A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

FAELIX III. Bishop of Rome.

CAelius Faelix was ordained Bishop of Rome in the beginnning of the Year 483. A little time after his Ordination he held a Council at Rome, in which John Talaia, who being * 1.1 banished from Alexandria, by the Authority of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, was fled into the West, presented a Petition to him, in which were contained several heads of accusation against Acacius. This obliged Faelix to send to the Emperor, Vitalis Bishop of Trent, and Misenus Bishop of Cumae to request him to cause the Council of Chalcedon to be Confirmed, to Banish Petrus the Heretick from the See of Alexandria, and compel Acacius to condemn Peter, and to answer to the things of which he was accused. Faelix gave two Letters to his Legats, the one directed to Acacius, the other to the Emperor. In both of them he is very urgent to have Peter expelled from Alexandria. In the Letter to Acacius, he earnestly exhorts that Bishop to free him∣self from the suspicions which might be had against him; and to use his Interest with the Empe∣ror to bring them to an end, and upbraids him for want of Zeal in this Affair, and his dissimula∣tion or allowance given to this Heretick. In the Letter to the Emperor, he boldly tells him, that he ought not to suffer an Heretick condemned a long time since, and banished by his own Edicts, to remain in possession of the See of Alexandria. Vitalis, and Misenus parted with these Letters and Instructions. While they were in their Voyage, Cyrill Abbot of the * 1.2 Acaemetae wrote to Faelix, that there were daily Innovations against the Orthodox Faith; and that he ought to be so much the quicker in providing some remedy against them. Faelix having received this News wrote to his Legats, that they should do nothing without the advice and approbation of this Cyrill, and sent them a Letter Subscribed to the Emperor, wherein he tells him of the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and writes to him about the Persecution of the Orthodox in Africa. We have neither of the Letters, which Evagrius mentions. The Legats being arrived at Abydos a 1.3 were seized by the Guards, who took away their Papers, and put them into Prison. They had orders not to communicate with the Adherents of Petrus Mongus, nor Acacius, who was joyned with him: But the Emperor first made use of threatnings to force them to it, but not prevailing that way, he tryed them by Kindness and Promises, and gained their Consent to communicate with Petrus Mongus and Acacius, upon Condition nevertheless, that it should be no prejudice to the Merits of the Cause, which they entirely referred to the Judgment of Holy See. Upon this Promise they received the Sacrament with Acacius, and with the Deputies of P. Mongus. The more Zealous of the Orthodox immediately made Protestations against the Action; One they fastened upon the Cloaths of the Legats with an Hook, the other they sent them in a Book; and a third in a Bas∣ket of Herbs. Vitalis and Mesenus having sped so ill, departed to go again into Italy. But they had with them an Advocate of Rome named Faelix, who was forced to stay behind, being taken Sick at Constantinople. This Man, because he would not conform to the Example of the Legats, was cruelly handled by Acacius. Vitalis and Misenus being returned to Rome, found, that the Acaemetae Monks had already given a Relation of what had passed, and had likewise sent one of their Monks called Simeon, to give the Pope an Account of it. Faelix called a Council of Sixty Seven Bishops, where they appeared to give an account of their Embassage; and brought the Let∣ters of Zeno and Acacius full of Invectives against John Talaia, and the Praises of Peter. They laboured to excuse themselves, by saying, that they had forced them and surprized them, and they knew not that they had Communicated with Peter Bishop of Alexandria. But Simeon proved it to their Faces, that they knew what they did, and that they never would harken to the Or∣thodox, which came to them. Silvanus, who had been at Constantinople with them, confirmed the Deposition of Simeon; Insomuch, that Vitalis and Misenus being Convicted of acting contrary to the Orders they had received, were Deposed and Excommunicated. They next Examined the Conduct of Acacius, and Condemned him with Petrus Mongus. This Judgment was passed July 28. Anno. 484.

Faelix gave Notice of this Sentence to Acacius, by his 6th Letter, wherein he tells him, that being found guilty of divers Crimes, of breaking the Canons of the Council of Nice, of Usur∣ping the Jurisdiction of those Provinces that were not subject to him, of having not only recei∣ved into his Communion, but also preferred to the Episcopal Dignity, Hereticks, whom he had heretofore condemned, such as that John, whom he made Bishop of Tyre, although he was not received at Apemaea by the Orthodox, and has been since expelled out of Antioch; such was also the Deacon Numerius, who was Deposed, whom yet he raised to the dignity of the Priesthood. Besides this, he stood Convicted of having placed Petrus Mongus upon the Throne of St. Mark, and received him into his Communion; of having corrupted Vitalis and Misenus to gain their con∣sent to what he desired, instead of obeying and following the Commands, which they had been

injoyned on the part of the Holy See; and by refusing to answer to the heads of the accusation, which John had drawn up against him, he seemed to acknowledge them; That he had since contemned the Deacon Faelix, and Communicated with the Hereticks, and that he did persist in it; so that he did not deserve to be ranked among those that he received to his Communion, and that by this Sentence he declared him to be deprived of his Priesthood, and the Communion of the Catholick Church, faln from the Rights of the Priestly Office, Condemned by the Judgment of Holy Spirit and his Apostolick Authority, and bound for ever with Cords of an Anathema. Nunquam{que} Anathematis Vinculis exuendus. Besides this Letter, there is a kind of a short Decla∣ration against Acacius, in which Faelix declares him deprived of his Priesthood, for having not obeyed the Admonitions of the Holy See, and Imprisoned his Legats; and forbids all Men what∣soever communicating with him, under the Penalty of an Anathema.

He wrote also to the Emperor Zeno the Ninth Letter, in which having complained of the ill Usage that his Legats had met with, he tells him that he had Deposed them, and Deprived them of Communion, for having consented to what Acacius had desired of them. He assures him, that he will never Communicate with Peter, and that he gives him the Liberty to choose the Com∣munion of St. Peter, or Peter Bishop of Alexandria; That he hath also condemned Acacius for being in Communion with Hereticks, and he hoped that the Piety of the Emperor will incline him to suffer the Laws of the Church to be Executed; That he ought to hold this for a certainty, that as God hath entrusted the Sovereignty of things Temporal to Princes, so he hath made the Ministers of the Church Ministers of Spiritual things; and that when the Cause of God is in ••and, the Will of Kings ought to submit to the Ministers of Jesus Christ; that they ought to Learn Holy things of them, and not to meddle with the Office of Teaching others, to follow the Decisions of the Church, and not take upon him to prescribe Laws. This Letter is dated Aug. 1. Anno. 484. Lastly, He lets us know by his 10th Letter to the Clergy, and People of Con∣stantinople, the Judgment passed against Acacius, that they may not too own him for their Bishop, but separate themselves from his Communion.

Tutus the Advocate of the Church of Rome was commanded to carry the Sentence against Aca∣cius, and to declare it to him. He discharged his Commission by fastening it to his Priestly Habit, when he was Celebrating the Holy Mysteries, and by publishing the Declaration made against him; but afterward suffering himself to be corrupted by Maronas he Communicated with Acacius, Faelix having convicted him of it by his own Letter, he put him out of his Advocates Office, and declared him Excommunicated. He signifies it to the Monks of Constantinople by his Eleventh Letter, and advises them to sever from their Communities those who would Commu∣nicate with Acacius; permitting them notwithstanding to receive those, who had been constrain'd to do it by Violence, and did testifie their sorrow for it.

But notwithstanding all the endeavours that Faelix used, his Sentence remained without Exe∣cution, nor did he write again to the Emperor so long as Acacius Lived; but after his Death he thought he had gotten a favourable Opportunity to have his Sentence Executed. Flavitus, who was ordain'd in his place, hoping to be united to the Holy See, wrote to Faelix a Letter, wherein he much extolls the dignity of the See of Rome, and made profession of the Orthodox Faith. The first thing that the Pope did, before he received them to his Communion, was to demand of them whether they Condemned Acacius and Peter. Since they refused to do it, he declared to them, that he would not receive them to Communion, unless they would promise him never to recite the Names of Acacius and Petrus in the Holy Mysteries. The Deputies of Flavitus having an∣swered, That they had no order about that, the Pope resolved to write to Zeno and Flavitus, to obtain of them to grant them what he demanded. The Letters are the 12th and 13th. He did all he could to defend himself against the reproaches, which might be cast on him, by acting in this matter with Authority, Rigour, and Resolution. He assures them, that he carried himself so only to perform his Duty, and do nothing against his own Conscience; He tells them that he desired nothing so much as a Re-union with the Church of Constantinople, and that the two Romes should be at a perfect agreement, but Union could never be obtained by violating the Laws of the Church; That the Council of Chalcedon having condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus, he could not, without contempt of its Authority, receive Timotheus and Petrus, who were of the same Opinions; and that Acacius having received Peter into his Communion after he had him∣self Condemned him, had shewed himself so great a Dissembler, that he deserved the same Punishment; That Peter had manifested no signs of Conversion, but thô he had done it, he ought not to be acknowledged as a Bishop, but only received as a Mere Laick. These are the princi∣pal Matters which Faelix wrote in these two Letters, which are the most Eloquent that ever were Written by any Pope. He had commanded them a little before by his 14th Letter written du∣ring the Vacancy of the See of Constantinople, to Thalassius Abbot of the Monks called Acaemetae at Constantinople, who where entirely Devoted to the Holy See, not to receive the Bishop of Constan∣tinople, nor any other into their Communion, that were not received by the Holy See. 'Twas also certainly in the same Vacancy, that he wrote the 15th Letter to Bishop Vetranio, in which after he hath spoken of the Division of the Church of Constantinople and Rome; and shewed that it was only in Obedience to the Council of Chalcedon, that he hath condemned Acacius, that he might not seem to joyn with the Hereticks as he had done; He desires him to use his utmost interest with the Emperor, to gain his consent, that the Names of Acacius and Petrus might be blotted out

of the Catalogue of Bishops, and by this means the Churches of Constantinople may be re-united. These four Letters are dated in the Year 490.

We have not spoken of the three Letters in Greek and Latin, written about the Affair of Petrus Fullo, who usurped the See of the Church of Antioch, of which two were sent to that pretended Bishop, and the other to the Emperor; being of the Opinion of the Learned M. Valesius, that these three Letters were forged by some Greek, as well as the other Letters written to Petrus Fullo under the Name of several Bishops, and produced, as some pretend, at the Council of Rome held under Foelix in 483, recited in the fourth Tome of the Councils, Pag. 1098, &c. For, 1. All these Letters were written Originally in Greek, and since translated into Latin, as it appears by the Style, which is Barbarous, as well as because there are two different Versions of them. 2. All these Letters are in the same Style, although they were written in the Name of the Bishop of different Countries. 3. They are written in a way unworthy of the Bishops of that time. Those that are attributed to Foelix, differ much from the Letters of that Pope. The Sentence which he pronounces against Petrus Fullo is ridiculous. 4. The Names of the greatest part of the Bishops which write to Petrus Fullo, are unknown; for who ever heard of Faustus of Apollonia, of Pamphilus of Abydos, of Asclepiades of Trall••, of Antheon of Arsinoë, of Quintianus of Ascalon, and Justin of Sicily? Why should these Bishops, of private and inconsiderable Churches, undertake to write to Petrus Fullo? Have we any Examples like it? 5. 'Tis not true, that Petrus Fullo was condemned in a Synod of Constantinople, and another at Rome in 483. He had been so under Pope Simplicius, but since we have nothing spoken of him. He did not begin to re-establish him∣self again till 484. when Calendion was deposed; and therefore 'tis not likely that they would condemn him without Necessity.

I believe also, That the two Forms of Citation to summon Acacius, which are supposed to have been given to Vitalis and Misenus in the Council of Rome held in 483. are a Forgery; for it ap∣pears by the first Letter of Foelix to Acacius, that when he sent Vitalis and Misenus, he had no design of calling Acacius to Rome, and of proceeding against him: He expected only, that he should free himself from the Accusations drawn up against him, by Letter; and he required no∣thing else but that he would do what he could with the Emperor to make him deprive Petrus Mongus, not knowing that he had received him to his Communion.

Lastly, I am perswaded, that the Letter supposed to have been written by the Council of Rome against Acacius to the Clergy, and Monks of Bithynia, is also a supposititious Piece. It hath gi∣ven occasion to M. Valesius to maintain, That there was in that Year two Councils held at Rome against Acacius, and two Excommunications pronounced against that Bishop, the one in a Council of 67 Bishops held July the 28th, and the other in a Synod of 42 Bishops held August the first fol∣lowing. 'Tis true, that so much is intimated in that Letter, but this is the thing that makes it suspected, because these two Condemnations are spoken, of in no place else. Nevertheless, if this second Condemnation were true, Foelix would certainly have mentioned it in those Letters that he wrote afterward against Acacius both in his Life-time, and after his Death: He that with so much Diligence sought out all the Reasons which could be brought against Acacius, would he have for∣gotten the Authority of the second Synod? Would he have passed over this second Condemna∣tion? 'Tis so much the less credible, because it is founded upon a new fault, for having, say they, deposed Calendion, and put Peter Fullo in his place. Would Foelix have neglected to have urged this Reason for the Condemnation of Acacius, being so very plausible an one? Yet he speaks nothing of it in all these Letters. The same Day on which this Council is supposed to be held, Foelix wrote the Sentence, which he would have to be signified to Acacius, wherein he exactly relates all the Reasons of his Condemnation, but speaks nothing at all of this, which would have been one of the principal and strongest. There is therefore no Reason to believe that he was con∣demned upon that account. Besides, what likelihood is there, that there should be two Councils held at Rome in so little a time? Let them not say, that they are two different Sessions of the same Council, for they are under two different Bishops. Lastly, The Ancient Record concerning the Affair of Acacius, which relates exactly all the Circumstances of his Condemnation, speaks of only one, which went before the attempt which he made of putting Petrus Fullo into the See of Constantinople.

We cannot then maintain this Letter written in the Name of the Synod of Rome to the Monks and Clergy of Bithynia, at least as to the second Part; for it is to be taken Notice of, that it hath two Parts. The first is a Relation of the Condemnation of Acacius, as we have already said, which is authorized by Foelix's Letters. The second contains the other Condemnation of Acacius, for having restored Petrus Fullo, which doth not all agree with the History. Nor are either of the Parts in the Style of Pope Foelix, but more especially the last, which is written after an impertinent manner, and contains the forbid Praises of Pope Foelix, calling him Caput nostrum, Papa & Archiepiscopus; Our Head, Pope, and Archbishop; Terms, which were never used in that Age. In an ancient MS. this Letter is dated Octob. 485. This date is evidently false, for 'tis said, That he sent this Sentence by Tutus the Advocate. Now the Voyage of Tutus was in 484. He had not that Title in 485. I spare to mention a great number of places in that Letter, which are such pitiful stuff, that it is impossible to believe that it is a Work written at that time.

But the like cannot be said of Foelix's seventh Letter, concerning those who have been Re-baptized by the Arians. In the ordinary Inscriptions it is directed to all Bishops: But I believe

that we ought to follow the MS of Justellus, where it is directed to the Bishops of Sicily. In this Letter he orders what the Penance of those Persons shall be, who have suffered themselves to be Baptized by the Arians. 1. He observes, that there is a great deal of difference between such as were forced to do it, and those that have done it voluntarily. 2. He asserts, That all those who have been Baptized, ought to do Penance, and submit themselves to Fasting, Tears, and other Acts of Penance. 3. That the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who have been Re-baptized, ought to undergo Penance as long as they live, be de•…•… the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and be excluded the Prayers even of the Catechumens themselves; and that all the favour that can be granted them, is to receive them into Lay-Communion at the point of Death. 4. He imposes upon the other Clergy, Monks, and Virgins devoted to God, who have also suffered themselves to be Re-baptized, twelve Years Penance, three among the Hearers, seven among the Penitents, and two among the Consistents, upon Condition nevertheless, that if they happen to be in dan∣ger of Death, they shall be relieved either by the Bishop, who imposed the Penance, or by some other Bishop, or by a Priest. 5. He ordains, That as to those young Children, whom their Age may excuse, it shall suffice to keep them some time subject to the Imposition of Hands without enjoyning them Penance. 6. He ordains no more than a three Years. Penance for the Clergy, Monks and Lay-Men, who have been Re-baptized by force or subtilty, not having consented to it: But he lays it down as a General Rule, That none of those who have been Baptized; or Re-baptized by Hereticks, should be admitted to Sacred Orders. Lastly, He forbids the Bishops and Priests to receive to Communion the Clergy, or mere Laicks of another Diocess, or Parish, unless they have the Testimonial Letters from their Bishop or Priest. This Letter is dated March 15. Anno 488. We have nothing to observe about the eighth Letter to Zeno Bishop of Sivil, which is nothing but a Recommendation of a certain Person called Terintianus, who had told him of the Welfare of that Bishop. The Letters of this Pope are written in a noble, cogent, and plea∣sant Style.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Faelix III Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.2

  An Or∣der of Monks.
• a 1.3

  Abydos.] Anastasius Bibliothecarius says, that they were seized at Heraclea; but Theophanes assures us, that it was at Abydos.