Letter 14

Pelagius, bishop, to his most beloved brother Benignus, archbishop. Upon reading your letter, dear brother, we recognized the strength of faith we have long known you to possess, and we congratulate you on the vigilant pastoral care you exercise in guarding Christ's flock and your concern for those entrusted to you. For news of good deeds reaches us, and if anything contrary to what is proper should occur, it troubles us with no small grief. Divine grace grants us great cause for rejoicing when it allows us to exchange letters on matters of salutary discipline and brings about the pursuits of peacemakers. Your request, then, seeks the counsel of the apostolic see [the papal office in Rome] on whether it is lawful for a bishop to transfer or move from one city to another, since certain canons — as it seems to you — prohibit this. You have also indicated in your letter that you wish to transfer a certain brother, named and in fact "Servant of God" [Dei Servus], for reasons of usefulness, to the place and city of a deceased bishop, although some say this cannot be done without the consent of the apostolic see. Therefore, know this, most beloved brother: there is a difference between a case of necessity and usefulness on one hand, and a case of presumption and personal ambition on the other. A man does not truly change his see who does not change his purpose — that is, one who moves from city to city not out of greed, desire for power, personal preference, or self-appointment, but is transferred because of necessity or the good of the Church. For the benefit of the many must be preferred to the benefit or wishes of one person. There is a difference between transferring oneself and being transferred, just as there is a difference between serving and being served. As the Lord says in the Gospel: "I came not to be served, but to serve" [Matthew 20:28]. What is read in the canons — that a bishop should not cross over or be transferred from one city to another [Council of Antioch, canon 21] — does not refer to those who act under compulsion, or who are driven by necessity, or who do so on the authority of their superiors. Rather, it refers to those who, inflamed by the burning of greed, leap forward of their own accord and seek to serve ambition rather than the Church's good, eager to exercise dominion. Hence it is also contained in the relevant canons: "If anyone should be so bold" [Council of Sardica, canon 2] "as perhaps to offer the excuse that he received letters from the people and therefore moved — since it is well known that a few people who lack sincere faith can be corrupted by bribes and payments to cry out in the church and appear to be requesting him — we decree that all such frauds must be eliminated." By these words and many other examples, it is clear — as we touched on just above — that the prohibition does not speak of those who, having been expelled or not received by citizens or by anyone else, or compelled by necessity, or acting on the authority of superiors, pass from one city to another. Rather, it speaks of those who leap forward of their own accord, doing so out of recklessness or ambition. For there is a difference between crossing over voluntarily and coming under compulsion or necessity. Such persons do not change cities of their own will but are changed, because they act not voluntarily but under constraint. For who would ever dare to say that Saint Peter, the prince of the apostles, did not act rightly when he moved his see from Antioch to Rome? Or who would deny that he is holy on that account, or that he ever lost his apostolic authority in heaven or on earth? Or who would deny that the many other bishops who were transferred from city to city are saints, or that they lost the dignity of their episcopate? If I began to list their names, the day would pass before I could write them all down, and this letter would become longer than necessary. Or who could ever maintain that Saint Alexander is not holy, he who was transferred to Jerusalem from another city [Socrates, Church History VII.36]? Or Saint Gregory of Nazianzus [Gregory the Theologian], who was established at Nazianzus? Or Saint Proclus, who was transferred from Cyzicus and enthroned at Constantinople? Those who deny that such transfers can be made for reasons of usefulness or necessity do not properly understand the rules of the Church, whenever the common good or necessity calls for it. For we find that none of these men, nor any others who changed cities by wise counsel under some necessity or for the good of the Church, were ever deprived of ecclesiastical or lay communion — nor should this ever happen. As for the ruling contained in the Council of Antioch [canon 21] — that a bishop should by no means move from one parish to another — that ruling, and all similar rulings on this matter, retain the force described above and in no way harm episcopal transfers that have been carried out or may yet be carried out. Indeed, they rather strengthen them, as does the authority of the Lord and Savior, which surpasses all canonical books. Such questions, moreover, seem to arise more from envy than from charity or concern for the good, since Truth itself declares: "If they persecute you in one city, flee to another" [Matthew 10:23], and so forth. No Catholic anywhere can contradict this teaching, which is known to have been spoken and confirmed not by someone else's mouth but by the Lord's own lips. If anyone should contradict it, let him be cast out from the Church not only as an exile but under anathema. And the Lord says elsewhere in the Gospel: "Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness" [Matthew 5:10]. If the Lord calls blessed those who suffer persecution for righteousness, who can condemn them? And if he himself commands fleeing from city to city on account of persecution, who can forbid those who are transferred from place to place and from city to city under such circumstances?

EPISTOLA [Olim. I]. AD BENIGNUM ARCHIEPISCOPUNM *. Reprobat episcoporum de una ad aliam ecclenam tran- situs , ecclesi@ ulilitate id non exposlulanle. Dilectissimo ſratri Benigno archiepiscopo Pelagius B episcopus. Lectis Fraternitatis tuz lilteris (S. Leo, epis. I), vigorem ſidei tuz, quem dudum noveramus, agnovi- mus, congratulantes Dilectioni tuz, quod ad custo- diendum gregem Christi pastoralem curam vigilauter impendis, et pro tibi subditis sollicitus existis. Ad nostram enim |#titiam et benefacta perveniunt (S. Celext., epist. 2); et si aliqua secus quam oporiet provenerint, non modico nos merore conturbant. Magnam enim gratulationem divina concedit gratia (Cone. Tolet. x), quando tribuit inter nos et salutaris discipline normam liltteris conſerre [Al., proferre|, et provenire ad pacificorum studia facit prevplata. Exigit ergo Dileetio tua (flosimus | consulia sedis apostolice, si licitum foret episcopun transire, aut mutare de civitate ad civitatem, dum quidam cano- nes (ut tibi videtar) hoe fieri probibeant. Significasti eliam litteris luis, quemdam fratrem, nomine ct actu Dei Servum, causa ulilitaltis mulare te velle in locum et civilatem deſuncii, licet quidam dicant hoe fieri non licere, nisi [etiamsi] conseusum apostolicz sedis habuisses. Quapropter scias, ſrater dilectissime, aliud esse causam necessilatis et utilitatis, et aliud can- 8am presumptionis et propriz voluatatis. Non ergo mutat sedem, qui non mutat mentem, id ext, qui non causa avaritice, aut dominationis, aut propriz volun- latis, vel suz electionis migrat de Civitale ad civita- tem , sed causa necesvitatis aut ulilitatis mutatur. Nam et plurimorum utilitas unius utilitali aut volun- tati preſerenda est. Aliud est enim mutare, et aliud mutari; sicut alind ministrare , & aliud ministrari. Unde Dominus in Evangelio loquitur, dicens : Non reni ministrari, sed ministrare (Maith. xx). Quod enim in canonibus legitar, non debere episcopum de ci- vitate ad civitatem transire ( Concil. Antioch., can. 21), vel transſerri, non de his dicitur, qui aut vi expulsi, aut _nece-sitate coacti, aut anctoritate majorum hoe agunt : sed de his, qui avaritiz ardore inflammati, * Quin hee sit ex Suppositis Isidori mercibus nemo unquam dubitabit in legendis Yelerum monu- Wenlis exercitalus. Sponte ssua prosiliunt, et potius ambitioni quam nti- litati Ecclesiz servire, et ut dominationem aganl, in- Sislere cupiunt Þ. Unde et in subjectis canonibus continetur : Si aliquis exsliterit temerarius ( Conc. Sard., c, 2), qui forsitan excusationem afferat, quod populi litteras acceperit, et ideo migravit, dum ma- niſestum sit premio et mercede paucos, qui since- _ ram fidem non habent, potuisse corrumpi, ut clama- rent in ecclesia, et ipsum petere viderentur, omnino has ſraudes removendas esse cengemus. His yerbis et aliis multis exemplis liquet non de his dicere ( ut paulo s8uperius prelibatum est) qui pulsi, ut non re- cepti a civibus, vel a quibuscunque, aut necessilate cogeate, vel auctoritale majorum transeunt de civi- late ad civitalem; ssed de his qui sponle prosiliunt, aut lemeritatis, aut ambitionis causa boc faciunt. Nam aliud est sponte transire, et aliud est coacte aut necessitate venire. Unde non isti mutant civita- les, sed mulantur :; quia non sponle, sed coacte hoc agunt. Quis evim unquam audet dicere, sanctum Pe- C trum apostolorum principem non bene egisse, quando mutavit sedem de Antiochia in Romam? Aut quis eum negat ob id sanclum non esse, aut meritum un- quam apostolatus tam in c#lis, quam in terris per- didisse? Aut quis negat Sanctos non esse multos alios episcopos, qui de civitatibus ad civitates trauslati £unt, aut mer.lum pontificatus perdidisse ; quorum nomina si ceperim enumerare, ante dies periransiret, quam bc omnia perscribere possem |[Al., scribi pos- sent |, et prolixior erit epistola quam necesse Sit? Aut quis unquam potest approbare, sanclum non C858 Alexandrum qui Hiervsv|lymam de alters civitate translatus est (Soc. vii, c. 36)? aut sanctum Grego- rium Nazianzenum, qui in Nazianzo conslitutus est? aut sanctum Proclum, qui de Cyzico trauslatus, et D Constantinopolim inthronizatus est? Non ergo bene intelligunt ecclesiastica3 regulas, qui hoc negant causa utilitatis aut necessilalis fieri non posse, quo- lies communis ulilitas' aut necessilas persuagerit Nullus enim ex his, aut ex aliis, qui melori cousilio mulaverunt Civitates necessilale quadaw, vel utilitale ecclesiaslica, aut laica communione Carere reperi- mus, nec ullatenus unquam fieri debet. Senteulia b Bar. anuo 590, n. 7, alque ex eo Binijus hc ediderant t2nquain decimam Pelagii epistolam cjusve ſragmenium. 751 AD EPISTOLAS ET DECRETA PELACGH PAPA MN 752 vero que in Anliocheno concilio habetur (Can. 21), A de loco ad Jocum, et de civitate ad civitatem, tales ut episcopus ab alia parochia nequaquam migret ad aliem, tota, atque omnes senteniiz de ea [eadem] re vim superius comprebensam retinent, et nibil pre- laxato modo translationibus episcoporum actis aut agendis nocent, sed magis robur eis ac Domini Sal- vatoris quz.omnes canonicos Superexallat libros , auctoritatem przstant. Tales autem quzstiones magis ex invidia quam ex Charitate aut utilitale nasci vi- dentur, cum ipsa per se Veritas dical : Si vos perse- culi ſuerint in unam civitatem, ſugite in aliam (Matth. x), el reliqua. Huic ergo senlentie nullus catholicorum usquam contradicere potest, quz non allerius, sed jpsjus proprio Domini ore prolata , et firmata esse dignoscitur. Cui si aliquis contradixerit, non solum extorris, sed etiam anathematizatus ab ecclesia pel- laiur *, Et Dominus in' Evangelio alias dicit : Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propler juslitiam (Matth. v). Si eos Dominus beatos dicit, qui persecutionem pa- tiuntur propler justitiam, quis eos damnare potest? _ Et si ipse de civitate ad civitatem propler persecu- tionem ſugere przcipit, quis eos detrahere, aut dam- nare proplerea audet vel potest, quod verbis domi=- nicis obtemperant? Proſecto is qui contradicit aut resislit, scipsum damnat, quia ori Domini contumax et inobediens exisit. Unde et ipsa per se Veritas di- Cit : Quis ex vobis arque! me de peccato? Si veritatem dico, quare vos non creditis miki ? (ui ex Deo ext, verba Dei audit. Propterea vos non auditis, quia ex Deo non estis (Joan. vm). Omnino oportet Deo obedire plus quam hominibus (Act. v), Et idcirco quod Deo obe- dimus, et de civitate ad civitatem (ipso przcipiente) persecutionis causa, id est, necessilatis aut utilitatis transimus, damnandi sumus? Non omnino, sed po- tivs venerandi atque portandi, quoniam ne ipsis epi- scopis hoc imputari potest. Qui his resistit, proſecto Dei ordinationi resistit, et est infideli deterior : quia melius est non cognoscere viam verilatis, quam post agnitionem retrorsum abire. Nam et ipse Dominus de loco ad locum secessit, id est, transivit, Judzis illum querentibus. Fugiens ille quzrentes et perse- quentes se, dedit nobis exemplum fugere non per- Sequentes , et de Civitate ad civitalem transire, di- cens : Si vos perseculi ſuerint in civitate isla, ſugile in aliam (MWatth. x), et cetera bis similia. Nam si ſu- nequaquam reciperet, nec Serum teneret, nec in aiiis civitatibus eos collocaret. Qui enim persequuntur Domini episcopos, eosque de Ccivilatibus ad civitates lransire compellunt, non eos tantum persequuntur, quantum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, cvjus legatione ſunguntur. Nec ipsi in hoc peccant epi- SCOpi, quoniam- non sponte, sed coacte hoc agunt; ed illi a quibus persequuntur; nec ipsis episcopis hoc imputari potest, sed illis qui eos hoc agere Cco- gunt. Sanctus enim protomartyr Stephanus lapids- batur, sed Jesus suscipiebat plagas. Ideoque unicui- que previdendum est (Hadr., col. , cap. 66) ne ali- quem injuste persequitur, judicet, vel puniat, ne Jesum persequatur, judicet , et puniat. Qui autem B ne