Letter 5: The libellus presented by the apocrisiarii [formal representatives] of the Alexandrian church to the legates...

The document which the legates of the Alexandrian church gave to the envoys dispatched from the city of Rome to Constantinople (a. 497). To the most glorious and most excellent patrician Festus, and to the venerable bishops Cresconius and Germanus, sent together with his authority on an embassy from the city of Rome to the most clement emperor Anastasius, beloved of Christ: Dioscorus, presbyter of the venerable church of Alexandria, and Chaeremon, lector, who serve the responses of that same church. [Editorial note: that is, sent by Pope Anastasius, so that they might deliver the foregoing letter (no. 1) to Anastasius Augustus. This document the legates of the Alexandrian church had given written in Greek, but a note appended at the foot of the manuscripts from which it has come down teaches us that, once it had been carried to Rome, it was turned into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus. Hence the anonymous author published by Valesius states that Festus, peace having been made with the emperor Anastasius, concerning the presumption of the kingship, says that all the ornaments of the kingdom which Odoacer had ... to Constantinople were sent back to the palace. This same Festus, after the death of Pope Anastasius, since he enjoyed favor both with King Theodoric and with the emperor Anastasius, was the chief author and abettor of a most grievous schism in the Church.] LETTERS 4 AND 5. 1. The venerable churches of the city of Rome and of Alexandria have preserved, ever since the saving word was preached among them, not only a right and unstained faith, but also concord always in the divine ministry (a. 497). For since the foundation of the faith was laid in both by one man (we mean the blessed apostle Peter, of whom in all things the holy evangelist Mark proved himself an imitator), so it was that whenever it happened that certain councils of bishops were celebrated in doubtful matters, the most holy man who presided over the Roman church would designate the most reverend archbishop of the city of Alexandria to take up the charge of his place. [Editorial note: thus in G. The printed editions read "should it happen ... that he should preside." They write this chiefly on account of Cyril, the prelate of Alexandria, who indeed in the council of Ephesus is recorded to have obtained from the very beginning of that council the place of Celestine, the most holy and most sacred archbishop of the church of Rome. Celestine himself had already beforehand, in epistle 11, no. 4, committed his stead to that same Cyril, that he might carry out the sentence which he had pronounced against Nestorius.] 2. But the enemy of the human race, to whom good things are hateful, who in his impious fury ever rushes on to our destruction, was not loath to sow tares between the two through his own satellites, that he might bring about discord in so great a unity. For when Eutyches, most impious, held an opinion against the faith which was preached in the most blessed apostles and attempted to teach it, it came to pass at that same time that the prelate of the apostolic see, then Leo, dispatched a letter to the Council of Chalcedon. The interpreters of that letter were those who at that time, together with Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrus, had been followers of the Nestorian heresy; and the above-mentioned letter is proven to stand against that faith which was set forth by the venerable three hundred and eighteen fathers; and they furnished no small occasions to those who vindicate the blasphemies of that same most nefarious Nestorius, so that they might more freely assert that this same Nestorius had by no means thought perversely. [Editorial note: thus in G*. Others read "depraved," and then omit "like."] For these causes, therefore, our people, beloved of God, was offended, and from the Greek translation judged that a similar sense was contained also in the Latin discourse, and divided itself from the unity of the Roman church. And likewise too the Roman bishop, supposing that we had conspired against that faith which was handed down by the most blessed apostles, suspended himself from our communion. [Editorial note: the praises with which epistle 120 adorns Theodoret, and by name commends him because the aforesaid letter to Flavian of the apostolic see was defended by his zeal, render very suspect this excuse of those schismatics, unless perhaps certain things were afterward inserted into the Greek translation by the heretics, which they affected to brandish as though supported by the authority of so great a man.] 3. Nevertheless, wishing to give satisfaction to his holiness, that we hold that faith which Peter, the prince of the apostles, and his disciple Mark, the most blessed, believed, and which afterward the three hundred and eighteen venerable pontiffs set forth, our church took care to direct legates to the city of Rome. [Editorial note: this passage would be more clearly rendered: "when we wished to give satisfaction to his holiness and to prove that we hold that faith."] But there a certain man of our city was found dissenting from the right faith and, for diverse causes also, existing estranged from it; who was seen to perpetrate this, that no opportunity should be afforded in receiving the legates: who, not even admitted as far as the face of a greeting, returned without any effect. [Editorial note: that certain man was none other than John surnamed Talaja, who, driven from Alexandria, fled to Rome: whom, while they call him heretical, they betray that they themselves uphold a doctrine contrary to the catholic faith. Nor were the other legates just mentioned any but those who somewhat later, as we have observed in the notice of the non-extant letters of Felix, no. 11, were sent to Rome by Peter Mongus, appointed in John's place, that they might seek to have Mongus's own usurpation confirmed by the authority of the apostolic see. And it is by no means to be wondered at that the legates of a heretic so many times already condemned were not even admitted to the office of greeting. Felix, epistle 6, no. 1, reckons among the just causes for condemning Acacius this: that this same Peter's person was agreeable to him and his ministers acceptable, and that he was caught fostering his apocrisiarii. Wherefore the same pope, epistle 14, no. 5, expressly enjoins this upon Flavitas: "Let not the apocrisiarii of the condemned Peter be mingled, nor by letters." In which matter Felix complied with the very admonitions of Acacius, who, as is related in Gelasius, treatise 1, no. 12, and in Liberatus, ch. 18, writing to Simplicius concerning another Peter, who had invaded the see of Antioch, and concerning a certain John ordained at Apamea, and announcing them again condemned, asks of the apostolic see that, if perchance they should flee to it, it should not hold them worthy even of a glance.] 4. But since, not long ago, Photinus, a devout deacon of the holy church of Thessalonica, joined words with us concerning the peace of the churches, and said that a short time before he had been sent by the most holy archbishop Andrew of the church of Thessalonica to the Roman pontiff Anastasius, and affirmed concerning these matters [...]. [Editorial note: this embassy of Photinus gave occasion to those absurd fabrications which in the book on the deeds of the pontiffs are read thus: "many clerics and presbyters drew you back from communion with that same Anastasius, because he had communicated, without the counsel of the bishops or presbyters or clergy of the whole catholic Church, with the Thessalonian deacon Photinus (some manuscripts: Photius), who was of the communion of Acacius, and because he secretly wished to restore Acacius and could not." But by what good faith the deacon sent by Andrew to the apostolic see may be said to be of the communion of Acacius, after this same Andrew had approved the letters of Gelasius concerning the excesses of Acacius and had ordered them to be recited in his church... And I have already observed that this other invention is no less absurd, by which Anastasius is feigned to have wished to recall Acacius, who had already died in the times of Felix II. From this passage, moreover, is gathered the time at which this document was given. For Photinus had not yet come to Rome when Anastasius wrote the foregoing epistle 3 to Laurentius, but he nevertheless hoped, as he intimates in no. 3, that he would come shortly. To this time, therefore, at which he entered Rome, must be added the interval in which he could carry out the business committed to him there, return to Thessalonica, and thence betake himself to the royal city.] [Editorial note: we have already observed that Felix II's epistle 18 was written to this Andrew, and so that he is the very one whom Gelasius, epistle 18, no. 4, reproves as obstinate in the communion of Acacius and the other faithless. But that he at last departed from that wicked communion, our Anastasius received with rejoicing through the letters of Laurentius, bishop of Lychnidus, as his own foregoing epistle 3, no. 1, is witness.]

8CU ' (a. 497.) Llbellus, quem dederunt apocrisiarii Alexandrinae ecoleBiae legatis ab urbe Roma') Constantinopolim destinatia. Gloriosissimo atque excellentissimo patricio Fe- sto^) et venerabilibus episcopis Cresconio et Germano simul cum ejus potestate directis in legatione ab urbe Roma ad clementissimum et Christo amabilem imperatorem Anastasium Alexandrinae venerabilis ecclesiae Dioscoros prcsbyter et Chaeremon lector, responsis ejusdem ecclesiae servientes'). ') Scilicet ab Anastasio papa, ut supcriorem epistolam 1 ad Anastanam Augustum deferront. Huuc autem libellum graece scriptum dederant Alexin- drinae occlesiae logati, sed ubi Romam porlatus fuit, a Dionyaio Exiguo latiDe convorsum osso, nota ad calcem codicum, ex quibus prodiit, a<^ecta nos dooei Hinc anon^^muB a Valesio editus facia pnce cum Anastasio imperalore per Fttttm de praesumptione regw\ omnia omamenta reyni, quae Odoacher ConsianlimopoHm ■«- serat^ palatio remissa dicit. Tdem Fostus post mortepi Anastasii papae qaom et apud Theodoricum regem et apud Anastasium imperatorem gratia poUeiet, gravissimi in Ecclesia schismatis auctor ac fautor praecipuiu fuit. EPISTOLAE 4. 5. (529 1 . Venerabiles saiictae ecclesiae Romanae urbis atque Alexan- (a. 497.) drinae non solum fidem rectam atque immaculatam, ex quo salu- taris in eis praedicatus est sermo, sed etiam divino in ministerio semper concordiam servaverunt. Quippe quum ab uno fuerit in utris- que jactum fidei fundamentum, (Petrum memoramus beatum aposto- lum, cujus per omnia sanctus evangelista Marcus exstitit imitator), ita ut si quando contingeret *) in rebus ambiguis quaedam episcopo- rom concilia celebrari, sanctissimus is, qui Romanae praesidebat ecclesiae, reverendissimum Alexandrinae civitatis archiepiscopum de- Kgeret, ut sui curam loci susciperet. 2. Sed hoste humani generis, cui b<ma perosa sunt, qui in pemiciem nostram impio semper furore grassatur, non piguit per satellites proprios zizania inter utrasque conserere, ut tantae uni- tatis discordiam perpetraret. Nam Eutychete impiissimo contra fidem, quae in beatissimis apostolis praedicata est, sentiente et do- cere tentante, contigit per idem tempus sedis apostolicae praesulem tunc Leonem litteras ad Calchedonense concilium destinare. Quarum litterarum fuere interpretes hi, qui cum Theodoreto'*) Cyrorum civi- tatis episcopo tunc fuerant Nestorianae haeresis sectatores: contra- que eam fidem, quae a venerabilibus trecentis decem et octo patri- bus est edita, supra meraoratae litterae probantur ex^istere; et non parvas^) occasiones his, qui ejusdem nefandissimi Nestorii blasphe- mias vindicant, praestiterunt, ita ut licentius adstruerent eumdem Nestorium minime perversa sensisse. His igitur causis Deo amabilis popnlus noster offensus est, et de Graeca translatione arbitratus est in Latino quoque sermone sensum similem contineri, ac sese ab unitate Romanae divisit ecclesiae. Nec non etiam Romanus antistes, existimans nos contra eam fidem, quae tradita est a beatissimis apostolis, conspirasse, a nostra se communione suspendit. 3. Verumtamen') ejus volentes satisfacere sanctitati, nos eam fidem tenere, quam princeps apostolorura Petrus ejusque dftcipulus ^) Ita G'. Editi contiqerit ... praesideret. Hoc maxime propter Cyrillum Alezandrinum autistitem scribunt , qui quidem in Ephesino concilio Coeteslini quogue Sfinctissind sacratisMudque Romae evclesiae archiepiscopi locum obtinere sta- tiin ab ejusdem concilii principio memoratur. Ipse Coelestinus jam antea epi- stola 11 n. 4 eidem Cyrillo vicem commiserat suam, ut sententiam a se adversus Nestorium prolatam exsequeretur. ^) Laudes, quibus epistola 120 Theodoretum exornat, atque nominatim illum commendat, quod praefatae ad Flavianum litterae sedis aposiolicae iilius studio defensae sint, vaide suspectam faciunt hanc schismaticorum illorum excusatio- nem, niBi forte in graecam interpretationem quaedam ab haereticis postmodum imiDissa sint, quae velut tanti viri auctoritate fulta jactare affectarint. •) Ita G*. Alii pravas, et deinde omittunt similem. "f) Clarius iste locus sic verteretur: quum vellemus ejus satisfacere sanctitati ac probare nos eam fidem lenere. « (a. 497.) Marcus beatissiiiii crediderunt, et postmodum trecenti decem et octo venerabiles edidere pontifices, legatos ad urbem Komam nostra diri- gere curavit ecclesia. Sed ibi quidam^) civitatis nostrae repertos est a recta fide dissentieus atque ab ea ex causis quoqae diTersis alienus exsistenS; qui hoc visus est perpetrare^ ne ulla in Quscipien- dis legatis copia praeberetur: qui nec ad faciem usque salutationis admissi, sine aliquo elfectu reversi sunt. 4. Quia vero ante non multum temporis Photinus religiosns diaconus sanctae Thessalonicensis ecclesiae nobiscum de pace ecde- siarum verba conseruit dixitque, se ante spatium parvi temporis destinatum-*) a sanctissimo archiepiscopo Andrea^®) Thessalonicensis ecclesiae ad Komanum pontificem Anastasium, et affirmabat de his, ^) Non alius ille quidam nidi Johannes cognomeuto Talaja, qui Alexandzia pulsus Romam confugit: quem dum haereticam vocaut, se ipsia eontramm catholicae fidei doctrinam tueri produnt. Neque alii leg^ti proxime memorati, nisi qui aliquauto post, ut in notitia epistolanun non exstantium FeliciBlI n.ll observavimus , a Petro Mongo in locum Johaimis suffecto missi Romam yene- runt, ut ipsius Mougi usurpationem apostolicae sedis auctoritate firmari pete- rent. Minime autem mirum est haeretici jam toties danmati le^tos neqne ad salutationis ofticium admissos esse. Felix epist. 6 n. 1 inter justas damnandi Acacii oausas hanc recenset, quod ei hujus ipsius Peiri grata persona et mumisiri ejus accepti sini, et apocrisiarios ejus confovere deprehendatur. Qaocirca idem papa epist. 14 n. 5 hoc Flavitae nominatim praecipit: Sec apocrisiarii* dammmA Petri misceamitr aut titteris, Qua in re Felix morem gessit monitiB ipsiiu Acacii, quif ut apud Gelasium tract. I n. 12 et apud Liberatum c. 18 narratmr, de aJk- tero Petro, qui in Antiochenam sedem invaserat, et de quodam Johanne Apft- menis ordiuato ad Simplicium scribens, cosque iterum damnatos nuutaans, petit ab apostulica sede^ ut si forte nd eam confugerenty nec visu digno* ka&eret. ^) Uaec Photini legatio absurdis illis commentis occasionem dedit, qoae in libro de gestis pontiticum ita leguntur: multi clerici et presbyteri te a eommimome ipsius Anastnsii retraxerunty eo quod communicasset sifte consilio episcopormm vri presbyterorum vet cieri cunctne Kcctesiae cathoticae diaeono ThessalonicenMi Photino (j^ss. Photio), qui communionis erat Acacii, et quia occuUe volmit Acacium et non potuit. Qua autem Bde communionis Acacii dicatur diaconos ab Andrea ad apostolicam sedem missus, postquam idem Andreas Gelasii de exees- sibus Acacii comprobasset litteras, easque in ecclesia sua redtari praecepisset.' Nequc minus absurdum esse jam observavi hoc aliud commentum, quo Acadam, qui Felicis II temporibus jam obierat, Anastasius revocare voluiase fingitor. Ex hoc autem loco tempus colligitur, quo libellus iste datus fixit. Nondnm emm Romam advenerat Photinus , quum Anasta^ius superiorem epistolam 3 ad Lm- rentium scripsit, sed hunc tamen, ut num. 3 innuit, brevi venturum sperabAt Huic igitur tempori, quo Romam ingressus esti adjiciendam est interrallmii, quo delegata negotia ibi peragere, Thessalonicam redire, indeque ad regiim urbem se conferre valuerit. "^) Jam observavimus, ad huiic Andream scriptam esse Felicis II epist. 18, adeoque eum ipsum esse, quem Gelasius epist. 18 n. 4 reprehendit ut in Acacii ceterorumque perfidorum commimione pertinacem. Hunc autem a pntTa iDa communione tandem discessisse, Laurentii Lignidensis episcopi litteris Anasta- bius noster, uti su])erior ipsius epistohi 3 n. 1 testis est, gratulabundoa aocepii.