To His Most Beloved Brothers, the Bishops Established Throughout Dardania, Gelasius.

This Letter Exists in Two Recensions

The text printed below is the forma brevior — the shorter recension — of Letter XIII to the bishops of Dardania.1 Apart from those points where the shorter form preserves a sharper formulation than the long, the substance is treated in the Historical Commentary on the long form, to which the reader is referred for the doctrinal exposition. The notes here address only what is distinctive to this recension.

Chapter I: The Pretext of the Eutychian Communicators — That Acacius Was Not Condemned by a Special Synod, and That He Was Bishop of the Royal City

We are exceedingly amazed that your beloved person seeks to know, as if it were some new and difficult question and as if it were something hitherto unheard of, why those who hold communion with the Eutychian pestilence — having nothing to offer for the obstinacy of their own perdition, and now refuted by frequent argument — only mutter on in contention; not because what they prattle has any weight, nor that they find anything at all to say. We marvel rather that those who are formed in catholic understanding still hesitate, more than that those who have fallen away from truth and turned aside from the ancient tradition of the Church should set forth their profane novelties of words and the absurdities of a perversity already condemned. As your beloved person has reported, they are wont to put it about that Acacius is not to be considered justly condemned, because he does not appear to have been deposed by a special synod; and they pile up further the dementia of their own vanity, childishly adding: especially the bishop of the royal city.2 Therefore, rejecting the foolishness of these empty complaints, you must run through what was done from the blessed apostles themselves, and consider prudently that our fathers — that is, the catholic and learned bishops — in every heresy that arose at any time, decreed by what they sanctioned in a single gathering for the faith, for the truth, and for the catholic and apostolic communion — according to the path of the Scriptures and the preaching of the elders — that what was thus established should remain unshaken, firm, and that in the same matter what had been once defined should not be revisited; nor would they permit it to be reopened by any recent presumption — most wisely providing for it, since if the decrees might be repeated against any individual whatsoever, no constitution of the Church would stand firm against the various errors, and every settled definition would be disturbed by the same recurrent furies.

Chapter II: The Apostolic See’s Confirmation of Synods, and Peter’s Principatus Received From the Lord’s Voice

Confidently, then, weighing these things from paternal tradition: that no Christian who is truly such may now be ignorant that the constitution of every individual synod, which the universal Church has approved by its assent, must be carried out before all by no see more than by the first see, which by its own authority both confirms each synod and guards it by continuous moderation;3 in virtue, that is, of that primacy which the most blessed Apostle Peter received from the voice of the Lord, and which — the Church accordingly following — he both has held and holds always.4

Chapter III: Acacius Was Privately Warned for Three Years; His Communion with Petrus Mongus Required No New Synod, Only Execution of Chalcedon

This being the case, when the apostolic see had ascertained from clear evidence that Acacius had deviated from truth, refusing for a long time to credit it — knowing him as it did to have often been the executor of its own necessary dispositions against heretics — for nearly three years it did not cease to admonish him by letters dispatched in turn, as is attested by the diverse familiar writings sent to him. To these he at first proposed to reply nothing, as if by determined silence; finally, having sent letters, he professed himself to have entered communion with Alexandrian Peter — whom he himself, executing the request of the apostolic see, had also condemned — without notifying the apostolic see. But the See of the Blessed Peter, knowing that it had only condemned the Alexandrian Peter, not absolved him, did not receive it; and therefore, lest it should be drawn through Acacius into Peter’s company also, removed Acacius likewise from its communion, and in many ways made the transgressor a stranger to its fellowship. If examination is sought, there is now no need of judgment, since by his own letters he confessed it. If the weight of authority is sought, the execution of that definition is found in the tenor of the synod of Chalcedon, by which the communicator with the heresy there condemned must himself be partner in the prefixed condemnation: since the same error which has once been condemned with its author bears its execration and its penalty in any partner of its corrupt communion.

By this same tenor Timothy [Aelurus] also, and the Alexandrian Peter himself, who appeared certainly to have held the second see, are shown to have been condemned not by a repeated synod, but by the authority of the apostolic see alone — Acacius himself even requesting and executing it.5 But if it is said that it ought to have been established whether Acacius had communicated in error or in transgression, We give a brief answer: either let them show that Peter was truly and lawfully purged, and rightly cleared from all heretical contagion when Acacius communicated with him, if they think Acacius excusable as his communicator; or — what is much more truly the case — if they cannot show that Peter was duly and lawfully expiated, it remains that Acacius, having communicated with him in his unexpiated state, is himself defiled.

Chapter IV: The Apostolic See Has the Right to Loose What Other Bishops Have Bound; the First See Cannot Be Judged

Nor do We pass over what the whole Church throughout the world knows: that the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing what has been bound by the sentences of any bishops whatsoever — inasmuch as it has the right of judging concerning the whole Church; nor is it lawful for anyone to judge of its judgment.6 Indeed, for any cause from any part of the world, the canons have willed an appeal to be made to that See, but from it no one is permitted to appeal. Wherefore it is sufficiently established that Acacius had no right to dissolve the sentence of the apostolic see without that See’s knowledge. By what synod indeed had he presumed this — when not even with the apostolic see could he lawfully have effected it?

Of what see is he bishop? Of what metropolitan city is he presider? Is he not [merely] of the parish of the Church of Heraclea?7 If indeed it was lawful for him without a synod to break the sentence of the apostolic see, with no consultation of it sought; was it then not lawful for the first see, executing what was constituted by the synod of Chalcedon, as was fitting, to detrude such a transgressor by its own authority?

Chapter V: The Apostolic See Has Acted Alone, Without Synod, in Athanasius, Joannes, Flavianus, and Dioscorus

Nor do We pass over the fact that the apostolic see has frequently, as has been said, after the manner of the elders, even with no preceding synod, had the power both of loosing those whom an unjust synod had condemned and of condemning, with no synod existing, those whom it ought. For the Eastern synod had bound Athanasius of holy memory, whom the apostolic see, however, taking up the case and not consenting to the Greeks’ condemnation, absolved. Likewise the synod even of catholic bishops had condemned Joannes of Constantinople of holy memory, whom in like manner the apostolic see, alone, because it did not consent, absolved. So too, the holy bishop Flavianus, condemned by the assembly of the Greeks, by like tenor — because the apostolic see alone did not consent — it absolved; and rather, having received him there, condemned by its own authority Dioscorus, the presider of the second see, and by not consenting alone removed the impious synod, and decreed alone — for the sake of truth — that the synod of Chalcedon should be held. And so as in that case it had alone the right of absolving those whom synodical decrees had stricken, so also without a synod, in this same cause, it is recognized to have condemned very many metropolitans.8

And if anyone reproves these things as having been done by the apostolic see otherwise than according to a synod — besides being convicted by the proof of ancient fact — he will much more confess, in this case, that this was not lawful for Acacius. Let him then say by what synod he himself decided to exclude the presider of the second see — whoever he might be, certainly catholic, ordained by catholics, in no way impeached for catholic faith and communion — and permitted Peter, a manifest heretic, condemned even by his own execution, to be substituted for the catholic bishop. By what synod did he cause the bishop of the third see, the holy Calendio, to be expelled — and yet by his own arrangement allowed Peter, so manifestly a heretic that Acacius would not himself communicate with him in public, to be substituted in his place? By what synod, finally, did he supplant orthodox men, marked by no crime, throughout the whole East, by his own provision putting wicked men involved in crimes in their place? By what synod did this nefarious people invade so many privileges that were not theirs?

Chapter VI: Acacius’s Tragedies Cannot Be Hidden Behind the Imperial Person; He Resisted Basiliscus When He Wished, but Not Zeno

Books would not suffice if We were to undertake to describe one by one the tragedies he carried out throughout the churches of the whole East. Or do they think to throw against Us that very argument by which he was seen to cast his crimes onto the imperial person? Why, then, when he wished, did he stand against the tyrant Basiliscus, certainly an exceedingly hostile heretic? Why did he not yield his will to the emperor Zeno himself, in that he refused openly to communicate with Peter of Antioch? Behold, he could resist when he wished. Or does the Apostle not say: Not only those who do, but also those who consent to those doing, are entangled in the same guilt (Rom. 1:32)?

And, leaving aside what would need fuller exposition: the emperor Zeno himself in his letters professes that he did all things by Acacius’s counsel; nor does Acacius himself fail to bear witness in his own letters to the same, who has likewise written that the emperor did all things rightly, and has not concealed that what was done was done by his own counsel. As if Acacius had been transgressor only in the communion of Alexandrian Peter, and not in all those whom he either had set up — driving out the catholic bishops, like a tyrant, to be put over churches whatsoever — or, set up in this manner, mixed himself with their corrupt communion, those who by the very canons ought to have been driven from ecclesiastical communion, and who allowed themselves to be brought in over their predecessors who were still living priests. Who indeed, that is a Christian, will not perceive that, with the catholic bishops cast down from their proper sees, none could have been brought in but heretics? Of all of whom, nevertheless, Acacius was either the author of substitution, or, communicator with the substituted, joined himself with those who in no way differed from his communion.

Why, then, when he saw such things being done, did he not — as he had already done under Basiliscus — take care to refer them to the apostolic see: so that, if he alone could not, joined with that see in the same counsels and discussions, what was fitting to religion might be put before the emperor? For if Basiliscus, as has been said, the heretical tyrant, was vehemently broken by the writings of the apostolic see and recalled from his many excesses by them, how much more might the lawful emperor — who wished to be seen catholic — have been moderated by the temperate suggestion of the apostolic see and of our bishops likewise; especially since he was a particular favorer and lover of Acacius himself, and had in his letters magnified Acacius and the holy Pope Simplicius with great praises for having most steadfastly resisted the heretic? Why for so long did Acacius keep silent in these matters, except that he wished in no way to be hindered from what he desired to be fulfilled?

Chapter VII: Even If a Synod Had to Be Held — With Whom? The Question Answers Itself

Let Us grant, however, even if no synod had preceded of which the apostolic see might rightly be the executrix, with whom indeed was a synod concerning Acacius to be entered upon? With those who were already partakers with Acacius — and, with the catholic bishops violently expelled throughout the whole East and exiled to various places, were evidently companions of an external communion, transferring themselves to that fellowship sooner than they consulted the determinations of the apostolic see? With whom, then, was a synod to be held? The catholic bishops had been everywhere driven out; only companions of the perfidious remained, with whom it was no longer lawful to assemble — the Psalm saying, I have not sat in the council of vanity, and with those who do iniquity I shall not enter in (Ps. 25:4). It is not the custom of the Church, to mix counsel with those who hold a polluted communion mingled with the perfidious. Rightly, then, by the form of the synod of Chalcedon was such transgression repulsed — rather than brought to a council, which after the first synod was not needed and could not lawfully be held with such men. For if they had wished to understand what was being done about the catholic faith, they could not have been ignorant of it — seeing the catholic bishops driven from the whole East with no synodal discussion, no council, especially since they could perceive that new causes were being adjudicated; and the rest could have discerned what they ought to fear from the qualities of those expelled. It remains, therefore, to be clear that they belonged to that party to which, after so many trials, they had given themselves: and rightly were they no longer to be consulted by the apostolic see and the rest of the catholics, but rather marked.

Chapter VIII: The Two-Powers Refutation: Imperial Capital Status Does Not Confer Ecclesiastical Rank

We have laughed at their wishing the prerogative compared to Acacius — that he was bishop of the royal city. Was the emperor not at Milan, at Ravenna, at Sirmium, at Trier for many periods? Did the bishops of those cities ever usurp anything for their own dignities beyond the measure anciently allotted to them? Did Acacius — when he excluded from Alexandria a catholic man whoever he was, ordained by catholics, namely Joannes; when he received Peter, already detected and condemned in heresy, without consulting the apostolic see — undertake any synod even there? Or, when he so audaciously seized to drive Calendio from Antioch, and to admit again the heretic Peter, whom he himself had condemned, without notice of the apostolic see, is it shown that he did so by any synod?

If indeed the matter is one of dignity of cities: the dignity of the bishops of the second and third sees is greater than that of his city — which is not only not numbered among the [patriarchal] sees, but is not even reckoned among the rights of metropolitans.9 For as to what you say of the royal city: the power of the secular kingdom is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities is another. For just as a small city does not diminish the prerogative of the present kingdom, so the imperial presence does not change the measure of religious dispensation.10 Let that city be illustrious by the power of the present emperor — religion under that same emperor stands firm, free, and well-advanced, if rather, with the emperor present, it holds its own measure without any disturbance.

Chapter IX: The Argument from Calendio and Joannes; Where Was the Synod for Their Removal?

But perhaps it will be said that, of the Alexandrian and Antiochene cases, for certain reasons it was the prince rather than Acacius who ordered what was done. But it would have befitted a Christian prince to be advised by his bishop — especially one whose familiarity and favor he enjoyed — that justice would be safe regarding his own injury and reproach, only if the Christian prince let the Church preserve its rules. For a new cause had arisen in each bishopric, and a new examination ought consequently to have been sought. And if, as ought ever to be the case, decisions about bishops had come from a sacerdotal council of bishops, no bishops of any kind would have been seen to be cast down by the secular power; and if there were a human error, it would not have been struck down against religion by a power exceeding its bounds. Should not these things have been suggested to the prince by just reason? If [Acacius], being elevated by the honor of the royal city, was made loftier than that royal city itself, so much the more should he have been more constant in pressing such considerations. But if in those things which were to be done for religion he was found contemptible and despised — either slothful, or lacking in confidence to declare himself — in what way was he made greater for being in the royal city? Nathan the prophet openly and publicly to the face of king David both pronounced his error and did not keep silence about his having committed it; and absolved him in turn upon his confessing it.11 But this good man and excellent priest showed himself such that he could have suggested correction and refused to do so — indeed, he revealed that he had favored what was done — so that the emperor did not keep silent about doing all things by his counsel, and Acacius himself extolled with great praises the emperor for doing these things, and showed himself a partaker in them.

But suppose Calendio had attempted the emperor’s name; suppose Joannes is alleged to have lied to the prince: nevertheless, since these were new causes, a new ecclesiastical examination ought to have arisen. Or were those who were said to have offended a human emperor to be deposed without any intervening synod, while Acacius — offending against God, who is the highest and true emperor; and willingly mixing the unstained communion of the divine mystery with the perfidious — was not, according to the synod by which this perfidy was condemned, to be excluded? What of the catholic bishops driven from countless cities throughout the whole East, and the heretics substituted? These were certainly new causes, and accordingly a new synod was owed. Why, then, did it not occur to him that, in such causes, even some kind of synod should be borne with by the prince — so that bishops should not be seen to be everywhere excluded by some pretext or other of ecclesiastical tradition; not only the bishops of cities of every kind, but the metropolitans without exception?

To all of these — when he did not resist by any suggestion he might have offered — Acacius gave consent by communicating with all those who had been substituted as heretics in the place of the catholics. But the Apostle says: Not only those who do, but those who consent to those doing, are without doubt assigned the same guilt (Rom. 1:32). Was this lawful for the secular power, with Acacius consenting to such acts without any synod (which the very newness of the things demanded), to perfect without consultation of the apostolic see — and yet not lawful for the apostolic see, according to the tenor of the synod of Chalcedon, in a cause certainly old and according to its old constitution, to drive out from its own communion, by a just definition, Acacius communicating with the enemies condemned by the synod of Chalcedon?

Chapter X: Why Acacius’s Silence Cannot Be Excused; the Apostolic See Acted from the Old Constitution

“But Acacius,” they say, “could not stand against princes.” Why did he stand against Basiliscus, when he wished? Why, with Zeno himself, in not openly communicating with Peter of Antioch — although he did so latently — did he yet not yield assent? Behold, the emperor did not resist him when he stood; behold, he did not force him when unwilling; behold, he yielded to him when he refused manifest contagion. Finally, why for so long, while these things were being done or were known to be intended, did he not refer the matter to the apostolic see — from which he knew the care of those regions to have been delegated to him? Rather, he became the praiser of what had been done, before either warning that such things should be attempted or resisting their attempting; just as he had already done under Basiliscus.

Why did he consent to communicate with all the rest, who, with the catholic bishops driven out, had undoubtedly been substituted as heretics in the individual cities? Lastly, if he had failed in his own duties, and had not seen to do what would befit a catholic priest, was the apostolic see therefore to overlook either what it could or what it ought to do regarding what concerned it? By every means, it refused the accomplice of heretics, and removed the partner of an external communion from its own communion; nor was there need of a new synod, since the form of the old constitution sufficiently prescribed this; nor was there need to make these things known to the bishops of the East — who, by the expulsion of the catholics, could not be ignorant of what was being done in the cause of faith, and by communicating with the substituted heretics had agreed to the deed.12 There is no doubt that they were also affected by the consequence of an external communion; and therefore, with them now, neither could nor ought the determinations of the apostolic see to be treated.

Chapter XI: Acacius and His Successors Have Severed Themselves From the Apostolic See; the Italian Congregation Confirmed What Had Been Done

Behold, they have acknowledged in the profession of those who most steadfastly persevered, what was owed to the catholic faith and communion. Behold, they have acknowledged how, by withdrawing from such men — indeed by working contrary to such men — Acacius deviated from catholic faith and communion, and equally subjected himself with him to the same error. Behold, they have acknowledged how justly, for the catholic and apostolic faith and communion — with which both those who persisted in it agreed, and from which those who opposed those persisting were taught to be alien — Acacius was removed by the authority of the apostolic see, with whoever became his accomplices in like manner; and rightly was he separated from that communion together with these men, from which he is recognized first to have separated himself with his consorts, by disagreeing from the catholic bishops; and rightly received the sentence of condemnation, on behalf of the rest of his consorts who must take up that sentence, since he alone, on behalf of all his consorts, professed in letters sent to the apostolic see that he had fallen back into the communion of the perfidious.

If the Eastern bishops had communicated with him before he so referred, they are without doubt likewise proved to be entangled in equal guilt, and rightly through him have undertaken the sentence of transgression — as if joined with him in external communion. They certainly should not be consulted as men of our communion; rather, they should be refused as set in the contrary fellowship. But if they had not communicated [with him] before Acacius referred [his act] hither, they ought to have marked him as communicating, and should themselves have referred [the matter] hither concerning him; and to have proven him rightly stricken by the vigor of the apostolic see; and to have held concord rather with that apostolic see and with so many catholic bishops. But because they had departed from the society of these, and chose to communicate with their successors, they no longer agreed with the apostolic see — because they had fallen into the lot of the transgressor Acacius, and saw themselves to be bound consequently by his sentence. Therefore they were unwilling to see him condemned, because they recognized themselves to have been condemned in the same transgression, in which to this day they persist in remaining. But just as those bound by like condition cannot judge their own accomplice not justly condemned, nor properly absolve a guilty man of the same crime; so, with that transgressor justly condemned, these too lie cast down by like condemnation: nor will they be able to be absolved at all without repenting; because, just as through the one who wrote on behalf of all of them was the transgression of all made known — that is, of those who had fallen back into the same act of perfidy — so in the one and the same who wrote on behalf of all, or who in his writing betrayed the will of all, the transgression of all has been punished.

What things We judge to be sufficient for the instruction of your beloved person; though, if the Lord shall grant the opportunity, We shall study to set them out at greater length: so that each of the faithful may know that the apostolic see, which God forbid, has censured nothing precipitately. Yet that the sentence pronounced upon Acacius, although it was uttered only in the name of the apostolic president — by whose proper power it was, indeed — is lawfully proved to have been issued, especially since it was seen fitting that it be sent secretly, lest, with watches everywhere set, the saving disposition, hindered by various difficulties, could not have its necessary effect; nevertheless, because, with orthodox men everywhere cast down and only heretics and their consorts left in the East, the catholic bishops were either entirely none remaining, or could exercise no liberty, a congregation of very many catholic priests in Italy reasonably recognized that the sentence had been pronounced upon Acacius. This congregation of bishops did not assemble against the [synod] of Chalcedon, nor as a new synod against the old and first; but rather, according to the tenor of the old constitution, was made a participant in the apostolic execution: so that it might sufficiently appear that the catholic Church and the apostolic see — since they could not now do so anywhere else — there where they could, and with whom they could, omitted nothing pertinent to fraternal concern for the unsullied faith and the sincere communion under treatment.13