B particeps V 14 dixit B 15 formam B et omnes fere codd. E —16 ha, B 17 sensu VÀ: sen- sus B, consensu KA seu E: et B, om, V, siue RA decederit B traetione B conclusit Car. 18 eo nomium B, eonomium .4 — mache- donium VB, sie machedonium .4 19 sinuit B 20 quocuque V con- sortio B receidentes V, recedentes B — 921 similimite B 24* 972 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae Bisse manifestum est qualibet necessitate cogente nouis ausibus, 9 quae fuerant salubriter constituta, temerasse. propterea in tempestate quoque persecutionis Árrianae plurimi catholici sacerdotes de exilis pace reddita respirantes sie cum catholicis nihilominus fratribus ecclesias composuere turbatas, ut non δ tamen illius synodi Nieaenae quidquid de fide et communione catholica et apostolica definierat inmutarent nec noua quem- quam pro lapsu damnatione percellerent sed illius tenore 10 decreti, nisi resipuissent, censerent esse damnatos. .- quibus conuenienter ut dictum est ex paterna traditione perpensis 10 confidimus, quod nullus iam ueraciter Ohristianus ignoret uniuscuiusque synodi constitutum, quod uniuersalis ecclesiae probauit adsensus, nullam magis exsequi sedem prae ceteris oportere quam primam, quae et unamquamque synodum sua: auctoritate confirmat et continuata moderatione custodit, pro 1 suo scilicet principatu, quem beatus Petrus apostolus domini uoce perceptum ecclesia nihilominus subsequente et tenuit lisemper et retinet. haec dum Acacium certis comperisset - indiciis a communione catholica atque apostolica deuiasse, diutius ista non credens, quippe quem nouerat executorem s Saepe necessariae dispositionis suae contra haereticos extitisse, per triennium fere litteris destinatis eundem monere non destitit, 19sicut per diuersos missa frequenter scripta testantur. quibus ille cum «in»debito silentio diu non respondere proponeret, l nobis V 2 statuta B remeasse A propter cain V — teme- TA88e prosecationis prosectationes arriana plurima B 4 sacdotes V 5 consueretur batas B 7 cathol atque apost. B definierant RA, definierunt B 8 prolapsu BRE: prolabsum V, prolapsum A — pcellerent B, corr. man. 2. 9 respuissent censerentes damnatos B 18 nullam .AX: ali- quam VE man. 2, aliqua BE man. 1, «non» aliquam o* exsequi ez exiqui corr. V, exequi ez exequod R man. 2 — praeteritis Β 16 suo om. V 17 perceptam B ecclesiam BB, et ecclesia A subsequent R4! 10 Qc 1 Epist XOY 9—14. —— 373 episcopalis quoque. directa legatio est ac nihilominus pagina destinata, quae praemoneret eum suorum ante meminisse gestorum et quae primitus pro fide catholica desudasset opor- lere respicere, contestans et blandiendo pariter et minando, ne 8e ἃ corpore catholicae unitatis abscideret; simulque quoniam hunc Iohannes secundae sedis antistes grauibus pulsaret ob- iectis, ad primae sedis audientiam cohortatus est uel uenire debere uel mittere: licet enim synodus iteranda non esset, 13 tamen congrueret, ut cuiuslibet ciuitatis episcopus primae sedis iudicium non uitaret, ad quod conuenerat secundae sedis antistes, qui nisi ἃ prima sede non posset audiri; praecipue, qui praeiudieatis ahimis nulla synodo a Graecis fuisset exclusus, etjam apud eos causam suam nec posset omnino dicere nec deberet, quia nec ab inferioribus episcopis potior, nisi a prima sede, sicut dictum est, uel discuti potuisset uel, si ita ratio postulasset, addici et iam cunctis Orientalibus episcopis cum ipso Acacio in Petri communionem recidentibus secundae sedis episcopus catholicus ab externae communionis hominibus esset nullatenus iudicandus. sed Acacius non solum despexit satis- 14 facere postulatis uerum etiam ipsam legationem sedis apo- stolicae blandimentis praemiis periuriisque deceptam, quibus ei cum imperatore promisit integram praesuli apostolico causam qui cum dicit dedito $dem esse atque affectato sew obstinato, hame uocabuls significationem wel uno uellem comprobasset exemplo 1 epi- scopalis . . legatio (legata B) est VB: episcopali . .legatione RA — haec ᾿ Υ (pro ac) B 2 qua promoneret eom B 8 et om. A opor- . tere& 4 4 coutestans V b unitatis catholicae irsp. A — 6 Iohannes om. RA 71 primeae B 8 miteret B non iteranda írsp. A — esse B 10 sede ex scdm corr. V man. 2, secute B 11 antistis B, antistites V, antistes E sed es in ras. nisi a ΒΣ: in ista VRA possit B 12 qui ras. ez quia R^ nula VRB: in ila 4 . aom. B er- clusos B 18 nec posset usque ad 14 prima om. B 14 debere .A 15 sicut dictum est sede irsp. B potuisse B 8] om. αὶ iterstio 4 16 et iam scrépsi: etiam VRAB —— origentalibus B 17 communione rece- dentibus B 18 communitionis V 19 nullatenus esset írsp. RA dispexit Β 21 quibus & cum B, sed deinde man. 1 charactere minu- &ore ante & inseruit ei — 22 apostoli V — 974 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardanise de omnibus esse seruandam, Petri communione pollutam redire perfecit, in tantum sedis apostolicae despiciens pote- Statem, ut non solum eius auctoritati non cederet sed etiam potius in consortium communionis externae per legatos suos niteretur abducere fieretque apostolicae sedi necessitas eos ipsos, quos direxerat, sacerdotes honore pariter et, communione priuare, ne tali contagione uideretur infecta satisque monstraret non 86 Ácacii specialiter odisse personam sed respuere foedera perditorum, quae etiam in suis pontificibus detestata conueni- 15 enter horreret, nihilominus autem litteris suis Acacius indicaret τὸ . et in Alexandrini Petri se communionem, quem expetita sedis apostolicae auctoritate executor ipse quoque damnauerat, sine eiusdem apostolicae sedis consultatione promptissime recidisseé el accusationem Iohannis laudesque Petri proprio. sermone deferre. de quibus si utique confidebat, magis uel uenire uel mittere debuisset, ut et praesentem de mendaciis quae dicebat posset confutare Iohannem et praeconia Petri quae digesserat. ᾿ς 16rationabiliter allegaret. quod cum minime fecerit, satis eui- denter ostendit nec Iohannem se posse conuincere nec legitime receptum Petrum habere fiduciam perdocendi solumque sibi τ monstrauit inesse propositum lacerandi catholicos haereticQsque laudandi seseque eorum potius quos laudabat docuit esse participem quam catholicorum quos nitebatur decolorare consortem tulitque de se ipse iudicium, cum damnati hominis communione pollutus damnationis eius factus est particeps, ss Loasd 1 communionem B 8 sed iam R ὃ sedis B hos B 6 direxerat ex dixerat corr. V man. 2 " nec Y contagio B in- fectam B 8 acaciis B 9 detesta B 10 orreret BR, oreret A?, oraret 4A! indicaret VB: indicarat RA 11 Petri se VB et μὲ wide- tur E man. 1: peccasse ER man. 9, potius se A communione VB " éxpetita à 8 12 sin V 18 consultationem δ promtissime VEA! promtissime B recedisse B 15 defert 4 — sed quibus B — siom. V man. 1, add. man. ΞΖ confitebat B 17 posse A . degesserat B 18 allegare B menime B 20 petrum om. V man. 1, inter columnas add. man. 2. 91 in sese ppositum lancerandi B 422 laudandis esse quae B 28 quos nitebatur om. B 24 de om. B 25 es (pro est) B E: 1 e 15 20 Epist. XCV 15—19. 3175 ita et sedes apostolica, quod ad necessariam diligentiam 17 respiceret, nil omisit et Acacius secundum formam synodi Chalcedonensis, qua error eui communicauit elisus est, sicut de haeretico homine scriptum est, suo iudicio condemnatus apparuit iusteque sedes apostolica, quae utique se Alexandri- num Petrum damnasse, non etiam soluisse meminerat, ne per Acacii pristinam communionem Petri quoque conlegium, cui AÀcacius communicarat, incideret, ipsum competenter Acacium a.sua communione submouit. quapropter utrum errori. uel18 praeuaricationi eommunicarit Acacius, quid opus erat noua discussione cognoscere, cum iam litteris suis esset ipse confessus ac, sieut scriptum est: ore tuo iustificaberis et ore tuo condemnaberis, uerborum suorum uinculis et reus teneretur et iure plectendus? cur ipse in noua causa, 19 quam synodus nulla praecesserat, Iohannem, quem suis litteris impetebat, qualemcumque secundae sedis episcopum, in primae sedis beati Petri apostoli iudicio confutare despexit et, ut causam diceret seu per se seu per legitimam quam uellet ipse personam, uel uenire uel destinare contempsit, indignum habens euiuslibet ciuitatis antistes ad primae sedis uenire iudicium, ad quod secundae sedis cerneret uenisse pontificem, quod Anatolius Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopus missis 4 Tit. 3, 1 12 Matth. 12, 37 1 sedis VB, corr. V man. 2 ad om. BA« necessanamdi diligentiam (iam corr. ez -eam) B ἢ nihil B 3 chalcidonensis V et sic saepius per iwel y qua er que V, quae B. errori communicauit helysus B 4 de om.B suo om. B 5 iuste quaesi dis apostolicae ΒΒ sedis V, corr. man.2 8 communicauerat incidisset K.4 ^ incederet B ^ potenter (pro competenter) B 9. submouet B, commouit E quam propB ul(pro ul) V 10 quid ex quod corr. V man. 2 non addiscussione Β 12 sq. iustificaueris e£ condemnaueris ΡΒ 14 reos tenetur B plectendos quur B ]i15sui B 16 episcopum VBA: antistitem K prima B 17 dispexit .B 18 seu per legitimam quam uellet ipse personam B: seu ngm Κ΄, om. Τὸ relicto 7 litterarum spatio, seu per submissam per- sonam er comiecíura .Á, seu per alium Car. 19 seu (pro uel) uenire .A indignu V — 20 habet A antistites ΒΒ 21 secunde ez sancte E Tan. 2 — cernerat E. 22 ancolius V, anatholius BEA — missi B 9476 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae 20legationibus pro sua persona fecisse monstratur? ecce etiam in hac parte uocem non habet conquerentis; ecce, inquam, ad legitimum est uocatus examen, ubi uel impetitum confutare debuerat uel suas partes iustis allegationibus defensare. si ille apostolicae sedis refugit examen in Iohannis catholici pontificis ὁ uegotio uestigando, quemadmodum sedes apostolica de recepti- one Petri haeretici sua sententia damnati et non sua auctori- 21tate resoluti Acacii fuerat secutura iudicium? an sedem apostolicam congruebat paroeciae Heraclensis ecclesiae, id est Constantinopolitani pontificis uel quorumlibet aliorum, qui io eum eodem uel propter eum fuerant congregandi, iudicium praestolari, cum apostolicae id est primae sedis audientiam Constantinopolitanus episcopus declinaret? qui utique etiamsi metropolitani esset iure suffultus, etiamsi inter sedes haberet locum, primae tamen sedis cognitionem fas non habuit refu- s tandi, ad quam secundum canones appellante secundae sedis antistite uocabatur ad causam. non hoc ipso satis ostendit reum se esse confessum, qui ad legitimum iudicium postulatus 29 desse contempsit? nec poterat ultra differri, ne, sicut dictum est, antiqua illius communione durante, cum sese iam socias- 30 set externae, sedes quoque apostolica per eum pollueretur 1 persona VRA: legatione quod man. 1 ut uid. corr. i» purgatione B etiam VB: iam RA .9 partem B habet 4: habent VRÉ Car.. conquerentis VEA: consequenter B, conquerentes Car. . ecce VRA: etenim B . 8 inpeditum (correxi) confutare debuerat,uel.B: om. VRA 4 sua partes B, snam partem RA iusti B defensare V.B: defen- saret EA ὅ in om. R hannis B pontificis VB: episcopi RA 6 quemammodum V sedis VB apostolicae B 7 sententia damnati et non sua B: om. VRA ὃ resolutum EA . fuerant B 9 parrochiae H, parochie 4, parrocidiae B. : eraclensis EA!, eracliensis B id est primum omissum deinde add. B man. 1: ide V, om. RA . 12 presta- lari B apostolica eidé V — id est om. B 14 etiam inter B sedis B 15 locum om. B sedis tamen írsp. B 16 tamquam .(pro ad quam)-B appellantes B 17 non B: nostrorum VERA . 18 se om. B quia E man. 2 19 contemsit V ultro B 20 esse (pro sese) B 21 sedis VB . polluretur B Epist. XCV 20—25.- | 877 contagiis perfidorum dignumque. esset uel praeuarieatorem uel contemptorem iudicii eonpetentis, manifestissime scilicet. de suo negotio desperantem, a catholica atque apostolica integritate e communione secludi. hic si exarmninatio quaeritur, 29 jam iudicio non erat opus, posteaquam et litteris. suis ipse confessus est et legitimum iudicium uocatus adire. pertimuit; si auctoritatis pondus inquiritur, Caleedonensis synodi tenor cum apostolica sede consentiens et illius definitionis executio reperitur, quo damnati illic erroris communicator effectus praefixae nihilominus ibidem particeps damnationis apparuit, quoniam idem ipse error, qui semel est cum suo auctore damnatus, in participe. quolibet prauae communionis effecto ei execrationem sui gestat οὐ poenam. hoc tenore etiam 24 Timotheus Helurus atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus, qui 15 Secundam certe sedem quoque modo tenuisse uidebatur, non repetita synodo sed auctoritate tantummodo sedis apostolicae ipso quoque Acacioó postulante uel exequente probatur esse damnatus. ^ nunc autem ipsi doceant legitime ueraciterque 25 Petrum fuisse purgatum et ab omni haereticorum contagione 30 rite discretum, cum ei communicauit Ácacius, si eius com- 1 eo 1 uerba dignumque esset eic. per anacoluthiam qiandam applicata «uidentur ad ea quae praecedunt cum sese iam etc. 2 copetentes B 8 disperantem B δ om. V, add. man. 2 4 integritate commune B 5 ex litteris B 6 confessu B εὖ ad legit. Β — 7 auctorita V, corr. man. 2 tenore B; cf. X 9 repperitur V et ante rasuram R10 dam- nationis particeps trsp. B 11 818 sütore B 12 effectum BE 18 gestat ad poenam R tésedenore B — 14 timottheus B ' belurus RA, om. B p (pro qui — g) B 15 quoquo E, quoque modo om. .Β uidebatur B: uidebantur VRAX 16 repetito V auctoritatem B tantummodis V 17 probantur esse damnatus 4438, probantur esse damp- nati 4! 18 nunc autem ipsi VR: quodsi utrum errori uel praeuari- cationi (praeuaricatione .4!, praedicatione .4?) communicarit (communi- cauerit 4) Acacius forsitan dicatur oportuisse coristare breuiter praebe- mus ad ista responsum. aut enim ipsi ZA et, nis$ quod praedicationi et pro aut enim cum VR exhibet nunc autem, B legitime ueraciterque petrum B, petrum legitime ueraciterque ὃ: legitime petrum VERA 19 ob omni B 20 cum ei VR man. 2: ei cum A et ut wid. R man. 1; discretum cummunicauero autem acacius B ^ asy V 978 Gelasius L ad episcopos Dardaniae municatorem putant Ácacium aliquatenus excusandum; aut si, quod magis est uerum, conuenienter atque legitime Petrum probare non poterunt expiatum (propter quod etiam ad apo- Stolicae. sedis iudicium ÁAcacium uel. uenire uel destinare non ausus est), restat ut eius inexpiatione fuerit et qui ei com- s municauit infectus. 26 Non reticemus autem, quod cuncta per mundum nouit ecclesia, quoniam quorumlibet sententüs ligata pontificum sedes beati Petri apostoli ius habeat resoluendi, utpote quae de omni ecclesia fas habeat iudicandi neque cuiquam de eius 10 liceat iudicare iudicio, siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellari uoluerint, ab illa autem nemo sit appel- lare permissus. quapropter satis constat Acacium nullum habuisse pontifieium sententiam sedis apostolicae sine ulla 21 eius notione soluendi. dicant certe: qua «synodo hoc ille: praesumpsit, quod nec sic quidem absque apostolica sede fas haberet efficere? cuius sedis episcopus? cuius metropolitanae ciuitatis antistes? nonne paroeciae Heracliensis ecclesiae? si illi certe licuit sine synodo sententiam apostolicae sedis abrumpere nulla eius consultatione quaesita, itane uero non w licuit primae sedi Calcedonensis synodi eonstituta sicut decuit 1 acacius aliquatinus B 2 conuenieniter B prob. Petrum trsp. A D eius inexpiatione V: eius inexplicatione B, in eius expiatione RA communicatum B 6 sq. werba infectus . . nouit om. V tan. 1, in superiore margine add. man. 2. — 77 non reticemus autem V, non reti- cemus (om. autem, qwod fori. infra lineae 13 falso inirusum est) B nec plane tacemus AZ; non reticemus wusegwe ad 18 permissus om RE 81legata B 9 sedes er sedis corr. V man. 3 10 habuit B — quae de B.AX: quod V ma». 1, quae man. 2, quae de man. 3 11 quibus libet B ᾿ 12 appellare BA . uoluerunt AX appellari uoluerint ab illa autem appellari uoluerint ab illa autem V, ab illa usque ad uolu- . erint del. man. 8 18 quapropter autem satis B 14 sine ulla BAX: in VR 15 soluendi qua certe qua B [16 siquidem VRAB, corr. Car. (sic absque ..fas quidem 2) 18.nonne RABZ: nostrorum V par- . rochie RA!, parochiae 43, paraetiae B ^ eracliensis BA 19 sedis apost. irsp. RA — 20 consulatione V 21 sedis V — docuit B Epist. XCV 26— 30. 379 exequenti huiusmodi praeuaricatorem sua auctoritate detrudere? sed nee illa praeterimus, quod apostolica sedes frequenter, ut 28 dictum est, more maiorum etiam sine ulla synodo praecedente et absoluendi quos synodus inique damnauerat et damnandi s nulla existente synodo quos oportuit habuerit facultatem. sanctae memoriae quippe Athanasium synodus Orientalis addixerat; quem tamen exceptum sedes apostoliea, quia dam- nationi Graecorum non consensit, absoluit. sanctae memoriae 29 nihilominus Iohannem Constantinopolitanum synodus etiam catholicorum praesulum certe damnarat, quem simili modo sedes apostolica etiam sola, quia mon consensit, absoluit, itemque sanctae memoriae Flauianum pontificum Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore, quoniam sola sedes apostolica non consensit, absoluit potiusque qui illie receptus i» fuerat Dioscorum secundae sedis praesulem sua auctoritate dammauit et impiam synodum non consentiendo sola submouit ac pro ueritate ut synodus Calehedonensis fieret sola decreuit. in qua pontificibus innumeris, qui latrocinio corruerant Ephe- 90 Seno, ueniam poscentibus sola concessit et in sua perfidia 29 permanentes nihilominus sua auctoritate prostrauit. quam congregatio, quae illie pro ueritate reparanda conlecta fuerat, est secuta, quoniam, sieut id, quod prima sedes non proba- uerat, constare non potuit, sic quod illa censuit. iudicandum, -— 1 l exequendi B, exequentis .E preuericatorem Β 2 sed om. B, sed nec illa wsque ad 5 facultatem om. E apostolicae sedis B, apostolicae sedi A 2, 7, 11, 13, 22 sedes ex sedis corr. V man. 3 ut om. A 3 sine illo Β 4 et absoluendi V.A: exsoluendi BE ^ quos o*: quod VABy iniqua B ὃ oportuerit A 6 origentalis B 7 sedis apostolicae ΒΒ quia er qui corr. V man. 3 — 8 sensit E 10 dam- nauerat BE 11 et 13 sedis B 11 etiam sola BAE: om. VR 12 idem- que V, itemque et B graecorum BAE: om. VR sedes sola irsp. R14 non om. V, supra linea add. man. 2 potiusque .. damnauit ΒΑ͂Σ: om. VE potius qui illic . . dioscorum quae secunde B 16 sola BZ: om. VERA 11 hac pro B calealcehidonensis V — 18 in latrocinio B ephesano B, ephesino E.A 20 auctoritate quam pro- strauit quam B. 22] promenda (pro reparanda) B 22 ὃ (pro est — δ) E primam B 980 Gelasius L ad episcopos Dardaniae 3lecclesia tota suscepit. ubi etiam consequenter ostenditur, quia male gesta synodus, id est contra scripturas sanctas, conira doctrinam patrum, contra vecelesiasticas regulas, quam tota merito ecclesia non recepit et praecipue sedes apostolica non probauit, per bene gestam synodum, id est secundum scrip- s turas sanctas, secundum traditionem patrum, «secundum ecclesiasticas regulas pro fide catholica et communione pro- latam, quam. cuncta recepit ecclesia, quam maxime sedes apostolica conprobauit, ut debuerit, οὐ potuerit inmutari; bene uero gestam synodum iuxta supra dictum modum noua 10 32 gynodo nullatenus inmutandam. proinde si Eutychem fatentur haereticum, male gestam apud Ephesum synodum, qua est receptus, pariter fatebuntur et perbene gestam synodum Calchedonensem, qua Eutyches uel cum eo sentientes talia. sunt reiecti, uelint nolintque consentient, atque ideo bene τά gestam synodum nouis exagitationibus refricari non licuisse 88 cognoscant. qui si forsitan dixerint eo tenore Ephesenam. quoque synodum non licuisse mutari, rursus hàec eadem, quae supra deprompsimus, planius repetita perpendant, id est quia contra fidem, contra ueritatem communionemque .catho- so licam atque apostolieam uereque Christianam non recte gesta synodus legitima synodo pro fide, ueritate, communione catho- lica uereque Christiana modis omnibus secludenda est et 15 nolint quae B 16 gesta B. ᾿ ΠΟΙ] V exatitationibus B 11 forte R ephesinam RA 19 depromsimus V.A*, deprompsemus B plenius B perpendant B: perpendantur VRA 20 fidem et contra 4 contra ueritatem om. B 2421 atque apostolicam om. VEA . uereque ez uere qui corr. V man. 2, uere quae B recta B- 22 fidei E communionem JB, communioque 441, communioneque Car. 28 seclu- denda ras. ex seclaudenda V | οι e 15 Epist. ΧΟΥ͂ 81—35. 88l iniusta synodus iusta synodo submouenda, pro fide autem et ueritate et communione catholica atque apostolica bona synodus uereque Christiana semel acta nulla nec potest nec debet nouae synodi iteratione conuelli sed secundum bene gestam synodum recteque praefixam, si quis ab eius tramite deuiarit, consequenter ac sufficienter eius definitione plectendus meritoque illius subiacet constitntis. nec opus est per singulos 34 quosque deuiantes iureque plectendos nouas rursus synodos introduci, cum ex illius tramite, quae auctorem cum errore damnauit, quisquis quolibet modo quolibet titulo complex eiusdem fuerit factus erroris et eius se contagione uel com- munione polluerit, competenter et particeps eiusdem damnati- onis existat eiusque. poena teneatur obstrictus, cuius maluit inire. consortium. — quaero ergo ab his, quid de Eutyche35 sentiant: fuisse haereticum an adserunt non fuisse? si non fuisse contendunt, quid ambagibus agunt, quid circuitionibus praestigiisque se contegunt? palam se Eutychianos esse pronuntient, ut in eiüs sacrilego furore conuieti ueritatis molibus obruantur aperteque cognoscant, non solum haec ipsa pestis Eutychiana quantum Christiano dogmati probetur inimica . Bed quantas alias haereses easque grauissimas in sua prauitate contineat, ut in quibus foueis uolutentur et in quod praeci- 1 synodus inmouenda B 2 communionem B atque apostolica om: VRA 3 nulla potest BA 4 noui syndi B sed om. B ὅ rectae quae B auis habet tramite B 6 deuiauerit R 7 que om. A subiacit constitis 8 8 quoque B iure quae VB plectend 8 synodus B 9 que acunctorem B 9 sq. cum errore (corr. ex commerire) deuiantem a tramitem (leg. -te) calchedonensi (leg. -sis) consilii (leg. con. cilii) damnauit B 10 quisquis libet B, quolibet modo om. RA 11 et VRAB: uta — uel communionem B; correxi: om. VRA 19 com- plectanter B eius damnat. B 18 eius quae pene B teneatur scripsi: tenetur B, puniatur VERA obstrinctus B 14 quae ergo B eutice KR, euticete A4, eutichete B 15 senticiat B hereticum asserant an non fuisse B. sy V 16 circumscriptionibus perstringiis quae B t . 17 conerunt B esse (pro 80) Βα euticianos B 18 pronuntien- tient B' 20 euthiciana quanto B dignati (pro dogmati) B 21 quan- to'/| (eras. s) E heresis B eas quae B 22 contineant RA. 882 ᾿ B Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae 96 pitium barathrumque mergantur, intellegant. simul autem, si Eutychem haereticum negaht, omnimodis publieatur, quod ideo de nominibus Eutychianae pesti communicantium sup- presso ueluti hoc ipso errore contendunt, ut nos per talium nominum, quod absit, insidias captiosasque tendiculas in Eutychetis insaniam nitantur inducere; quod quidem, etiamsi non negent, siue scientes siue nescientes»facere confutantur. S97$in uero et Eutychen haereticum negare non audent, restat ut eontra catholicam fidem non synodum nuncupandam sed conspirationem potius perditorum fuisse consentiant, quae apud 10 Ephesum Eutychete reducto perculit sanctae memoriae Flaui- anum cunctosque qui illic aderant sacerdotes militari terrore compulerit tanto sceleri praebere consensum, atque ideo nobis necesse est prauam peruersamque conspirationis illius et latrocinalem fuisse perhibeant actionem eamque debuisse modis s omnibus aboleri et ideo iustam bonam ueraciter Christianam Chalcedonensem synodum processisse definiant in his, quibus Eutychete depulso cum suo fautore Dioscoro haeresim eorum S8erroremque damnarit., hanc ergo synodum, ut dictum est, ^ bonam ueram iustam Ohristianamque esse non dubitent, per so quam illa noxia sit remota; perspiciant ergo tandemque concedant quod, quisquis ab eius iustae et Christianae uerae- que synodi fide communione et ueritate deuiarit uel ab eas οι l baratrumque RA, baratrum que B merguntur B 2 euticen RA, eutychetem B 8 nominibus B: omnibus VRA eutichianae B communicantibus KA 4 uelut B — ipse B — 5 hominum E man. 2 € ethicetis B 7 nonégent V, non negant B facile confut. B 8 si uero euthicem δ eutichen V, euticen RA 9. nunccupandum B 10 conspiratione B δρυΐ B et ras. ez caput V 11 effesum euthicete perducto B 12 cunctos quae B adherent V sacerdoter militarit errore B 18 tantum leri B nobis om. B 14 prauum peruersumque B 16 perhibebant B debuissent A, diluisse B 16 abolori B 18 eu- thicetae B 19 damnaret B 20 dubitent B: dubitant VEA 21 sint RA tandemque esse concedant B 22 quisquis VEA: quia iste B — ypiane uere synodi ΒΒ 23 deuiarit EA!, deui//arit V: deuiari 48, de- uiare B | En Epist. XCV 36—41. 383 deuiantibus sese communione miscuerit, sufficienter atque competenter secundum ipsius definita teneatur obstrictus, quoniam mala synodus bona debuit .submoueri, bona uero synodus nulla causa est cur alia debeat synodo retractari. ne ipsa retractatio eius constitutis deroget firmitatem. ^ proinde 39 quicumque congregationis Ephesenae tenentur affectu, quid adhuc Acacii tantummodo nomen obtendunt et non palam se sectatores Eutychetis, qui illic receptus fuerat, profitentur? quod si refugiunt atque Eutychen se perhibent execrari, simul ergo et Ephesenam, qua male receptus est, conspirationem iure cassatam et Calchedonensem synodum, qua reiectus est, merito consentient institntam atque ita synodum, quae pro fide et communione et ueritate catholica atque apostoliea sit praefixa, secundum ueterum formam, sicut dietum est, per- spicient nouellis non potuisse quaestionibus uentilari sed iuxta eius tenorem semel legitime iusteque depromptum et iure probari recta sectantes et sentientes contraria refutari. quod 40 sedes apostolica sicut decuit antiqua traditione custodiens non synodum duxit iterandam sed in eius praeuaricatore pellendo hanc eandem synodum potius exequendam. Quapropter si quis adhuc secundum Chalcedonensem synodum 41 haec ab apostolica sede gesta reprehendit, praeter quod et hac, quam superius adstruximus, et multiplici potest ratione conuinci, multo magis tamen Acacio non licuisse fatebitur ista 1 sese scripsi: esse .B, om. VERA communionem 4! 4 rectari B traetio B 5 constitutis eius irsp. B 6 coniurationis E — ephesene V et ante ras. RH, effesene B: ephesinae .4 et E corr. — quia B 7 sese catores V, corr. man. 2 8. euthicetis B protestantur B 9 quod ire fugiunt V, corr. man. 2 euthicen Β 10 effesenam .B, ephe- sinam RA 11 iuste B 12 atque ideo B 18 et communione et ueritate catholica atque apostolica B: catholica VRA 14 prospicient ΡῈ potuisse VEA: oportuisse B 15 iusta B 10 legitimae B de- promtum V.A!, depromtumque .B 18 sedis VB . sic R X edocuit B antiquam traditionem .B — 19 sinodam B in om. B 20 eadem B - 22 geste Καὶ propter 4 28 hac VH: hoc B, hanc A!, ab hac 4* quah BEA: qua V — adduximus E — et om. ΚΑ 984 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae lemptare. dicat ergo, qua ipse synodo lohannem secundae sedis antistitem qualemcumque, certe catholicum et a catho- licis ordinatum nec de catholica fide et communione aliqua- tenus impetitum, duxerit excludendum et haereticum manifestum Petrum sua quoque executione damnatum pontifici catholico s permiserit subrogari, cum etiamsi reus manifestus esset Iohannes, post eum saltem catholicum conuenisset praefici Sacerdotem, sicut ipse quoque suis sacris sanctae memoriae Timotheo catholico in Alexandria faciendum promisisse legitur 42imperator. qua synodo tertiae sedis episcopum Calendionem τ idem expelli fecit Acacius ae nihilominus eidem Petrum tam haereticum manifestum, ut eidem palam nec se communicare praetenderet, sua passus est dispositione substitui? qua denique per totum Orientem synodo eiectis orthodoxis nullo crimine maculatis prauos quosque ét criminibus inuolutos sua : prouisione supposuit? qua synodo ἰοὺ aliena priuilegia nefandus populator inuasit? sed libri non sufficiunt, si tragoe- dias eius, quas per ecclesias totius Orientis exercuit, singil- latim scribere moliamur. 49 An illud ipsius argumentum nobis aestimant opponendum, s quo facinora sua in imperialem nisus est iactare personam? cur igitur, quando uoluit, obstitit Basilisco, tyranno certe et haeretico uehementer infesto? cur ipsi imperatori Zenoni, quia l ergo VBX: igitur RA quia B 2. qualecumque B catholico cum et B 3 fide cummunionem B aliquatenus om. E 5 sua sua B excusatione B 6 permiserit wsque ad 9 catholico om: E subrogare B eiamsi V esset cum conuenisset iohannes B 7 sal/lltem (eras. u) V, saltim B debuisset (pro conuenisset) B 9. alexandriam .B pro- mississe D, permisisse .4, prompsisse o relegitur B 10 qua om. B episcopum Calendionem V.AB (episcopum sanctum Cal 2): antistitem calcedonensem (Calced. del. man. 2) E 11 hane (pro ac) B idem B, eundem A tamen hericorum B 12 communicari A — 15 quoque et criminibus quoque inuolutos B 16 tota .B 17 sufficiunt RA et ex sufficient B man. 1: sufficient Σ et ex sufficiunt V man. 1 μὲ widetur iraguidas B 18 qua super B 19 describere Z 20 estimat B 21 in BAZ et R man. 2: om. VR man. 1 persona Β 22 quur B basisco .41R man. 1, basilico Β 928 infecta B quur B a 2 e Qt e Epist. XCV 42—47. 385 palam Antiocheno Petro noluit communicare, suam non sub- didit uoluntatem? ecce potuit et in aliis resultare, si uellet. sed ut ea quae latius explieanda sunt omittamus, quid, quod 44 ipse Zenon imperator suis litteris profitetur cuncta sese ex Ácacii gessisse consilio nec hoc eum fallere litteris suis ipse pariter testatur ÁAcacius, qui et eum nihilominus uniuersa recte gessisse conscripsit et suo consilio haec eadem gesta non iacuit? quasi uero tantum in Alexandrini Petri communi- 45 one Acacius praeuaricator extiterit οὗ non in omnibus, quos uel fecit depulsis catholicis pontifieibus tamquam tyrannus ecclesiis quibusque praeponi uel taliter praepositis peruersa communione permixtus est! qui hoc ipso secundum eanones fuerant ab ecclésiastiea communione pellendi, quo se passi sunt successores uiuis sacerdotibus adhiberi. quis autem non 46 perspiciat Christianus, quod catholicis pontifieibus propria sede deiectis non nisi haeretici potuerint introduci? quibus tamen cunctis uel auctor fuit Acacius subrogandis uel sub- rogatis communicator accessit, his utique, qui a communione haereticorum nullatenus discrepabant. cur ergo uel cum haec 47 fieri uideret Acacius non sicut sub Basilisco iam fecerat ad apostolicam sedem referre curauit, ut, si solus ipse non poterat, iunctis cum eadem consilis atque tractatibus apud XXXV. 95 980 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae imperatorem possent, quae religioni conpeterent, allegari? nam si Basiliscus, ut dictum est, tyrannus et haereticus scriptis apostolicae sedis uehementer infractus est et ἃ plurimis 48reuocatus excessibus, quanto magis legitimus imperátor, qui se catholicum uideri uolebat, potuit cum apostolica sede s eunctorum quoque pontificum moderata suggestione mitigari, praecipue cum eiusdem Acacii esset specialis fautor et amator et qui litteris suis tam ipsum Acacium quam sanctae memoriae papam Simplieium magnis laudibus extulisse doceretur, quod haereticis constantissime restitisset? cur tanto tempore Ácacius 1 inter ista conticuit, nisi quia praepediri nolebat ullatenus, quae - pro haereticis desiderabat impleri? 49 Ponamus tamen etiamsi nulla synodus praecessisset, cuius apostolica sedes recte fieret executrix: cum quibus erat de Ácacio synodus ineunda? numquid cum his, qui iam parti- i5 cipes tenebantur Acacio et per Orientem totum eatholicis sacerdotibus uiolenter exclusis perque exilia diuersa relegatis Socii euidenter existebant communionis externae, prius se ad haec consortia iransferentes quam sedis apostolicae scita 50 consulerent? cum quibus ergo erat synodus ineunda? catholici s pontifices fuerant undique iam depulsi solique remanserant socii perfidorum, cum quibus iam nec licebat habere con- uentum, quia moris ecclesiastici omnino non esset cum his, qui pollutam communionem tenerent permixtamque cum per- 1 deum (pro imperatorem) B quae possent irsp. E man. 2 com-. peterent BZAR man. 1: conpetere V, competere debuit R san. 2. alligari ἐπὶ allegare mutauit E. man. 2 2 basiscus E man. 1 4143 man. 1 S instructus B, infestus 4 5 cu V, eum E. 9 magis B magnis laudibus om. E extulisset V extulisse magnis laudibus irsp. A quod BAZ: quo VR 10 restitisse DB, restitissent 4 cum parte codd. Σ quur B 12 expleri 3 18 etiam sy B. 14 sedis VB recta B fieret VE man. 1 AB: esset ΣῈ man. 2 15 participes ex particeps corr. V man. 2 106 acacüi B catholicis ex catholici corr. V man. 2, catholicae 8 17 per quae B religatis E.A 18 communi- onis V2: communis B, religionis &.A 21 episcopi (pro pontifices) 4 iam om. B depulsi er sepulsi corr. B 22 socij om. ΒΒ quibus nam nec libet B 28 moris er morsis V 24 teneret permixtumque B Q 10 15 20 Epist. XCV 48—53. 387 fidis, ullum miscere concilium propheta quoque dicente: non sedi in concilio uanitatis et cum iniqua gerentibus non introibo, odiui congregationem malignorum ei cum impiis non sedebo. recte igitur per Calcedonensis 51 synodi formam huiusmodi praeuarieatio repulsa est potius quam ad concilium, quod nec opus erat post primam synodum nec cum talibus haberi licebat, adducta est. nam et quid ageretur de fidé catholica, si intellegere uoluissent, ignorare non poterant, cum uiderent catholicos pontifices nulla synodi discussione, nullo concilio, praecipue eum nouas causas esse perpenderent, toto Oriente depelli, et ceteri quid cauerent ex illorum discere qualitate potuissent. restat igitur, ut illius 52 partis eos fuisse sit elarum, eui se post tot experimenta dediderunt, meritoque ab apostolica sede ceterisque catholicis non iam consulendi erant potius sed notandi. Risimus autem, quod praerogatiuam uolunt Acacio conparari, 53 quia episcopus fuerit regiae ciuitatis. numquid apud Rauennam, apud Mediolanum, apud Sirmium, apud 'Triueros multis lemporibus non constitit imperator? numquidnam harum urbium sacerdotes ultra mensuram sibimet antiquitus deputa iam quippiam suis dignitatibus usurparunt? numquid Acacius ut Iohannem qualemlibet hominem, catholicum tamen a catho- licis ordinatum, de Alexandria excluderet Petrumque in haeresi 1 Psalm. 25, 4 sq. 2 in VB2Z: cum RA cum Vulgata 8. odiui..sedebo om. X con- gregationes R 4 rectae B 5 preuaricatione pulsa B 5 sq. potius ἃ concilium B 6 concilium ex consilium corr. V — quod VBZ: quo RA 7 ne B . cum qualibet habere E ut dictum (pro adducta) B 8 de fide VBZA: uel de (laborantibus add. man. 2) pro file R δὶ om. B 9 uiderunt B 10 post nulla (!) concilio add. eici E man. 2 1] prae- ponerent E orienti B — ex ex et corr. V man. 8 18 yartis om. RA fuisse hereseos sit 4 14 dediderunt VB: dederunt RAZ 15 erat B 16 praerogantium hinc uolunt acacium .B 17 ferit B 18 medolanum V sermium B, firmium VE . triberos VB, tiberos RA 19 numquid iam .A 22 catholicum tamen a om. B 28 alexandriae B Ppetrum quae B, petrum (om. que) E heresim B. 25* 388 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae iam detectum atque damnatum absque sedis apostolicae con- sultatione reciperet. aliqua synodo saltem illic habita hoc audacter arripuit? ut Calendionem de Antiochia depelleret haereticumque Petrum, quem ipse quoque damnauerat, absque notitia sedis apostolicae rursus admitteret, aliqua synodo id o4fecisse monstratur? si certe de dignitate agitur ciuitatum. secundae sedis et tertiae maior est dignitas sacerdotum quam eius ciuitatis, quae non solum inter sedes ininime numeratur sed nec inter metropolitanorum iura censetur. nam quod dicitis (regiae ciuitatis', alia potestas est regni saecularis, alia ecclesiasticarum distributio dignitatum. sicut enim quamuis parua ciuitas praerogatiuam praesentis regni non minuit, sic imperialis praesentia mensuram dispensationis religiosae non mutaf. sit clara urbs illa potestate praesentis imperii, religio sub eadem tunc firma, tunc libera. tunc prouecta consistit, si potius hoe praesente propriam teneat sine ulla perturbatione 55 mensuram. postremo si sibi de imperatoris praesentia blandi- untur et inde putant Constantinopolitanae ciuitatis episcopi potiorem fieri posse personam, audiant Marcianum eiusdem principem ciuitatis. posteaquam pro augmento urbis ipsius sacerdotis intercessor accedens contra regulas optinere nihil potuit, sanctae memoriae papam Leonem summis laudibus proseeutum, quod eanonum regulas uiolari nulla fuerit ratione Ὁ synodi V . saltim B 8 audaciter αὶ calendionum B, kalendi- onem AX antiocdià B depelleret BE: pelleret VRA 5 amitteret B 6 certe dignitatein B 7 maiorem dignitas B 8 sedis memine B 9 iure B 10 est om. καὶ 11 werba inde a sicut quamuis wsque ad 389, 10 refutatione uacuasse adfert Facundus, Pro defens. irium capp. V 4 (Migne 67, 649) sic E quaeuis RA! 12 praua B praes. regni praerog. írsp. RA 18 religiose 8 14 urbs 4! Facundus, urbs uel urbis Z: ut urbs VA? (uel urbs TÀhtel); si claratur his illa B 15 eadem VBE Facundus: eodem ΣΑ͂ tun; sub eadem trsp. VR profecta B ^ consistit ex constitit corr. V man. 8 si om. B 10 pro- pria 8 perturbationem B 20 pro om. B augmento ex aumento corr. V man. 2. 21 intercessio E man. 2 — regulam EA 22 L. (— Le- onem) ΚΑ 0 [o e 20 Q 10 15 20 Epist. XCV 54—58. 389 perpessus; audiant Anatolium eiusdem sedis antistitem clerum 56 potius Constantinopolitanum quam se temptasse talia confi- tentem atque in apostolici praesulis totum dicentem positum potestate ipsumque beatum papam Leonem sedis apostolicae praesulem, euius synodus Chaleedonensis auctoritate firmata est, quidquid ultra quam ab eodem pro fide et communione catholica atque apostolica illic agendum constaret esse dele- gatum, per occasionem congregationis illius praeter Nicaenos eanones noua uideretur actione temptatum, conpetenti refuta- tione uacuasse eaque nihilominus etiam sub sanctae memoriae 57 papa Simplieio legatum sedis apostolicae sanctae memoriae Probum Canusinae urbis episcopum Leone principe tunc petente praesente docuisse nullatenus posse temptari neque his prorsus praebuisse consensum; atque ideo non ad ciuitatis cuiuslibet respiciant qualitatem sed modum dispensationis ecclesiasticae paterna traditione firmatum eonuenienter ob- seruent. | Dieatur autem de Alexandrino et Antiocheno episcopis 58 certis ex causis principem magis illa, quae gesta sunt, non Acacium praecepisse. sed principi Christiano decuerat sugge- rere sacerdotem, maxime euius familiaritate et fauore fruebatur, saluam fore de eiusdem iniuria contumeliaque uindictam, tantum ut ecclesiae sineret Christianus princeps regulas 1 permissus audiat B anatholium .A 2 constantinopolitanum numquam se B temptasset alia V, temptasse alia KA | 93 atque in VRA: sed ad eadem B positum ex positus corr. Ej man. 8 4 pote- statem B ipsumque Zacundus: ipseque B, ipsum VERA 5 Calc Syn. auct. írsp. E, syn. auct. Calc. 4 6 quicquid EA eadem B, 7 esset Τὸ man. 2 9 actio et impietatum B 10 uacuasse Facundus: uacuasset ΚΑ et ante ras. HR, euauasse B 11 papa Simplicio . . me- moriae om. B 12 canosine KLA!, causae B 18 presentem δ po- tuisset B teptari V nec RA 18 respiciunt B 106 paternater natraditionis B 18 de om. A . antioceno BRA episcopis om. BX 19 principe B 20 precipisse B decuerat ex docuerat corr. V man. 2 seggerere V 21 sacerdoten. BEA et ex sacerdoti corr. E man. 3: sacerdotum V fabore 2 22 saluum B eiusdem VEA: eius BZ 23 christianos B 390 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae custodiri, quia et noua in utroque pontifice causa esset exorta el nouam discussionem consequenter inquireret, et, sicut semper esset effectum ac diuinae pariter leges humanaeque censerent, ut sacerdotali concilio de sacerdotibüs iudicia prouenirent, non a saeculari uiderentur qualescumque pontifices, 5 etsi errore humanitus accedente non tamen religionem ullatenus 59 excedentes, potestate percelli. an ad haec iusta ratione principi suggerenda non erat regiae ciuitatis honore sublimis? si factus erat illa regia ciuitate sublimior, tanto magis in his sugge- rendis debuit esse constantior; si autem in his, quae pro religione fuerant exserenda, extitit contemptibilis atqué de. spectus et aut segnis aut fiduciam non habens intimandi, in quo per regiam ciuitatem maior effectus est? an ut per eam Suae praeuaricationis exereret potius tyrannidem quam causas 60 religionis legitime proeuraret? Nathan propheta palam publi- ceque in facie regi Dauid et commissum pronuntiauit errorem et ipsum conmisisse non tacuit et confessione correctum con- sequenter absoluit. beatae memoriae Ambrosius Mediolanensis sacerdos ecclesiae maiori Theodosio imperatori communionem publice palamque suspendit atque ad paenitentiam redegit s regiam potestatem. beatae memoriae papa Leo, sicut legitur, imperatorem Theodosium iuniorem Epheseno latrocinio libere 61coarguit excedentem. sanctae memoriae quoque papa Hilarus 15 cf. Regn. II 12, 1 ] custodire B noua supra lin. add. B causae. B eet (pro eet) V 8 seper ὦ ac VRA: hoc B. legis Β humanaeque ez humanaque corr. V man. 2, humane quae B: humanae KE manm. 1, et humanae AR man. 2 ὅ preuenirent B non ad B qualiscumque B 6 occidente 8 "7 ad VRAB: et Z2. principis .B 8 erant A cum parte codd. 2 9 ile A sue gerendis V . 10 dedebuisse constantior B pro BE: om. Κα 11 regione B exerenda BRE man. 1, exercenda AR. man. Ὁ dispectus B. 12 signis B 18 eam B: ea VEA . 14suam B — suae tyrannidem (tyrannidi 1) praeu. potius exereret (exerceret .4) EA 15 Natham B publica quae B 16 faciem regis E 17 commississe B 19 sacerdus B maiori theodosio im- peratori communionem V: maiorum thedosium imperatorem comguni- onem B, maiorem theodosium imperatorem a communione ZA 20 re- digit B 22 teodoxium B effeseno B, ephesino 4 2428 excidentem B 5 [o e e Epist. XCV 59—64. 391 . Anthemium imperatorem, cum Filotheus Macedonianus eius familiaritate suffultus diuersarum conciliabula noua sectarum in urbem uellet inducere, apud beatum Petrum apostolum palam, ne id fieret, clara uoce constrinxit in tantum, ut non ea facienda cum interpositione sacramenti idem promitteret imperator. sanctae memoriae nihilominus papa Simplicius et 62 post eum sanctae memoriae papa Felix non solum Basiliscum tyrannum sed etiam imperatorem Zenonem pro isdem ipsis excessibus auctoritate libera saepius increpasse noscuntur flectique potuisset, nisi Constantinopolitani praesulis aecende- retur instinctu, qui particeps externae communionis effectus necessario, in quod inciderat, iam fouebat, malens in suae praeuaricationis obstinatione persistere quam curandus ad salubria remeare, sicut ipse rerum probauit euentus. ecce 63 nuper Honorico regi Uandalicae nationis uir magnus et egregius sacerdos Eugenius Cartaginensis episcopus multique cum eodem catholici sacerdotes constanter restitere saeuienti eunctaque extrema tolerantes hodieque perseeutoribus resistere non omittunt. nos quoque Odouacri barbaro haeretico regnum Italiae tunc tenenti, cum aliqua non facienda praeciperet, deó praestante nullatenus paruisse manifestum est. hic autem uir64 bonus Áeacius et sacerdos eximius in tantum se et suggerere potuisse monsirauit et noluisse deprompsit, immo fauisse 902 Gelasius 1, ad episcopos Dardaniae patefecit, ut et imperator cuneta se ex eius gessisse consilio non taceret et ipse imperatorem magnis praeconiis eleuaret ista facientem seseque proderet his agendis rebus fuisse participem. Sed esto, Calendion imperatoris nomen abstulerit, Iohannes principi mentitus fuisse iactetur: quae tamen cum nouae essent causae, noua debuit ecclesiastica prouenire discussio. an qui in hominem imperatorem peccasse dicebantur, nulla interueniente synodo deici debuerunt et in deum, qui summus et uerus est imperator, Ácacium delinquentem sinceramque communionem diuini sacramenti studentem miscere cum per- fidis secundum syriodum, qua haec est damnata perfidia, non 66 0portebat expelli? quid de innumeris per totum Orientem catholicis sacerdotibus propria sede depulsis et indubitanter haereticis intromissis? nouae certe erant causae et his conse- quenter noua synodus debebatur. cur tune non uenit in mentem, ut in talibus causis peteretur a principe saltem qualiscumque synodus celebranda, ut quocumque uel colorato iudicio traditionis ecclesiasticae passim pontifices uiderentur exclusi, non solum quarumeumque urbium sacerdotes, sed 67 metropolitani ineunctanter antistites? his omnibus cum non restitit suggestione qua potuit, consensit Acacius communicandó eunetis, qui in catholicorum locum haeretici fuerant subrogati. apostolus autem dicit non solum qui faciunt sed et qui consentiunt facientibus reos indubitanter adscribi. an haec lieuit saeculari potestati et actis talibus Acacio consentienti 24 Rom. 1, 32 1 ut et VRAZ: &u&it B gessisse VAZ: suggessisset Eb (egisse corr. m. 2), om. B 2 sed ipse B eleualeret V 9 sese quae B proderet BZ: prodidit VEA 4 principem Jj 9 est V calendi- onem 2, calendionis ἢ nomen om. B 6 fuisse mentitus RA 7 de- bueret B — 9 synodo om. B 12 secunda B 18 orientem VB2Z: orbem RÀ 15. certae .E et in his B 16 debebatur ex debeatur corr. E man. 8 non uenit ex inuenit corr. R man. 5 17 saltiam B 19 ecclastice V 2420 excludi a 22 resistit B. consensit ut acacius B 28 loco hereti B 24 et VRAZ: om.. B [o 5 25 οι 10 15 20 Epist. ΧΟΥ͂ 65— 70. 393 absque ulla synodo, quam ipsa rerum nouitas exigebat, absque Sedis apostolicae consultatione perficere et sedi apostolicae non lieuit secundum tenorem synodi Calcedonensis in ueteri utique causa et ueteri constituto iusta definitione damnata inimicis synodi Calchedonensis Acacium conmunicantem a sua conmunione depellere? Sed inquiunt: Ácacius principi obuiare non potuit. cur68 Basiliseo, quia uoluit, obuiauit? cur ipsi Zenoni, ne palam Petro Antiocheno, quamuis latenter hoc fecerit, communicare uideretur, non commodauit adsensum? ecce resultanti non institit imperator, ecce uim nolenti non intulit, ecce refugienti contagia manifesta concessit. postremo cur tanto tempore, cum 69 ista gererentur uel gerenda cognosceret, non ad sedem apo- stolicam, a qua sibi curam illarum regionum nouerat dele- gatam, referre maturauit sed prius laudator factus est ipse gestorum quam uel praemoneret talia esse temptanda uel, ne temptarentur, obsisteret, sicut sub Basilisco iam fecerat? cur illis ceteris communicare consensit, qui depulsis catholicis Sacerdotibus indubitanter haeretici singulis urbibus fuerant substituti? postremo si ille defuit suis partibus et quae sacerdoti catholico competerent agere fastidiuit, ideo sedes apostoliea, quod ad eam pertinebat, uel potuit uel debuit praeterire? Quolibet igitur modo haereticorum complicem refutauit et 70 ras. hoc latenter B 10 assens. et result. B 11 restitit BAZ impator V 12 posttremo curanto B 18 gereretur B, gerentur V 14 a om. B cura αὶ 15 mutarauit B, maturauerit ὦ 16 post talia add. non KR man. 2 ne om. B 17 obstiteret V et ante ras. R. basilico V feceret B 19 hereticis 5 20 si BZ: om. VRA quod A 21 competeret A, peterent V . sedis VB 22 eam B et pars codd. 2: eadem V et altera pars codd. Z, eandem RA uel.. ue] ΡΣ: nec..nec RA — 24 qualibet B reputauit B 394 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae consorlem communionis externae a sua communione dimouit nec opus fuit noua synodo, cum ueteris constituti sufficienter hoc forma praescriberet, nec opus fuit ut haec facienda Orientis episcopis intimaret, quos et expulsione catholicorum, quae agebantur in causa fidei, non ignorasse manifestum est et ὁ 71 communicando haereticis subrogatis facto tali consensisse. non dubium est etiam, cum externae communionis effectis nec potuisse nec debuisse sedis apostolicae scita tractari. ecce agnouerunt in eorum professione, qui constantissime perdu- rarunt, quid fidei communionique catholicae deberetur. ecce agnouerunt, quemadmodum a talibus recedendo, immo talibus contraria moliendo, a fide et communione catholica deuiarit 72 Àcacius seque pariter cum eodem errori subdiderint. ecce agnouerunt, quam iustis ex causis pro fide et communione eatholiea atque apostolica, cui et illi qui in ea perstiterant 1:5 congruebant et hi qui perstantibus obuiabant ab eadem doce- bantur alieni, sedis apostolicae auctoritate sit remotus Acacius (ad cuius praecipue uocatus examen uel uenire uel mittere non curauit, ut se de his omnibus, si confidebat, absolueret) eiusque pariter quicumque complices extiterunt, atque ab illa 30 merito cum his communione discretus, a qua se ipse primum eum suis consortibus catholicis pontificibus discrepando co- μ᾿ 0 1 demouit BZ 2 ueteri constitutioni B 8. hoc forma A!, plerique codd. Z et, nisi quod hoc omissum inter columnas addidit, V: hoc firma B, haec forma 443, forma haec E perscriberet A (cf. Z) fa. cienda BZ: cienda V, scienda .A et V man. 2, scribenda E 4 quos et BZA: quod et VE, quos ex Thiel expulsione sine cathol. B 5 causam α' est VRA: sit B et (excepto codice à) Z οἷ communi- cando .. consensise (!) non dubium est £n superiore marg. add. V man. 2 7 est.om. B 9 perdurarunt BZ: perdurarint VEA 10 quid BZA: quod VR communi quae catholici B 11 quemammodum V ἃ om. VB recedendum B 12contraria BZA: contra ΡῈ molliendo B deuiaret B 13 subdiderit B 15 qui (pro cui) B perstiterant ΚΣ: persisterunt B, constiterant AKA 16 hi V: hii Z, illi ZA, om. B qui stantibus B 17 accacius V 18 ad om. αὶ 19 utiut Υ si BAR man. 2: om. VR man. 1 | 20 compleces B Epist. XCV 70— 75. | 395 gnoscitur separasse, iureque sententiam ille damnationis excepit ceteris consortibus promulgandam, qui solus pro omnibus suis consortibus in communionem se recidisse perfidiae ad aposto- licam Sedem missis litteris est professus. cui Ácacio si con-73 municauerant Orientales episcopi antequam huc referret, pari utique reatu sine dubio probabantur inuolui iureque per illum transgressionis sententiam susceperunt tamquam. facti cum eodem communionis externae, qui utique non consuli tàmquam nostrae communionis homines iam deberent sed tamquam in contrario positi consortio refutari; si uero non communica- uerant antequam Acacius huc referret, et communicantem notare debuerant et ipsi de eodem potius huc referre atque apostolicae sedis uigore pereulsum merito comprobare cumque ea Sede apostolica- tantisque illis catholicis pontificibus magis tenere concordiam. sed quia ab illorum societate desciuerant 74 et eorum successoribus communicare delegerant, ideo cum sede apostolica minime congruebant; quia in sortem reciderant praeuaricatoris Acacii et illius se sine dubio peruidebant sententia consequenter adstringi, ob hoc eum uideri nolebant esse damnatum, quia se cognoscebant in eadem praeuarieati- one damnatos, in qua hodieque manere persistunt. sed sicut 75 396 Gelasius I. ad episcopos Dardaniae hi simili conditione constrieti complicem suum non possunt iudicare non iure damnatum neque rei reum possunt conpe- tenter absoluere, sic illo iuste praeuarieatore damnato ipsi quoque pari iacent damnatione prostrati neque nisi resipiscentes inde poterunt prorsus absolui, quia sicut per unum scribentem eorum omnium uulgata transgressio est, qui in eandem per- fidiae reciderant aetionem, sic in uno eodemque, qui pro omnibus scripserat uel scribendo omnium prodiderat uoluntates, transgressione punita pariter quoque cum eodem uel in eodem 76est complicum transgressio punita cunctorum. ^ quae tamen Sententia in Ácacium destinata etsi nomine tantummodo praesulis apostolici, cuius erat utique potestatis, legitime probatur esse deprompta, praecipue cum secrete dirigenda uideretur, ne custodiis ubique praetentis dispositio salutaris quibuslibet diffieultatibus impedita necessarium habere non posset effectum, tamen, quia orthodexis ubique deiectis et haereticis tantummodo eorumque consortibus iam relictis in Oriente catholici pontifices aut residui omnino non essent aut nullam gererent libertatem, plurimorum in Italia catholicorum congregatio sacerdotum rationabiliter in Acacium sententiam σι 10 18 40 Epist. ΧΟΥ͂ 15--9. ὁ 897 cognouit fuisse prolatam. quae congregatio facta pontificum 77 non contra Caleedonensem, non tamquam noua synodus contra ueterem primamque conuenit sed potius secundum tenorem ueteris constituti particeps apostolicae exsecutionis effecta est, ut satis appareat ecclesiam catholicam sedemque apostolicam, quia alibi iam omnino non posset, ubi potuit et cum quibus potuit nihil penitus omisisse, quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide et sincera conmunione tractatum. Quae cum uniuersa nouerint qui uidentur orientalibus 78 ecclesiis nunc praeesse, propterea Christianam reparari legitima curatione refugiunt unitatem, quia occasionem dissensionis huius suis ambitionibus suffragantem deponere iam recusant, qua sine auctoritate sedis apostolicae omnium ecclesiarum passim iura confündant, magis eligentes in errore persistere quam praesumptionum suarum perdere facultatem, plus usur- pationum suarum licentiam diligentes quam diuini iudicii tenentes corde respectum. in quo necesse est, uelint nolint, tam de fidei communionisque catholicae atque apostolieae sinceritate neglecta quam de paternis canonibus euidenter inruptis recipiant quod merentur, nisi, dum hic tempus admittit, haec damnationis aeternae pericula correctis mentibus studeant declinare, ut possint non tales permanere, quibus insolubilis est lata sententia, sed a talibus recedentes ab eadem sententia non teneri. quae sicut in errore durantibus numquam soluenda praefixa est. sic ab his erit aliena, qui extiterint puniendae prauitatis inmunes. 2 notam quam B 3 ueterum B 9 ut om. B sappareat B ecefà V 6θ quia ex quà corr. V — non supra lin. add. V possit B 7 potuit et nihil B .omississe B 8 temerata B fide B: om. VRA 9 uniuersi E man. 2 uidenter B 11 qui B discensionis E 13 qua sine VE man. 1, quasi ne B: quia sine AR man. 2. 14 passim ecclesiarum trsp. B confundunt RA elegentes in eorum B là praesuptionum V urpationum V 17 uellint nollint Β 18 atque apostolicae B: om. VERA 19 quae de B 20 insuptis B. hic VAR man. 1: hec E man. 2, id B tempus ut admittit Β 21 aeterna B 22 studia B 29 insolubile lata sit sententia A sed ut talis bus recidentes B — 25 quae B 26 inmunis B 398 Gelasius I. ad Honorium episcopum 80 Haec uero ad instructionem uestrae dilectionis satis abun- deque sufficere iudicamus, quamuis eadem latius, si dominus concesserit facultatem, studeamus exponere, quatenus et fidelium quisque cognoscat nihil apostolicam sedem, quod absit, praepropere censuisse et non habere, quod iuste possit s 810pponere, peruersa doceatur improbitas. recte autem faciet uestra dilectio, ut ista quae scribimus pariter et catholicis et contraria sapientibus innotescant, quo et sanis necessaria firmitas et male sanis conpetens medicina praebeatur. Dat. Kal. Febr. «post» cons. Uiatoris u. c. 10