These things having thus been done, the bishop of Antioch indeed received the synodical letter of John Talaia, which he had sent through the magistrians to Illus the master; but the emperor, thinking that John the bishop did not rightly think concerning the Council of Chalcedon, but did all things deceitfully, wrote letters at the prompting of Acacius's council to Pergamius the commander and to Apollonius the Augustal, that they should indeed expel John Talaia, but enthrone Peter, who accepted the Henoticon and the clerics of the catholic Timothy, and who had transmitted a synodical letter to Acacius and to Simplicius of Rome. So Abbot Ammon and those who were with him went down to Alexandria, bringing the imperial letters on behalf of Peter; and indeed Peter is enthroned by all:
what was written by the emperor was done, namely that he should receive in agreement those who were on the side of the catholic Timothy. But John Talaia, ejected from the Alexandrian see on account of Peter Mongus, set out for Antioch, to see Illus the master; and when he had related to him the things that had happened to him, by his counsel he approached Calendion, the patriarch of Antioch. And having received from him synodical letters of intercession, he appealed to the Roman pontiff Simplicius, as the blessed Athanasius had done. And he persuaded him to write on his behalf to Acacius, bishop of Constantinople; and to this Simplicius was of a ready mind and will.
But Acacius, having received the letters of Simplicius, wrote back to them that he indeed did not recognize John as bishop of Alexandria, but had received Peter Mongus into communion, under the unitive decree of the prince Zeno, and that he had done this against his (Simplicius's) judgment for the sake of the unity of the churches, by the command of the prince. But Simplicius, receiving letters of this kind, is grieved against Acacius, and writes 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 that one condemned by common decree, as an adulterer, should be freed from condemnation by a common council: and to this
moreover, it was added that it did not suffice for Peter to confess himself a communicant of the catholic Church according to the edict, but that he ought, according to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon and according to the letter of Pope Leo, to embrace the communion of the Church. One of two things therefore he was bound necessarily to do: either to persuade Peter to accept purely the definition of the synod, or to remove himself from his communion. But when these things in writing had come to Acacius, and he was deliberating what he ought to write back, Pope Simplicius died, and Felix is ordained prelate of the Roman Church.
But John Talaia, retaining the dignity of a bishop, remained at Rome; to him the pope gave the Church of Nola, which is in the region of Campania, in which, residing for very many years, he died in peace. Then Peter Mongus, having suffered conflicts from Abbot Ammon and from John, bishop of Magileos, and from the abbots of the monks of Lower Egypt, and a sedition having been raised against him in the basilica of Caesarea, as it is said, anathematized the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo; and he did these things although he had already written to Acacius and Simplicius that he was a communicant of theirs and of the holy synod. And these things being thus done, certain men withdrew from Peter's communion, and coming to Rome reported to the Roman pope; whence a rescript was sent to Acacius, and he refused to obey.
Acacius added — concerning another heretic, Peter of Antioch, about whom he had written — that this Peter had governed a monastery at Constantinople, and, having abandoned it on account of his crimes, had fled to Antioch, where, after Bishop Martyrius had been driven out, he seized that man's see through the basest and heretical mob; and that he was at once condemned by the bishops and deported to the Oasis by order of Leo. He is said to have escaped and returned to Constantinople, and to have given his pledge that he would dare nothing through vile crowds; but (as was said above) in the times of Basiliscus he was sent to Antioch by that condemned Timothy who had come to Constantinople, to hold the episcopate.
After this, the same Peter ordained John as bishop of the people of Apamea; not received by them, he returned to Antioch, drove out Peter the author of his own episcopate, and invaded his Church, and together with him was condemned. Again Acacius sent letters to Rome, asking of the apostolic see that, if perchance they should flee to it, they should not be held worthy even of its sight; and that if they had already obtained any indulgence, it ought to be made void. Why say more? Acacius sent that very John, whom together with Peter he had condemned, to preside over the Church of the Tyrians. He likewise did so for Peter of Alexandria, who anathematized the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo, and who, having removed the names of Proterius and of the catholic Timothy from the diptychs, inscribed the names of Dioscorus and of Timothy Aelurus;
who took up from the earth the body of that same catholic Timothy and cast it outside, though he had been buried among the catholic bishops. Yet Acacius pursued him with wondrous praises, the very man concerning whom he recalled having earlier reported such grave crimes. And although for five years Acacius had often been admonished to relieve the holy pope of his anxiety regarding the state of the Alexandrian Church, he never once deigned to reply. But since so many letters, sent either to Acacius by the pope or to the emperor, accomplished absolutely nothing, by deliberation the bishops Vitalis and Misenus were sent on a legation, to set forth the matters said above, and that Peter, as before, should be driven from the Alexandrian Church.
They went to Constantinople, and the aforesaid bishops were placed in custody, their documents taken away lest they should be delivered to the catholics for whom they had been written. Acacius afterward, again ejecting them from custody, made them go forth with him, so that they might be dismissed as if Peter's priesthood had been confirmed. The legates at length return, but monks had gone ahead who sharply accused them of betrayal; heard face to face and convicted out of the very letters they had brought, they were removed from their own posts. Felix, the defender of the Church, who had been sent out with the legates, being hindered by sickness, could not proceed with them.
But after Vitalis and Misenus had departed from the keeper at Constantinople, Felix proceeded to Constantinople with the ecclesiastical documents, and he too suffered, his documents being taken away, a most severe custody. When therefore Acacius the heretic was fully exposed, Pope Felix in his synodical letters to Acacius wrote thus: «Thou hast sinned; add no more, and make supplication for thy former deeds.» Having received these letters, Acacius persists, neither withdrawing from communion with Peter nor persuading him openly to receive the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo. Learning this, Pope Felix sent the writ of condemnation to Acacius through the defender Tutus, whose beginning is: «Thou art found liable for many transgressions;»
and when these letters were given to Acacius, he did not receive them, supported by the emperor's patronage; so that those who had brought them were compelled, through a certain monk of the Acoemetae, to suspend that very writ of condemnation upon his pallium while he was entering to celebrate the sacred rites, and to depart. Yet he, by the emperor's patronage, continued offering sacrifice until his death. These things therefore coming to pass, and Acacius remaining in communion with Peter, the apostolic see indeed separated itself from that of Constantinople. At the same time Illus, joined with Leontius at Antioch, is overcome by the forces of Valamer, together with those who were allied with them; and Leontius indeed is slain, but Illus flees to the fortress of Papyrius.
Meanwhile Calendion, archbishop of Antioch, is deposed, accused openly as disloyal to the prince, for sending the people into rebellion together with Illus; but secretly, because he would not cut himself off from communion with Pope Felix and with John. Moreover Peter expelled the catholics from their own cities — priests, of whom several endured a most grievous persecution at Constantinople. The emperor also gave offense to those who were of the party of the abbot Nephalius, and to those around John the bishop, hegumen of the monastery of Diolchos; and acting against this same John, he took away from him the office of prior and handed it over to the monastery of the abbot Amon.
But he remained in the episcopate, writing to Acacius that he was a communicant of the synod, and deceiving the Alexandrians that he did not commune with the synod; so that certain of his communicants — clergy, monks, and laity — recognizing his deceit, separated themselves from his communion. And holding assemblies apart, they would not commune with his name nor with those who held the Alexandrian episcopate after him, because they had Peter's name in the diptychs. To this people a certain deacon from Palestine named Isaias was ordained bishop and sent to Alexandria, but he was not received by all; from him therefore are the Isaiani in Egypt.
With the Church placed in these straits, Acacius dies, and after him Flavitas, a presbyter from the church of Saint Thecla, is ordained, who would not consent to be enthroned without the Roman bishop, but sent his synodical letter to Felix the Roman pope, who, living only a short time, dies without receiving his letter. And Euphemius, an Alexandrian by birth, became bishop, who both received writings from the Roman pope and, after Zeno died, some time later was expelled by Anastasius; and these things indeed happened at Constantinople. Not long after, Peter Mongus also dies at Alexandria, and after him Athanasius is ordained in that see, who likewise in an edict communicated with the Churches of Constantinople, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem.
And since some of the people were offended in him too, because he had Peter's name in the diptychs, certain men both of his opponents and of those communing with him went up to the emperor Anastasius; and while they were having a dispute before the prince — some proposing that the synod be anathematized and so communion be held, but others ready to have added to the unitive edict things that would satisfy those who had communed with Peter — the emperor, considering that if he made an addition to the edict he would stir up a tumult in the Church, and that it was impossible to anathematize the synod, persuaded them that the unitive edict sufficed, so that they should commune with one another, as did the other bishops of the Churches; but when they would not do this, he dismissed them, granting nothing.
For thus, when Athanasius the heretic had completed the term of his episcopate, after him John surnamed Mela is ordained bishop of Alexandria, who likewise followed his predecessors Peter and Athanasius, and in the unitive edict communicated with the other sees, namely Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem. During his prelacy, while the Alexandrian Church had the division of the Dioscorians on account of Peter Mongus, as though he had communed with the synod, he too died in the time of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople.
After him John Machiota was ordained at Alexandria, who likewise followed his predecessors, accepting indeed the unitive edict of Zeno, but not the Council of Chalcedon nor the letter of Pope Leo, although he did not commune with Flavian of Antioch, with Elias of Jerusalem, the bishops, nor with Timothy of Constantinople. For he said that he held the edict imperfectly, and that it did not suffice for unity, because it had not been made with an anathema of the synod. Then, when the emperor Anastasius had written to him to be united with the bishop of Constantinople, he wrote back this, «that it would not suffice him for perfect unity, since it did not anathematize the synod.»
And yet, even so prudent, he kept the Dioscorians separate, who would not receive Peter Mongus. When John died at Alexandria, Dioscorus the younger is ordained, under whom Theodosius the augustal, son of Calliopius, was killed by the people. This Dioscorus, when Socrates the scholastic proposed to him, before the defender, in the rejection of the synod, to receive the Henoticon as a condemnation of the synod, received the unitive edict — as the very acts show which were drawn up before him in the presence of the city's defender, in which he testified that in the expulsion of the synod he received the edict; whereupon, when satisfaction had been given to those who, on account of Peter Mongus, communed apart from that Church, they were united to him;
for up to this Dioscorus, the Alexandrian Church was in division. [«Concerning the Alexandrian bishops.»] The heading ought to have been expanded, had not the custom of reading prevented it; in the printed books it is wrongly placed before the Henoticon, and has been restored to its proper place; nor does it altogether suit the subject of the chapter, in which the discussion is not only of the Alexandrians but also of the Antiochenes and Constantinopolitans, especially Acacius — although I think there were once many chapters which by the carelessness of copyists have coalesced into one. [«That he might not be wise.»] The negative particle had to be deleted, for otherwise what reason would the emperor have for expelling the man from the Alexandrian see?
since the emperor had tacitly rejected the Council of Chalcedon in the Henoticon, and the Alexandrian Church openly turned away from it, and Mongus, who was to replace Talaia, was even going to condemn it with an anathema. Yet it can be thought worth retaining on account of what Baronius ingeniously surmises about the cunning of Zeno and Acacius, who served the times, at the year 482, no. 55 and following. [«To Calendion.»] He succeeded Stephen, in the year, as I think, 481; for Simplicius, in epistle 16, given to Acacius on the Ides of July of the year 482, complains that the beginning of the Antiochene priest's tenure had been reported to him too late. Note that in this epistle, near the end, «Alexandrian» ought to be read in place of «Antiochene Church,» as is established from the following epistle.
[«He appealed to Simplicius.»] Namely, the bishop of the second see to the prelate of the first, without whose authority he could not be deposed by any synod. [«If, as the blessed Athanasius did.»] The words of the author of the Breviculum of the Eutychianists are to be weighed: «For his predecessors likewise, in time of persecution, sought the support of the Roman Church.» [«That Acacius should write on his behalf.»] This is the fifth among Simplicius's epistles, with which the sixth is wholly in accord. [«He should be ignorant of the bishop.»] For even though he knew it well, both by the report of trustworthy men and by rumor, he nevertheless did not know in what manner it was legitimate, namely by synodical letters, which would also contain the faith of the newly ordained.
[«He had acted against his judgment.»] In the printed editions one reads «short of» (citra), but it ought to be corrected from the following passage: for since Mongus had been condemned by the judgment of the apostolic see and of Acacius himself, «one condemned by common decree ought, as an adulterer, to be freed from condemnation by common counsel.» But what force has that word «common»? [«Terminus.»] A definition. [«Pope Simplicius died.»] In the year 483, on the 2nd day of March, after he had held the apostolic see fifteen years, five months, ten days. Marcellinus thinks Simplicius's death occurred one year earlier. [«Felix.»] Who is called the second by some, the third by others.
[«Having suffered wars.»] That is, harassed, and importuned with armed entreaties about fulfilling the pacts with the Eutychian monks, by whom he had been raised to the throne; for he had bargained for the throne by the condemnation of the synod and of the letter of Saint Leo. [«Acacius added.»] Dense darkness extends through many lines; for there is no sequence of matters, no connection of speech, indeed not even any fitting syntax of words: yet light may be hoped from this — that either Liberatus took up wrongly what he was writing, or others copied it imperfectly. The whole passage therefore is to be restored, or rather understood, from the Breviculum of the Eutychianists thus:
«The arrival of this man (John Talaia) more fully laid everything open; for while we were reading to him the writings of Acacius which he had sent concerning Peter and John of Antioch, he detected the gravest excesses of Acacius in this matter too. For at that time when he had reported about Peter of Alexandria the condemned, not long after he had also written about Peter and John: that Peter had governed a monastery at Constantinople, but, having abandoned it on account of crimes, had fled to Antioch; that there, after the catholic bishop Martyrius had been driven out, he had seized that man's see through heretics, and was at once condemned by Leo, then prince, and directed to exile in the Oasis; from which, having lapsed, he returned to Constantinople and gave his pledge that he would by no means dare to make any further disturbances;»
«but, as was said above, in the times of Basiliscus he had been sent back to Antioch by that condemned Timothy who had come to Constantinople, to hold the episcopate there again: which being done, the same Peter ordains a certain presbyter John, about whom we said Acacius reported, as bishop of the people of Apamea; not received by them, he comes to Antioch and drives out Peter the author of his episcopate, and invades his Church.» Acacius says that these men were again condemned, asking of the apostolic see that, if perchance they should flee to it, it should hold them unworthy even of a glance; and that if they had already somehow obtained some indulgence, it ought to be void, and their penitence ought not to be received:
«which when the aforesaid John, bishop of Alexandria, had read over, he could not keep silent, that the same John whom Acacius had condemned together with Peter, and had caused to be condemned by the apostolic see without remedy of penitence — after so many condemnations he sent to preside over the Church of the Tyrians.» Note carefully this word «we were reading» (legeremus): for either it is corruptly written for «it was being read to us» (legeremur), which I do not think; or it indicates the author of the Breviculum, as will later become clear. [«And when for five years.»] Namely, Simplicius in the year 477 first wrote about Mongus to Acacius; but the synodical letter of Felix, which Vitalis and Misenus brought, was given in the year 483. [«By deliberation, Vitalis and Misenus.»] He put «deliberation» for the synod which was held at Rome by Felix in the year
483; and from which Vitalis of the Church of Truentum in Picenum, and Misenus of Cumae in Campania, were sent to Constantinople to the emperor Zeno and the prelate Acacius. See the epistle of Felix III which is entitled «Synodical.» [«Lest to the catholics for whom it had been written.»] Especially the archimandrites — both those who dwelt at Constantinople and those who presided over monasteries scattered through Bithynia. [«Monks had gone ahead.»] If we believe Nicephorus, book XVI, chapter 46, those monks were sent by Cyril, prefect of the Acoemetae, and their leader was Simeon, accompanied or seconded by the presbyter Silvanus;
yet not improbable is the conjecture that the monks were sent by Rufinus and Thalassius, presbyters and archimandrites of Constantinople, to whom there is the epistle 11 of Pope Felix concerning the condemnation of the defender Tutus, who, corrupted by money, had failed in his office. [«And convicted out of the very letters they had brought.»] That is, in the other, namely the Roman synod, whose three more celebrated sessions are commonly current: in the first of which Vitalis and Misenus were convicted and deposed, however much they pleaded that violence had been done to them; in the second Acacius was deprived of office; in the third Peter the Fuller was likewise deprived of office.
But if Liberatus is to be believed, three Roman synods were to be constituted in this matter, from the earlier of which legates were sent to Constantinople, in the second of which they were deposed and Acacius admonished, in the last of which Acacius was cast down: nay, a fourth must be added, where the defender Tutus was condemned. [«It separated itself indeed.»] This kind of separation lasted nearly thirty-five years, namely from the year 484, in which Acacius was condemned, to the year 519, in which the name of that same Acacius and of the other schismatic successors was expunged from the sacred tablets, in the times of the emperor Justin and of John, prelate of Constantinople. [«By the forces of Valamer.»] Namely, by the troops of Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, who was called Valamer.
[«But Illus fled to the fortress.»] Others relate that he was slain together with Leontius and Pamprepius. [«Moreover Peter.»] Mongus, that is, not the Fuller. This skipping manner of narration, if it has come upon readers whose minds are distracted, casts no slight darkness. [«The abbot Nephalius.»] He was a rival of Amon, but stood for the catholic faith, while Amon stood for the Eutychian heresy. [«John the bishop, hegumen.»] Observe the same man at once bishop and hegumen. A hegumen, moreover, was something far different from an archimandrite, for he presided over several archimandrites, much in the way that generals or provincials are now so called. [«The Isaiani.»] Who these were, no one openly relates.
I think they were named from the bishop Isaias, who is read in the Breviculum of the history of the Eutychianists to have been the envoy from the legation of Timothy Salophaciolus to the apostolic see. [«In these.»] Baronius reads «in these disturbances.» [«Flavitas the presbyter.»] If we believe Suidas and Nicephorus, he attained the see of Constantinople by wicked arts and held it by no better ones. [«From Saint Thecla.»] Zeno built a temple to the holy virgin in fulfillment of a vow by which he had bound himself when he was leading the army against Basiliscus, of which he had been made guilty, the victory being won by the prayers of the holy virgin. [«He received writings from the Roman pope.»] Not letters of communion, but of admonition, concerning the expunging of the names of Acacius and Flavitas from the sacred diptychs. Baronius, at the year 489, no. 1.