Letter 31: Simplicius writes to Zeno of Seville on a matter of ecclesiastical discipline or administration in the Spanish church.

Of Pope Simplicius, to Zeno of Hispalis [Seville]. [...] p. 9. He commits to Zeno the office of vicar of the Apostolic See. To our most beloved brother Zeno, Simplicius. From the report of very many we have learned that your beloved self, by the fervor of the Holy Spirit, so acts as helmsman of the ship of the Church that the [...] should, by God's authorship, feel no shipwreck's loss. Glorying therefore in such things, we have judged it fitting that you be supported by the vicarial authority of our See: fortified by the strength of that authority, you are to permit the decrees of apostolic institution and the bounds set by the holy Fathers to be transgressed by no manner of means; since he is to be heaped with a worthy recompense of honor through whom in these regions the divine worship has become known to grow. May God keep you unharmed, dearest brother! Notice of letters not extant which pertain to Saint Pope Simplicius. I. [A.D. 474, before the month of January.] An embassy of Pope Simplicius to Leo Augustus concerning the presumed privilege of the See of Constantinople. 1. Not without letters sent by Simplicius to the emperor Leo was the embassy of Probus, bishop of Canusium, dispatched, which Gelasius mentions in epistle 26, no. 10. Of this embassy there appears to have been no other cause than that Leo wished to have confirmed by Simplicius those privileges which had been granted to the church of Constantinople in the synod of Chalcedon, privileges which this pope had been unwilling to hold as ratified. Moreover Probus, bishop of the church of Canusium, then dispatched for this purpose, is read already in the acts of the Roman council under Pope Hilarus to have given a specimen of his zeal and vigor in church discipline (Hilarus, ep. 15, no. 7). For when he heard that Nundinarius, bishop of Barcelona, had not only bequeathed his property to Irenaeus, but had also designated the same man his successor in the episcopate, rising from the assembly he is reported to have said: That was permitted, this was not permitted: God gives successors; resist this matter, he said to the pope, by your apostolate. Nor indeed afterward did the legate sent to Constantinople by Simplicius conduct himself with less vigor. For by the testimony of Gelasius it is established that he "taught that those things which Pope Leo had denied could in no way be attempted, even though Leo Augustus then pressed for them in his presence, and that he gave no consent at all to these" (Gelasius, ep. 26, no. 10). But since in the month of January, A.D. 474, Leo Augustus reached the end of his life, it is concluded from this that this embassy was not later than A.D. 473. 2. That it had a happy outcome, and that thereafter Leo, in imitation of Marcian, abstained from a petition of this sort, there seems no reason to doubt. Certainly Acacius, bishop of the royal city, who without doubt had issued the aforesaid petition at the emperor's instigation, then so appeared to comply with the will of Simplicius that this pope ordered him to perform the office of his own vicar and legation before the emperor (Simplicius, epp. 2, 3, 5, and 7). And indeed from the year 475, while the archimandrites and monks of Constantinople were accusing the bishop's silence, by which they suspected that he favored both the tyrant Basiliscus and Timotheus, the pseudo-bishop of Alexandria, Simplicius was unwilling to accept their accusation, saying that he held assured faith in a most approved priest (Simplicius, ep. 4, no. 4). But the outcome taught that they had not suspected this in vain. 3. Namely, concerning the privilege which he contended had been attributed to his See by the synod of Chalcedon, he made plain not long afterward that he had never in his heart yielded. [Footnote: which, namely, were assigned to each church by their ancestors, and let no prelate arrogate anything to himself in another's territory. Although the term "to suffer it" is also commonly said, that which the Fathers determined in their decree.] Epistle 21. Notice of letters not extant. Nos. I-IV. For he himself took pains that it [the privilege] should then be confirmed in express words, both in the ante-encyclical letters of Basiliscus, which Evagrius inserted in book 3, chapter 7 of his History, and most of all in the constitution of Zeno issued in A.D. 476 (law 16, Code, On the most sacred churches, 1, 2). Nor content with these, he eagerly seized also the occasion of ordaining the bishop of Antioch beyond the Nicene canon. But for what cause he had arrogated this to himself, with the emperor approving, he did not fail to set forth to Simplicius as soon as possible, nor did this pope reject his satisfaction (cf. Simplicius, epp. 15 and 16). But when he found that same man vigilantly and assiduously, although with that moderation and prudence which was lawful, resisting his ambition, he was no longer able to keep within bounds, and began to forge a schism, which afterward erupted more openly under Felix, the successor of Simplicius. II. [A.D. 476, around the month of November.] The report of the bishops Florentius, Equitius, and Severus to Simplicius concerning certain presumptions of Gaudentius, bishop of Aufinum. In the year 475, before the month of December, Simplicius received a report sent to him by the bishops Florentius, Equitius, and Severus, together with the synodal acts drawn up against Gaudentius, bishop of Aufinum. Moreover he had been accused of having made unlawful ordinations, and that, for three years -- during which it is conjectured he had taken up the governance of the church of Aufinum -- not content with the fourth portion of this church's revenues, he had also consumed three other portions for his own use (cf. Simplicius, ep. 1). III. [A.D. 475, the 19th of November.] The delegation of Simplicius to Severus concerning ordinations in the church of Aufinum. On the 19th day of November, A.D. 475, Simplicius, besides the common letter to Florentius, Equitius, and Severus, which has been preserved, also wrote a particular one to Severus, which is lacking. Now that letter looked to this, that Severus should know that the power of ordinations in the church of Aufinum had been delegated to him, which had been taken away from bishop Gaudentius (cf. Simplicius, ep. 1, no. 1). IV. [A.D. 475, at its close.] The report of the presbyters, archimandrites, and monks to Simplicius concerning the new violences of Timotheus Aelurus. Around the same time the presbyters, archimandrites, and monks from various monasteries of the royal city sent a report to Simplicius, in which they announced that Timotheus Aelurus, having cast out Timotheus, had seized the catholic Alexandrian church, and having dared from there to make for Constantinople, had stirred up disturbances there with some favoring him (cf. Simplicius, ep. 2, no. 1; ep. 3, nos. 2 and 3); and by name that he had proceeded from the palace to the church, surrounded by a seditious crowd, which did not fear to chant of him "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Simplicius, ep. 3, no. 3; Theodore Lector, Eccl. Hist. I, p. 556); to these things they added that they had indeed resisted, lest he should enter into the church (cf. Simplicius, ep. 4, no. 3; ep. 5), but that, thus repelled, he had nonetheless celebrated sacrifices through the private houses of certain persons (cf. Simplicius, ep. 3, no. 3). Nor did they keep silent that in so great a crisis the silence of Acacius was suspect to them. As for themselves, what counsel they should take in this state of affairs, asking Simplicius, they begged that in the meantime men be directed by him, by whose industry the necessity of the Church might be provided for (Simplicius, ep. 4, nos. 2 and 4). Replying to these, Simplicius on the 11th of January, A.D. 476, indicated that their letters had been delivered to him later than they would have wished. From which it is gathered that they had been written no less than two months before the close of A.D. 475. V. [A.D. 477.] The letter of the emperor Zeno to Simplicius concerning the recovered empire. In the year 477 the emperor Zeno, when, Basiliscus having been expelled, he had [returned] to Constantinople, hastened to inform Pope Simplicius by letter concerning the recovered empire (cf. Simplicius, ep. 6, nos. 2 and 3). In these letters, moreover, Zeno extolled with the highest praises not only Simplicius but also Acacius, because they had resisted the heretics with great spirit. For to no other writing of Zeno does it seem to pertain, which Gelasius in ep. 26, no. 8 says, that this emperor in his letters extolled with great praises both Acacius himself and Simplicius of holy memory, because they had most constantly resisted the heretics. Felix too, the successor of Simplicius himself, recalls this same passage of Zeno both in ep. 1, no. 6, and in ep. 2, no. 4. To these letters of Zeno, Simplicius replied on the 9th of October, A.D. 477. From which is gathered the time at which Zeno sent them. VI. [A.D. 477, at the same time.] The report of Acacius of Constantinople to Simplicius concerning the same matter and the state of the Eastern church. 1. From this too, that Simplicius at the same time with these letters of Zeno replied to a fuller report of Acacius, of which we must now speak (ep. 7, no. 1), we conjecture, not rashly, that the writing was given to him at the same time. In this report, moreover, which was sent through the deacon Epiphanius, Acacius set forth more at length the things which the monks in the waning year 475 had briefly indicated, and by name those things which had been attempted by heretics, whether at Constantinople or in other regions, against the faith or the ecclesiastical rules, setting them before his eyes in a lengthy volume but in necessary discourse (cf. Simplicius, ep. 7, no. 1). 2. Nor does there seem to be another report than that which the author of the acts concerning the name of Acacius records to have been written about Peter and John, the pseudo-bishops of Antioch, in these words (Gelasius, tract. I, no. 12): For at that time, when he [Acacius] reported about Peter of Alexandria, condemned, he had also already written about Peter and John (to the same Simplicius). This passage being thus restored from the manuscripts, at the same time the right order of Acacius' double report is shown. For as is clear from Simplicius' epistles 7, 8, and 9, Acacius reported to this pope first about Peter and John of Antioch, and not long after about Peter of Alexandria. By this double report, moreover, Acacius seemed to earn no slight credit with Simplicius, until John Talaia, withdrawing to Rome from Alexandria, whence he had been driven, began to unmask the disguise. On that occasion Simplicius, when by chance it was charged against him as a fault that he had been too credulous toward Acacius, ordered to be read to John Talaia those things which Acacius had formerly sent to him, written about Peter and John of Antioch. A part of these the author of the acts concerning the name of Acacius has transmitted to us, thus summarily expressed (Gelasius, tract. I, no. 12): namely, that Peter, surnamed Fullo [the Fuller], governed a monastery at Constantinople, but, having abandoned this on account of crimes, fled to Antioch; that there, Martyrius the catholic bishop having been driven out, he occupied his See through the basest populace and heretics, and continually, being condemned by the bishops and by Leo, then prince, was directed to perpetual exile. Concerning which, having lapsed [fallen back] and returned to Constantinople, he gave a pledge that he would by no means dare to make any further disturbances. But, as was said above, in the times of Basiliscus he was, by that condemned Timotheus, who [...] had come to Constantinople, sent back to Antioch, so that he might again hold the episcopate there. This done, the same Peter ordained a certain John, a presbyter, as bishop of Apamea, by whom not received he came to Antioch, and drove out Peter, the author of his own episcopate, and invaded his church. Then Acacius, pursuing his discourse, taught that they had again been condemned, asking of the apostolic See that, if perchance they should flee to it, it should not hold them worthy even of a glance, and if they had already perchance obtained some indulgence, it ought to be void, and their [...] Notice of letters not extant. Nos. V-VII. [...] penitence not to be received. Reading the same words in the acts concerning the name of Acacius, Liberatus the deacon, since he does not notice that they were there excerpted from the very writings of Acacius, but thinks them produced of his own by the writer of the aforesaid acts himself, so describes them in chapter 18 that he sets forth some things confusedly, which are not sufficiently exact to the order and truth of the narrative. 3. To the same writings of Acacius is to be referred that which Felix, the successor of Simplicius, in ep. 2, no. 2, having spoken about John and Peter of Antioch, adds: whom then the hypocrite Acacius caused to be so condemned by the apostolic See, that even the name of Christians should be taken from them, which the acts held in his presence make manifest. Nor perhaps does that of Gelasius, ep. 26, no. 8, pertain elsewhere: Why then, even when Acacius saw this being done, did he not, as he had already done under Basiliscus, refer it to the apostolic See? Now indeed Zeno had recently recovered the empire, Basiliscus having been put to flight, when Acacius sent the report of which we are treating. But because he undertook this work, that he might fulfill the office of legate, which had been delegated to him by Simplicius under Basiliscus, and narrated in the same work all the things which had been done under Basiliscus, he is not undeservedly said to have reported under Basiliscus. 4. In the same writings Acacius, having narrated the several things which the emperor Zeno had sanctioned in favor of the apostolic faith and which Felix touches on in ep. 2, no. 4, did not keep silent that he had expended his own effort in promulgating them, and by name gloried that all those were prostrated who had tried to come against the Chalcedonian synod and against the preaching of the apostolic See (Felix, ep. 2, no. 5). Concerning the restored Timotheus of Alexandria he particularly noted that the hearts of the faithful rejoiced with the father (Gelasius, ep. 1, no. 12). VII. [A.D. 478, around the month of July.] The enthronement-letters of Timotheus Salophakiolus to Simplicius. 1. To the year 478 are to be referred the solemn writings of Timotheus Salophakiolus, bishop of Alexandria, sent to Pope Simplicius through the legates Esaias the bishop, Nilus the presbyter, and Martyrius the deacon, which writings this pope in ep. 11, no. 1 records to be sufficiently happy. For the fortune of this Timotheus was varied. For first, under Leo Augustus reigning, having been substituted in place of Timotheus Aelurus as bishop of Alexandria, he held this See as long as Leo and his successor Zeno lived, and had peace. But when this emperor was compelled to yield his place to the tyrant Basiliscus and the enemy of the Chalcedonian council, although Timotheus then allowed it to be extorted from him that the name of Dioscorus be recited among the altars (Simplicius, ep. 9), yet he could not keep the See of Mark, but was compelled to give it up in turn to Timotheus Aelurus. But after a two-year interval Zeno, having returned to the royal city, with Aelurus dead and Peter Mongus, who had invaded his place, put to flight, recalled to Alexandria Timotheus Salophakiolus, who was living at Canopus. Of which Simplicius, being informed by Acacius, so rejoiced at the restoration of this bishop, that he did not cease to desire that the stain also be wiped away by him, which through inconstancy he had branded upon his own name (cf. Simplicius, ep. 9). When therefore Acacius had made known this desire of our pontiff to him as soon as possible, he without delay dispatched the aforesaid legation with writings, by which he testified that he had destroyed that which, terrified before, he had done concerning the name of Dioscorus, and sought remission of that same error (Simplicius, ep. 11, no. 1). With the same agrees also that of Liberatus, chapter 16: he writes to Pope Simplicius, asking him also that Peter Mongus be condemned in the diaconate (likewise Gelasius, tract. I). 2. By the same writings Timotheus signified that Peter Mongus, hidden at Alexandria, was contriving snares against the faith of the simpler folk, and therefore that he had petitioned from the emperor that he order him to be driven into more distant exile (Simplicius, ep. 10, no. 2). Hence he also entreated the same man, that he assist these prayers by his authority, and make known to Acacius all the things which he had reported to him. Finally he subjoined to the same writings a petition of satisfaction of those whom Timotheus and Peter, both condemned, had led aside from the truth of the catholic faith by the terror of condemnation, asking for pardon (Simplicius, ep. 11, nos. 2 and 3). 3. The time, moreover, at which these writings were sent is not very hard to conjecture. For Simplicius in epistle 9, on the 13th of March in the year 478, enjoins upon Acacius the business of admonishing Timotheus to take care to wipe out the blemish which he had incurred by the recitation of the name of Dioscorus among the altars. But the same pope on a certain day of the month of October of the same year (Simplicius, epp. 12, 13) signifies that he had recently received those writings in which the desired satisfaction was contained. Whence it is concluded that those writings were composed at an interval between mid-March and October, or thereabouts. VIII. [A.D. 482, before the month of May.] The petition-document of Gregory of Mutina to Simplicius concerning his ordination against his will. In the year 482 Gregory, when he was a presbyter of the church of Ravenna, having been made bishop of the city of Mutina by John the bishop of that same church, gave a petition-document to Pope Simplicius, in which he complained that he had been ordained bishop unwillingly and through the utmost violence, by envy and not by election, and asked that he might no longer have a cause with John. At the same time he also seems to have demanded that Simplicius order an annual pension to be supplied to him from an estate of the church of Ravenna situated in the territory of Bononia [Bologna], whence he might relieve the necessities which, John causing them, he was compelled to endure (cf. Simplicius, ep. 14). This document received the judgment of Simplicius in the year 482, on the 29th of May, and therefore was transmitted not long before this time. IX. [A.D. 482, before the month of June.] The letter of the emperor Zeno to Simplicius giving notice of the bishop of the church of Antioch ordained at Constantinople. In the year 482, before the month of June, Simplicius received letters of Zeno, by which that emperor, having first spoken of the sad state of the church of Antioch and of the slaughter of Stephen its bishop, slain among the altars by the deadly swords of heretics, excused himself for having ordered his successor to be ordained at Constantinople. He said that Acacius had undertaken this by his own order, at the request of the Antiochenes, since their seditions seemed unable otherwise to be quieted. He added also this, that it had been done without prejudice to the judgment of that venerable council of Nicaea, so that thenceforth, according to the definitions of the Fathers, the creation of the bishop of Antioch should be reserved to the Eastern synod; and at the same time he testified that he had sworn in these words, that hereafter in the city of Antioch, the old custom being preserved, a bishop should be ordained by his fellow-provincials. Finally he commended Calendio, recently ordained, with a splendid testimony (cf. Simplicius, ep. 15). To those letters Simplicius replied on the 22nd of June, A.D. 482. X. [A.D. 482, at the same time.] The excuse of Acacius to Simplicius concerning the same matter. To these letters of Zeno, Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, added his own, in which he likewise, having first spoken of the slaying of Stephen, attested that he had consecrated the bishop of Antioch from zeal for the prince alone and for peace, not by his own usurpation and without prejudice to the canons; indeed that he had even long held back, lest he should seem to be canvassing for what he could not refuse to so great a prince and in so grave a cause (cf. Simplicius, ep. 16). XI. [A.D. 482, before the middle of July.] The synodical report of Calendio to Simplicius concerning his ordination. Calendio, ordained bishop of Antioch by Acacius at Constantinople, hastened to betake himself to his own church, and thence wrote to Simplicius synodical letters giving notice of his ordination, which Simplicius himself records in ep. 17. XII. [A.D. 482, at the same time.] The report of the Egyptian synod and the Alexandrian clergy to Simplicius concerning the death of Timotheus and the election of John. Around the same time, from the Egyptian synod, which was both very numerous and supported by communion with the catholic faith, and also from nearly the whole clergy of the Alexandrian See, Simplicius received a report sent to him through Isidore the presbyter and Peter the deacon, by which, attesting that Timotheus, once their bishop, had died, they indicated that in his place, by the harmonious will of the faithful, John, the steward of that same church, had been substituted; and they asked that, since all things were believed to be in good order for the priesthood, he should also, by the assent of apostolic moderation, take the desired firmness (Simplicius, ep. 18, and the acts concerning the name of Acacius, no. 10). This synodical report is said in the acts concerning the name of Acacius to have been sent by John according to custom. XIII. [A.D. 482, at the same time.] The sacred letter of the emperor Zeno to Simplicius concerning the accusation of John and the recommendation of Peter Mongus. When Simplicius was on the point of confirming the election of the aforesaid John surnamed Talaia, there was delivered to him through Uranius the assistant a sacred letter of the emperor Zeno, which attested that this same Alexandrian was unworthy of the priesthood, inasmuch as he was guilty of perjury, which he affirmed was not hidden even from Acacius. Wherefore, this man being excluded, he signified that Peter Mongus, whom he promised to agree with the definitions of right faith, was to be advanced to the governance of the Alexandrian church. That the sacred letter was received by Simplicius a little after the aforesaid report of the Egyptians, is established from his ep. 18, no. 2. XIV. [A.D. 482, at the same time.] The profession of Peter Mongus to Simplicius concerning his faith. At the same time, by the testimony of Liberatus, chapter 18, Peter Mongus also wrote a letter to Simplicius, by which he professed himself a communicant both of Simplicius himself and of the Chalcedonian council. But this he professed falsely. For, as the same Liberatus observes, soon he anathematized both the Chalcedonian synod and the letter of Leo. XV. [A.D. 482, the 15th of July.] The reply of Pope Simplicius to the emperor Zeno concerning Peter Mongus. That Simplicius replied to Zeno, who had written to him about driving John Talaia from the Alexandrian See and substituting Peter in his place, and that he transmitted this writing through the same Uranius, who had brought Zeno's letters, his successor Gelasius teaches (tract. I, no. 10). And besides this, the same author records that in this letter of Simplicius the restitution of Peter was altogether denied, and that Zeno was bound by dread oaths not to allow the See of blessed Mark the evangelist to be separated from the doctrine and communion of his master (Felix, ep. 1, no. 2). That Acacius was at the same time asked to confirm the same letter by his present discourse, Simplicius teaches in ep. 20. Together with epistle 18, and therefore on the 15th of July of the year 482, it was composed. Moreover we think that fragment to be a part of this very letter, which we published above under epistle 20. XVI. 1. Besides those various letters which are lacking, Liberatus in chapter 18 mentions two others: one of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, to Simplicius, and the other of Simplicius to the same Acacius. And concerning the first he speaks thus: Acacius, having received the letters of Simplicius (namely 18 and 20), replied simply to him, that he did not know John (i.e. Talaia) as bishop of Alexandria, but that he had received Peter Mongus into communion under the unitive [edict] of the emperor Zeno, and that he had done this apart from his [Simplicius'] judgment for the sake of the unity of the churches, by the order of the prince. Concerning the other, he next subjoins: Simplicius, receiving letters of this kind, was saddened against Acacius and wrote back to him, that he had not done well, in receiving into communion against the judgment of the apostolic See a heretical man: for it behooved one condemned by common decree, as an adulterer, to be freed from condemnation by common counsel; and besides this, that it would not suffice for Peter to confess himself a communicant of the catholic Church according to the edict (namely the Henoticon or unitive), but it would behoove him to embrace the communion of the Church according to the definition of the Chalcedonian council and according to the letter of Pope Leo. For he ought necessarily to do one of two things: either to persuade Peter to receive purely the definition of the synod, or to remove himself from his communion. To these things Liberatus immediately adds: When these writings had come to Acacius, and he was deliberating what he ought to write back, Pope Simplicius died. 2. But the faithfulness of those two writings ought rightly to be regarded as suspect, since Felix, the successor of Simplicius, in ep. 2, no. 2 complains before the emperor about Acacius, that he had given no answer to the repeated letters of his predecessor. Indeed from those things which Simplicius wrote to Acacius in ep. 20, they are convicted of falsehood. For from this it is plain that Acacius did not even deign to reply to Simplicius' epistle 18, and that thenceforth there was no exchange of speech or letters between him and this pope. Besides, since Acacius had written not about communion but about the Alexandrian See being given back to Peter Mongus, but here Simplicius is feigned to have written back to him as if the matter concerned only communion. It is not to be doubted, moreover, that if either of them had really written, Acacius would without doubt have insisted that Peter be restored to the See of Mark, and Simplicius would have persisted in that opinion which he had explained in ep. 18, no. 3, by which, namely, promising Peter the help of a remedy after penitence, he denied him the summit of priestly dignity. XVII. With no less right can be called into doubt a certain admonition of Simplicius, mentioned in the Roman synod of the year 502, that is, in epistle 6, no. 4 of Pope Symmachus. For in the said synod was read a writing of Basilius, praetorian prefect, acting also in the place of Odoacer, king of the Heruli, in which it was reported: by the admonition of the most blessed man our Pope Simplicius, which we ought always to have before our eyes, you remember that this was commanded to us by him under adjuration, that without any uproar and detriment to the venerable Church, if it should happen that he depart from this life, the election of anyone should not be celebrated without our consultation. Certainly when this was recited, the whole council was astounded as at a thing new and altogether unknown to it, and by name Cresconius, bishop of Tuder [Todi], rising from the assembly, protested that what Basilius alleged fought against the canons; which assuredly no one would deny. Nor would anyone deny that Simplicius everywhere so displayed his manifest zeal for the observance of the canons, that it is altogether incredible that a thing so hostile to the Roman church and contrary to the canons themselves should have been demanded by him. And indeed, when the whole council rejects the entire writing of Basilius and declares it void, it not obscurely convicts and condemns the said admonition as a forgery.

Simplicii papae ad Zenonem Hispalensem. ^^.to^ p. 9. Zenoni sedis apostolicae vices committit. Dilectissimo fratri Zenoni Simplicius. Plurimorum relatu comperimus, dilectionem tuam fervore Spiri- tus sancti ita navis*) ecclesiasticae gubeniatorem exsistere, ut nau- «) Eodem semu Xystus III epist. 0 n. 6 dixit, cogitationum ferias nescirc h. e. meiite et animo nulla intermiBsioue agitari. Mox F' H^ ransa ipsa. •; Ita mB8. et d*. At a' cc profectus . . . inducatur. H* provectus . . incideretur. ») E« F* H« «0110 (vel F///7). 214 8. «IMrLlCIl PAPAE (a. 4(>8 fragii (letriiiK^iita Deo auctore uou seutiat. Talibus ideirco gloriant^s ■—483.) jmii^.jij. cougruuui duxiuuLs vicaria sedis nostraete auctoritate fulciri: cujus vigore muuitus, ajK)stolicae iustitutiouis decreta vel sanctonim terminos^) patrum uullo uuhIo transcendi j)ermittas; quouiani digna lionoris renumeratione cumidandus est, j^er quem in liis re^onibus divinus crescere iunotuit cultus. Deus te incolumem custodiat^ fra- ter carissime! N o t i t i a . epistolaram nou exslantiuin, quac ad s. Simplicium papam attinent* I. a, 474 ante tnens,Jan, Shnplicii papae ad Leonem Augustum legatio de praC' sumpto Cotistantinopolitanac sedis privilegio, 1. Non siiie lillcris a Simplicio ad Leonem imperalorem deslinala est Probi (^anusini cj)iscopi lcgalio, cujus (lclasius cp. 26 n. 10 mcminit. Hujus autero iega- lionis non alia videlur fuissc oausa, nisi quod Leo a Simplicio lirmari vcllet, quae Constantinopolilanae ecclesiae in synodo Calciicdonensi conccssa erant privile^ia, quae hic papa rata liabcre noluerat. Porro Prolius Canusinac ecclesiae episcopus, hujus rei gratia tunc dcstinatus, jam in gestis Romani concilii sub liilaro papa sui erga disciplinam ecclesiaslicam sludii ac vigoris spccimen dedisse legitur (ilii. ep. 15 n.7). Ubi enim Nundinarium Barcinonensium episcopum non solum Irenaeo legasse sua, sed ctiam cumdcm in cpiscopalu sibi designasse successorem audivit, c consessu surgcns dixissc fcrtur: Illud licuit^ hoc non licuil: successores Deus dat ; huic rei rcsistite, ait ad papam . per apostolatum vestrum. Neque vero postca Coustantinopolim a Simplicio legatus minore vigore se gessit. Geiasii quippe tejtimonio constat, ipsum „ea, quae Lco papa negaverat. Leone Augusto tunc petente pracsente, docuisse uullatenus possc tentari, uequc his prorsus prae- buisse consensum*' (Gci.cp. 26 n. 10). Quum autem mense Januario a.474vivcmii finem rcccrit Lco Augustus. Iianc lcgationem a. 473 posteriorem non fuissc inde conficitur. 2. Quin feliccm iiabucrit exilum ac deinceps ad imilationem Marciani Lco petitione liujusmodi abstilcrit. nulla videtur ambigcndi ratio. Certe Acacius regiae urbis cpiscopus. qui baud dubie auctore imperatorc supra dictam petitionem emi- scrat, sic deinde morem gessisse visus est Simplicii voluntati, ut illum is papa sua ipsius vice ac legationc apud impcralorem fungi jusserit (Simpl. cp.2, 3, 5 el 7). Et ab anno quidem 475, dum accusarcnt arcbimandritae ac monachi Constanlino- politani antistitis suisilcntium, quo eum et Itasilisco tyranno ac Tiniotlieo pseudo- cpiscopo Alexandrino favere suspic;d)antur, Simplicius eorum accusationem aocipere noluil, compertam, iuquiens, habcns fidem probatissimi sacerdoiis (Simpl. ep.4 n. 4). istud autem eos non fruslra suspicatos csso exitus docuil. 3. Ncmpe dc privilcgio, quod sedi suac a Calcli(Hlonensi synodo altributum essc conlendebat, sesc nunquam cx animo cessisse non ita mullo post palam fecit. ') qui Bcilicet cniquc ecclcsiae a majoribuB suut attributi, nec uUns praesul sibi quidquain arroget in alterius tcrritorio. Quaniquam etiam terminus pati id vnlgo dici solet, quo<l patrcs coustitucndo praetinierunt. KPISTOLA 21. NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. I — IV. 215 Ifise -quippe sluclio fuit, ul illud tum in anlcncyclicis Basilisci litlcris, quas Eva- grtus tibro 3 cap. 7 Ifisloriae suac inseruit» tum maximc in constitutionc Zenonis a. 476 lala (1. 16 C. de sacrosanciis ecclesiis \, 2) disertis vcrbis confirmarctur. Keque his conteDtus etiam Autiocheui episcopi praetcr Nicaenum canonem ordi- Daudi ocGasionem avide arripuit. Qua autem de causa id sibi arrogasset, impera- iore aftnitente non omisit quidem Simplicio quam primum exponore, ac nequc respuit is papa ejus satisfactionem (cf. Simpl. epist. 15 ct 16). Sed quum eumdem experiretur vigilanter et assidue. quamvis ea moderatione atque prudentia quae fas erat, ambitioni suae obluctantem, modum amplius tenere non valuit, et conllare coepit sehisma, quod postmodum Felice Simplicii successore apertius erupit. II. a. 476 c. mens, Nov. Florentii, Equitii ac Severi episcoporum ad Simplicium rdatio de quibusdam praesumpiionibus Gaudeniii Aufiniensis epi- scopi, Anno 475 ante mensem Decembrem accepit Simplicius relationem sibi ab episcopis Florentio, EquiUo ac Severo missam una cum gcstis synodalibus adversus GaudenlJiini Aufioiensem episcopum confectis. Porro is accusatus fuerat, quod illicitas fecisset ordinationes, et a trieunio, quo vidclicct cum ecclesiae Aufmicusis regioien suscepisse coiyectura est, quarla redituum hujus ecclesiae portione non contenlus, eliam tres alias in usum suum consumpsisset (cf. Simpl. ep. 1). m. a. 475 d. 19 Ifov, Simpiicii ad Severum ordinaiionum in ecclesia Aufinicnsi ddegatio, Die 19 m. Novembr. a. 475 Simplicius praeter coramunem cpistolam ad Florcn- tium. Equitium et Sevenim, quacasservata esl, ctiampccuIiarcmScvcroscripsit, quae desideratur. Eo autem spectabat illa epistola, ut Sevcrus ordinationum in Auli- niensi ecclesia potestatem sibi delegatam sciret, quac Gaudenlio episcopo ablata erat (cf. Simpl. epist. 1 n. 1). IV. a.475 exit. Presbyterorum archimandriiarum ac monachorum ad Simplicium de novis Timoihei Aeluri violeniiis relaiio. Girca idem tempus presbyteri, archimandritac ac monachi ex diversis monasterHs nrbis regiae ad Simplfcium relationcm miscrunt, qua nuntiabant, Ti- motheam Aelorum ejecto Timotheo caiholicam Alexandrinam ecclesiam occu- passCy tndegue Consianlinopoiim coniendere ausum^ turbas ibi nonnullis sibi fapentihus concitasse (cf. Simpl. ep. 2 n. 1, ep. 3 n. 2 et 3), norainatimque illum e regia processisse ad ecclesiam, turba stipatum scditiosa, quae de ipso concinere non timuerit benedicius qui venit in nomine Domini (Simpl. ep. 3 n. 3, Theod. lect. ii. E. I p. 556); his addebant, sese quidem obslitisse, ne in ccclcsiara ingre- deretur (cf. Simpl. ep.4 n.3, epist.5), sed cum sic rcpulsum nihilominus per pri- vatas quoramdam domos sacri6cia celebrasse (cf. Simpl. ep. 3 n. 3). Nec tacebant, siiii in tanto discrimine suspectum esse Acacii silentium. Ipsi vero quid consilii lioc reram statu caperent, Simplicium rogantes, inlerea viros ab co dirigi expete- bant, qoonun industria necessitati Ecclesiae consuleretur (Simpl. ep. 4 n. 2 ct 4). His rescrii»en8 Simpiicius die 11 Jan. a. 476, ipsorum litteras serius, quam voluis- sent, sibi redditas esse significavit. Unde colligitur, eas non minus duobus men- sibus ante a. 475 exitam faisse conscriptas. V. a. ^ll. Zenonis imperatoris ad Simplicium de recuperaio imperio reieUi Anno 477 Zeiio imperalor, quum expiilso Basilisco ConsUMinopoIim rc tisset. de rccuperato imperio Simplicium papam lilteris^certiorem facere propei (cf. Simpl. ep. 6 n. 2 et 3). His autem in litteris Zeno non modo Simpliduin Acacium etiam summis laudibus extollebat, quod haerelicis magno animo rest sent. Neque enim ad aliud scriptum Zenonis pertinere videtur, quod Gelasius ; ep. 26 n. 8 ait, liunc imperatorem litteris suis iam ipsum Acacium quam ; ctae memoriae Simplicium magnis laudihus extulisse^ quod haereiicis cons tissime restitissent. Ipsius quoque Simplicii successor Felix eumdem Zen locum tum ep. 1 n. 6, tum ep. 2 u. 4 commemorat. His Zenonis lliteris Simpl die 90ctobris a.477 rescripsit. Unde colligitur tempus, quo Zeno illas miser VI. a. 477 eod. temp. Acacii Constantinpoliiani ad Simplicium de eadem r statu ecclesiae Orientalis relatib, 1. Ex eo etiam» quod Simplicius eodem tcmpore cum his Zenonis litter aroplae Acacii relationi, de qua nobis nunc dicendum, respondil (ep. 7 n. 1). uU que scriptum simul ipsi datum esse haud temere conjicimus. In hac porro i tione» quae per Epiphanium diaconum missa est, latius exponebat Acacius, < jam monachi anno 475 labente striclim indicaraut, ac nominatim ea, quae ab relicis seu Constantinopoli seu aliis in rcgionibus contra fidem aut ecclesiasl regulas tentata fucranl, prolixo quidem volumine sed necessario sermone oculos ponebat (cf. Simpl. epist. 7 n. 1). 2. Nec alia videtur esse relatio ab ca, quam de Petro et Jolianne psei episcopis Antiochenis scriptam csse gestorum de nomine Acacii auclor Iradit verbis (Gel. tracl. I n. 12): Illo enim tempore, quo de Peir^ Alexandi damnato retulit (Acacius). etiam (B^ jam) de Petro et Johanne (ad eumdemS plicium) scripserat, Hoc loco ita cx codicibus restituto simul rectus ordo dop! relationis Acacii monstratur. Ut cnim ex Simplicii epistolis 7, 8 et 9 Hquet, V Acacius ad hunc papam primo de Petro et Johanne Antiochenis, ac non lo posl de Petro Alexandrino relulit. Hac aulem duplici relalioue Acacius non diocrem apud Simplicium mcreri visus est fidem, donec Johannes Talaya Alej dria, undc pulsus erat. Romam se recipiens. larvam retegere coepit. Ea vero o sione Simplicius. quum forte vitio ei verleretur. quod Acacio credulior ftiis Johanni Talajae legi praecepil. quae pridem ad ipsum miserat Acacius de Petr Johanne Antiochenis scripla. Horum partem porro gesiorum de nomine Ac auctor aobis trausmisit sic summatim expressam (Gel. tract. I u. 12]: PeL scilicet Fuilonem cognomine apud Constantinopolim monasierium gubema sed hoc propter crimina derelicto Aniiochiam fugisse ; ibi pulio Mariyrio tholico episcopo per vilissimum populum et haereticos sedem ipsius occupa coniinuoque damnatum ab episcopis atque a Leone tunc principe ad (ku num exsilium esse directum. De quo lapsum Consianiinopolim redUstfi^ dedisse fidemy quod nullas ulterius turbas facere prorsus auderet. Sed i superius dicium esi^ Basilisci temporibus a Timoiheo illo damnatOy qm i staniinopolim veneraty ad Antiochiam remissum esse, ui iterum illic episci tum teneret. Quo facio idem Petrus Johannem quemdam presbyierum ord Apamenis episcopum, a quibus non receptus venit Antiochiam, ei Peimm scopalus sui pellit auciorem et invadii ejus ecclesiam. Tum Acacius. d< sennonem prosequens, ipsos iterum damnatos^ docebat, peiens ab apoitt sedCy ut si forte ad eam confugerenty nec visu dignos habereiy et sijam quam indtdgentiam forsitan impeirassent, irriiam esse debere, neo eorum j NOTITIA EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. V — VII. 217 niteniiam recipiendam esse, Verba eadem iu gcstis de noniiue Acacii legens Liberatus dlaconas, dum non adverlit, ea ibi ex ipsis Acacii scriptis excerpta esse» sed ab ipsomet gestonim praedictorum scriptore de suo prolata putat, ita ea cap. 18 descfjbit, ut Donnulla perturbata efferat, quae ad narrationis ordinem ac TeriUtem bod satis exacta sunt. 3. Ad eadem Acacii scripta referendum videtur, quod Simplicii successor Fefix ep. II u. 2 de Johaune et Petro Antiochenis locutus subjicit: quos iunc kjfpoerHa Jeacius ita fecit ah apostoUca sede damnan\ ut his etiam christia- noniM mabuium toileretur^ quod gesia apud eum habita manifeslant. Nec aKofonitan pertioet illud Gel. ep.26 u.8: Cur ergo vel quum hoc fieri videret AeaduSy non sicui sub Basilisco jam fecerai^ ad apostolicam sedem referre eurtttit? Jam quidem Zeno imperium Basilisco fugato proximc receperat, quum Acadas relationem, de qua agimus misit. Sed quia hoc opus aggressus est, ut iegati mnnos, quod ipsi ab Simplicio sub Basilisco delegatum erat. impleret, el onoia, quae sub Basilisco gesta fuerant, in eodem opere enarrabat, non immerito dicalor sub Basilisco retulisse. 4. lisdem in scriptis Acacius singula, quae Zeno imperator in gratiam apo- stoiicae fidel sanxerat quaeque Felix ep. 2 n. 4 perstringit, quum enarasset, in ^ prmutgandit operam suam impendisse non tacebat, nominatimque gloriaba- tv. qnod pro^/ra^' esseni omnes^ qui conira Calchedonensem synodum conira- f« tedit apostoiicae praedicationem venire ieniarant, (Fel. ep. 2 n. 5.) De restitoto Timotheo Alexandrino speciatim advertebal. laeiari cum patre corda Mdim (Gelas. ep. 1 n. 12). VII. «•478 c. mens. Jui. Timothei Salophakioli ad Simplicium inthronisiica. 1. Ad annum 478 referenda sunt soliemnia Timothei Salophakioli Alexan- ^ antistitis scripia per legatos Esaiam episcopum, Nihim presbyterum el Mar- tTriOQ diaconum ad Simplicium papam missa, quihus hic papa cp. 11 n. 1 salis ^ tonm esse memorat. Nempe Timethei hujus varia fortima fuit. Primo enim * Uone Augnsto imperante in iocum Thnothei Acluri suiTectus Alexandriae episco- F^ tamdin tenuit hanc sedem, quamdiu vixit Leo ejusque successor Zeno, pacem- ^ babnlL Al ubi loeum suum cedere roactus est hic impcrator Basilisco tyranno ciCilciiedoneosis concilii hosti, licet id tum sibi extorqueri passus sit Timotheus, ^IHoscori nomen inier altaria recitareiur (Simpl. ej). 0). servare tamen non P^t Marci sedem , sed eam vicissim Timotheo Aeluro dimittere coactus esl. '^post biennium Zeno in regiam urbem regrcssus Aeluro eistincto ct fugato ^ Mongo, qui in locum ejus invaserat. Timotheum Salophalciolum. qui Ganopi l^^^t, Alexandriam revocavit. Qua de re certior factus Siroplicius ab Acacio. i^ ^ hnjus episcopi restitutione gratulatus est, ut cupcre se non taccrct, ab ipso '''^^cnam esse maculam, quam nomini suo per inconstanliam inusscrat (cf. Simpl. ^^ 9). Ooc igilur pontificis nostri desiderium quum Acacius ei quam primuni *^ fedsset, ille sine mora legationcm mox dictam cum scriptis destinavit, qui- *8 testiBcabatur , destruxisse se , quod anie perierritus de Dioscori nominc i^^ernl^ et remissionem ipsius erroris expeiiii (Simpl. ep. 11 n. 1). In eadem "^taconvenit el illud Liberati c. 16: scribii ad papam Simplicium rogans ei •^, Peirum iilum Mongum in diaconaiu esse damnaium (id. Gelas. tract. I 2* iisdem scriptis significabat Timotheus. Pctrum Mongum Alexandriae latl- T^^simpliciorum fidei moliri insidias, ideoque se ab imperatore, ut eum longius ?^8iliuin pelli juberet, petivisse (Simpl. ep. 10 n. 2). Hinc et ipsum obtestabatur ^*^^nm, ut has preces auctoritate juvaret sua, et omnia, quae ipsi uuntiavit. Acacio nola faceret. Deiiuuu Ubellum satisfaclionis corum^ quos a caihoiicae fidci vcrilatc Timothcus ct Pctrus, utrique damnati^ damnattonis tcrrore tra- duxcrant, vcniam postulantium iisdein scriptis subncclebat (Simpl.ep. 11 n. 2et3). 3. Tempus autem, quo missa suut haec scripta, non aegre admodum coo* jicitur. Simplicius quippe epistola 9 die 13 Mart. anni 478 Acacio negoUum in- jungit commonendi Timotliei, ut labem, quam nominis Dioscori inter altaria reciU- tione incurrerat, emaculare curet. Idem vero papa dielTmens.Octobr.ejusdem anni (Simpl. cp. 12, 13) scripta illa, quibus expetita satisfactio coutincbalur» proxime accepisse se signiticat. Unde conficitur, ut medioMarlium inter et Octobrem inter- vallo aut circiter scripta illa concinnata sint. VIII. a, 482 ante mcns, Maj, ^ Gregorii Mutinensis ad Simplicium de invita ordtfkO' tione sua libellus. Anno 482 Gregorius, quum Ravennatis ecclesiae presbyter esset, a Johaane cjusdcm ecclesiae autistite Mutinensis civitalis creatus episcopus Ubellum Simplicio papae dedit, in quo se invitum et invidia non electione per summam violenliam ordinatum episcopum quercbatur, petcbatquc, ut cum Johanne causam jam nwi- lam haberet. Simul eliam flagitasse videtur, ut ipsi Simplicius de praedio RaTen- natis ecclesiae in Bononicnsi sito annuam suppcditari juberct pensionem, unde ne- ccssitalibuSy quas Johannc faciente sustinere compeltebatur, subveniret (cf. Simpl. ep. 14). Libellus hic recepit Simplicii judicium anni 482 die 29 Mjyi, ideo- que non multo anle hoc tempus Iransmissus est. IX. a, 482 ante mens, Jun, Zcnonis impcratoris ad Simpiicium de ordinalo Coh- stantinopoli cpiscopo Antiochenae ecclesiae indices, Auno 482 ante mensem Junium Simplicius litteras accepit Zeuonis, qufbos imperator ille de tristi ecclesiae Antiocheuae statu deque Stephani ejus episco|ii intcr altaria funestis haereticorum gladus perompti caede praelocutus excusabaU quod ipsius successorem Constantinopoli ordinari jussissel. Id vero aggressum esse ujebal Acacium suo ipsius jussu petcntibus Antiochenis^ quum eorum seditiones non aliter sedari posse viderenlur. Addebat et illud, factum esse praeter prme^ judicium vcncrandi illius concilii Nicacni^ adeo ut dcinceps secundum defim' tioncs patrum Oricniali synodo creatio Antiocheni episcopi reservaretur : simui ct jurasse sc teslificjibatur in haec verba, quod posihac in Antiochena urbe veieri more scrvato a comprovincialibus suis cpiscopus ordinaretur. DemumCa- lendionem recens ordinatum praeclaro testimonio commendabat (cf. Simpl. ep. 15). Litleris illis rcscripsit Simplicius die 22 Junii a. 482. X. a. 482 eod, temp, Acacii ad Simplicium dc cadem re excusatio. llis Zenonis litteris Acacius episcopus Conslantinopolitanus adjunxil suas. ia quihus pariter de Stephani caede praofatus contestahatur, sese uno pHncipit juMsm ac pacis studio non sua usurpatione ac sinc pracjudicio canonum AnliochaBLum episcopum consecrassc, imnio oliam sc diu suspcndissc^ nc videretur ambirey quod tanto principi ct in tam gravi causa non poterat abnegare (cf. Simpl. ep. 16). XI. a. 482 ante med. Jul. Calendionis ad Simplicium de ordinatione $ua symnh dica rclatio. (ialendio Constanliuopoli ab Acacio Anliochcnus episcopus ordinatus ad ecclc- NOTraX EPIST. NON EXSTANT. N. VII - XVI. 219 siam suaai se conrerrc properavil, indcquc Simpliciu synodicas ronscripsit liltcras ordinalionis suae indices, quas ipse Siroplicius C(>. 17 couimcmorat. xn. a. 482 eod. iemp. Aegyptiae synodi ci cleri Alexandrini ad Simplicium de morie Timoihei et Johannis electione relatio. Circa idem iempns ab Aegyptia synodo^ quae et numero plurima et fidei caihoiicae communione suffulta erat, nec non ab omni propemodum clero Ate- xandrinae sedis relalionem accepit Simplicius per Isidorum presbyterum ct Pc- tnim diaconum sibi roissam, qua Timotheum episcopum quondam suum obiisse testati, in ejus locum consona fidelium voluntate Johannem ecclesiae ipsius oeconomum subrogatum esse indicabant, ac rogabant, ut quum ad sacerdotium kmc consiare crederentur omnia^ etiam apostolicae askensu moderationis vo- iivam sumerei firmiiatem (Simpl. ep. 18 et gesta de nomine Acacii n. 10). Ilaec aatem synodica relatio in gestis de nomine Acacii a Johanne secundum consuetu- dinem missa dicitur. xni. a. 482 eod. iemp. Zenonis imperatoris ad Simplicium sacra de Johannis in- cusaiione ei recommendatione Petri Mongi, Quum in prodnclu esset Simplicius, ut mox dicti Joiiannis cognomento- Ta- lajae eleclionero conGrmaret, ipsi per Urauiuin subadjuvam reddila cst Zenonis im- peratoris sacra, quae cumdem Alexaudrinum sacerdotio indignum esse tcstabatur, utpote qui perjurH reus esset, quod et Acacio non laterc aflirmabat. Quocirca co cxduso Petrum Mongum, quem spondeliat reclae fidei definitionibus convenire^ ad ecclesiae Aleiandrinae regimen provehendum essc significabat. Sacram paulo post superiorem Aegyptiorum relationem a Simplicio acccptam essc, cx ipsius ep. 18 n. 2 constat. XIV. • a. 482 eod. iemp. Petri Mongi ad Simplidum de fide sua professio. Eodem tempore, teste Liberato c. 18, eliam Pctrus Mongus ad Simplicium scripsitepistolaro, qua se quum ipsius Simplicii ium Calchcdonensis concilii com- municaiorem profitebatur. Vcrum hoc mendacitcr cst profcssus. Siquidem, ut idem ol»ervat Liberatus, mox et Calchedonensem synodum et epistolam Lconis maihemaiizavit. XV. a. 482 d» 15 Jul. Simplicii papae ad Zenonem imperatorem de Petro Mongo responsio. Simplicium Zenoni, qui de Johanuc Talaja cx Alcxandrina sedc pelleudo ac Petro in ejus locum sufGciendo ad ipsum scripserat, rescripsisse atquc hoc scri- ptom per eumdem Uranium. qui Zenonis litteras detulerat, transmisisse, succcssor GeUsias docet (tract. I n. 10). Ac praeterca tradit idcm auctor, in liac Simplicii epbtola Petri restitulionem omnino abnegalam, et Zcnoncm meiuendis sacramen- 0$ obsiricium esse, ne beati Marci evangelisiae sedem a magistri sui docirina ei communione permitieret separari (Fel. ep. 1 n. 2). Acacium autem simul rogatam, ut eamdem epistolam praesentibus alloquiis firmaret, Simplicius ep. 20 docet. Una cum epistoia 18 ideoque die 15 Julii anni 482 conscripta est. Porro hujus ipsios epistolae partem fragmenluro illud cssc putamus, quod supra cpi- siola 20 edidimus. XVI. 1. Praeter varias illas epistolas, quac dcsiderantnr, Liberalus c. 18 duas alias comraemorat, unam Acacii episcopi Gonslanlinopolitani ad Simplicium, alte- ram vero Simplicii ad eumdem Acacium. Ac de prima quidem sic loquitur: Aca- cius Simplicn susceptis epistolis (scilicet 18 et 20) simpticiter rescripsit ei^ quia Johannem (sc. Talajam) Alexandriae ignoraret episcopum^ Petrum vero Mongum suscepisset in communionem in Zenonis principis unitivo, et quod hoe citra ejus (sc. Simplicii) gessisset senientiampropter unitatem ecclesiarum prin- cipis Jussione, Oe altcra autem proximc subdit : Simplicius vero suscipiens hujusmodi litteras contristalur adversus Acacium eiquc rtscribii ; quod non hene fecerit^ contra scntentiam apostolicae sedis ad communionem suscipiens haereticum hominem: oportchat enim communi decreto damnatum tamquam aduiterum commuui consilio a damnationc liherari; ad haec autem^ quia non sufficeret Petro confiteri communicatorem se esse Ecclesiae catholicae secun- dum edictum (scil. Ilenoticon sive unitivum), sed oporteret eum secundum ter- minum (i. e. defmitionem) Calchedonensis concilii et secundum epistolam papae Leonis Ecclesiae amplecti communionem, XJnum enim duorum necessario agere deheret: aut suaderet Petro pure suscipere terminum synodi, aut remo- veret se ah ejus communione. llis statim addit Liberatus: Quum ad Acacium haec scripta venissent^ et delihcraret^ quid cum oportcret rescribere^ papa Simplicius dcfunctus cst, 2. Verum suspecta merito debet vidcri duorum illorum scriptorum fides, quum Simplicii successor Feli\ ep. 2 n. 2 de Acacio apud imperatorem expostulet, quod ad iteratas deccssoris sui epistolas nullura responsum dedlssct. Immo ex iis, quae Simplicius ep. 20 Acacio scripsit, falsi convincuutur. Inde enim palam est, Acacium Simplicii cpistolae 18 rescribere nec dignatum cssc, eique cum hoc papa deinceps nuHum sermonis scu litterarum commercium fuissc. Ad haec, quum Aca- cius non de communione sed de Alexandrina sede Petro Mongo reddenda scri- psisset, hic vcro Simpiicius sic ci rcscripsisse fmgitur, quasi de una ageretur com- munione. Non ambigcndum autcm, quin, si altcruter re ipsa scripsisset, et insti-' li%set haud dubie Acacius, ut Pclrus iii Mnrci sedem restitueretur, et perstitissel Simplicius in ea scnteutia, quain ep. 18 n. 3 cxplicuerat, qua videlicet Petro medelae auxilium post poenitudinem promittcns, sacerdotalis dignitatis fdMti' gium negavit. XVII. Non minori jure in dubium vocari potest admonitio quaedam Simplicii in synodo Romana anni 502, scu Symmachi papae eplstola 6 n. 4, memorata. In laudata quippc synodo lecta cst scriptura Basilii pracfecti praetorio agentis etiara vices Odoacris regis llcrulorum, in qua ferebatur: admonitione beatissimi viri papac nostri Simplicii^ guam anlc oculos semper habere debemuSj hoc nobis meministis suh obtestationc fuisse mandatum^ ut praeter ullum slrepitum et vencrabilis ecclcsiae dctrimcntum^ si eum dc hac vita transire contigerity non sinc nostra consultatione cclchrctur cujuslihet elcctio, Certe ubi recitatum fuil istud, veluti de re nova et sibi prorsus ignota obstupuit omne concilium, ac nomi- natim Cresconius Tudertinus episcopus c conscssu surgens reclamavit, id, qnod obtendebat Basilius, contra canones pugnarc ; quod profecto nullus negaverit. Ne- que etiam infitias ierit quisquam, Simplicium ubiquc ita manifestum observatioois canonum studium prae se fcrre, ut rem adco Romanae ecclesiae infestam ipsisqne canonibus contrariam ab ipso postulatam esse, prorsus incredibile sit. Et Tero quum omne concilium totam Basilii scripturam rejicit irrltamque declarat, memo- ratam admonitionem suppositionis non obscure arguit atquc condemnat. i 221