Letter 28: Felix, bishop of Rome, to Andrew, bishop of Thessalonica, greetings.

Of Pope Felix, to Andreas, bishop of Thessalonica. [Year] 492. Felix to Andreas, bishop of Thessalonica. Since we desire that what belongs to the full catholic faith be confirmed by restoration, we gladly embrace the concern of your love, by which you long to come into the communion of the see of blessed Peter; but we would wish that it be, as the safeguard of orthodox truth demands, steadfast on every side. [Editorial note:] Here at greater length Felix sets forth with what mind he had said, in the sentence passed against Acacius, that Acacius was never to be released from the bonds of anathema. [Editorial note:] The wiles and deceits of this bishop [Acacius], and likewise his obstinacy in schism, Gelasius notes in epistle 18, no. 4. A Notice of the letters, no longer extant, which pertain to St. Felix II [III], pope. I. In the year 483. 1. The exhortation of Felix to the bishops of the East concerning the admonishing of Acacius. 2. The accusation of the citizens of Constantinople and of the Easterners to Felix concerning Acacius the prevaricator. 1. Since the apostolic see had accomplished nothing by its repeated letters to Acacius, nor had it merited any reply at all, it also approached the Eastern bishops, that by joined efforts they might admonish him. They too are recorded to have done this, but with no happier effect. Behold, in the name of Felix, Gelasius writes in epistle 1, no. 34: we have entreated you, behold you have written, behold he has not deigned to write back either to you or to me. 2. Perhaps it is a continuation of the same case that Theophanes the chronographer, p. 203 ff., relates. For first he records that the bishops of the East expostulated by letters with Acacius, because he had granted to Peter Mongus the partnership of communion; that he then, scorning their admonitions, most impudently compelled them to admit the same Peter into communion. "Then indeed," he says, "the citizens of the royal city and the Easterners approached Felix, who after the death of Simplicius held the Roman see, as suppliants" (doubtless by letters), "and accused Acacius as the author of all evils." To these statements he adds: "Meanwhile John, prelate of Alexandria, denouncing these same things, enters Rome." From the order of which narration it follows that Felix received these letters before John Talaia entered Rome, and so at the very beginning of his pontificate. II. In the year 483. The petition of John, bishop of Alexandria, to Felix against the same Acacius. Soon John the catholic, first a presbyter and steward of the church of Alexandria and most recently created its bishop, having entered Rome, offered to Felix, who had most recently succeeded him [Simplicius], the petitions which he had prepared against Acacius to be handed to Simplicius (Theophanes, chronicle, p. 204; Evagrius III. 18). III. Around the end of the year 483. The repeated admonition of Cyril, abbot of the Acoemetae, to Felix concerning the hastening of his intercession. Cyril, father of the Acoemete monks, since he impatiently bore that the affairs of the East were sliding into worse, being unaware that legates had been appointed by Felix to remedy them, wrote letters to him, concerning which Evagrius III, 19 speaks thus: "Before the legates of the pope had reached the royal city, Cyril, the superior of the Acoemete monks, sent certain men with letters to Felix, complaining of his delay, since such grave things were being committed against the right faith." IV. Around the beginning of the year 484. The admonition of Felix to the legates Misenus and Vitalis concerning sharing counsels with Cyril. As soon as Felix received these letters of Cyril, by a writing sent to his legates Misenus and his colleagues he instructed them that they should do nothing before they had conferred with Cyril and had learned from him what was to be done. (Evagrius, loc. cit.; cf. Felix, ep. 10 no. 1.) NOTICE OF LETTERS NO LONGER EXTANT. NOS. I-VIII. 279 V. In the year 484, at the same time. Another memorandum of Felix to his legates. The same Evagrius, loc. cit. III. 20, records that together with this writing another memorandum was sent by Felix to the same legates, but he is silent as to what was contained in it. VI. In the year 484, at the same time. The admonition of Felix to the emperor Zeno concerning the defending of the Council of Chalcedon and the bringing of aid to the African church. The same Evagrius, after he had soon mentioned the aforesaid memorandum, immediately adds: he [Felix] also sent letters to Zeno, both concerning the Council of Chalcedon (that he should not let it be undermined) and concerning the persecution which had been stirred up in Africa by Hunneric (that, namely, he should take care to quell it by his authority). Whether however in obedience to the admonitions of the pope or to the prayers of the Africans, who took refuge with him, Zeno appointed as legate to Hunneric one Uranius, who, by the witness of Victor of Vita, On the Vandal Persecution V, 7, boasted that he had come to Carthage for the defense of the holy churches. But that impious king, spurning this embassy, abated nothing of his cruelty. Furthermore, these letters of Felix, if we consider the place at which they are recounted by Evagrius, may be referred to the beginning of the year 484. We also consult historical truth, since, if Hunneric was extinguished in the year 485, we will readily grant that they were not much later. VII. In the year 484, at the same time. The letter of Felix to Acacius concerning the same matters. 1. Felix, following here too his custom, by which hitherto he was not wont to write to Zeno without special letters to Acacius, wrote at the same time to Acacius, Evagrius being witness in the same place; concerning which matter the same author is silent. From those things, however, which he relates concerning the letters written to Zeno, a conjecture can be drawn that he likewise wrote to Acacius concerning the Council of Chalcedon, and that he adjured the same that he himself both adhere to this council, and by the authority which he had with the emperor bring it about that the authority of the same council not be torn apart. 2. If faith is to be given to Liberatus c. 18, after Felix had been made more certain of the violence done to his legates, and had clearly detected that Acacius was a heretic, he sent synodical letters to him, in which he set down this by name: you have sinned, do not add to it; entreat him concerning your former deeds. "Then indeed," says the same Liberatus, "these letters having been received, Acacius persists ... Learning this, Pope Felix sent the writing of condemnation to Acacius through Tutus the defensor." But, the order of the things done by Felix having been examined, we have already observed that the truth of this new letter praised by Liberatus cannot be admitted. By a similar reasoning the same pope is feigned to have written to Peter the Fuller: you have fallen, do not persist in ruin; you have sinned, sin no more! (Pseudo-epistle 3 of Felix, no. 8, in Hardouin, Collection of Councils II, 823.) VIII. In the year 484, around the month of June. The reply of the emperor Zeno to Felix concerning the new bishop of Alexandria. Zeno, dismissing the legates of Felix, Misenus and Vitalis, wrote back to this pope: that the prolixity of his letters had seemed worthy of disdain; that he [Felix] had been disturbed in vain by the words of John of Alexandria, inasmuch as the latter had once sworn that he would in no way ever aspire to the see of Alexandria, but afterwards, neglecting his oath, had committed every kind of sacrilege. (Evagrius, h.e. 3, 20; cf. Felix ep. 8 no. 1 and 2.) These things having been thus summarily touched on by Evagrius, loc. cit., the same writer subjoins these words concerning Peter Mongus as though they were the very things which were contained in Zeno's letter: you ought to hold for certain that both our piety and the above-mentioned most holy Peter and all the sacrosanct churches embrace and venerate the most holy Council of Chalcedon, which agrees entirely with the faith of the [Nicene] council. Wherefore there is no doubt that Felix himself indicates this letter of Zeno in ep. 15 no. 2, where he addresses the same emperor thus: while through the Council of Chalcedon, which your clemency long ago by letters declared that it venerated, it is established that Eutyches and Dioscorus were condemned. Nor does it seem that it should be referred to other letters also of Zeno, what Gelasius writes in ep. 26 no. [...]: What of this, that Zeno the emperor himself professes in his letters that he did all things by the counsel of Acacius? (the same, ep. 1 no. 12). Furthermore, that these letters of Zeno were given most nearly before the month of July of the year 484 is manifest from the following paragraph. IX. In the year 484, at the same time. The reply of Acacius to Felix in the same case. To the same legates Acacius also at the same time handed over a letter to Felix, in which he thought that Peter, intruded into the see of Alexandria, was to be excused; nay, he did not cease to praise him and to extol him with many encomia, so that he boasted that the condemnation of the man himself, which he had earlier reported, had not been true. And these things indeed Felix touches on in ep. 6 no. 1, and repeats in ep. 10 no. 2, where again he complains of Acacius, as one who, he says, prosecuted with many praises Peter, condemned through our legates (i.e., through the letter given to the legates). In the same place, as Gelasius is the author, ep. 1 no. 12, among other things he set forth: that now the church of Alexandria breathes again and flourishes in the abundance of spiritual feeding. The same letter also testified that Acacius communicated with those who were returning to the church under Peter, that is, as Felix proves, with those whom it is established to be heretics (Felix ep. 6 no. 1). This letter, moreover, which excused Peter the pseudo-bishop of Alexandria and extolled him with praises, accused John as a true prelate of the same church, and was stuffed with insults against him (Gelasius ep. 26). X. In the year 484, at the same time. The reports of Cyril, superior of the Acoemetae, and of the other archimandrites of the royal city, and likewise of the bishops and clerics of the Egyptian diocese, to Felix concerning the affairs of Alexandria. While Acacius was thus writing in favor of Peter, Felix received letters of Cyril, superior of the Acoemetae, and of the other archimandrites of the royal city, concerning the same Peter as a heretic and concerning those who communicated with him. The monks of the Acoemete monastery carried them, who afterwards were also held faithful by the judgment of Vitalis and Misenus. To these very letters Evagrius III, 20 wished that others were joined, of the bishops and clerics of the Egyptian diocese, who, while they reported concerning Peter the same things as the said archimandrites, testified this by name: that John indeed, who was orthodox, had been lawfully ordained, but that Peter had been created by only two bishops, who professed the same heresy as he himself, and that NOTICE OF LETTERS NO LONGER EXTANT. NOS. VIII-XIII. 281 after the flight of John the orthodox had been vexed with every kind of torment. To these they added that Acacius had learned all these things through certain men who had come from the city of Alexandria to Constantinople, and that he was caught in all things as Peter's minister and helper. XI. In the year 484, at the same time. The embassy of Peter of Alexandria to Pope Felix. It does not seem doubtful that Peter himself also at the same time sent legates to Felix, who might defend his case. To this time certainly may conveniently be referred what we shall read in Pope Anastasius II, ep. 5 no. 3: that legates were sent from the church of Alexandria (i.e., from those who were attached to Peter) to the apostolic see, but that there was found there a certain man of the same city who held different views (i.e., who followed the catholic faith), and that by his agency it was brought about that no opportunity at all was offered in receiving the legates. Wherefore these, not even admitted to the face of the man for a greeting, returned without any effect. Whether however this pertains to Felix or to another prelate of the apostolic see, this pontiff did nothing here, except that it was urged upon Acacius himself that he must deal with men of this sort; for he, writing to Simplicius concerning Peter and John, the pseudo-bishops of Antioch, was the author to him that, if perhaps they should take refuge with the apostolic see, he should not even grant them a sight of himself (Gelasius, tract. I no. 12). XII. In the year 484, on the 28th of July. The synodal acts concerning the case of Vitalis and Misenus. When by so many documents and witnesses Felix had been made more certain of the prevarication of his legates, he willed that their case be examined in synod. Various writings were read out and bound into the acts, which Evagrius III, 20 seems to praise. There the Acoemete monks accused Vitalis and Misenus, that before the coming indeed of [...] into the royal city the name of Peter had begun to be recited secretly in the sacred diptychs, and thereafter publicly to be proclaimed, and that thus Vitalis and Misenus had communicated with him. But the legates themselves, then being interrogated, confessed that Acacius was the author of the whole prevarication (Gelasius ep. 1 no. 35), and so, being convicted, they were condemned. Recording the sentence pronounced against them, Felix ep. 11 no. 3 [says]: we suspend Vitalis and Misenus from the priestly and most sacred communion; Gelasius, however, ep. 1 no. 39 and ep. 30 no. 8 and 9, notes that this clause was added to that sentence: until, God being the author and by the effort of the catholic princes or people, the church of Alexandria should have received again a catholic priest, that is, until Peter should be driven from the see of Mark, with whom, as with his lawful successor, they had communicated contrary to [right]. Furthermore, that in that very synod in which Acacius was condemned, that is, on the 28th of July of the year 484, Vitalis and Misenus were judged, the brief church history teaches (Gelasius, tract. I no. 13). XIII. In the year 484, after the month of August. The denunciation of Rufinus, Thalasius, and the other presbyters, archimandrites, and monks of the royal city and of Bithynia to Pope Felix concerning the prevarication of Tutus the defensor. Felix sent the sentence passed against Acacius through Tutus the defensor. But this man, less steadfast than Vitalis and Misenus, allowed himself to be corrupted by gold. Concerning whose treachery Rufinus, Thalasius, presbyters and archimandrites, and the other monks established around Constantinople sent letters to Felix through Basil, by which they signified that Tutus, corrupted by money, had cleaved to the condemned Acacius. With these letters, moreover, they seem to have added the proper letter of Tutus himself, which he, unwilling to deny it, [...] was convicted and condemned. Nor should I think that Felix wrote to them for any other cause concerning certain monks of the same monasteries, who, having been deceived, had gone over to the enemies of God (cf. Felix ep. 12 no. 2), except that they had first in the same letters consulted him as to what reasoning ought to be followed by themselves or concerning those men. This, moreover, they wrote after Tutus had carried to Constantinople the sentence passed on the 28th of July, 484, against Acacius, and satisfaction had been made to these decrees. And since Tutus, in the synodal epistle 11 of Felix, signed on the third day before the Nones of October of the year 485, is named defensor by an added note, we shall conjecture not rashly that then his lapse was not yet known and judged. Wherefore we shall set down our letters as sent about the month of August of the year 484, in such a way that by the fifth of October following they had not yet reached Rome. To them Felix replied in epistle 12. XIV. Between the years 486 and 489. The intercession of the Eastern bishops to Felix for the absolving of Vitalis and Misenus. As the business in the Acacian case went forward, the Easterners seem to have approached the pontiff, that he might absolve Vitalis and Misenus. "Tell us," they say, as Gelasius writes in the name of Felix, ep. 1 no. 35, "whether you intend to absolve Vitalis and Misenus or not?" And thereupon they object that the pontiff had promised this. And when he replies: "I did not promise," it is read; so that, as this promise, so that intercession seems to have been made in writing. XV. At the same time. The response of Felix to the intercession of the Easterners for the absolving of Vitalis and Misenus. The pontiff did not hesitate in a certain manner to assent to the intercession of the Easterners, so that he promised that he would deliberate anew on the case of Vitalis and Misenus. Which since it is read, he replies to their objection (Gelasius ep. 1 no. 35): this now I plainly maintain: for I promised that I would deliberate how they might justly seem to be absolved. And since all these things appear to have been treated while Acacius was still living, so each writing was conceived after the third before the Nones of October of the year 485, so that it did not exceed the year 489. XVI. In the year 490, around the beginning. The embassy of Flavitas of Constantinople to Felix concerning his ordination. When Acacius died around the end of the year 489, Zeno vehemently desired that one be appointed in his place whom God himself had chosen. But while he willed that God's election be made manifest by a miracle, God permitted that Flavitas should delude him. For this man's name [was written] on the pure parchment which the emperor had placed on the sacred altar, not by an angel, as he supposed, but, as it was believed, by the hand of the keeper of the temple, corrupted by much gold of Flavitas himself. By this artifice it came about that Flavitas was ordained with the greatest joy of Zeno. He indeed made it his first concern to send legates of the clerics of his church regularly to the apostolic see with letters indicating his ordination. Furthermore those letters confessed blessed Peter to be the chief of the apostles and the rock of the faith and the dispenser of the heavenly mystery by the keys entrusted to him. Likewise in these Flavitas testified that he, in order that he himself and Felix might be more of one mind, wished to have agreement with him in the orthodox faith, and signified that Felix ought to show his zeal for the orthodox faith (cf. Felix ep. 14 no. 3, 15 no. 1). Finally, glorying that he held the faith of the apostle Peter no otherwise than Felix did, he said: "that we, who believe with him (i.e., the apostle) as you do, glorying as kinsmen, may be able to gather the scattered" (Felix ep. 14 no. 4). At the first reading of those letters Felix was refreshed, but concerning the sincerity of those things which Flavitas professed in them, he soon, his legates having been questioned, began to doubt. And NOTICE OF LETTERS NO LONGER EXTANT. NOS. XIII-XX. 283 since, when he wrote to Thalasius (ep. 16), that is, on the first day of May of the year 490, he had not yet been made more certain. Whence we gather, not rashly, that those letters were written not long after, at the beginning of the same year 490. XVII. In the year 490, at the same time. The letters of the emperor Zeno to Pope Felix concerning the same matter. Through the same legates Zeno sent his letters to Felix, in which he first professed that he set the care of religion and the peace of the churches before all the affairs of the commonwealth, and therefore it had been his concern that one should be set as bishop of Constantinople, the heavenly gift attending, who both shone with probity of morals and excelled before all in affection for the orthodox faith (Felix ep. 15 no. 1). At the same time he congratulated himself that he had become possessed of his wish, and added that he desired that the cause of the Church, as is divinely instituted, be settled by the ordination of the pontiffs. Before the whole presbytery, that is, the whole Roman clergy, these letters were recited not without the applause of those present, of which indeed those very legates who had brought them were also witnesses (loc. cit. no. 5). XVIII. In the year 490, at the same time. The announcement of Rufinus, Hilarius, and Thalasius, archimandrites of Constantinople, to Pope Felix concerning the woven deceit of Flavitas. Meanwhile Rufinus, Hilarius, and Thalasius, archimandrites of the royal city, fearing lest Felix be deceived by the deceits of Flavitas, decided that some of their monks should be sent to Rome. And the legates of Flavitas had scarcely entered there, when Felix heard that those monks had arrived, of whose faith he had no doubt. At first he supposed that they had come for no other reason than to testify that the names of the condemned, i.e., of Acacius and of Peter of Alexandria, had at last been removed from the sacred diptychs. But they were carrying the letters of their superiors, by which, as Theophanes relates, Felix was admonished concerning the letters of communion sent by Flavitas to Peter of Alexandria. Whence this pope recognized that the mind of this crafty bishop was deceitful and unworthy of all trust (cf. Felix ep. 14 no. 2). XIX. In the year 490, on the 1st of May. The rescript of Felix to the said archimandrites. To Rufinus, Hilarius, and Thalasius, who had written to him, Felix wrote back as soon as possible. And afterward, when he had thought that something should be added to the letters he had made, he composed a new epistle, signed on the Kalends of May of the year 490, and handed both writings to the monks of the aforesaid archimandrites. But the first, which was of greater moment, perished, and only the last has come down to us (Felix ep. 16). XX. In the year 490, in the month of May. The synodal letters of Euphemius of Constantinople to Pope Felix concerning his ordination. In that very year 490, Theophanes being witness, p. 209, Felix received the synodal letters of Euphemius, by which the latter made him more certain that he had succeeded into the place of Flavitas. But when he received them, says the same writer, although as to a catholic he imparted the partnership of communion, yet he did not acknowledge him as bishop, because he had not expunged the name of Acacius and of Flavitas his successor from the diptychs. To Euphemius indeed, if for a while we trust what Theophanes and likewise Evagrius 3, 23 and Victor of Tunnuna relate about him, the name of catholic may not be denied; nay, it must be granted that he stood forth as a defender of the Council of Chalcedon. But for the very reason by which Felix is said to have been prevented from acknowledging him as bishop, he ought also to have been prevented from granting him his communion. For the same [pope], in order to deny his communion to Flavitas the predecessor of Euphemius, had been led by this reasoning, that the latter had not expunged the name of Acacius from the diptychs. And indeed Gelasius contradicts the statements of Theophanes, who in ep. 3 no. 1 speaks with Euphemius, as one who was of an alien communion and preferred to favor an alien society rather than to return to the pure and unstained partnership of blessed Peter; and in ep. 10 no. 2 he says in general: My predecessors, the priests who confessed with their own voice that they had communicated with prevaricators, they removed from apostolic communion. XXI. In the year 491, after the month of April. The congratulation of Pope Felix to Anastasius on his having received the empire. The letters by which Felix paid the office of greeting to Anastasius Augustus on his taking up the reins of empire, his own successor Gelasius mentions in ep. 10 no. 2 in these words: But what does this mean, that the emperor said that he had been irreligiously condemned by us, when concerning this point my predecessor not only in no way touched his name, but moreover, when he had attained the beginnings of royal power, wrote back in his rescript that he rejoiced in the promotion of his empire? And indeed Anastasius, in the year 491, on the 14th day of the month of April, on the great solemnity of Easter, as Theophanes says, p. 211, was crowned on the fifth feria. XXII. Letters falsely ascribed to Pope Felix. 1. The admonitory letter of Felix to Peter the Fuller, bishop of Antioch, that he should return to the faith. "Who will give" (Hardouin, Collection of Councils II. 817; Mansi VII. 1037; Migne, Latin Fathers LVIII, 903). 2. The sentence of excommunication and deposition of Felix against Peter of Antioch. "Since [it is] unbearable" (Hardouin II. 823; Mansi VII, 1045; Migne LVIII, 911. Another most ancient version beginning "Since by pestilent" from Vatican codex 4961 fol. 24, in the Roman edition of the pontifical letters I, 326; Mansi VII. 1047; Migne, loc. cit. 916). 3. The letter of Felix to the emperor Zeno, that he should drive out from the church of Antioch Peter the Fuller, the heretic, condemned. "It befits your clemency" (Hardouin II. 827; Mansi VII. 1049; Migne LVIII. 917). These three letters, together with eight others written in the same case, although the authority of the most ancient codices Vatican 4961, the Corbeian, and others, and most learned men Baronius, Cave, Pagi, Scipio Maffei, uphold them, Henricus Valesius ("On Peter of Antioch and the synods held against him," c. 4), Dupin, Coustant (above, p. 19), Lequien, Dissertation 4 of the Damascene, and the Ballerini ("On the ancient collections and collectors of canons," p. II c. 11, sect. 3) have proved by most certain arguments to be spurious. 285

Felieis papae ad Andream epicospum Thessalonicensem. ^'492^ Felix Andreae*) episcopo Thessalonicensi. Quod plene catholicae fidei cupimus redintegratione firmari, sol- jicitudinem dilectionis tuae, qua ad sedis beati Petri communionem Tenire desideras, libenter amplectimur ; sed eam vellemus, sicut or- tbodoxae veritatis cautela deposcit, ex onmi fieri parte constantem. *} QLc rargoB exponit Felix, qua mente in sententia advcrsus Acachun lata eum anaihematis vineulis nunquam exuendum dixerit. <) Hcgus episcopi artes et dolos nec non in schismate pertinaciam Gelasius epiflt. 18 n. 4 notat. No t i t i a cpistolarum nou cxstautium quac ad s. Fclicem II papam attinent* I. Afifw 483. 1. Fclicis ad episcdpos Oricfilales de monendo Acacio inciiatio, 2. Civiitm Cotistafitifiopolitafioruffi atque Orientaliutn ad Felicem de Acacio praevaricatore incusatio. 1. Qiiuui sedcs apostolica ileralis ad Acacium lilleris suis niliil profecissei ncc rcsponsi quidquam mcruisset. etiam episcopos Orientalcs adiit. ut coiyanctli studiis illum nioncrcnt. Quod iidcm et fccisse memorantur, nec feliciore ellectii. Ecce, nominc Fclicis scribil Gclasius cpislola 1 n. 34, poposcimus vos, ecce scripsistis^ ecce fion digtiatus est ille rescribere nec vohis nec mihi, 2. Forlassc cjusdcm causac proseculio csl, quod Tlicophanes chrouogr. p.203 sq. rcfcrt. l^rimura cnim mcmorat Oricntis episcopos cum Acacio, quod PeCro Mongo communionis consortium impcrtiisset, per litteras expostuiasse ; illum autea spretis ipsorum monilis cum tos, ut cumdcm Pctrum in communionem admitterent, impudcntissime compulisse. Twn veroy iiiquit. cives urbis regiae cmciiqve Orietitales Felicem, qui post Simplicii obitum sedem Rotnanam ienebatj suppU- ces adierutit (haud dubic ])cr littcras), et malorum omnium auctorem incusa- verunt Acaciutn. Quibus dictis adjungit: Ititerea Jokannes Alexandriae prae' sul haec eadem denuntians Romam itigreditur. £.\ ciyus narratiouis ordiBe se- quitur, ut has liltcras ante acccperit FcHx. quam Johaunes Talaja Roniam ingrede* retur, adeoquc in cxordio pontificatus sui. II. atmo 483. Johaiifiis Alcxatidrini episcopi ad Felicem adversus eumdem Aca- cium libellus. Mox Johanncs cathoUcus, primum Alexaudrinae ccclcsiac presbyter el oeco- nomus ac novissimc crcatus cjusdem episcopus, ilomam ingressus, quos adversus Acacium paraverat libcllos Simplicio tradcndos, Fclici qui pro*xime ipsi successerat obtulit (Thcophancs chron. p. 204, Evagr. III. 18). III. atmo 483 c. exit. Cyrilli abbatis Acoetnitarum ad Felicem de acceieranda ititercessione repetita admonitio. Cyrillus Acocmitarum monachorum patcr, quum rcs Oricntis in deterius dilabi impaticutcr fcrrct, Icgatos a Fclicc. ut cis mederctur. dcstinatos cssc ignoraiis» littcras ad eum scripsil, dc quibus Evagrius III, 19 ita loquitur: priusquam legati papae ad iirbem regiam pervetiissctit ^ Cyrillus Acoemitensium monachorum praepositus quosdam cum litteris ad Fclicem misit^ de ejus cunclatione coii- querens, quum tam gravia advcrsus rectam fidetn committerentur, IV. antio 484 c. itiit. Felicis ad lcgatos Misenutn et Vitalem de communicandis cum Cyrilio consiliis adtnotiitio. Statim ut accepit Felix has Cyrilli lilteras, scripto ad Icgatos suos Miseniua et collegas uiisso praecepit eis, ne quidquam ageretity priusquam cum CyriUo essent collocuti et ab eo quid agetidum esset didicissetit. (Evagr. I. c. cf. Fei. D ep. 10 n. 1). NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. I — VIII. 279 V. anno 484 eorf. itmp, Felicis ad legatos suos aliud commonitorium. Sifflui cum hoc scriplo aliud coiQmonitorium a Felicc ad cosdem legatos missuffl esse memorat idcra Evagrius I. c. IH. 20, sed quid co contineatur tacet. VI. anno 484 eod. iemp. Felicis ad Zenonem imperatorem de tuenda synodo Calchedonensi et auxilio ecclesiae Africanae ferendo admonitio. Idem Evagrius postquam mox dictum commemoravil conimonitorium, proximc subpdi: Htteras quoque dedit (Felix) ad Zenonem tum de synodo Calchedo- Hensi(ne iUain labefactari sineret)» tum de persecutione^ quae in Africa excitata fuerai ab BunericOy (ut eam scilicet auctoritatc sua scdari curaret). Sive autem lus papoe monitis sive Afrorum, qui ad ipsum confugicbant, precibus obsecutus. Zeno iegatum Uranium, qui tcste Victore Vitensi de pers. Vand. V, 7 Carthaginem sese pro defensione sanctarum ecclesiarum venisse jactabai^ ad Hunericum destiiuivit. Sed hanc legationem spernens, impius illc rex dc crudelitale nihil nwmi. Porro has Felicis litteras, si locum spectamus, quo ab Evagrio recensenlur, 9d iniUtim anni 484 referre licet. Etiam historicam consulimus veritatcm, quum si Huneiicus anno 485 exstinctus sit, eas non multo posteriores fuissc facile lar- giemur. vn. atmo 484 eod. iemp. Felicis ad Acacium de iisdem rebus litterae. 1. Feiix morem suum, quo scriberc ad Zcnoncm sine speeialibus ad Acacium lUleris bactenus non consuevit, ctiam hic sccutus, Evagrio ibidem testc scripsit iiem ad Acacium; qua de re, silet idem auctor. Ex iis autcm, quae dc litteris ad ZeDonem scriptis refert, conjectura capi potest, eum pariter dc Calchcdonensi synodo ad Acacium scripsisse, atquc cumdem obtestatum esse. ut et huic concilio adhaereret ipse, et ea qua valebat apud imperatorem auctoriUitc cfficcrct, nc ojus- dem concUii auctoritas convelleretur. 2. Si Liberato c. 18 habenda fides, postquam ccrtior factus cst Felix dc vl legatis suis facta, et Acacium haereticum csse manifeslc dctexit, sYnodic«'is ad eum nisit litterai, in quibus id nominatim posuit: peccastiy ne adjicias^ ei de prio- ribus suppiica. Tum verOj inquit idcm Libcratus, susceptis his liiteris Acacius perseverat . . . Haec cognoscens papa Felix damnationis scripturam misit Acacio per Tutum defensorem. Scd rerum a Felice geslarum ordinc pcrspccto hujus novae epistolae a Liberato laudatae vcrilateni admilli noii posse jam obser- vavimus. Simili ratione idem papa Petro FuIIoni scripsisse ringilur : corruisti^ noli in ruina persistere; peccasti^ jam peccare.noli! (Felicis pseudo-epist. 3 n. 8 apud Uard. coll. conc. 11, 823.) VIIL anno 484 c. mens, Jun, Zenonis imperaioris ad Feliccm de novo episcopo Alexandrino responsum. Felicis iegatos Misenum et Vilalem dimitlcns Zeno huic papae rescripsit: sOm fastidio dignam visam esse liiterarum ejus prolixiiatem ; frustra illum periurbaium esse verbis Johannis Alexandrini^ quippe qui olim quidem juras- sei^ se Mexandrinam sedem nutlo unquam modo ambiturum essCy postea vero negiecio Jurejurando nuilum non sacrilegii genus admisissei. (Evagr. h. c. 3, 20; c(. Fel. ep. 8 n. 1 et 2). Quibus ab Evagrio 1. c. sic summatim perstrictis, idem scriptor haec de Petro Nongo vcrba velut ea ipsa, quae Zenouis epistola continebantur» subjicit: pro certo habere debes, et pietatem nostram et supra memoratum sanctissimum Pctrum et universas sacrosanctas ecclesias sancU simum Calchedonense concilium amplecti atque veneran\ quad cum fide F caeni concilii prorsus consentit. — Quocirca dubium non est, quin haocZenoi cpislolam ipse Felix ep. 15 n. 2 indicet, ubi eumdem imperatorem sic alloquitv dum pcr synodum Calchedonenscm, quam se dudum litteris designavit t clementia venerariy Eutychem atque Dioscorum constet esse damnatos, Neq ad alias etiam Zcnouis litleras referendum videtur, quod Gelasius ep. 26 o. scribit: Quid, quod ipse Zeno imperator litteris suis profitetur^ cuncta se ex Acacii gessisse consilio? (id. ep. 1 n. 12). Porro has Zenouis litteras pr xime ante mcnsem Julium anni 484 datas fuisse sequenti paragrapho mai festum Get. IX. anno 484 eod. tcmp, Acacii ad Felicem in eadem causa responsum, Jisdem legatis simul etiam Acacius epistolam ad Felicem tradidit» in q^ Petrum in Alexandrinam sedeni intrusum excusandum credidit, immo nec eu laudare desiit et mullis eflerre praeconiis, ita ut damnationem ipsius, quam au retuleral, veram non fuisse jactaret. £t Iiaec quidem Felii epist. 6 n. 1 locuti ep. 10 n. 2 repetit, ubi rursum de Acacio queritur, ut qui, inquit, Petrumd mnatum pcr legatos nosiros (i. e. per epislolam legatis datam) multis laudib prosecutus sit, Ibidem, ul auctor est Gelasius epist. 1 n. 12, inter alia profereb nunc AJexandrinam ecclesiam respirare et spiritualis cdimoniae ubertate J iiari, Eadem quoque epistola testabatur Acacius, sese cum iis communicare, ^ ad ecclesiam sub Peiro redibani^ h. e. uti Felix probat, cwn iis , quos cons\ esse hacreticos (Fel. ep. 6 n. 1). liaec porro epistola, quae Petnim pseadoe scopum Alexandriuum excusabat ac laudibus extollebat, Johannem accusabat yen ejusdem ecclesiae antistitem, et contumeliis illius referta erat (Gelas. epist. 26 X. anno 484 eod, iemp, Cyrilli Acoemitensium praeposiii aliorumque urbis reg archimandritarum nec non episcoporum et clericorum AegypUai dioecesis ad Felicem de rebus Alexandrinis relaiiones. Dum ita in gratiam Pclri scribebat Acacius , de eodem Petro tamquam l retico et de iis , qui cum ipso communicabant , Cyrilli Acoemitensium pFaepc aliorumque iu*bis regiac archimandritarum litteras Felix accepit. Ferebant eas i Acocmitensis monasterii monachi, qui et Vitalis et Miseni judido delnde idI fuerunt. Ipsis autem litteris Evagrius III, 20 alias adjunctas voluit episcopoi ct clericorum Aegyptiae dioecesis , qui quum eadem de Petro referrent qaae ii dicti archimandritae . illud nominatim testabantur, quod Johannes quidem^ erat orihodoxus^ legitime orcUnaius fuissei, Peirus auiem a duobus solum i scopiSy qui eamdem aique ipse haeresim profitereniur^ creaius essei^ et qy NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. VIII — XIII. 281 pof/ fvgm Johannis omni suppiiciorum genere vexaii fuisseni orihodoxi, His addebant, Acacium haec omnia didicisse per quosdam^ qui ab Alexandrina itrbe C(mtianiiHopolim venissent^ eumque Petri adminislrum ei adjuiorem in mmbus deprehendi. XI. mo 484 eod. iemp. Petri Jlexandrini ad Felicem papam legatio, Ambigendum nou vidctur, quin ,et ipse Petrus eodem tempore legatos ad Fdicem miserit, qui causam ipsius tuerentur. Ad hoc certe tempus commode referatm', quod apud Anastasium papam II ep. 5 n. 3 lecturi sumus, ab Alexan- dma scilicei ecclesia (i. e. ab iis, qui Petro addicti erant,) missos esse ad sedem apostolicam legatos^ sed ibi repertum esse quemdam ejusdem civitaiis, qui ditena senUrei (h. e. sequeretur catholicam Gdem), ejusque opera efrectum, ne idla in mcipiendis legatis copia praeberetur, Quapropter hi nec ad faciem itf^e salutaUimis admissi^ sine aliquo effectu reversi sunt. Sive autem ad Fdieem sive ad alium sedis apostolicae pracsulem islud perlineat, nihil egit hic poQtifei, nisi quod cum hujusmodi honiinil)Us agendum csse Acacio ipsi persuasum cnt is quippe Simplicio de Petro ac Johannc pscudoepiscopis Antiochenis scri- bcDS luclor ipsi fuit, ut si forte ad sedem apostolicam confugerent , ncc visu di^oshaberet (Gelas. tract. I u. 12). xn. «w 484 d. 28 Jul. Gesia synodalia de Vitalis ei Miseni causa, QamD tot monuracntis ac testibus dc pracvaricatione lcgatorum suorura FeBi certior factus esset, eorura causam in synodo cognosci voluil. Varia scripta i^lectaet gestis, quae laudare videtur Evagrius IH, 20, illigata sunt. Ibi Acoe- ■^68 monachi Vitalem ac Misenum accusaruni^ quod ante adventum qui- ■* fl/oniw in urbem regiam Petri nomen in sacris dipiychis occulte reci- ^^yCxinde vero publice vocitari coepissei, atque iia Vitalis ac Misenus *** *o communicassent. Ipsi vero legali tum interrogati Acacium totius prac- ^Cdtionis auctorem esse confessi suut (Gclas cpist. 1 n. 35) , ilaquc convicli *wndemnati sunt. Scnteutiam adversus eos dictam mcmorans Felix ep. 11 u. 3 *• ^italem ac Misenum sacerdotali ei sacrosancia commimione suspendimus, «elasius vero ep. 1 n. 39 et 30 n. 8-et 9 seutentiac illi adjcctam csse notat haiic ^'^m: donec auctore Deo et annisu catholicorum principum vel populi ^^iani Jlexandrina calholicum recepisset ecclesia sacerdotem, h. e. doncc ^'•Marci sede pelleretur Petrus, cum quo velul legitimo ejus successore praeter ^ communicaverant. Porro in ca ipsa synodo, in qua damnalus cst Acacius, ^^^t d. 28 Julii anni 484, Vitalem ac Miscnum judicatos csse breviculus hist. %ch. (Gelas. Iract. I n. 13) docet. xm. ^ 484 post mens. Aug, Rufini^ Thalasii et ceterorum presbytcrorum^ ar- chimandritarum ac monachorum urbis regiae ei Bilhyniae ad Feli- cem papam de Tuti defensoris praevaricatione denuntiaiio. ^lentiam adversus Acacium latam Felix per Tutum defcnsorem misit. Sed J*Jj* bic Yitali ac Miseno constanlior auro corrumpi se sivit. De cujus perfldia y^*Wei Bufinos, Thalasius, presbyteri et archimandritae ceterique monachi circa 7"*^tinopolim constittiti litteras ad Felicem per Basilium miserunt, quibus Tu- ^^^P^^^ comiptum Acacio damnato inhaesisse significabant. His autcm litteris ^J^^isic vidcnlur propriam ipsius Tuti epistolam, quam ille diffiteri non volens, ''^^^Avicttts condenmatus est. Nec alia de causa Felicem els de nonnullis eo- ruuidem monaslerioruiu mouachis, qui decepli ad inimicos Dei IratisierafU^ scripsissc pulem (cf. Fcl. ep. 12 n. 2)» uisi quia prius iu iisdem liUeris, ralione sibi aut dc iis agendum esset» illum consuluissent. Hoc autem illi scr runt, postquam Tutus sententiam d. 28 Jul. 484 adversus Acacium latam stantinopolim pcrtulisset, et saiisfactum his conslitutis esset. Quumqa Fclicis cpistoIa-11 synodali III Nonas Octobres anni 485 signata Tutus : adjecta nota defensor nuncupetur, tuuc ejus lapsum nondum cognitum diju tumque csse haud tcmcre conjecerimus. Quapropter nostras litteras ila Augustum anni 484 uiensem missas poncmus, ut die V Octobris sequentis Komam nondum pervenerint. Ipsis Felix rcspondit epist. 12. XTV. int. ann. 486 et 489. Episcoporum Orientalium ad Felicem pro absolvi Vitale ct Miseno intercessio. Proccdeutibus in causa Acaciana negoliis Orientales pontificera adiissc v tur, ut Vilalcm ct Miscnum absolveret. Dicite nobis inquiunt, Felicis no Gelasius epist. 1 n. 35 seribit, utrum Vitalem et Misenum absoluturi siti non ? Ac subinde pontificcm id promisissc objiciunt. Qui quum respondeat : promisi, legitur; ut haec promissio, ita illa intercessio scriptis facta esse vid XV. eod. temp. Felicis ad Orientalium pro absolvcndis Vitale et Miseno intet sionem responsio. Non dubitavit ponlifcx Oricntalium intcrccssioni quodaramodo annuerc causam Vitalis ct Miscni denuo sc dclibcraturum esse promitterct. Quod pro legitur, illorum objcctioni respondct (Gelas. epist. 1 n. 35); hoc nmc im^ contendo : promisi enim deliberaturum^ quomodo juste videantur absolvi. (] autem haec omnia ctiamtunc vivo Acacio tractata appareant, ita post 111 N Octobrcs anni 485 utrumque scriptum conccptum cst, ut anuum 489 nuo cesserit. XVI. anno 490. c, init. Flavitae Constantinopolitani ad Felicem papai ordinatione sua legatio. Acacio circa exitum anni 489 dcfuncto vchemeuter expetiit Zcno, ut i sufGceretur, qucm Deus ipse dclcgissct. Sed dum Dei electionem miraculo manifestam fieri voluit, permisit Deus, ut euui Flavitas deluderet. Hujus nomeu in charta pura, quam in sacro altari rcposuerat imperator, non angel is putabat, sed custodis templi multo ipsius Flavitae auro corrupti manu a< plum esl. Hac artc faclum cst, ut cuui suumia Zcnonis laetitia ordinaretur \ tas. Oui quidcm id in priuiis studii gcssil, ut clericorum ecclesiac suae Iegati< cuiu litleris ordinationis suac indicibus ad sedem apostolicam regulariter c naret. Porro littcrac illae apostolorum summum petramque fidei et coei dispensatorem mysterii creditis sibi clavtbus beatum Petrum confiteba Item in his testabatur Flavitas, sese, ut amplius ipse Felixque unanttnes possint^ cum illo fidei orthodoxae habere vclle assensum^ ipsumque Fei zelum pro orthodoxa fide ostendere debere significtibat (cf. Felic. ep. 14 n. 3, 15 n. 1). Dcmum sc cum PettH apostoli fide non secus ac Felicem come glorians, ajebat: „qui cutn eo (sc. aposlolo) sicut vos credimuSy consana gloriantes dispersa colligere valeamus*' (Felic. ep. 14 n. 4). Primae qaidei terarum illarum lectione recreatus est Fclix, sed de sincerilale eonim, quae vitas in iilis profitebatur, mox interrogatis ejus legatis didiitare coepit. Qut * KOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. XIII — XX. . 283 guuiD mI Thalasiuin scriberet (ep. 16), h. e. dic 1 M:iji anni 490, nondum certior fxius faerat. Unde litteras illas nou longe post, ejusdcin anni 490 inilio, scriptas esse biud temere colligimus. XVIL anno 490 eod, temp. Zenonis imperatoris ad Feliccm papam de eadcm re litterae. Per eosdem legatos misit Zeno ad Felicem lilteras suas, in quibus primum pro/itebatur» sese religionis curam ecclesiarumque pacem universis reipublicae negotns^ anteponere, idcoque sibi studio fuissc , ut is ConstaniinopolUanus su- perno munere prosequente praeficeretur aniisies^ qui et morum probitate ful- gerei ei prae omnibus orthodoxae fidei polleret affectu (Fel. ep. 15 n. 1). Sinml etiam voti se compotem factum esse gratulabatur, addcbalquc, dcsiderare se Ec- clesiae causam^ sicut divinitus instilutum est^ pontificum ordinatione componi. Coniiu oumi presbyterio h. e. loto clero Romano rccitalac sunt liac littcrac non sine adsiantium plausu, cujus quidem ipsi cliam testcs fucrant, qui cas allulcrant legali (]. c. n. 5). .xvni. anno 490 eod. temp, Rufim\ Hilari ac Thalasii archimandritarum Constan- tinopoiitanorum ad Felicem papam de coniexia Flaviiae fallacia adnuniiatio. Interea Rufinus, Hilarius ac Tbalasius, rcgiae urbis arcbimandrilae, vcrili, nc Felix Flavitae dolis decipcrclrr, nonnullos c monacbis suis Romam dcstinandos doxeruDt. Et eo quidem vix ingressi eranl Flavitac Icgati, quum monacbos illos, de quorum fide nibil dubitabat» Felix advenissc audivit. Primum cos non alia dc venisse eiistimavit, nisi ut damnatorum i. c. Acacii ct Petri Alexandrini no- e sacris diptycbis tandem remota esse tcstificarentur. At illi pracpositorum SBonim epistolas deferebant, quibus, ut Theopbanes tradit, dc littcris communica- loriis a Flavita ad Petrum Alexandrinum missis Fclix admonebatur. Undc is papa failaeem vafri hujus episcopi animum omniquc fidc indignum cssc cognovit (cf. Felic epist. 14 n. 2). XIX. anno 480 d. 1 Maj. Felicis ad dicios archimandriias rrscnpium. Rufino, Hilario ac Thalasio, qui ipsi scripserant, quam primum rescripsit Fclix. M post factas littcras, quum nonnihil adjidendum duxisset, novam concinnavit ej^stokm Calendis Najis amii 490 consignatam, ac utrumquc scriptum pracdicto- niBi archimandritariun monacliis tradidit. At primum» quod majoris momenli erat, <s^dil, atque ad nos pervenit dumtaxat postremum (Fclic. epist. 16). XX. «*w 490 mense Majo. Euphemii Consianiinopoliiani ad Fciicem papam de ordinatione sua liiterae synodales. Ipso anno 490, teste Thcopbane pag. 209, synodalcs Euphemii lilieras filix accepit, quibus hic eum certiorcm facicbat, se in Flavitae locum succcssisse. «fti vero itlas accepit, inquit idem scriptor, ei ui caiholico communionis imper- w ^vmorUum^ haud tamen episcopum agnovii, quod Acacii ci Flaviiae ejus ^cetsoris nomen e dipiychis non expunxerii. Eupbcmio quidcm, si, quac de ulo qnaiQ Theophanes tum Evagrius 3, 23 et Victor Tununensis narranl, tantisper ^damus, negare non licet catbolici nomcn, iiumo cuni Calcbcdoncnsis concilii *^^^um defeusorem exstitisse largicndum est. Verum ca ratione, qua prohi- ntos didtar Felix, ne eum cpiscopum agnosceret, prohiberi etiam dcbuit, ne suam ei comrauniouem tribueret. Idem enim, ul Euphemii decessori Flaviiae commu^^y^ nem negaret suam, hac ratione inductus fuerat, quod ille Acacii nomen ex d^ 0' chis non expunxisset. Et vero Theophanis dictis repugnat Gelasius, qui ep. 3 ^ 1 cum Euphcmio loquitur, ut qui esset communionis alienae el societatem pnf ferre mallct alienam^ quam ad beati Peiri purum redire illibatumque con$o^^^ tium; el ep. 10 n. 2 generatim ail: Decessores mei sacerdoteSy qui praevar^^^ catoribus se communicasse propria voce confessi sunt, a communione aposio^ lica submoverunl. XXI. anno 491 post mens, April. Felicis papae ad Anastasium de suscepio imperio gratulatio. Liltcras, quibus Fclix Anastasio Augusto imperii habenas suscipienli saluU- tionis officium persolverit, ipsius succcsssor Gelasius ep. 10 n. 2 memorat Us verbis: Quid sibi vult autem^ quod dixerit imperator^ a nobis se irreiigiate damnatum^ quum super hac partc et decessor meus non solum minime nofMH ejus attigeritj sed insuper quando principia adeptus regiae potestatis exteruU^ in ejus se rescripsit imperii promotione gaudere. Atqui Auastasius anni 491 mensis Aprilis 14 die magna paschalis sollemnitatis j ut loquitur TheophaBes pag. 211, feria V coronatus esl. xxn. Epistolae Felici papae falso adscriptae. 1. Fclicis ad Pctrum Fullonem episcopum Antiochenum mo- nitoria, ut ad fidcm revcrtcretur. „Tlg ddaBi'* ^yQuis dabit" (Hard. coll. conc. U. 817. Mansi VII. 1037 Migne Patr. lat. LVIII, 903). 2. Felicis ad Pctrum Antiochenum sententia excommunica- tionis et dcpositiouis. .^Ensidji dvctvx^g" ^^Quoniam imporiahUilna^ (Hard. II. 823. Mansi Vil, 1045 Mignc LVIII, 911. Alia versio anUquissima iiid- piens ^^Quoniam pestifcris^^ ex cod. Vatic. 4961 fol. 24** in editione RomiM epist. ponlif. I, 326, Mansi VII. 1047, Mignc I. c. 916). 3. Felicis ud Zcnonem imperatorem. ut Petrum Fulloneiii hacrcticuu) damnatum ab ccclesia Anliochena expelleret. »»17(1- Trai" ,,Convenit clementiae'' (llard. II. 827. Mansi VII. 1049, MigneLVlII. 917). Ilas tres cpistolas cum aliis octo in cadcm causa scriptis, etsi ▼eluslissimo- rum codicum Vatic. 4961. Corbejensis. al. auctoritas et viri doctissimi Baroiiiiis» Cave. Pagius. Scipio MalTejus tuentur, spurias csse certissimls argumentis proba- runt ilenricus Valcsius („Dc Pelro Aulioclieno et de synodis adv. eum haUtis^ c. 4). Dupinius. Coustantius (suprapag. 19). Lcquicn disscrt. 4 Damascenica, Balle- riuii (,.De anliqu. collcctionibus ct collectorib. canou.'* p. II c. 11 $ 3). 285