Epistula extra collectionem 7
The bishops recall the ruling of Gratian against Ursinus, a contender to the episcopacy of Rome against Damasus, in 366 and following bestowal of the judicial prerogatives to the bishop of Rome over all the other bishops in cases regarding religion so that bishops may be free from the jurisdiction of the secular judges (c. 2-3). Now, however, some bishops who were ordained by Ursinus still illegally held their Churches and refuse to abide by the rulings of the bishop of Rome. Therefore, the bishops ask the emperor to enforce the law against those bishops (c. 4-5). The bishops ask also for the action against Bishop Restitutus of Carthage who agreed with the decisions of the Homoian council in Rimini in 359 (c. 6). Further, they ask the emperor to exile Claudianus, a Donatist bishop dispatched from Africa to Rome (c. 7). Then they refer to the present problems of Damasus in Rome against whom the faction of Ursinus is still plotting. They ask the emperor to corroborate the legal procedure that the bishops condemned by Damasus and the council of Rome should follow if they want to remain in their churches (c. 9).
10. Our above-mentioned brother Damasus, seeing that he has received the distinction of your verdict (of acquittal) in his case, ought not be placed in a position inferior to those who are his equals in office, but whom he excels in the prerogative of the apostolic see, (which is what he would be) if he was seen to be subject to jurisdiction of the public courts, from which your law has exempted priests. In making this request he does not appear to be refusing to accept the judgement after the verdict has been pro- nounced, but rather to be claiming a privilege, which you have awarded. As far as the public laws are concerned what life can be safer than one which relies on a judgement of your Clemency? As for the fact that in order to display the clear conscience of a bishop he submitted to the stricter jurisdiction of bishops, by whom not only social but also personal standing is weighed in the balance, (he did this) in case a second slanderer might arise, who while trying to injure the above mentioned would admittedly not be able to harm him, protected as he is by his innocence, but might by attacking its ministers, damage the faith.
11. Accept also this other suggestion by which the holy man desires to confer something on your Piety rather than to obtain something for himself, and not to derogate from anybody's position, but to enhance that of the emperors. For he is not asking for something new but invoking ancestral precedents (with his request) that if a case involving the bishop of Rome is not entrusted to his own council for judging, he should make his defence before the imperial consistory. For when Silvester was accused by sacrilegious persons at Rome he pleaded his own case before your ancestor Constantine. The scriptures furnish similar precedents, namely, that when the holy apostle Paul was suffering violence at the hands of a governor, he appealed to Caesar and was sent to Caesar. Accordingly let your Clemency be the first to examine the case, and discern whether a matter requiring investigation emerges, so that in accordance with the ruling you have deigned to give some time ago, the nature of the facts of the case is inquired into by a judge, but the decision as to the verdict is not demanded from him. So it will be brought about that henceforth no depraved and infamous individual is given an unlawful opportunity to accuse the supreme pontiff, or to bear witness against him, in accordance with the demand of the holy scriptures that no accusation is to be lightly accepted unless there are reliable witnesses, not only if the accused is a bishop, but even if he is a presbyter. For neither a personal enemy, nor a slanderer, nor any individuals of this sort, that is, the kinds of person that have recently emerged as accusers, ought to be given free play, when their manner of life inspires no belief, and the religion of the priest rejects the use of torture on them.
(trans. Liebeschuetz 2010: 253-254; summary M. Szada)
