Nor could it be deferred any longer, lest—as has been said—with his old communion still persisting, while he had already joined himself to the external one, the Apostolic See also should be defiled through him by the contagions of the faithless; and it was fitting that a prevaricator, or a despiser of a competent judgment, one plainly despairing of his own case, should be shut out from Catholic and apostolic integrity and communion. If here an examination is sought, there was already no need of a judgment, since he both confessed it by his own letters and, when summoned, feared to approach a lawful judgment; if the weight of authority is inquired into, the tenor of the Council of Chalcedon is found, consenting with the Apostolic See, and the execution of that definition.
Whereby, having become a communicant of the error there condemned, he nonetheless appeared a partaker of the condemnation there pronounced; since that same error which was once condemned together with its author carries both the execration of itself and its penalty in whatever partaker of the depraved communion. By this same tenor Timothy Aelurus and Peter of Alexandria himself—who was seen to have held in some manner the second see as well—are proved to have been condemned, without a synod being resumed but by the authority of the Apostolic See alone, with Acacius himself also demanding or executing it.
But now let them themselves show that Peter had been lawfully and truly purged and rightly separated from all contagion of heretics when Acacius communicated with him, if they think that Acacius, his communicant, is in any degree to be excused; or if—what is more true—they cannot fittingly and lawfully prove Peter to have been cleansed (on account of which Acacius did not even dare either to come or to send to the judgment of the Apostolic See), it remains that the one who communicated with him was also infected by his uncleanness. But we do not keep silent about what the whole Church throughout the world knows, that the see of the blessed apostle Peter has the right of loosing whatever has been bound by the sentences of any pontiffs whatsoever.
inasmuch as it has the right of judging concerning the whole Church, and it is lawful for no one to judge concerning its judgment; since the canons have willed that appeal be made to it from any part of the world, but that no one be permitted to appeal from it. Wherefore it is sufficiently established that Acacius had no pontifical authority to loose the sentence of the Apostolic See without any cognizance of it. Let them at least say: by what synod did he presume this, which he would have no right to accomplish even so apart from the Apostolic See? The bishop of what see? The prelate of what metropolitan city? Was it not of the parish of the church of Heraclea?
If it was indeed lawful for him without a synod to break off the sentence of the Apostolic See, no consultation of it being sought, was it then in truth not lawful for the first see—executing, as was fitting, the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon—to thrust down by its own authority a prevaricator of this sort? But neither do we pass over this: that the Apostolic See has frequently, as has been said, after the manner of its forebears, even without any synod preceding, had the power both of absolving those whom a synod had unjustly condemned, and of condemning, no synod existing, those whom it behooved. For a synod of the East had condemned Athanasius of holy memory; yet the Apostolic See, excepting him, because it did not consent to the condemnation by the Greeks, absolved him.
Likewise a synod even of Catholic prelates had indeed condemned John of Constantinople of holy memory, whom in like manner the Apostolic See, even alone, because it did not consent, absolved; and in the same way, Flavian of holy memory, condemned by an assembly of Greek pontiffs, by like tenor, because the Apostolic See alone did not consent, it absolved; and rather it condemned by its own authority Dioscorus, the prelate of the second see, who had there been received, and by not consenting it alone removed the impious synod, and for the truth it alone decreed that the Council of Chalcedon should be held. In which, with countless pontiffs,
who had fallen through the Ephesine Robbery, it alone granted pardon to those who begged forgiveness, and those remaining in their faithlessness it nonetheless laid low by its own authority. Which the assembly that had been gathered there for the restoration of the truth followed; because, just as that which the first see had not approved could have no standing, so what it judged to be decided, the whole Church accepted.
Here too it is consequently shown that a badly conducted synod—that is, one against the holy Scriptures, against the doctrine of the fathers, against the ecclesiastical rules, which the whole Church deservedly did not receive and which above all the Apostolic See did not approve—could and ought to be changed by a well-conducted synod, that is, one held according to the holy Scriptures, according to the tradition of the fathers, according to the ecclesiastical rules, put forth for the Catholic faith and communion, which the whole Church received and which the Apostolic See most of all approved, as it ought; but a synod well conducted in the aforesaid manner is in no way to be changed by a new synod.
Accordingly, if they confess Eutyches to be a heretic, they will likewise confess that the synod at Ephesus, by which he was received, was badly conducted, and that the Council of Chalcedon, by which Eutyches and those holding such views with him were rejected, was excellently conducted, whether they will or not. And therefore let them acknowledge that it was not permitted for a well-conducted synod to be chafed anew by fresh agitations.
And if perhaps they should say that by the same tenor the Ephesine synod too was not permitted to be changed, let them again weigh more plainly these same things which we have set forth above, namely: that a synod not rightly conducted against the faith, against the truth and against Catholic and apostolic and truly Christian communion is by every means to be shut out by a lawful synod held for faith, truth, and Catholic and truly Christian communion, and an unjust synod is to be removed by a just synod; but a good and truly Christian synod, held for the faith and the truth and Catholic and apostolic communion, once enacted, can neither and ought neither be shaken by any repetition of a new synod, but rather, according to a synod well conducted and rightly established beforehand, if anyone should deviate from its track, he is to be punished consequently and sufficiently by its definition and deservedly lies subject to its decrees.
Nor is there need for new synods to be introduced again for each and every one of those who deviate and are rightly to be punished, since, by the track of that synod which condemned the author together with the error, whoever in any manner, under any title, has been made an accomplice of the same error and has defiled himself by its contagion or communion, fittingly exists as a partaker also of the same condemnation and is held bound by its penalty, into whose fellowship he chose to enter. I ask therefore of these men what they think concerning Eutyches: do they assert that he was a heretic, or that he was not? If they contend that he was not, why do they act with evasions, why do they cloak themselves with circumlocutions and deceptions?
Let them openly declare themselves to be Eutychians, so that, being convicted in his sacrilegious madness, they may be overwhelmed by the mass of truth and may openly recognize not only how greatly this very Eutychian pest is proved hostile to Christian doctrine, but how many other heresies, and those most grievous, it contains in its own depravity; so that they may understand in what pits they wallow and into what precipice and abyss they are plunged. But at the same time, if they deny Eutyches to be a heretic, it is by all means made public that, for this reason, having suppressed as it were this very error, they contend over the names of those communicating with the Eutychian pest, so that they may strive to lead us—which God forbid—through the snares and captious nets of such names into the insanity of Eutyches;
But if in truth they do not dare to deny that Eutyches too is a heretic, it remains that they consent that it was not a synod to be so called, but rather a conspiracy of the lost, that against the Catholic faith, at Ephesus, with Eutyches brought back, struck down Flavian of holy memory and by military terror compelled all the priests who were there present to lend their assent to so great a crime; and therefore it is necessary for us that they declare that depraved, perverse, and robber-like was the action of that conspiracy, and that it ought by every means to be abolished; and therefore let them define that the Council of Chalcedon proceeded as just, good, and truly Christian in those matters wherein, with Eutyches driven out together with his abettor Dioscorus, it condemned their heresy and error.
Therefore let them not doubt that this synod, as has been said, is good, true, just, and Christian, through which that harmful one was removed; let them therefore perceive and at last concede that whoever deviates from the faith, communion, and truth of that just and Christian and true synod, or mingles himself in communion with those deviating from it, is sufficiently and fittingly held bound according to its own definitions; since a bad synod ought to be removed by a good one, but there is no cause why a good synod ought to be retracted by another synod, lest the retraction itself detract from the firmness of its decrees.
Accordingly, whoever are held by attachment to the Ephesine assembly, why do they still hold up merely the name of Acacius and not openly profess themselves followers of Eutyches, who had there been received? But if they shun this and profess that they execrate Eutyches,
then at once they will consent both that the Ephesine conspiracy, by which he was wrongly received, was rightly annulled, and that the Council of Chalcedon, by which he was rejected, was deservedly established; and thus they will perceive that a synod which was established for the Catholic and apostolic faith and communion and truth, according to the form of the ancients, as has been said, could not be ventilated by novel questions, but that, according to its tenor once lawfully and justly set forth, those pursuing right things are to be justly approved and those holding contrary things refuted. And the Apostolic See, guarding this as was fitting by ancient tradition, judged that the synod was not to be repeated, but rather that in the expelling of its prevaricator this same synod was to be executed.
Wherefore, if anyone still, according to the Council of Chalcedon, reproves these things done by the Apostolic See, besides that he can be refuted both by this reasoning which we have built up above and by manifold reasoning, yet much more will he confess that it was not permitted to Acacius to attempt these things.
Let him therefore say by what synod he judged that John, the bishop of the second see, whatever sort of man—certainly a Catholic and ordained by Catholics, and in no way assailed concerning the Catholic faith and communion—was to be excluded, and permitted that Peter, a manifest heretic condemned even by his own execution, be substituted for a Catholic pontiff; when, even if John had been a manifest culprit, at least after him it would have been fitting that a Catholic priest be set in his place—just as the emperor himself is read to have promised by his own sacred rescripts that this should be done for Timothy of holy memory, a Catholic, at Alexandria.
By what synod did that same Acacius cause the bishop of the third see, Calendion, to be expelled, and nonetheless suffer that Peter—so manifest a heretic that he pretended not even openly to communicate with him—be substituted in his place by his own arrangement? By what synod, finally, throughout the whole East did he, with the orthodox cast out, stained by no crime, subject by his own provision those who were depraved and entangled in crimes? By what synod did that abominable plunderer invade so many privileges belonging to others? But books do not suffice, if we should endeavor to write out one by one the tragedies which he perpetrated through the churches of the whole East. Or do they think that argument of his is to be set against us, whereby he strove to throw his crimes upon the imperial person?
Why then, when he wished, did he resist Basiliscus, a tyrant indeed and vehemently hostile as a heretic? Why did he not submit his own will to the emperor Zeno himself, because he was unwilling openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch? Behold, he could resist in other matters too, if he wished. But—to pass over those things which need to be more fully explained—what of the fact that the emperor Zeno himself professes in his own letters that he did all things by the counsel of Acacius, and that this did not escape him, Acacius himself likewise testifies by his own letters, who both wrote that Zeno had rightly done all things and did not keep silent that these same things were done by his own counsel?
As though Acacius the prevaricator existed only in the communion of Peter of Alexandria, and not in all those whom he either caused, with the Catholic pontiffs expelled, to be set over the several churches like a tyrant, or was mingled with by a perverse communion when they had been thus set over! Who by this very fact ought, according to the canons, to have been driven from ecclesiastical communion, in that they suffered themselves to be brought in as successors while the priests were still living. And what Christian does not perceive that, with the Catholic pontiffs cast out from their own see, none but heretics could be brought in? To all of whom, however, Acacius was either the author of their being substituted or, once they were substituted, joined as a communicant—to these very men, that is, who in no way differed from the communion of heretics.
Why then, even when Acacius saw these things being done, did he not take care to refer them to the Apostolic See, as he had already done under Basiliscus, so that, if he alone could not, then with counsels and deliberations joined with it, those things which befitted religion might be alleged before the emperor?
For if Basiliscus, as has been said, a tyrant and a heretic, was vehemently broken by the writings of the Apostolic See and recalled from very many excesses, how much more could a lawful emperor, who wished to be seen as Catholic, have been mollified by the Apostolic See together with the tempered suggestion of all the pontiffs—especially since he was a special favorer and lover of that same Acacius, and one who by his own letters is shown to have extolled with great praises both Acacius himself and Pope Simplicius of holy memory, because he had most constantly resisted the heretics? Why for so long a time did Acacius keep silent amid these things, except because he was unwilling to have hindered in any way those things which he desired to be fulfilled on behalf of the heretics?
Let us however suppose that, even if no synod had preceded of which the Apostolic See could rightly become the executrix: with whom was a synod to be entered upon concerning Acacius? Surely not with those who were already held as partakers with Acacius and, throughout the whole East, with the Catholic priests violently excluded and relegated into various exiles, were evidently associates of the external communion, transferring themselves to these fellowships before they consulted the decrees of the Apostolic See? With whom then was a synod to be entered upon?
The Catholic pontiffs had already been driven out from everywhere, and there remained alone the associates of the faithless, with whom it was no longer even lawful to hold an assembly, because it was in no way of ecclesiastical custom to mingle any council with those who held a defiled communion mixed with the faithless—the prophet also saying: 'I have not sat in the council of vanity, and I will not go in with those who do iniquity; I have hated the assembly of the malignant, and I will not sit with the impious.' Rightly therefore, by the form of the Council of Chalcedon, prevarication of this kind was repelled, rather than being brought to a council, which after the first synod was neither needed nor permitted to be held with such men.
For also what was being done concerning the Catholic faith, if they had been willing to understand, they could not be ignorant of, since they saw the Catholic pontiffs being driven out of the whole East with no discussion of a synod, with no council—especially when they should have weighed that the cases were new; and the rest could have learned from the quality of those men what they should beware of. It remains therefore that it be clear that they were of that party to which, after so many proofs, they gave themselves; and deservedly they were no longer to be consulted by the Apostolic See and the other Catholics, but rather to be marked. But we laughed that they wish a prerogative to be conferred on Acacius because he was bishop of the royal city. Did not the emperor for many times reside at Ravenna, at Milan, at Sirmium, at Trier?
Did the priests of these cities ever usurp anything for their own dignities beyond the measure anciently assigned to them? Did Acacius, in order to exclude John—whatever sort of man, yet a Catholic ordained by Catholics—from Alexandria, and to receive Peter, already detected and condemned in heresy, without consultation of the Apostolic See, boldly seize upon this with at least some synod held there? Is he shown to have done it by any synod, so as to drive Calendion from Antioch and again admit the heretic Peter, whom he himself too had condemned, without the cognizance of the Apostolic See? If indeed it is a question of the dignity of cities:
the dignity of the priests of the second and third sees is greater than that of that city, which is not only in no way numbered among the sees, but is not even reckoned among the rights of metropolitans. For as to what you say, 'of the royal city'—the power of a worldly kingdom is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities another. For just as a city, however small, does not diminish the prerogative of the present kingdom, so the imperial presence does not change the measure of religious dispensation. Let that city be renowned by the power of the present empire; religion under it then stands firm, then free, then advanced, if rather, this being present, it holds its own measure without any disturbance.
Finally, if they flatter themselves concerning the presence of the emperor and think that from this the person of the bishop of the city of Constantinople can be made more prominent, let them hear Marcian, the prince of that same city, who, after the intercessor coming forward on behalf of the aggrandizement of that city's bishop could obtain nothing against the rules, followed up Pope Leo of holy memory with the highest praises, because he by no reasoning suffered the rules of the canons to be violated;
let them hear Anatolius, the prelate of that same see, confessing that it was rather the Constantinopolitan clergy than he himself that had attempted such things, and saying that the whole matter was placed in the power of the apostolic prelate; and that the blessed Pope Leo himself, the prelate of the Apostolic See, by whose authority the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, emptied by a competent refutation whatever, beyond what had been agreed to be delegated by him to be done there for the Catholic and apostolic faith and communion, seemed to have been attempted by a new action against the Nicene canons on occasion of that assembly; and that nonetheless, even under Pope Simplicius of holy memory, the legate of the Apostolic See, Probus of holy memory, bishop of the city of Canusium, at the request of the emperor Leo then present, taught that these things could in no way be attempted, and gave no consent to them at all.
And therefore let them not have regard to the rank of any particular city, but let them fittingly observe the manner of ecclesiastical governance as established by the tradition of the fathers. But let it be said concerning the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch that for certain reasons it was the emperor, rather than Acacius, who commanded the things that were done. Yet it would have befitted a bishop to suggest to a Christian prince — especially one of whose intimacy and favor he enjoyed — that redress for the wrong and outrage done to that same bishop would be secured only if the Christian prince allowed the rules of the Church to be preserved, since a new case had arisen in the matter of both bishops and consequently called for a new examination; and —
just as it has ever been the practice, and as both divine and human laws alike decree, that judgments concerning priests should proceed from a council of priests, and that bishops of whatever sort — even if human error crept in, yet in no way departing from the faith — should not be seen struck down by secular power. Or was he who was exalted by the honor of the royal city not the man to suggest these things to the prince by just reasoning? If he had been made loftier by that royal city, then all the more in suggesting these matters he ought to have been more steadfast; but if in those things which had to be put forth on behalf of religion he stood forth contemptible and despised, and either slothful or lacking the confidence to declare them — in what respect has he been made greater through the royal city?
Or was it that through it he might rather exercise the tyranny of his own transgression than lawfully attend to the cause of religion? The prophet Nathan, openly and publicly to the face of King David, both declared the error committed and did not keep silent that he himself had committed it, and then, when he was corrected by confession, absolved him accordingly. Ambrose of blessed memory, bishop of the church of Milan, publicly and openly suspended the elder Theodosius the emperor from communion and reduced the royal power to penance. Pope Leo of blessed memory, as we read, freely rebuked the emperor Theodosius the younger when he transgressed at the Robber-Council of Ephesus.
The holy-memoried pope Hilarus likewise, when Philotheus the Macedonian, upheld by that emperor's intimacy, wished to introduce into the city new conventicles of divers sects, publicly restrained the emperor Anthemius at the shrine of blessed Peter the apostle with a clear voice, that this should not be done, to such a degree that the emperor promised, under the sanction of an oath, that those things should not be carried out. No less did the holy-memoried pope Simplicius, and after him the holy-memoried pope Felix, more than once rebuke with free authority not only the tyrant Basiliscus but also the emperor Zeno for these very same excesses — and he might have been swayed,
had he not been inflamed at the instigation of the prelate of Constantinople, who, having necessarily become a sharer of an alien communion, now fostered that into which he had fallen, preferring to persist in the obstinacy of his own transgression rather than, needing healing, to return to what was wholesome — as the very outcome of events proved. Behold, lately, when Honoric king of the Vandal nation was commanding certain things that ought not to be done, Eugenius bishop of Carthage, a great and outstanding man and priest, together with many catholic priests, steadfastly resisted the raging king, and, enduring all extremities, even today they do not fail to resist their persecutors. We too, it is manifest, by God's help in no wise obeyed Odoacer, the barbarian heretic then holding the kingdom of Italy, when he commanded certain things that ought not to be done.
But this «good man» Acacius, this «excellent priest», showed to such a degree that he both could have made his suggestion and declared that he was unwilling — nay, made plain that he had actually connived — that the emperor did not conceal that he had done everything by that man's counsel, and Acacius himself extolled the emperor with great praises for doing these things and betrayed that he had been a partner in carrying them out. But be it so: let Calendion have removed the emperor's name, let John be alleged to have lied to the prince; yet since these were new cases, a new ecclesiastical examination ought to have arisen.
Were those who were said to have sinned against a man, the emperor, to be deposed with no synod intervening — while Acacius, who offended against God, who is the highest and true Emperor, and who strove to mingle the pure communion of the divine sacrament with the faithless — according to the synod by which this perfidy was condemned, ought not to have been expelled? What of the countless catholic priests throughout the whole East driven from their own sees, and heretics beyond doubt let in? Surely these were new cases, and consequently a new synod was owed to them.
Why then did it not come to mind that in such cases at least some synod, of whatever kind, should be sought from the prince to be convened — so that, by whatever colored judgment of ecclesiastical tradition, bishops might be seen to be excluded everywhere, and not only priests of whatever cities but even metropolitan bishops without delay? When Acacius did not resist all these things with the suggestion he was able to make, he consented by communicating with all those heretics who had been substituted in the place of catholics. But the Apostle says that not only those who do these things, but also those who consent to the doers, are beyond doubt reckoned guilty.
Was it lawful for the secular power to do these things, and for Acacius, consenting to such deeds, without any synod which the very novelty of the matter demanded, without consulting the Apostolic See, to bring them to completion — and yet not lawful for the Apostolic See, according to the tenor of the synod of Chalcedon, in an old case indeed and by an old ordinance justly condemned by a just definition, to drive from its own communion Acacius who was communicating with the enemies of the synod of Chalcedon? But they say: Acacius could not oppose the prince. Why then did he oppose Basiliscus, because he willed to? Why did he not lend his assent to Zeno himself, so that he might not be seen to communicate openly — though he did so covertly — with Peter of Antioch?
Behold, the emperor did not press him when he resisted; behold, he did not force him when he was unwilling; behold, he granted manifest contagions to him when he shrank away. Finally, why, over so long a time, when these things were being done — or when he knew they were about to be done — did he not hasten to refer them to the Apostolic See, from which he knew that care of those regions had been delegated to him? Rather he became himself a praiser of the deeds before he either forewarned that such things were to be attempted, or resisted lest they should be attempted, as he had already done under Basiliscus. Why did he consent to communicate with those others who, once catholic priests had been driven out, had beyond doubt been set up as heretics in the several cities?
Finally, if he failed his own part and disdained to do what befitted a catholic priest, was the Apostolic See therefore able, or bound, to pass over what pertained to it? By whatever manner, then, it repudiated the accomplice of the heretics and removed from its own communion the partner of an alien communion, there was no need of a new synod, since the form of the old ordinance sufficiently prescribed this; nor was there need that these things to be done should be intimated to the bishops of the East, whom it is manifest were not ignorant of the expulsion of the catholics — deeds that were being carried out in a cause of faith — and who, by communicating with the substituted heretics, had consented to such a deed.
Nor is there any doubt that, once they had become sharers of an alien communion, the decrees of the Apostolic See neither could nor ought to be transacted with them. Behold, in the profession of those who most steadfastly endured, they acknowledged what was owed to faith and to catholic communion. Behold, they acknowledged how, by withdrawing from such men — nay, by contriving things contrary to such men — Acacius deviated from the catholic faith and communion, and how they, together with him, subjected themselves likewise to the same error.