Letter 9: A model statement of the account to be rendered by the blessed Gelasius concerning the avoidance of communion with...

Of the blessed Gelasius, to the bishops of the East (in the year 488). Or: A specimen of the account to be rendered by the blessed pope Gelasius concerning the communion of Acacius that is to be shunned, sent to the bishops of the East. [In it, refuting the arguments by which the Easterners pretended to defend the cause of Acacius, he shows that the bond of excommunication pronounced against him is indissoluble.] 1. [...] After five hundred years they wish that the ordinances of Christ established [...] in the year 488 should be reversed, since the law concerning thirty years cannot avail against men. [...] Saint Athanasius was therefore not condemned by a synod of the East; because that see did not consent, nor was saint John of Constantinople, nor saint Flavian. If, then, when that see alone did not consent, those who were condemned by a synod of the East could not be condemned, it follows that even without a synod the man who has been condemned by that same see condemning him is condemned. Finally, if the sentence of that see alone is null, why do they so earnestly desire that it be dissolved? 2. [...] by the testimony of Acacius, where he confirms that Timothy the Catholic reported to both Romes concerning the condemnation of Peter, who had been ordained by a heretic, that is, by an accomplice of his madness; where also it is reported that on this account he was subjected to greater punishments, and so not that he might be set up as a trustee, which is now pretended, to be substituted for the holy Timothy when he should have died. He, for his crimes, which Acacius himself reported, was subjected to punishments; and no one asserts that a man reserved for honor is worthy of punishments. The emperor permitted the election of Timothy the Catholic; it is therefore necessary that what he ordained should follow, and that a Catholic ordained by Catholics [should hold the see]. It is therefore false, what [is alleged]; that Peter is said to have been appointed as it were as a trustee, in order to be substituted for him to whom he never communicated, and by whom he was requested to be banished farther away. 3. If John had sworn that he would not be a bishop, how did you direct that he was worthy to have greater things committed to him, things which pertain to the governance of the Church? Above the presbyterate, what is greater for the governance of the Church except the episcopate? If he had sworn, how do you direct this? And if he had sworn, why did you expose him, so that he should act contrary to what he had sworn? Or if what you directed was done, why are you angry, why do you say that he perjured himself with regard to you, when that has been done which he had sworn would not be done; since you directed that this ought to be done? He was an apocrisiarius, all things pertained to him, he himself managed all the affairs of the Church, none among the Alexandrian clergy was reckoned superior to him: in honor he was a presbyter; what was to be added to him above this for the governance of the Church, what more was to be conferred on him except the episcopate? You therefore wished him to be a bishop, you who directed that he ought to be above what he was (nor did anything remain except that he should be a bishop). 4. But I marvel, if the emperor suffers necessity, lest he should expel Peter, that one man could not bear necessity, but contends that what he did not wish was done against his will. For the emperor himself, when he pleads necessity, defines as evil that which he does by necessity. 5. If you think that the person of Peter is to be excused, we prove him harmful, heretical, and condemned. If you pretend that he was a trustee, to be substituted for Timothy the Catholic on account of the scandal, neither do the writings of Acacius testify this, who states clearly why he was excluded, nor [the writings] of the emperor, who promised to Timothy the Catholic also that what he had established would remain, from whose communion Peter was separated, and by whom he was afterward requested to be banished farther away, and brought hither and to Constantinople alike: as Acacius also testifies, that he was condemned from the diaconate by saint Proterius, and that a Catholic was to be appointed by a Catholic, not Peter, who was a heretic, as it were placed as a trustee to be substituted; those ordained by whom, unless they should have returned to the communion of saint Timothy, were ordered to be condemned without delay. 6. If he is said to have been afterward corrected, in the meantime he is shown by this very fact to have lain hitherto in error, and not to have been able to be set over Catholics on account of the error, by whom he was corrected of his error. And so he had been worthy of pardon, not of honor; and especially, ordained by heretics, he has absolutely no substance of episcopal dignity. But if this is denied, he is overcome by the testimony of Acacius and it will be shown by the reasoning of the facts; for when Timothy the heretic was condemned with his accomplices, this man was his companion, and remaining with him until his end was established among the followers of Timothy. Finally, it is to be asked whether he communicated with the holy Timothy up to the day of his death; and if this was not done, he will without doubt be among those whom the emperor said to be at variance from the communion of Timothy the Catholic, who, unless they should have returned within [...] months to communion and to favor, were to be condemned forever. 7. But it is laughable, that some assert Peter to have been ordained by that same Timothy the Catholic. For while alive he in no way ordained him to outlive himself, he to whose communion he never gave way at all, whom he demanded, as has been said, to be banished even farther; nor could he ordain a priest over himself while he survived: let them see for themselves, whether he ordained him when dead. But at the time when Peter invaded the church, saint Timothy was not in Alexandria, nor could he, surviving, ordain a pontiff, as has been said; but rather Peter, acting in all things wickedly, while Timothy the lawful priest survived, dared to impose upon himself the name of the episcopate. Nor did any Catholics do this then, who indeed all agreed with Timothy and communicated with him, but one accomplice of the madness of Peter, as Acacius already testifies. For the Catholics, who did not communicate with Timothy the heretic, who did communicate with Timothy the Catholic, while he too survived as a Catholic, whom they knew to be the lawful priest, could not either superinduce another or consecrate a heretic. Whence it appears that he was ordained by heretics, and therefore could not preside over the Catholic church: because it is judged altogether abominable and wicked, that one who has long wallowed in faithlessness should be imposed upon the necks of the faithful. But if this is admitted, then concerning other heresies as well anyone may indiscriminately likewise be permitted, which no examples ever, no rules, no ecclesiastical laws allow to be imposed. 8. But, you say, he was corrected. In the meantime, as has already been said above, by this very fact you will show that he was a heretic. He who, even if, the heresy being condemned, he is said to have betaken himself to the Catholic faith, ought to have been subjected to the Catholics by whom he was corrected, not to be set over them. For the disciple is not above the master, and it was enough that, subjected, he should furnish an example of his correction, not, after long error and lengthy perfidy, to dominate those by whom he was amended and corrected. Then next I ask, what error he condemned, what right confession he chose, and which faith he asks to be false and which true. If he follows the faith defined at Chalcedon and Catholic, why does he communicate with those who in no way receive the truth of the two natures in Christ? why does he cause Dioscorus, why Timothy the heretic, to be recited? why does he defend whoever come thence as adversaries of the synod of Chalcedon, with whom Peter without doubt communicates? But if he rather pronounces their faith to be the true one, it appears clearly enough how far he is converted from his own error. 9. But I do not marvel that he is said to be corrected, when he persists in his perversity, since it is not established by whom he was either corrected or received. Since indeed the rule of the Church and ancient tradition is known to all: for he ought to have been either examined or received by the bishop of his own province, that is, by the prelate of the second see. Yet even this Alexandrian prelate, even if, the depravity being condemned, he should judge that he was to be received, would not do this before he had referred it to the apostolic see. This the Catholics teach, the deeds of Timothy and many other examples, who, having received the petitions of heretics, in which they profess that they desert their old error, do not first confirm their reception by communion until the deeds of those making satisfaction are directed to this see, and from hence they should ask, as was done, that it ought to be confirmed. I ask therefore, who examined this man, or who received him, or who reconciled him, who permitted him to enter into Catholic communion. Where in the meantime I am silent, because all these things belong to a penitent, inasmuch as he is both a heretic and ordained by heretics: whom it both is established beyond doubt to have erred, who is reported to have been corrected; for the pardon of one fallen under terror is one thing, the choice of voluntary depravity is another. If Acacius receives this man, by what right, by what rule? since it was not even within his own pontifical authority to do this, nor did he wish to refer these matters to me: nay rather, one to whom, lest he should do it, it was often forbidden, and earnestly enjoined, that he should cause him to be expelled farther from Alexandria, at our suggestion by his priestly and Catholic office in our stead. Why did he presume what I forbade, and what was enjoined to the contrary? 10. Or did the emperor examine and receive him? It is established meanwhile that he was not received by ecclesiastical rules: from ecclesiastical rule his whole reception is foreign. But if you should say: Yet the emperor is a Catholic; with all peace to him, let us say, he is a son, not a [prelate]. As regards religion, it befits him to learn, not to teach; he has the privileges of his power, which he has obtained from God for administering public affairs; and not ungrateful for His benefits, let him usurp nothing against the disposition of the heavenly order. For God willed that the things which are to be disposed for the Church should pertain to priests, not to the powers of the world: which powers, if they are faithful, He willed to be subject to His Church and to priests. Let him not claim for himself another's right, and the ministry which is deputed to another: lest he abruptly strive against him from whom all things are constituted, and seem to fight against the benefits of him from whom he has obtained his own power. Not by public laws, not by the powers of the world, but by pontiffs and priests did almighty God will that the lords and priests of the Christian religion should be ordained, and that those returning from error should be examined and received. Christian emperors ought to subordinate their executions to ecclesiastical prelates, not to set them above. There is therefore no certain examination, nor can that reception of his remain, whom the Church neither by its laws nor by competent order either examined at all or restored to communion. And therefore Acacius rather communicated with his error and prostituted the Catholic faith to him, than recalled him to Catholic communion; for whose reception, since it is not ordained, it follows that he has remained in error. 11. We have also removed Acacius from our communion, lest through him we too should be recognized to have communicated with Peter, who was examined by no rule of the Church and received, and therefore enduring in his former error. But how is Acacius not summoned as guilty, by communicating with him whom he reported to be condemned? Does sweet and bitter water flow from the same opening? For when the apostle says: If I build again the same things which I have destroyed, I make myself a transgressor [Gal. 2:18]; when, I say, the apostle says this so great, do you judge whether Acacius is not a transgressor, who praised afterward with his own mouth what he condemned before. Out of your own mouth, he says, you shall be justified, and out of your own mouth you shall be condemned. Peace, peace, and there is no peace [Ezekiel; Jer.]. For peace is charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned [1 Tim. 1:5]. Which of these in Peter, which of these is taught to be in Acacius? This man, neither by lawful nor ecclesiastical rule examined and received, remains in his depravity, this man becomes an accomplice of one remaining in depravity, after he himself professed that he was condemned. 12. But, he says, Acacius communicated with Peter by imperial necessity. This very thing suffices, because it has been shown that what is said to have been perpetrated by necessity is evil. Let Acacius see, or whoever pronounces these things, whether he professes the Catholic emperor to be the author of this depravity. We do not believe these things of a Catholic emperor, inasmuch as we retain his sacred decrees, in which he testifies that he holds the Catholic faith and the definition of the synod of Chalcedon. And therefore we also demand of him that heretics ought to be driven out; and he thinks most ill of him, who pretends that he is either unwilling or unable to do this: since nothing is to be preferred to the Divinity; and it is impious not to carry out with a ready will the things that pertain to God. We, I say, do not believe these things of the emperor; for far be it that, contrary to what he openly professes, contrary to the honor of his empire, he should be said to impugn the Catholic faith. But he does impugn it, which far be it, if he should compel anyone by necessity in that which is hostile to the Catholic Church. By this very thing, however, as has been said, it is established to be perverse, which is said to be committed by necessity. But let those who pretend these things see to it concerning the emperor; we, however, even in this part recite the sacred decrees of the emperor, in which the emperor promises that he did all things with the counsel of Acacius, and likewise we bring forth the writings of Acacius, which praise the emperor for doing these things. No one praises what he suffers by necessity, no one by his own counsel seeks necessity to be brought upon himself. If he did it by necessity, he confesses that what he did is evil; for he did it unwilling, not willing; for he does not by will do what he does by necessity; and he confesses it to be evil, what he would not wish to be done, if he were not pressed by necessity. If it is evil, which he does by necessity, why does he pursue it with praise? why does he stand forth as the proclaimer, to the perdition of others, of that deed which he commits unwillingly? Whence it appears, that what he does is not of necessity but of will, since at any rate it pleases him, since he praises it, since he proclaims it to be beyond the former pontiffs before him: for indeed he says that the Alexandrian church now breathes again, and is filled with the abundance of spiritual nourishment; concerning which he had said before, when he had been expelled, that the hearts of the faithful, that is, of his people, rejoiced with the father, that is, with Timothy the Catholic. Finally, let him himself see, if he says that the emperor does all the things that are evil; since the things which he pretends to endure with necessity, he professes to be evil and pronounces that he does not do them by will. To such a degree, then, are these things evil, that he would not wish to do these things, if necessity did not urge: in our judgment, what he greatly praises is demonstrated to be done not by necessity but by will. But if they admit that he erred, let them so seek the remedy, let them seek the remedy in their own order, let them acquiesce that their wounds be cured. Never does the sick man oppose to the physician the conditions of his own healing; therefore their wounds, nay rather those which they have inflicted on the whole Church by their excesses, that they may be able to receive true health, let them allow to be cured patiently, those very wounds at least which they do not deny to have been ill committed. 13. But the people of Alexandria, he says, demanded this with great desires, and does not suffer Peter by any reason to be withdrawn from itself. What, if the Alexandrian people should demand that idolatry ought to be prepared? For what does it matter, whether a heretic or a profane man be permitted to be imposed upon the Catholic church? What if it should demand that a man of any other heresy whatever be employed as its prelate? For he who has done this concerning some one heresy, can also concerning another, if it delights him, seek it out. If among the morals of men anything were attempted to be perpetrated against the public laws, a good emperor would in no way grant it: against God does he acquiesce to those demanding? If we must grant to those desiring depraved things, where is the imperial authority? where the moderation? where the governance of the laws? If against the Catholic faith and the ecclesiastical rule what is asked must be conceded to those asking, how is he a Catholic emperor? And by this, lest it be done against the will of men, shall it be done against God? lest those conceiving wicked, nay deadly things be usefully corrected, shall those plotting insane things, lest they be corrected, perish forever? It is neither the part of a good emperor nor of a Catholic prince to concede hostile things to those demanding even against themselves; nay rather, even to those themselves about whom the matter is, and to the whole commonwealth and to its salvation and to the kingdom, it is salutary not to have yielded the things that are against God. 14. But they are not, you say, contrary either to good morals or to right faith. How are they not harmful to good morals, to demand as administrator of divine affairs a perfidious associate of parricide, a companion of heretics and condemned, whom it would be a sacrilege to set over them, and who did not befit even the public dignity? How is it not contrary to religion, to wish that a heretic and condemned man, who has obtained from heretics the false name of priest, should preside over the Catholic faith? 15. But he was corrected, you say, and all wished this, by whom he was corrected, and by whom he is known to have been approved. Who at last these may be, let us see by diligent examination. They themselves certainly, whom you likewise testify to have been corrected from error. It remains, that they were his accomplices, of which there is no doubt: by what laws therefore ought their testimony on behalf of anyone be admitted, whom an equal crime involves? 16. But, you say, those who used also to communicate with Timothy the Catholic, now communicating with Peter, demanded the same things concerning him. They are therefore notable for the transgression of Catholic communion, who, as is said, from the communion of Timothy the Catholic, which they preserved up to his death, after his passing relapsed into the fellowship of this man, with whom Timothy the Catholic is shown never to have communicated. And so from the communion of Timothy the Catholic, nay from the Catholic communion, they have lapsed. Behold how Peter was corrected and approved, who is said to have been demanded as prelate either by his accomplices or by transgressors of Catholic communion. 17. But Timothy the Catholic, you say, therefore did not communicate with Peter, because he had presumed the episcopate while that one was living. If on account of the episcopate, it would have sufficed for Timothy that Peter was removed; but if even so he did not communicate with him, it was not the episcopate that was the cause but the heresy. For communion pertains to faith; for if on account of honor, he could have communicated even with a layman, if right faith had remained in him. Why were those ordained by him ordered to be received regularly into the Catholic faith? Wherein it is shown that he was not of the Catholic communion. Whence, if Peter was corrected, why did the Catholics, whoever they are in Alexandria or throughout Egypt, remain separated from him? Why do those Catholics not communicate with him, who up to the day of their life communicated with Timothy the Catholic, and thence are truly Catholic, because they endure in the same communion without any violation of it? Therefore it evidently appears, that those alone communicate with him and demanded him as their prelate for themselves, who, as has been said, are either accomplices of his old depravity, or, deviating from Catholic communion, passed over into his fellowship, and therefore inexcusably persecute even the Catholics. 18. We have heard assiduously and by certain report we know, who [persecute] this same [...].

Beati Gelasii ad episex)pos Orientales, (a.488 seu Sxemplnin rationiB reddendae beati Gtolasii papae de evitanda communione Acacii, missa ad Orientales episcopos. ^ttin argumentaiiones , qmbiat Orienlales cansam Acacii iueri praeiendebani, *>tttfl<nii dituens, vinnilum excommunicalionis in eum prolaiae insolubile esse osiendii. 1. . . . Post quingentos aniios constituta Christi eos velle sub- ") a omitt. verhi. . . ) a* tt/ universas teniationes mira prudeniia ei Umganimiiate sufferret, deltcias Jfjnkt ijfemeret, superbiam humiiitate calcarety tanta misericordia animi alacritaie ^''ftctret, moxque satians (loco diians) et omitt. laudibus. ) ^ Fuit enim vir . . . decoratus insignibus ad tam cxcebtum officium non . . . gravc ■Wi onut. j Alii luxurioso convivio effusoque, moxque nascantur (loco generantur). ) tt inter magnos. Mox a* docuerit, maximus vocahitur. ") Hic numerus habetur in jpluribus et praestantissiniis catalogis, Vatican. ^•1997 et 1127, Sessor. LXIlf, «aliis; in Cavensi, uno Colbertino et aliquot ^^^^'W exemplaribus a. IV m. VUl d. X/X, in Valliccllano A.5 cvini ab*i8 Ana- *»8U codicibus /1. IV m. Vlll d. /X. in Vaticano 1353 «. /// m. VI II d. IX. Dc wpowtionis ejua die cum Anastasio couHcntit martyrologium Romanum. (ii. 488 vertere, quum triginta aimorum lex *) hominum non possit abnm ■^ . . Sanctum Athanasium ideo non fuisse damnatum a synodo Or tis; quia sedes ista non consenserit^ vel sanctum Johannem Cons tinopolitanimi vel sanctum Flavianum Si ea ergo non sentiente sola^ qui damnati sunt a synodo Orientis, non potae esse damnati; consequens est^ etiam sine synodo qui eadem damnante damnatus fuerit^ damnatus sit. Postremo si nulla est solius sententia, quid tantopere cupiunt, hanc resolvi? 2. ... testimonio Acacii-), ubi confirmat, Timotheum cat cum de damnatione Petri retuiisse ad utramque jRomam, ub haeretico fuisse ordinatum, hoc est complice insaniae suae; ubi ( ut propter hoc majoribus suppliciis subderetur, itaque non ut m^ guestris esset, quod nunc praetenditur, sancto, quum obiisset, T theo subrogaiidus. Qui pro sceleribus suis, quae retulit ejus Aca suppliciis subditus est; uemo autem ad honorem reservatum dig asserit esse suppliciis. Imperator Timothei catholici electioni ci pemiisit; iiecesse est igitur, ut sequatur, quod ille constituit et catholicum a catholicis ordinatum,*) Falsum est ergo, quod » ') Testimonium hoc Acacii in ejusdem epistola ad Simplicium (Simpl. S n. ii) invenitur. Unile sicut illud ad Romam alteruiram hicidatur (infra n. pariter et Constantinopolim) ^ ita hic legendum patet complice (pro compUeea ') Sequestrtm vel sequestre^ vox jurisconsultis familiaris, idem sonat f positum ; sequester autom idem , quod mediator vel arbiter. Quare in sequesin vel tft sequestri constituium esse iiostro loco id sibi vult, ut Petrus quasi 8i sor a Timotheo desiguatus vel testamento condictus dicatur. — Moz ^us additur. qvesiri dicitur constUuius, ut eidein subrogaretur, cui nunquam com- (a. 488 mimicayit, ^ a quo postulatus ^) est longius debere relegari. — 8 .) 3. Si juraverat^) Johannes non se futurum episeopum, quo- modo tu mandasti dignum esse, cui majora committereniur, quae ad giifemaiionem ecclesiae pertinerent? Supra presbyteriun quid est ma- jus ad ecclesiae gubemationem nisi episcopatus ? Si juraverat, quo- modo boc mandas? Et si juraverat, cur illum exposuisti, ut fieret contra quod juraverat? Aut si factum est quod mandasti, quid ira- sceris, quid illum tibi dicis pejerasse, quum factum sit, quod se non jnraverat esse factunim; quum tu eum hoc fieri debere maudaveris ? Apocrisarius erat, omnia ad ipsum pertinebant, omnia ecclesiae ipse cnrarit, potior illo inter clericos Alexandrinos nullus habebatur: konore presbyter erat; supra quid ei adderetur ad gubemationem eeclesiae, quid ei amplius adjiceretur nisi episcopatus? Tu igitur «mn episcopum esse voluisti, qui eum supra quam erat (iiec aliud restabat, nisi ut esset ei^iscopus) esse debere mandasti. 4. Miror autem, si necessitatem'^) patitur imperator, ne pellat Petrum, et ununi hominem necessitatem perpeti non potuisse conten- ^ ut fieret quod nolebat invitus. Nam et ipse imperator, quiun necessitatem praetendit, malum esse definit, quod necessitate facit, 5. Si personam Petri excusandam putatis, probamus noxiam, «wreticam atque damnatam. Si m sequestris fuisse praetenditis, propter scandalum Timotheo catholico subrogandum ; nec Acacii hoc wripta'*) testantur, qui dicit evideyter, cur fuerit exclusus, nec im- ^^ Ubi qaum Buccessor jam excuhias supei- defuncti rorpus ngere dicatur, aute ^ mortem electns fuisse fere videtur. Quamquam aliis in ecclesiis (conf. mo- "*praev. in Uilari epist. 15 n. 2) et praesertim in Romana ejusmodi electio, qua ^scopatug quasi /taereditarium compendium putaretur, antiquitus vetita, etiam sub ^o aynodo Romana anno 465 interdicta erat (Hil. epist. 15 c. 3). Quare Gelasius ^ n. 7 recte argumentatur: nec sibi superstiti (Timotlftus) sacerdotem super- ^inare potuit. ) Timotheus enim scripsit ad papam Simplicium, dicens Petrum oUm in diaconio ^ iamatum, . . . mandans per Esaiam episcopum , rogans , ut sci^iberetur impera- '^^ PetrOj quia latehat in Alexandrina civitate et insidiabatur ecclesfae , ut ad ''^*quuis deportaretur exsHium (Gelaa. tract I n. 8). ^ Tale juramentum Johauni fautores Petri imponebant, ut ex fide Zacha- "*« Evagrius III, 2 refert. Quam incusationem temere jactiitam Gelasius epi- *>^ 10 n. 6, 27 n. 2 Graecis exprobat. — Quae sequuntur verba, ex aliqua *^ epistola^ad Johaonem vel ad pontificem Romanmn data sumpta esse vi- ^*^, niai forte ad epistolam imperatoris modo laudatam pertinent. *">TOLAB SOMAN. POHTIP. I. 19 (a. 488 peratoris, qui et Timotheo catholico, quae statuisset, mansura es ■^ promisit, a cujus fuit Petrus communione discretus, et S quo poei latus est longius debere relegari atque huc pariter et Constantii poliiQ relatus: sicut etiam testatur Aciicius, a sancto Proterio diaconio fuisse damnatum, et catholicum a catholico creandum pr; stituerit, non Petrum, qui erat haereticus, tamquam m sequestri ] situm subrogandum; a quo ordinati nisi ad communionem sau Timothei revertissent, jussi sunt") sine dilatione damnari. 6. Qui si dicitur postea fuissc correctus, interim hoc ipso in err hactenus jacuisse monstratur, nec debuisse catholicis praefici *®) p errorem, a quibus est de errore correctus. Itaque venia dig: fuerat, non honore; et maxime al) haereticis ordinatus nullam i scopalis dignitatis prorsus habere substantiam. Quod si negatar, testimonio vincuntur Acacii et rerum ratione monstrabitur; q quum Timotheus haereticus cum suis complicibus damnaretur, comes ejus fuit, et cum eodem usque in ejus finem perdurans Timothei sit sequacibus institutus. Quaerendum denique^ si ua ad diem obitus sui ^ancto Timotheo communicavit; quod si fad non est, inter eos erit sine dubio, quos imperator dixit a cammtmi catholici Timothei discrepantes, nisi ad ejtis communionem intra d menses gratiamque remeassent, in perpetuum esse damnatos. 7. Ridendum autem, quod quidam ab eodem Timotheo cat lico Petrum asserunt ordinatum. Nam vivus illum se supersi nuUatenus ordinavit, ad cujus nunquam communionem prorsus cessit, quem poposcit, ut dictum est, etiam longius relegari; : sibi superstiti sacerdotem superordinare potuerit: ipsi viderint^ illum mortuus ordinavit. Tempore autem, quo Petrus invasit e<^ siam, sanctus Timotheus in Alexandria non erat^ nec se exsta pontificem, sicut dictum est, poterat ordinare ; sed potius Petrus fande oninia agens, superstite Timotheo legitimo sacerdote^ ejaj patus sibi ausus est nomen imponere. Nec hoc quilibet catkc tunc fecerunt, qui utique omnes cum Timotheo sentiebant ei< communicabant, sed unus complex insaniae Petri, sicut iam testa Acacius. ^*) Nec enim poterant catholici, qui Timotheo haeret natujH esse, Timotheus ad Simplicium scripsit (Gelaa. tract. I n. 8), et im Simplicius epist. 12 n. 1 (Liberatus breviar. c. 16) , et hic etiam Acadiia te«ta esso dicitur. •) SciHcet imperialibuB edictis; conf. Felicis II cpist. 1 n. 9. Paolo aiite«^ omiserunt ei caiholicum a caih. cr, praesi. '^) Haec quidem sententia canouibus prorsus consentanea saepissimeaftf sulibua Romanis producta est; conf. Simplicii epist. 18 n. 3 (not. 8), Felic. 11 «P» 1 n. 9, 2 n. 4, 15 n. 3, al. — In sequentibus notantur epistGlae Acacii ad So licium (Simpl. ep. 8), et Zenonis ad universos epiBCOpos et dericoe Aegyf (conf. Felic. II ep. 1 n. 8, 2 n. 4). Ibidem loco vincuniur aptius legereior wMiit» ") Scil. in epistola ad Simplic. (Simpl. ep. 8 n. 2). non commimicaverant, qui Timotheo catholico communicabant, su- (a.488 peretite et eo catholico, quem nossent legitimum sacerdotem-, vel '^ superducere alium vel haereticum consecrare. Unde apparet eum ab kereticis ordinatum, et ideo catholicae ecclesiae praesidere non JHWse: quia prorsus hoc abominandum nefandumque judicetur, ut qm diu in perfidia volutaverit^ fidelium cervicibus imponatur. Quod si admittitur, potest et de aliis haeresibus passim similiter quicun- que pennitti, quod nuUa unquam exempla , nuUae regulae , nullae Jeges ecclesiasticae patiuntur imponi. 8. Sed, inquis, eum fvusse correctum. Interim, ut supra jam dictom est, hoc ipso haereticum fuisse monstrabis. Qui etiamsi damnata haeresi se ad fidem catholicam dicitur contulisse, subdi de- buit catholicis, a quibus correctus est, non praeesse. Non est enim discipulufl supra magistrum, satisque erat, ut correctionis suae sub- jectus praeberet exemplum, iion post diutumum errorem lougamque p^diam, a quibus emendatus est correctusque , ilominari. Tum deinde quaero, quid erroris damnaverit, quid rectae confessionis ele- gcrit, et quam petit*^) esse falsam quamve veracem ficlem. Qui si definitam apud Calchedonem fidem et catholicam sequitur, cur eis conununicat, qui duarum naturarum in Christo nuUateuus recipiunt veritatem? cur Dioscorum, cur Timotheum haereticum recitari f acit ? cup quicunque inde veniunt, synodo Calchedonensi adversa defen- fait, quibus Petrus sine dubitatione comraunicat ? Si autem magis Wium fidem veram esse pronuntiat, apparet satis, quam de suo sit ^wrofe conversus. 9. Sed non miror correctum dici, quum in sua perversitate per- ^eat, quando non constat, et a quo vel correctus fuerit vel rece- ptes. Siquidem Ecclesiae regula vetusque traditio*^) nota sit omni- •^: ab episcopo enim provinciae suae, id est secundae sedis anti- 8tiie, eum vel discuti vel recipi convenisset. Qui tamen Alexandrinus ^tttigtes, etiamsi pravitate damnata eum recipiendum esse judicaret, ^n prius hoc faceret, quam ad sedera apostolicara retulisset. '^) ") Malim pelierii, aut potius praedicaverit vel professus fuerit. ^ Abtohfi enim, jam FeUx epist. 14 n. 3 extulerat, Petrus nulla ratione po- "■ Ane apostolieae sedis assensu, qua fuerat mandante secltisus, sicut de recipien- w ttHiftf forma veierum iestatur antisiitum. — liec Petri, idem epist. 15 n. 3 re- 19* (a. 488 Docent hoc catholici gesta Tiiiiothei aliorumque exempla mult qui acceptis libellis haereticorum, in quibus veterem se dai profitentur errorem, non prius receptionem eorum communione confirmant^ quam ad hanc sedem satisfacientium gesta dirigi atque hinc poscerent, sicut factum est, debere firmari. Quaer quam, quis istum discusserit, quisve susceperit, quisve reconcilia quis ad communionem catholicam intrare permiserit. Ubi in taceo, quia haec omnia poenitentis sunt, utpote et haeretici haereticis ordinati: quem sine ambiguo et constat errasse, qui perhibetur esse correctus •, alia est enim venia sub terrore laps alia spbntaneae pravitatis electio. Si Acacius hunc recipit. jure, qua regula? quum nec pontificii**) ipsius esset hoc facerc ad me voluerit haec referre: immo cui, ne id faceret, saepi contradictum est, et magnopere delegatum, ut eum longius al xandria faceret sacerdotali et catholica vice nostra suggestion pelli. Gur praesumpsit quae vetui, et quae sunt injuncta cah 10. An imperator illum discussit atque suscepit? Constat rim illum ecclesiasticis regulis non receptum : ab ecclesiastica regula receptio ejus omnis aliena est. Quod si dixeris: Sed in ior catholicus e$t\ salva pace ipsius dixerimus, filius^*) est, non petit, puteiur legitima provenisse purgatio, quem rion secundum morem veierw stolica sedes, quae ligavit, absolvit. Quam exceptiouem quum Gelasius saep proferat (conf. epist. 26 n. 5, 27 n. 3, 4, 5, tract. lY n. 13), simul duas alias addit, Bcilicet: quia apostolicae sedi jujcta canones dehetur summa JudieH (epist. 10 n. 9, 26 n. 5), et secundae sedis atUistitem nec expellere quisqwmi vocare sine primae sedis assensu vel potuit vel debuit (Gel. tract. II n. 8, tra n. 13). — Qjiae deinde memorantur gesta Timothei, conf Simplicii ep. i 26 n. 5: Satis constat, Acacium nuUum pontificium habuisse sententiam sedis mp cae (al. sententia s. a. damnatum) sine uHa ejus notione solvendi. Similiter 27 n. 4 ipsum nec examinandi aut recipiendi eum (Petrum) habuisse pontifieii (conf etiam ep. 27 n. 3 et 5, tract. IV n. 13). Ac revera correctionem no N^ postea consultus contra editos approbavit. — Idem paulo post cathoUc nostra, ubi editi cathoHco jure nostra. Chtisliani imperatores pro aeterna vita pontificibus egerent, ei pontifices pro i «ii Ecclesiae: quod ad 'religiouem competit, discere ei couveuit uou (a. 488 docere; habet privilegia potestatis suae, quae administraudis publicis ~ ' rebm divinitus consecutus est; et ejus beueficiis uon ingratus contra dispositionem coelestis ordinis nil usurpet. Ad sacerdotes enim Deus voluit, quae Ecclesiae disponenda sunt, pertiuere, non ad saeculi potestates: quae si fideles sunt^ Ecclesiae suae et sacerdotibus voluit • eaae subjectas. Non sibi vindicet alieuum jus, et ministerium, quod alteri deputatum est: ne contra eum tendat abrupte, a quo omnia constituta sunt, et contra illius beneficia puguare videatur, a quo propriam consecutus est potestatem. Non legibus publicis, uon a potestatibus saeculi, sed a pontificibus et sacerdotibus omnipoteus D«us Christianae religionis dominos et sacerdotes voluit ordiuari, et discuti recipique de errore remeantes. Imperatores Christiani sub- dere debent exsecutiones suas ecclesiasticis praesulibus, uou prae- ferre. Nulla ergo nec certa discussio est, nec mauere potest ista susceptio ejus, quem Ecclesia suis legibus uec ordiue competeuti nec discussit omnino nec commuuione restituit. Ideoque potius er- rori ejus communicavit Acaciu^s catholicamque fidem ei prostituit, quam ilium ad communionem catholicam revocavit; cujus enim uon «t ordinata receptio, sequitur, ut iu errore permanserit. 11. Acaciiun quoque a nostra eommimioue submovimus, ne per eum etiam nos Petro nulla Ecclesiae regula discusso atque suscepto tt ideo in pristino errore duranti commmiicasse diguosceremur. Quo- Diodo autem non reus citatur Acacius^ conmiuuicaudo ei, quem re- Wil esse damnatum? Numquid ex eodem foraminc manat aqua duicis hxQ.^.n. ^mara? Nam quum*') dicat apostolus: Si quac destruxi, hacc cadcm Gal.2,lH. ffdedifico, praevaricatorem me constituo] quum haec iuquam dicat tau- te apostolus, vos judicate, utrum praevaricator uou sit Acacius, V^ quod ante danmavit, suo post ore laudavit. £x ore tuo, inquit, ^^^' P^^aheris, et ex ore tuo condcmnaberis: Pax^"^), paxy et non est Ezhch. P*c/ Pax est enim caritas de corde puro et conscicntia bona ct fide ^h^^' ^ ficta, Quid horum in Petro, quid horum docetiu* esse iu Acacio? 1,5. fflc non legitima nec^ecclesiastica regula discussus atque susceptus ^ sua permanet pravitate, hic permaueuti iu pravitate fit complex, ^'iwa postquam eum professus est ipse damnatum. '«8tti airtu rerum imperialibus dispositionibus uterentur. — Duo quippe sunt, epist. I2n. 2infert, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur: auctoritas sacrata pontificum ^ ^gcH» p9testas etc, — In sequ. Blanch. reWiionis Dominus mutavit. '^ Simili argumentationc et iisdem scripturae sacrae locis utitur Gelasius ^ nn»t. 26 n. 4 et in Felicis 11 epist. 14 u. 3 et 5. (a.488 12. Sed^^) necessitaie, iuquit, imperiali communicamt Petro Ac^ ^^ cius. Hoc ipsum sufficit, quia quod necessitate dicitur perpetratui^^. pravum esse monstratum est. Viderit Acacius vel qui ista pronm^^^ tiat, utrum imperatorem catholicum profiteatur hujus pravitatis vsH^^'^ ctorem. Nos ista de catholico imperatore non credimus, utpol^^^ cujus sacra-®) retinemus, iu quibus catholicam fidem et Calchedo-^"''''^ nensis synodi detinitionem se tenere testatur. Atque ideo etiam ab eodem postuhimus, liaereticos debere depelli; pessimeque de eo ma- gis ille sentit, qui id eum aut nolle aut non facere posse praetendit: quum nec Divinitati sit aliquid praeferendum; et impium sit^ quae ad Deum pertiuent, prompta non exsequi voluntate. Nos, inquam, ista de imperatore non credimus; ^bsit enim^ ut contra hoc^ quod palam profitetur, coiitra decus imperii catholicam fidem impugnare dicatur. Impugnat autem, quod absit^ si quemquam in hoe^ quod inimicum est catholicae Ecclesiae, necessitate compellat. Hoc ipao autem, sicut dictum est, constat esse perversum, quod dicitur necefl- sitate conimitti. Sed haec de imperatore viderint, qui ista praeten* dunt; nos auteui etiam in hac parte imperatoris'^^) sacra recitamQS| quibus omnia se imperator cum Acacii consilio fecisse promit^ et item Acacii scripta depromimus, quae laudant imperatorem ista fa- cientem. Nemo quod patitur necessitate, coUaudat, nemo suo con- silio necessitatem sibi poscit inferri. Si necessitate fecit, fatetor malum esse quod fecit; nolens enim non voleus fecit; non enim voluntate facit, quod necessitate facit; malum autem fatetur, quod nollet fieri, si necessitate iion premeretur. Si maliun est, quod ne- cessitate facit, cur id laude prosequiturV cur ad aliorum perditio- nem praedicator rei ejus exsistit, quam committit invitus?* Unde apparet, non necessitatis sed voluutatis esse, quod facit, quum utiqne placet, quum laudat, quum prae ceteris retro pontificibus esse pio- mulgat: quippe qui dicit, nunc Alexandrinam ecclesiam respirare, d spiritalis aiimoniae vbertate satiari'^ de quo ante dixerat^^), qumn ex- pulsus esset, laetari cum patrCy id est cum Timotheo catholico, corda fideiiumj id est ))Iebis suae. Postremo ipse videat, si imperatorem '^) Etiam illud , Acaciimi soluminodo ab imperatore coactum Petro commo- nieasse, persaepe Graeci obtendebant et refutabant pontifices; conf. Gelas. epist. 3n. 7 et 13, 26 n. 8, 11, 13 iil. Felix II epist. 1 n. 8, 2 n. 4. — Mox editi ^Mt ait eum aut nolle . • . posse fvae sentit. ") De his quidem Zenonis et Acacii litteris conferatur Gelasii epist. S6 b. 8 et notitia epist. Felicis II non exstaiit. n. VIII et IX. dicatiacere cuncta quae mala suut; quando quae cuni necessitate (a. 488 se lolerare praetendit, mala esse profitetur et non facere voluntate "' '' pronuntiat. In tautum ergo haec mala sunt^ ut non vellet liaec ftcere, si necessitas non urgeret: apud nos quod magnopere prae- ^cat, non necessitate sed voluntate facere demonstratur. Si autem ^t errasse consentiimt, sic remedium quaerunt , petant ordine suo femedimn, aeqniescant curari vulnera sua. Nunquam aegrotus me- Aeo conditiones suae curationis opponit; proinde vulnera sua, immo jnae Ecclesiae omni suis excessibus intulerunt, ut possint veram iwipere sanitatem, sinant ciurari patientcr, ea ipsa utique, quae iidem male commissa esse non abnuunt. 13. Sed popuius, inquit, Alexandrinus hoc magnis desideriis po- Mavit, nec Petrum sihi patitur uUa ratione subduci. Quid^»), si pe- teret populus Alexandrinus idololatriam debere parari? Quid enim isterest, utrum haereticus an profanus ecclesiae catholicae permit- tatur imponi? Quid si alterius haeresis cujuslibet hominem sibi praesulem poscat adhiberi? Qui enim fecit hoc de aliqua haeresi, potest et de alia, si id delectat, expetere. Si inter hominum mores aliqmd perpetrari tentaretur contra leges publicas , nullatenus id bonus imperator annueret: contra Deum poscentibus acquiescit? Si prava cupienidbus annuendum est, ubi est imperialis auctoritas? ubi moderatio? ubi legum gubematio? Si contra catholicam fidem et ecclesiasticam regulam petentibus concedendum est quod pet^itur, quomodo catholicus imperator^^)? Ac per hoc, ne fiat contra homi- num Toluntatem, fiat contra Deum ? ne corripiantur utiliter improba, immo lethalia concipientes ne corrigkntur, insana molientes pereant in aetemum? Nec boni imperatoris est nec catholici principis, nbimet poscentibus inimica concedere; immo et ipsis^^), de quibus agitur, et onmi reipublicae et saluti ejus et regno, quae contra Deam simt non cessisse, salutare est. 14. Sed non sunt, inquis, nec bonis moribus nec ftdei'^^) rectae coniraria. Quomodo non sunt bonis moribus noxia, perfidum parri- ddii socium, comitem haereticomm atque danmatum, rerum admini- stratorem poscere divinamm, quem praefici nefas esset vel non de- eebat nec publicae dignitati? Quomodo non religioni contrarium est, haereticum danmatumque, ab haereti^is falsum nomen sacerdotis indeptum^), catholicae fidei velle praesidere? s>) Siiniliter ejusmodi popuU, qui praotendebatur , motum Golasiue sugillat epist. 3 n. 15, 12 n. 10. •^ Editi imperaior pemditai ne fiat etc. Potius supplorem fuerit vel dicatur, T¥^ liftdem verbis Felix II epist. 2 n. 4 utitur, unde simul nostra iUic correctio probator. (a. 488 15. Scd'^"^) correcttis est, iiiquis, et hoc omnes voluerunt, a "~ ^ correctus est, et a quibus cognoscitur approbatus, Qui taudeni siut, diligeuti examinatioue videamus. Ipsi certe, quos pariter eodem testamiui ab errore correctos. Restat, ut complices ejiis -— ^ liou dubium sit : quibus legibus igitur eorum pro quolibet testific--- debet admitti; quos par crimeu iiivolvit? 16. Sed, inquis, qui etiam Timotheo catholico communicare v ' bantur, nunc Petro communicantes, de eodem simitia poposc Smit ergo isti commuuionis catholicae praevaricatione notab qui, ut dicitur, a catliolici Timothei communione, quam ad ©jus • que obituiii servaverimt, post illius transitum in consortium isM reciderunt, cui nunquam Timotheus catholicus communicasse nt: stratur. Itaque a Timothei cathplici, immo a catholica communi^ delapsi sunt. Ecce quomodo Petnis correctus est et probatus, vel a complicibus suis vel a praevaricatoribus catholicae comi nionis dicitur postulatus antistes. 17. Sed Timotheus, inquis, catholicus ideo Petro non comm cavit, quia episcopatum illo vivente praesumpserat. Si propter scopatum, suffecerat Timotheo, Petrum fuisse submotum; quod s tem ei non communicabat, non erat episcopatus causa sed haer^^ Communio enim ad fidem pertinet; nam si propter houorem, c«*- vel laico communicare potuisset, si in illo fides recta mansis^ Cur ab eo ordinati ad fidem catholicam regulariter jussi^^) sunt J cipi? Ubi ostenditur, illiun communionis catholicae non fuisse. I? inde si correctus est Petrus, cur ab eo cathoUci, quicunque sunt T' in Alexandria vel per Aegyptum, remansere discreti? Cur ei no- communicant illi catholici, qui usque in diem vitae suae catholioc communicavere Timotheo, indeque vere catholici sunt, quia in ea- dem commmiione sine iilla ejus temeratione perdurant? Ergo evi- denter apparet, quia ei communicant illi tantummodo et eum sib: praesulem poposcerunt, qui ejus, ut dictum est, vel antiquae ^) sun complices pravitatis, vel a communione catholica deviantes in eju consortium transienmt, atque ideo incusabiliter etiam caiholicc persequuntur. 18. Audivimus assidue et certa relatione cognoscimus^ qui eidei '®) Simili Graeconmi objectioni similiter obviat Gelaaius epist. 3 n. 11, 18 n. 26 n. 6. '®) Scilicet Zenonis litteris a Felice epist. 1 n. 9 memoratis. Qoibus condx ipse Felix in Acaeii causa epist. 14 n. 5 spondens, se provisurum rationabiliter^ cuncta convenerintj ut eorum, quos ordinavit vel haptizavit Acacius, sdha confessio catholica ... nihil pereat: similiter Gelasius epist. 3 n. 6. '^) Malim antiquitus pro antitbesi sequentis verbi transierunt, — Similiter«< persecutione episcoporum catholicorum memorat Gelasius epist. 26 n. 8, 27 n. 8, 1 1 . — Mox editi cognovimus . . . qui contra fidem . . . perspicumtur.