UM M !

^^£TVER@r

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen
New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town
Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai
HUMPHREY MILFORD
Publisher to the University

A HISTORY
OF THE CHURCH
TO A.D. 461

BY

B. J. KIDD, D.D.
WARDEN OF KEBLE COLLEGE ; HONORAEY CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH
AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

VOLUME III
A.D. 408-461

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1922

»vlec\8 9aek v. 3

CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. THE FIRST DECADE (i) : INNOCENT I
DONATISM 

II. THE FIRST DECADE (ii) : AUGUSTINE
JEROME, ALARIC ....

III. THE EAST, c. 410 ....
IV. PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 .
V. PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15
VI. PELAGIANISM (iii) : 415-18, IN PALESTINE
AFRICA, ROME ....

VII. THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM, 418
31 

VIII. AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM
AND THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF
GRACE, 429-529 ....
IX. THE CASE OF APIARIUS .
X. THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II, 408-f50
I. THE GREAT SEES. II. MONASTICISM
XL NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31
XH. THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431
XIII. REUNION: AND THE END OF NESTOEIAN
ISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE, 432-5 .
XIV. EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48
XV. THE LATROCINIUM, 449 .

29 49 54 65 87
115 134 162172 192
218 254277301

VI

CONTENTS

CHAP. XVI. THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 .
XVII. THE CHURCH IN THE WEST UNDER VALEN-
TINIAN III, 425-f55, AND HIS MOTHER,
GALLA PLACIDIA, 425-f50 : (i) THE BAR
BARIAN INVASIONS ; (ii) IRELAND

PAGE 311

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.
XXI.
INDEX

THE CHURCH IN THE WEST UNDER VALEN-
TINIAN III, 425-|55, AND HIS MOTHER,
GALLA PLACIDIA, 425-f50 : (iii) GAUL;
(iv) SPAIN ; (v) AFRICA ....
THE CHURCH IN THE WEST UNDER VALEN-
TINIAN III, 425-t55, AND HIS MOTHEE,
GALLA PLACIDIA, 425-f 50 : (vi) ITALY,
AND ST. LEO THE GEEAT, 440-t61
THE EAST AFTEE CHALCEDON, 451-82 .
THE CHUECHES BEYOND THE EMPIEE .

340

353

380395
414430

ERRATA
p. 214, note 3, for atatement read statement.
p. 349, line 14, far Politus read Potitus.
p. 371, lines 16, 17, far Theodore read Theodoric.
p. 389, last line but two, for Galasius read Gelasius.
p. 414, last line but one, far 519~t27 read 491-f518.
p. 424, last line, for 515 read 519.

PAET III
THE FIFTH CENTURY, TO a.d. 461

2191 UI

Note. — The Documents, to which reference is made in this
volume, are those of Documents illustrative of the History of the
Church, vol. ii, a. d. 313-461 (S.P.C.K.)

CHAPTER I
THE FIEST DECADE (i) : INNOCENT I ; DONATISM
In the West, during the first decade of the fifth century, interest
centres (i) at Rome, where the pontificate of Innocent I, 402-fl7,
coincides with the decline of Milan consequent upon the with
drawal of the Court to Eavenna, 402, and so marks a stage of im
portance in the growth of the authority of his See ; (ii) in Africa,
where the episcopate, led by Aurelius and Augustine and sup
ported from Eome and Eavenna, was engaged in giving the coup
de grace to Donatism, 411 ; (iii) round the great names of Augus
tine and Jerome who were occupied in controversy : Augustine,
404, with Felix the Manichaean ; Jerome and Augustine, to
405, with each other ; and Jerome, 404-6, with Vigilantius ; (iv)
finally, in Italy, where the death of Stilicho, 23 August 408,
was speedily avenged by the invasion of Alaric and the cap
ture of Eome, 24 August 410. Innocent and Donatism will
occupy us in this chapter ; Jerome, Augustine, and Alaric in
the next.

Innocent I x was bishop of Eome from 402-f 17. The feebleness
of all other authority in the West combined with his own character 2
and talents 3 to make of his pontificate an epoch in the develop
ment of the powers of the Eoman see. He was frequently-consulted,
and made good use of decretals in reply. Like other popes he knew
also how to make respectful language a basis for the exercise or the
acquisition of an authority never acknowledged by the applicant,
and to turn every occasion to similar advantage.
§ 1. Thus one of his first acts was directed to Illyria : whither
he dispatched Cum Deus noster i of 402. In this letter he an-
1 For the letters of Innocent I, see P. L. xx. 457-638 ; Jafte, Regesta, i.
44-9 ; cf. Tillemont, Mim. xi. 627-66 ; Milman, Latin Chr.9 i. 104-40.
2 Aug. Ep. cli, § 2 (Op. ii. 518 B ; P.L. xxxiii. 646).
3 Thdt. H. E. v. xxiii, § 12.
1 Ep. i (P. L. xx. 465) ; Jaffe, No. 285.
B 2

4 THE FIEST DECADE (i) part iii
nounces his accession to Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica 383— f410,
and renews to him the office of Papal Vicar in Eastern Illyricum.
which Damasus had first bestowed on Ascholius,1 and Anysius
himself had received first from Siricius2 and then from Anastasius.3
Western Illyricum consisted at this time of seven ' provinces ' in
the ' diocese ' of Italy, six 4 of which lay on the upper waters of
the Danube, the Drave and the Save, and were in the hands of the
barbarians, Alaric having his seat of authority there at Aemona,5
now Laibach ; and the seventh, Dalmatia, with its capital Salona,
being situate on the Adriatic. Ecclesiastically, the six gravitated
towards Aquileia : while Dalmatia, under its metropolitan, the
bishop of Salona, gravitated towards Eome. Civilly, Western
Illyricum was part of the Western Empire. So also had Eastern
Illyricum once been, till 379. It consisted of the two ' dioceses '
of Dacia and Macedonia,6 which together made up the Praefecture
of Illyricum, and extended from Belgrade and Sofia to Cape Mata-
pan and Crete. In that year Gratian handed it over to Theo-
dosius I, and part of the Eastern Empire it remained : though
Stilicho bent all his efforts to recover it for the realm of Honorius.7
But the popes had never allowed it to leave their orbit ; and this
was the purport of the renewal of the Vicariate 8 by Innocent I to
Anysius, and afterwards to his successor, Rufus,9 410-f31. The
bishop of Thessalonica exercised the papal authority there ; and
Eastern Illyricum was thus taught still to look, in things
ecclesiastical, towards Eome, though in things temporal it had
become attached to Constantinople. Nor did the Pope deal with
the affairs of Illyria, only through his Vicar : he dealt with them
direct. Letters of his to the bishops of Macedonia are extant,
regulating the affair of Bonosus and clergy ordained by him 10 ;
1 F. W. Puller, Prim. Saints *, 156, n. 1.
2 Ep. iv (P. L. xiii. 1148 sq.) ; Jaffe, Nos. 257, 259 ; and Leo, Ep. vi, § 2
(Op. i. 620 ; P. L. liv. 617 c), Jaffe, No. 404.
3 Innocent, Ep. i (P. L. xx. 465 a).
4 W. to E. they were : Noricum Ripense and N. Mediterraneum, Pannonia
I and II, Valeria Ripensis, Savia.
6 In Noricum Med., Hodgkin, i. ii. 661, n. 1, 766.
8 Latin was the language of Dacia and Greek of Macedonia, Soz. vn. iv,
§ 1. On Illyricum, and the modern countries it covered, see Hodgkin, i. ii.
677 sqq., n. H.
' Hodgkin, I. ii. 746.
8 On this Vicariate, see L. Duchesne, The Churches separated from Borne,
c. vi.
9 On 17 June 412, Ep. xiii (P. L. xiii. 515-17) ; Jaffe, No. 300
10 Ep. xvi (P. L. xx. 619-21) ; Jafte, No. 299. Bonosus was not bishop of

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 5
re-establishing Photinus, a bishop deposed under misappre
hension by Anastasius 1 ; declining to condemn a deacon, Eusta-
thius 2 ; and condemning two Cretans whose case had been referred
to him.3 It was thus a wide authority that Innocent I wielded in
Illyria. § 2. Nor was his authority less in Spain and Gaul, as is evident
from a series of documents dating from the first years of his ponti
ficate and addressed to the episcopate, or to. individual bishops, of
those countries.
(1) Thus, 402, in answer to congratulations on his accession,
accompanied by a series of questions, from certain Gallic bishops,
Innocent held a Synod at Eome, and replied in its sixteen
canons.4 Clerks [c. 3] in Holy Orders must remain unmarried,
because of their constant attendance upon Baptism and the
Eucharist. Bishops [c. 6] ought to be thoroughly at one in the
faith. At Eastertide [c. 7] the presbyter and the deacon may
baptize, even in the bishop's presence ; but, at other times, the
presbyter only in case of necessity, and the deacon not at all. No
Christian may marry [c. 9] his deceased wife's sister, or [c. 11] his
uncle's wife or child. No one [c. 12] is to be consecrated bishop
unless he be first a cleric. Excommunications [cc. 14, 16] in one
diocese are to be respected elsewhere. And [c. 15] no bishop may
interfere in the diocese of another. ' If these rules be but observed,'
the Synod concludes, ' there will be no schisms nor heresies, and
the Gentiles will say that God is in us of a truth.' 5
(2) Shortly afterwards Innocent sent Etsi tibi, frater,6 of
15 February 404, to Victricius, bishop of Eouen 395-f415.
Victricius was a man of apostolic poverty 7 ; and, as bishop, had
carried the Gospel to the barbarians of what is now Flanders and
Hainault.8 He was a correspondent of Paulinus, bishop of Nola
Sardica (as Marius Mercator, Dissertatio, § 15 [P. L. xlviii. 928 b]) but of
Nish (P. L. xx. 519 a). His heresy [(1) that Mary had other sons, and (2)
adoptionism] and his schism raised the question of the validity of his
ordinations ; whence the interest of the decisions taken by Siricius, Ep. ix
[a. d. 392] (P. L. xiii. 1176-8 ; Jaffe, No. 261), and of Innocent I in Ep.
xvi [a. d. 409], and xvii [a. d. 414], § 8 (P. L. xx. 531 a). See Jaffe, No. 303.
1 Ep. xvii, § 14 (P. L. xx. 535 sq.).
2 Ibid., § 15 (P. L. xx. 536 sq.).
3 Ep. xviii [a. d. 414] (P. L. xx. 537-9).
* Mansi, iii. 1133-40 ; Hefele, ii. 428-30. 6 Mansi, iii. 1139 c.
6 Ep. ii (P. L. xx. 468-81) ; Jaffe, No. 286 ; Tillemont, Mem. x. 667-74 ;
Fleury, xxi, c. li.
7 Paulinus, Ep. xxxvii, § 3 (Op. 224 ; P. L. Ixi. 534).
8 Ep. xviii, § 4 (Op. 99 ; P. L. Ixi. 239).

6 THE FIEST DECADE (i) part in
409-t31, who had seen him with St. Martin at Vienna,1 and also
knew much of him through Paschasius, a deacon of Eouen, whom
he met in Eome.2 Victricius also had visited Rome,3 and was per
sonally known to Pope Innocent : whence, perhaps, his request for
information, § 1, about the rules observed by the Eoman church
in various points of discipline. Innocent replies, § 2, that ' with the
help of the holy apostle Peter, through whom both apostolate and
episcopate in Christ took their beginning ', he is anxious that the
Church should be presented to God " without spot or wrinkle '.
Victricius has done well in looking for a model to the Eoman
church, not that the rules he now sends contain anything new :
they are simply derived from the tradition of the Apostles and the
Fathers, though too generally unknown or disregarded. Then
follow, §§ 3-16, fourteen rules, not unlike those of the decretal of
Siricius to Himerius of Tarragona, and dealing, in the main, with
ordinations and the continence of the clergy. No. 1 forbids
clandestine consecrations by a single bishop or without the con
sent of the metropolitan. No. 3 refers ordinary causes to the com-
provincials but ' without prejudice to the Eoman church which, in
all causes, is to have her customary reverence ' ; while the greater
causes, after the judgement of the local episcopate, are to be ' re
ferred to the Apostolic See, as the Synod has decreed '. The
context would suggest that Innocent held it to have been the
Nicene Synod which gave him this jurisdiction ; but it was actually
the Synod of Sardica. In No. 12 he insists on the undesirableness
of ordaining a person liable to municipal office. He would find
himself deceived if he thought this was a way out of its burdens :
for Theodosius had ordered, 17 June 390, that no born curialis
ordained since 388 should be freed from his obligations except on
condition of renouncing his patrimony 4 ; and he would have ' to
preside, or at least be present, at the heathen shows and games '.
(3) Next year Innocent was consulted again from Gaul, and
dispatched Consulenti tibi,6 of 20 February 405, to Exuperius,
bishop of Toulouse 6 405-fl5. He was one of the most illustrious
bishops of Gaul. Jerome extols his charity. ' No man,' says he,
' is richer than he who carries the Body of the Lord in a wicker
1 Paulinus, Ep. xviii, § 9 (Op. 102 ; P. L. Ixi. 242 b).
2 Ibid., § 1 (Op. 97 ; P. L. Ixi. 237 b).
3 Innocent, Ep. ii, § 14 (P. L. xx. 478 a). * Cod. Theod. xn. i. 121.
5 Ep. vi (P. L. xx. 495-502) ; Mansi, iii. 1038-41 ; Jaffe, No. 293.
6 Tillemont, Mem. x. 617-20 ; Fleury, xxii. iv.

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 7
basket, and his Blood in a glass.' x It would seem that Exuperius,
like Cyril of Jerusalem,2 Ambrose,3 Augustine,4 Chrysostom (if we
may make the natural inference from some of the charges of the
Synod of the Oak), and Deogratias, archbishop of Carthage had
sold the sacred vessels for the relief of the needy ; and Jerome 5 also
ascribes to his merits the preservation of Toulouse, up to 409, the
date of his writing, from the Vandals and other barbarians who
crossed the Ehine, 31 December 406, and overran Gaul.6 Mayence
was taken, and thousands were massacred in church. Worms fell
after a long siege. Eheims, Amiens, Arras, Terouanne, Tournay,
Spires, Strasburg became German towns. Aquitaine, Gascony,
the provinces of Lyons and Narbonne were all laid waste. Spain
was on the point of succumbing 7 ; for Vandals, Alans, and Sueves
swarmed over the Pyrenees on Michaelmas Eve, 409.8 Only
Toulouse held out : by the aid, it was believed, of Exuperius. Such
was his reputation. He now asked the advice of Pope Innocent,
on several points of discipline ; and received, in reply, a decretal
of unusual interest. The Pope begins, of course, § 1, by commend
ing Exuperius for ' following the habit of the wise and referring
doubtful questions to the Apostolic See '. These were seven in all.
No. I (§§ 2-4) concerns the continence of the clergy ; and Innocent
refers him to the rule laid down by Siricius, in the decretal to
Himerius,9 to the effect that married men, after ordination, are not
to cohabit with their wives. No. II (§§ 5, 6) deals with those who,
after baptism, lived a profligate life, and then asked for Communion
at their death. The Pope replies that, in old days, penance only
would have been granted to them, not Communion ; for, when
persecutions were frequent, the Church was afraid that, if restora
tion to Communion were easy, lapses would be common. So her
rule was strict.10 But now she can afford to be merciful. Let them
1 Jerome, Ep. cxxv, § 20 (Op. i. 947 ; P. L. xxii. 1085).
2 Soz. H. E. iv. xxv.
3 De officiis, ii, § 138 (Op. ii. i. 103 ; P. L. xvi. 140).
4 Possidius, Vita, § 24 (Op. x, app. 274 e ; P.L. xxxii. 54).
5 Victor Vitensis, De, pers. Vand. i, § 8 (Op. 7 ; P. L. Iviii. 191 b).
6 Fleury, xxii, c. xvi ; Gibbon, c. xxx (iii. 267 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, i. ii. 739.
7 Jerome, Ep. cxxiii, § 16 (Op. i. 913 sq. ; P. L. xxii. 1057 sq.), and Docu
ment No. 148. The picture is filled out by Zosimus, Hist, vi, § 3, and
Orosius, Hist, vii, § 40 (Op. 576 ; P. L. xxxi. 1165 sq.).
8 Hodgkin, I. ii. 824.
9 Siricius, Ep. i, ?§ 8-11 (P. L. xiii. 1138-41).
10 Thus penance was allowed but once (Bingham, Ant. xviii. iv, § 1),
and sometimes refused absolutely, to criminals, e. g. Cyprian, Ep. lv, § 21
(C. 8. E. L. ill. ii. 638 sq.).

8 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part iii
therefore — .as a protest against the hard-heartedness of Novatian-
ism— have Communion as a Viaticum, for this is now the custom
of the Church.1 In Nos. Ill and V (§§ 7, #, 11) the response to
a question whether a Christian may, as a magistrate, inflict, or as
a petitioner invoke, the punishment of death, is in the affirmative ;
for the State is a Divine Institution. St. Ambrose, when con
sulted upon this head, had returned the same answer.2 No. IV
(§ 10) declares that the guilt of adultery is no greater in a woman
than in a man, but only more patent, as it was in the case of
Jerome's friend Fabiola. She had married a second husband, after
divorcing her first for his vices ; and she had to do penance one
Easter Even at St. John Lateran.3 No. VI (§ 12) requires that
divorce followed by remarriage is to be treated as adultery.4 In
No. VII (§ 13) Innocent sets down a list of ' Canonical Books '. It
agrees with the list of the Council of Carthage, 397, admitting Tobit,
Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees ; and, in the New Testament, ' not
only rejects but condemns all such as have appeared ' (in addition
to our New Testament) ' under the names of Matthew, James the
Less, Peter, John, Andrew, Leucius 'or 'of Nexocharis and
Leonidas, philosophers '.
§ 3. No less important — specially in the liturgical field — is a letter
to one of his suffragans who owed him allegiance as metropolitan
of Rome, viz. Si instituta5 of 19 March 416. It was sent to
Decentius, bishop of Eugubium ; now Gubbio, in Umbria, some
24 miles NNE. of Perugia. Innocent begins, § 1, by requiring
uniformity, in rites and ceremonies, so that the faithful be not
scandalized. The Eoman customs, § 2, ' handed down to the
Roman church by the Prince of the Apostles, Peter', are to be
kept everywhere : the more so as ' throughout Italy, Gaul, Spain,
Africa, Sicily, and the neighbouring islands, no churches were
founded save those for which the venerable Apostle Peter, or his
successors, provided bishops '. The assertion is a bold one. It
ignores the work of St. Paul in the West, and makes large assump
tions about the origins of the churches of Lyons and the neigh
bourhood. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Innocent
claims an authority for the Roman customs only in lands which,
1 Document, No. 124.
2 Ambrose, Ep. xxv, §§ 2, 9 (Op. ii. i. 892 sq. ; P. L. xvi. 1040-2).
3 Jerome, Ep. lxxvii, § 4 (Op. i. 459 sq. ; P. L. xxii. 692)
* Document No. 124, §§ 10, 12.
5 Ep. xxv (P. L. xx. 551-61) ; Jaffe, No. 311 ; Fleury, xxiii. xxxii.

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 9
with Illyricum, make up the legitimate sphere of the Roman, or
Western, patriarchate. He next observes, § 3, that Decentius had
often assisted him in church at Rome, and would know how things
were done there ; and he then goes on to give directions in view
of the hturgical and disciplinary peculiarities of Eugubium. They
are all characteristic of the use which is conventionally called the
' Gallican ' or, by others, the ' non-Roman ', rite of the West ; for
it was found in North Italy, Gaul, Spain, Britain, and Ireland ; and
intrusively, as appears from this important letter, at Eugubium.
No wonder Innocent was taken aback by foreign, or ' non- Roman ',
customs so firmly rooted in a church of his metropolitanate.
Thus, § 4, the Kiss of Peace is not to be given before the Consecra
tion, but after it : i.e. the place, which it occupied in the ' non-
Roman ' rites of Milan x and of the countries beyond the Alps,2 is to
be given up in favour of the place, just before Communion, now
assigned to it in the Eoman liturgy 3 and the Romanized rites of
Milan.4 Similarly, § 5, as to ' the recitation of the names ' s of those
who make offerings at the Mass. ' What had been done at Gubbio
was to read out the names of the offerers at a point in the service
corresponding to that at which the recital of names of offerers and
of the dead is indicated in the Gallican books, i.e. just before the
Gallican post nomina prayer.'6 This prayer belongs to the Offer
tory, and corresponds to the super oblata or ' secret ' of the Eoman
Mass. ' The oblations, therefore, are to be commended first,'
says Innocent, ' and (only) then are the names of those whose they
are to be proclaimed : so that they may be named in the course of
the sacred mysteries [sc. the Canon] — not in the course of those
other things [sc. the Offertory] which we place before, in order to
open the way by (our) prayers for the mysteries themselves that
are to follow.' 7 ' The place in the Canon at which the names were
recited in Eome may be assumed to have been in the neighbour
hood of the Memento vivorum.' 8 Innocent then continues, § 6,
1 In Milan it occurred immediately after ' the Offertory ' and just
before the Oratio super sindonem, or ' Prayers of the Faithful ', Duchesne,
Chr. Worship 5, 207, n. 1, 213. •
2 In Gaul and Spain it followed the Diptychs or ' Great Intercession ',
and immediately preceded the Sursum corda, ibid. 211.
3 Ibid. 184. 4 Ibid. 212.
5 Document No. 128. On the interpretation here adopted, see R. H.
Connolly in J. T. 8. xx. 215-26 (April 1919). 6 Ibid. 221 sq.
7 Tr. from J. T. 8. xx. 221.
8 Ibid. 223.

10 THE FIEST DECADE (i) PART iii
that the custom once common in North Italy,1 Gaul,2 Spain,3 and
Sardinia 4 of allowing presbyters to confirm with oil blessed by the
bishop is to be given up : an interesting decision, for it shows that
the difference between East and West to-day as to the minister of
Confirmation is simply one of discipline, the doctrine behind it
being common to both. This doctrine is that the bishop alone is
the minister, or sacerdos, of his church 5 ; the question being how
much of his spiritual duties he shall delegate to his assistant-
presbyters : baptism, penance, and the eucharist only ? or con
firmation, as the completion of baptism, as well ? Innocent now
resumed for the episcopate a rite with the ministration of which,
as to this day in the East, so formerly in large areas of the West,
the bishop had parted. Next follows an interesting direction, § 7,
to keep Saturday as a fast-day, just as men keep Friday and the
Lord's Day, every week. If the annual commemoration of the
Lord's death and Eesurrection covers three days, so should the
weekly ; it is absurd to keep Friday and Sunday, but not Saturday.
Innocent thus treats Saturday as a fast-day and a non-liturgical
day 6 ; and is here of opinion that Mass ought not to be said either
on Friday or Saturday, any more than on Good Friday and Easter
Even. The fifth direction, § 8, concerns the fermentum1 : a portion
of a Host consecrated at a previous Eucharist, which the Pope sent
round every Lord's Day to his presbyters in order to make their
next celebration of it visibly one with his own, and so to affirm the
unity of the church under its bishop. He confines the sending
of it to the churches of Eome within the city. Then others deal
with the restoration, § 9, of energumens ; the reconciliation, § 10, of
penitents 8 on Maundy Thursday ; and, § 11, the anointing of the
1 Innocent, Ep. xxv, § 6 (P. L. xx. 554 sq.).
2 See Co. of Orange [a. d. 441], cc. 1, 2 (Mansi, vi. 435 sq.), and of Epaone
[a. d. 517], c. 16 (Mansi, viii. 561).
3 See Co. of Toledo I [a. d. 400], c. 20 (Mansi, iii. 1002).
4 Greg. Epp. lib. iv, Nos. 9 and 26 (Op. iii. 689 a, 705 ; P. L. lxxvii. 677,
696), and for this evidence, see Duchesne, Chr. W.6 338, n. 2 ; J. Words
worth, The Ministry of Grace 2, 82, n. 31.
5 The principle runs back to Ignatius, Ep. ad Smyrnaeos, viii, § 2 ; for
its exposition, see Wordsworth, M . C.% 156 sq.
6 The rule, at Milan as in the East, was to keep Saturday as a feast-day
and a liturgical day. Augustine refers to these differences of custom, Ep.
liv, §§ 2, 3 (ut sup.), and Ep. lxxxii, § 14 (Op. ii. 194 ; P. L. xxxiii. 281).
He was for treating them as indifferent ; Innocent for uniformity, in all
churches supposed to have sprung from the Roman.
7 Duchesne, Chr. Worship*, 163, 185; Wordsworth, M. C? 160, 185, 381.
8 Duchesne, Chr. W? 439 sqq. ; Wordsworth, M. <2.2 374.

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 11
sick.1 The oil is to be consecrated only by the bishop (in the East,
to-day, its consecration is further reserved, to patriarchs only) ;
but it may be administered by priests, or by the faithful, to them
selves or to one another. Decentius is then finally reminded, § 12,
that his church should in all things observe the customs of the
church of Rome, to which it owes its origin : ' any further details
you may ask me, and I shall be able to tell you, when we meet.'
So ends not the least interesting, or important, of Innocent's
decretals now under review. There were others to Africa ; but
they are best dealt with later on, in their connexion with the
Pelagian controversy. II
We have now to trace the' decline of Donatism in that country,
401-11. § 4. In 401 the African episcopate, as we have seen, had
taken its own course in dealing with Donatism. At the fifth
African Council,2 of 16 June, Aurelius and his colleagues, in view
of the scarcity of clergy which he deplores,3 ruled, by the first. of
nine canons,4 that Donatists, baptized in infancy, should be
treated, on rallying to the Church, as capable of promotion to Holy
Orders.5 Other canons are aimed at paganism. No. 2 adopts the
fatal policy of force, and entreats the Emperors for the destruction
of its temples.6 No. 4 asks for the suppression of pagan festivals,
with their licentious dancing.7 Others, again, touch upon questions
social or moral. No plays, it is requested by No. 5, are to be
exhibited on Sundays and holy-days.8 No. 7 would forbid actors,
if converted to Christ, to be forced back to their profession.9 No. 8
petitions the Emperors to grant to Africa also the right of eman
cipating slaves in church.10 The sixth African Council,11 of
13 September, returns to the problem of Donatism in the first three
of its nineteen enactments. Aurelius, having read aloud a letter
from Pope Anastasius in which he urged the African episcopate to
1 F. W. Puller, The anointing ofthe sich, 53-61.
2 Mansi, iii. 1023 ; Hefele, ii. 421-3 ; Fleury, xxi. xiii.
3 Cod. can. eccl. Afr., No. lvi (Mansi, iii. 763 a) ; Mon. vet, No. xii (Optatus,
Op. 210; P. L. xi. 1195 sq.).
4 Cod. can. eccl. Afr., Nos. lvi-lxv (Mansi, iii. 763-70) ; Hefele, ii. 422 sq.
6 No. lvii, and Mon. vet., No. xii.
6 No. Iviii. The canon is interesting, as showing where paganism found
its last refuge.
7 No. lx. 8 No. Ixi. 9 No. lxiii. 10 No. lxiv.
11 Mansi, iii. 1023; Hefele, ii. 423-6; Mon. vet. xiii (Optatus, Op. 211 ;
P. L. xi. 1197-9).

12 THE FIRST DECADE (i) partiii
stand firm in its conflict with the Donatists,1 the Synod, by its
first canon, resolved that they should be dealt with ' gently '.2 The
secular judges, however, should be asked, in places where the
Maximianists had got possession of the churches, to inquire pre
cisely what took place at the time of their schism from the main
body under Primian, and to prepare authentic minutes thereof.3
In the second canon the Synod resolved to recognize the status of
such Donatist clergy as might conform 4 ; and, by the third, to send
representatives to Donatist bishops and dioceses in communion
with Primian and explain that they have no grievance against
Catholics, who have only treated them as they themselves
treated their own schismatics of the party of Maximian : con
demning, indeed, their schism but, on the other hand, receiving
individuals and recognizing their baptism.5 Towards the end of
the year Augustine set out the principle of this legislation in his
sixty-first letter, where he puts the attitude of Catholic to Dona
tist in a nutshell. He would receive ' all the good things they had
of God — baptism, ordination, continence, virginity, faith in the
Trinity and so forth. . . .When therefore they return to the Catholic
Church, they do not receive from her what they had before ; but
they receive from the Church what they had not, viz. charity,
which makes what they had of benefit to them.' 6
§ 5. But neither argument nor the intervention of the magis
trates took much effect ; and Donatist intransigence only began
to give way before the policy of union imposed under the governor
ship of Bathanarius,7 Count of Africa 401-f8. He was brother-
in-law to Stilicho ; and the Court could therefore be counted on
by the Church till the murder of Stilicho, 23 August 408, and the
disgrace of his family. For the Government, so long as his power
lasted, would not be likely to forget the support given by the
Donatists to Gildo whose rebellion Stilicho had suppressed.
1 Mansi, iii. 770 sq. ; Mon. vet. xiii (Opt. Op. 211 ; P. L. xi. 1197 d).
2 No.lxvi (Mansi, iii. 771b); Mon. vet. xiii (Opt. Op. 211; P.L. xi. 1198a).
3 No. lxvii (Mansi, iii. 771 c, d) ; Mon. vet. xiii (Opt. Op. 211 ; P. L. xi.
1198 b). The schism took place 392 ; Maximianists to the E. of Carthage ;
Primianists in Numidia and Mauretania.
4 No. Ixviii (Mansi, iii. 771-4) ; Mon. vet. xiii (Opt. Op. 211 ; P. L. xi.
1198 c).
6 No. Ixix (Mansi, iii. 774 o, d) ; Mon. vet. xiii (Opt. Op. 211 ; P. L. xi.
1199). 6 Ep. Ixi, § 2 (Op. ii. 149 ; P. L. xxxiii. 229), and Document No. 172.
7 The Counts of Africa under Honorius were Gildo, 393-8, Gaudentius,
398-401, Bathanarius, 401-f8, Heraclian, 408--J-13, Marinus, 413-14. For
Bathanarius, see Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. v. 525 ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 760.

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 13
(1) The first expedient was that of a Conference ; for after
a Seventh African Council,1 of minor importance, on 27 August 402,
at Mileve in Numidia, it was resolved by the Eighth African
Council, of 24 August 403, at Carthage, to try a new method of
conciliation.2 Not content now merely to leave the door open to
Donatists willing to return to the Church, the Council proposed
to treat with their hierarchy direct, and invite them to a Conference
where the two episcopates might discuss their differences on equal
terms. But the Donatists were difficult of approach ; and recourse
was therefore had to the local authorities as intermediaries. Each
bishop, armed with a letter from the Proconsul or the Vicar of Africa,
was to present himself to the magistrates of the town and get the
letter inserted into the municipal acta, together with a form of
summons to a Conference ; that done, he was to retire. The magis
trate would then read the minutes of these proceedings to the
Donatist bishop and his clergy. But the Donatists took no more
notice of the civil authority than of their ecclesiastical rivals.
Witness the reply of Primian, their primate, as it appears on the
municipal records of Carthage. ' It would be a shameful thing ',
said he, ' for the sons of Martyrs to meet the offspring of Traditors.' 3
. . . ' They bring with them the letters of many Emperors. We
rely only on the Gospels. . . . The true Church is that which
suffers persecution, not that which persecutes.' 4 In Numidia
the Donatist bishops sent a collective refusal5 ; and the project
of a Conference fell through. The refusal, moreover, was re
inforced by violence : Crispinus, for example, the Donatist rival
of Possidius, bishop of Calama, refused the summons of the latter ;
and suffered his relative, a presbyter also named Crispinus, to
attack and maltreat Possidius when on a visitation-tour,6 404.
1 Mansi, iii. 1139 ; Mon. vet. xiv (Opt. Op. 212 ; P. L. xi. 1199) ; Hefele, ii.
427 ; Fleury, xxi. xxv, and Cod. can. eccl. Afr., Nos. lxxxvi-xc (Mansi, iii.
783-7). Note c. lxxxvi for the ' matricula ' of consecrations to be kept by
the Primate who, in Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis, was the senior by
consecration. 2 Mansi, iii. 1155; Hefele, ii. 439; Fleury, xxi. xxvi. For its canons, see
Cod. can. eccl. Afr. xci, xcii (Mansi iii. 787-94 ; Man. vet. xv, xvi ; Opt. Op.
212 sq. [P. L. xi. 1200 sqq.]).
3 Aug. Ad Don. post Coll., § 39 (Op. ix. 604 G ; P.L. xliii. 676).
4 Ibid., § 53 (Op. ix. 612 ; P. L. xliii. 684).
6 Contra Cresc. iii, § 49 (Op. ix. 460 e ; P.L. xliii. 523) ; Ep. cv, § 13 (Op.
ii. 301 n; P.L. xxxiii. 401).
6 Ibid., §§ 50, 51 (Op. ix. 460 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 523 sq.) ; Ep. cv, § 4 (Op. ii.
297 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 397) ; Possidius, Vita, § 12 (Op. x, app. 264 ; P. L.
xxxii. 43).

14 THE FIRST DECADE (i) pabt in
The Circumcellions also, whom Augustine describes as ' the teeth
and heels ' 1 of their party, broke out into fresh fury. They waylaid
Augustine himself, but unsuccessfully. For he happened, that
day, to take the wrong road to his destination, and they were on
the road he should have taken.2 They made brutal attacks on two
other Catholic bishops of Numidia 3 : Servus of Tubursica and
Maximian of Baga'i. The latter they seized at his altar, and beat
him so unmercifully with the fragments of it (for, like an altar at
Alexandria which Athanasius mentions,4 it was of wood) that he
was nearly killed.
(2) With such opponents conference was impossible ; and the
Catholic episcopate determined next to make an appeal to the
civil power. On 16 June 404 the Ninth African Council,5 at Car
thage, resolved to invoke the assistance of the Emperor against
the violence of the Donatists. Some of the older bishops were for
demanding the absolute prohibition of Donatism as a heresy. They
pointed to the success which had attended the pohcy of ' com
pelling them to come in ', notably at Augustine's own birth-place,
Tagaste ; where, in the time of Macarius, 347-8, the people had
been forcibly reconverted to the Catholic Church, and had never
since left it. But Augustine, as yet, was against the use of force 6 ;
and the Council contented itself with asking for protection.7 Its
deputies, Theasius and Evodius, were instructed 8 to say that,
instead of accepting the conferences proposed in the previous year,
the Donatists had indulged in all kinds of outrage. Let the magis
trates therefore be directed to render assistance to the Catholics ;
let the law of Theodosius, In haereticis erroribus,9 of 15 January
392, by which he forbade heretics to ordain under penalty of a fine
of ten pounds of gold, be enforced against all who assault Catholics ;
1 Contra Cresc. iii, § 69 (Op. ix. 470 p ; P. L. xliii. 534). They attacked
the social order, Ep. clxxxv, § 15 (Op. ii. 649 ; P. L. xxxiii. 719).
2 Possidius, Vita, § 12 (Op. x, app. 264 ; P. L. xxxii. 43) ; Enchiridion, § 5
(Op. vi. 201 b ; P. L. xl. 239).
3 Contra Cresc. iii, § 47 (Op. ix. 458 ; P. L. xliii. 521) ; Ep. clxxxv, § 27
(Op. ii. 654 ; P. L. xxxiii. 805).
4 Hist. Ar., § 56 (Op. i. 298 ; P. G. xxv. 760 d). On the material of altars,
see Bingham, Ant. vin. vi, §§ 12, 15 ; Fleury, xxn. vii (ii. 129, note k).
5 Mansi, iii. 1159 ; Hefele, ii. 440 ; Cod. can. eccl. Afr., No. xciii in Mansi,
iii. 794-8, or Mon. Vet., No. xvii (Opt. Op. 214 ; P, L. xi 1202-4)
8 Aug. Ep. xciii [a. d. 408], §§ 16, 17 (Op. ii. 237 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 329 sq.),
and Document No. 175.
7 Ep. clxxxv [a. p. 417], § 25 (Op. ii. 653 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 804).
8 See their Instructions or ' Commonitorium ' in Cod. can. eccl. Afr.,
No. xciii, ut sup. 9 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 21.

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 15
and let Si quis Manichaeus x of 8 May 381, by which he disqualified
heretics from testamentary rights, be applicable to all who shall
persist in remaining Donatists. But, before Theasius and Evodius
reached the Court, Honorius had granted more than they were
instructed to ask. For Servus and Maximian and others, who had
been half-killed by the brutality of the Circumcellions, had reached
Ravenna before them. Showing their wounds,2 they excited such
indignation against the Donatists that the Emperor determined
upon drastic measures.
(3) He renewed the policy of union, formerly so successful in
the hands of Paul and Macarius, the operarii unitatis of 347-8. A
law, now lost but implied by the legislation of the spring of 405,
was promulgated 3 suppressing the Donatist sect ; banishing their
bishops and clergy ; and handing over their churches to the
Catholic hierarchy. Then followed Nemo Manichaeumi of
12 February 405. ' We will hear no more ', said Honorius, ' of
Manichees, or Donatists. There shall be but one religion, the
Catholic' It was known as the Edict of Union5; and it was
followed up by rescripts enjoining it specially on Africa,6 and by
other enactments,7 several of the same date as the Edict,8 intended
to regulate details.9 The Edict was rightly so called ; for, oh the
whole, it had the effect of promoting reunion. Donatists, under
it, were united with 'Catholics in ' one religion ' ; and schism was
now penal. In Carthage, at any rate, there were many who rallied
to the Church, glad to escape from extreme positions with which
they did not sympathize, from the pressure of family traditions,
or from actual terrorism.10 The Edict of Union must, indeed, take
rank with other persecuting edicts ; but the adversaries whom it
smote being the implacable and contemptuous sectaries that
Donatists were, there is this much to be said for it, that it delivered
as many consciences as it enthralled. It is therefore no matter for
1 Ibid. xvi. v. 7.
2 Aug. Ep. lxxxviii, § 7 (Op. ii. 217 b ; P. L. xxxiii. 306).
3 Ep. clxxxv, § 26 (Op. ii. 654 ; P. L. xxxiii. 805 sq.) ; Fleury, xxn. vii.
4 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 38 ; Fleury, xxn. viii.
5 Edictum quod de Unilate, 5 March 405, Cod. Theod. xvi. xi. 2.
6 Ibid.
7 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 37 of 25 Feb. 405 ; xvi. v. 39 of 8 Dec. 405, both to
Proconsul of Africa.
8 Cod. Theod. xvi. vi. 3, 4, 5 ; to Hadrian, P.-P. of Italy.
9 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 40, 41, 43 ; of 407.
10 Aug. Epp. clxxxv, § 29, xciii, § 18 (Op. ii. 655 b, 238 ; P. L. xxxiii. 806,
330).

16 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part iii
surprise that the Tenth African Council,1 23 August 405, welcomed
the new Imperial policy. It resolved that letters should be written
to the magistrates of Africa exhorting them all to be as loyal in the
execution of the Edict of Union as were their colleagues in Carthage ;
and that a deputation should wait upon Honorius to thank him for
' the extinction ' of Donatism. But in Numidia results were not so
happy. The effect of the Edict there was to exasperate Donatist
fanaticism. At Hippo, in 406, the Catholic clergy were reduced
to writing to the Donatist bishop to ask his protection from the
fury of Circumcellions who had seized some of their number and
poured lime and vinegar into their eyes to blind them.2 At Bagai
the Donatists burnt the Catholic church 3 : and there were similar
outrages at Cirta 4 ; in Setif ,5 the capital of Mauretania Sitifensis ;
and in other places. One Donatist bishop boasted that he had
burnt four Catholic churches with his own hands.6 Yet, by 408,
some measure of order had been restored. On the fall of Stilicho
and the murder of his brother-in-law Bathanarius,7 the Donatists
thought, for a moment, that their release had come.8 But power
passed forthwith into the hands of Stilicho's betrayer, Olympius :
a correspondent of Augustine's 9 whose character, perhaps, he
rated too high,10 but a Catholic. He became Master of the Offices,
14 November 408 ; and the anti- Donatist legislation was at once
confirmed, in a rescript u of 24 November, addressed to Donatus,
Proconsul of Africa, 408-10, to whom Augustine wrote a letter of
intercession for the Donatists, praying that he would coerce them
but not put them to death.12 In 409 Olympius had to make, way
for the pagan Jovius. An edict of toleration was obtained ; and
it began to look as if the results of the Union were to be jeopar
dized. But the African Episcopate, from the eleventh to the
thirteenth African Councils, 407-8, had been on the watch. The
1 Mansi, iii. 1159; Cod. can. eccl. Afr. xciv (ib. iii. 799); Mon. vet. xxii
(Opt. Op. 219 ; P. L. xi. 1211 sq.) ; Hefele, ii. 441.
2 Aug. Epp. lxxxviii, § 8, cxi, § 1 (Op. ii. 217 d, 319 E ; P. L. xxxiii. 307,
422) ; and Contra Cresc. iii, § 46 (Op. ix. 458 ; P. L. xliii. 521).
3 Brev. Coll. iii, § 23 (Op. ix. 566 e ; P. L. xliii. 636).
4 Gest. Coll. i, § 139 (Mansi, iv. 123 c ; Opt. Op. 275 [P. L. xi. 1316]).
6 Ibid, i, § 143 (Mansi, iv. 125 a ; Opt. Op. 275 [P. L. xi. 1318 a]).
6 Ibid, i, § 201 (Mansi, iv. 151 B ; Opt. Op. 284 [P. L. xi. 1339 b]).
7 Gibbon, c. xxx (iii. 279 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 756-60.
8 Aug. Epp. xcvii, § 2, c, § 2 (Op. ii. 262, 270 e ; P. L. xxxiii. 358, 367).
9 Epp. xcvi, xcvii (Op. ii. 260-3 ; P. L. xxxiii. 356-9).
10 Zosimus (Hist, v, § 32) speaks ill of him ; but Zosimus was a heathen.
11 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 44.
12 Ep. c, § 1 (Op. ii. 270 b ; P.L. xxxiii. 366). Then followed, 15 January
409, Cod Theod. xvi. v. 46. 'J

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 17
eleventh,1 which met at Carthage, 13 June 407, among its twelve
canons, had petitioned by c. 2 for five executores or exactores to
collect the revenues of the Church2 ; and, by c. 3, for advocates-
known in the West as Defensores Ecclesiae s and in the East as
'Ekoikoi 4 — to keep the magistrates to their duty of protecting it.
And we may, in passing, note an interesting enactment, of c. 9, to
the effect that only such forms of prayer shall be used as have been
examined by the Synod and compiled by enlightened persons.5 It
was aimed at ignorant bishops who declined to be guided, in the
exercise of their ius liturgicum,6 by the considered opinion of experts .
On 14 June 410 the fifteenth African Council7 sent Possidius and
others as a deputation to the Court at Ravenna to procure the
withdrawal of the edict of toleration ; and, on the day after Alaric
entered Rome, they obtained a new edict, Oraculo penitus,8 of
25 August 410, which was addressed to Heraclian, Count of
Africa 408-fl3, and once more established the policy of Union by
repression. § 6. Repression had been proved to be the only method so far
successful in the cause of peace and good order ; and we cannot
wonder, though we must profoundly regret, that Augustine was
at last won over to give it his countenance. It was a step not less
disastrous in the after-history of the Church than the conversion
of Constantine. The Fathers, as a whole, were on the side of
toleration.9 Some, indeed, had condemned persecution when they
were themselves its victims, as Hilary of Poitiers.10 Others con
demned it on principle, e.g. Athanasius u and Chrysostom.12
Others again, as Martin, Ambrose, and Siricius, raised loud protests
against it when they were neither in doctrinal sympathy with
Priscillian, its victim, nor in any danger themselves. And Augustine,
1 Mansi, iii. 1163; Cod. can. eccl. Afr. xcv-cvi (ibid. 799-810) ; Hefele, ii.
442 ; Fleury, xxn. xiv. 2 No. xcvi (Mansi, iii. 802 b).
3 No. xcvii (Mansi, iii. 802 c). The request was granted, 15 November 407,
by Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 38, together with Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 41, of the same
date, suppressing Donatism. For the office of Defensores, see J. Bingham,
Ant. in. xi, §§ 3-5 ; Fleury, xxn. xiv, note p ; W. Bright, Canons 2, 147.
4 Chalc. 2 (ib. xxxix). 5 No. ciii (Mansi, iii. 807 a) ; cf. Hippo, c. 21.
6 On which, see J. Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace 2, 169-71.
7 No. cvii (Mansi, iii. 810 d) ; Hefele, ii. 444 ; Fleury, xxn. xxvi.
8 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 51.
9 The ante-Nicenes (e. g. Tert. Apol. xxiv ; Cyprian, Ep. liv, § 3), as
might be expected, denounced persecution : see M. Creighton, Persecution
and Tolerance, 72 sq.
10 Hilary, Ad. Const. Aug. i, § 6 (Op. ii. 538 sq. ; P. L. x. 561 a).
11 Ath. Apol. defuga, § 23 (Op. i. 264 ; P. G. xxv. 673).
12 Chr. De Sacerdotio, ii, § 4 (Op. i. 375 c ; P. G. xlviii. 635).
2191 ill n

18 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part in
as we have seen, was averse to it, and all for persuasion only, at
first. ' No one should be forced into union with Christ,' he had
said : ' the result would only be that, instead of open heretics, we
should have sham Catholics.' x But he yielded before the prac
tical good that came, as he could not but see, from the penal
legislation of Honorius. About 408 we find him writing that,
while he disliked extreme severities, he thought moderate measures
were good.2 He yielded to a fatal principle. It was fatal to
Augustine himself : for he misuses ' Compel them to come in ' 3 ;
and, in his defence of penal laws, becomes involved in a strange
confusion between providential and merely human penalties, and
between moral and physical pressure.4 It was no less fatal to the
honour of his name. The name of Augustine was, in after days, of
great, and almost final, authority. ' A sermon without Augustine',
ran the Spanish proverb, ' is as a stew without bacon.' 5 To think
then that that great name could be pleaded in so bad a cause ! and
that the question between Augustine and later persecutors was
not one of principle but only of its application. The severities
used towards the Huguenots in the dragonnades of Louis XIV,
1643— f 1715, were justified simply by reference to Augustine.6 The
other Augustine, 597— f 601, gave better expression to the funda
mental principle of the Gospel, when he advised Ethelbert, after
his baptism, to ' compel ' none of his subjects ' to become a Chris
tian: the service of Christ ought to be voluntary, not compulsory'.7 I
And Innocent XI, 1676-f 89, reaffirmed this principle when he \
remonstrated with Louis and told him that ' a man ought to be
drawn and not dragged to the temple of the Lord '.8 But it would
be most unjust to forget the conditions under which Augustine and
his generation were, in the first instance, led to abandon theil
original principle of toleration in favour of penal laws ; and we
have to make allowance for two factors all but incomprehensible
to us — the irreconcilable temper of Donatism, and the sanctity
1 Ep. xciii, § 17 (Op. ii. 237 ; P. L. xxxiii. 329 sq.), and Document No. 175
2 ' Corrigi eos cupimus, non necari,' Ep. c, § I (Op. ii. 270 b ; P.L. xxxiii.
366). 3 Luke xiv. 23 : for the argument built on it, see W. H. Lecky, Hist, of
Rationalism in Europe, c. iv.
4 Ep. xciii, § 5 (Op. ii. 233 ; P. L. xxxiii. 323) ; clxxxv, § 21 (Op. ii. 653;
P. L. xxxiii. 804). v F
6 R. C. Trench, Proverbs and their lessons 10, 65.
„6 V^,H; J,ervis' Hist Gh- France' "• 64 sqq- ; E. Lavisse et A. Rambaud,
Hist. Generate, vi, c. 7.
7 Bede, H. E. i. 26. 8 L. von Ranke, Hist. Popes, ii. 422 (ed. Bolin).

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 19
which, under Caesarism, attached to the ' Celestial Oracles 7 or
edicts, of the Augustus. It is in the Contra Cresconium, written
about 406, that Augustine refers to the worst outrage, that on
Maximian of Bagai', which called forth the edicts 2 ; and accepts,
as if it could scarcely be otherwise, the recent legislation to which
it gave rise. But on 14 June 410, at the fifteenth African Council,
held in Carthage, the episcopate resolved, while sending the
deputation to procure the withdrawal of the edict of toleration,
to try once more what could be done by discussion.3
§ 7. On 14 October 410 they obtained a rescript from Honorius 4
for the Conference of Carthage,5 411.
(1) Marcellinus,6 ' a tribune and notary ',7 i.e. of the class of
dignitaries regularly charged with the execution of Imperial man
dates, was to conduct it as High Commissioner. He landed in
Africa, and took time to study the situation ; for, being a devout
Catholic and a friend of Augustine, he was anxious to let it be
seen that he intended to hold the balance equal between the con
tending parties. He even went so far, in consideration for the
Donatists as, in his proclamation of February 411, explanatory
of the Imperial rescript, to modify its tone in their favour. The
bishops, he says, Catholic and Donatist, are summoned to meet
at Carthage within four months from date, i.e. by the first of June.
Magistrates are to call their attention to the summons. If the
Donatists accept the invitation, they are to be put into possession
again of any churches from which they may have been evicted, in
order that, the status quo ante being renewed, the discussion might
begin on fair terms. If they doubt the High Commissioner's
impartiality on the ground that he is a Catholic, he will be glad to
accept an assessor of their own persuasion ; and he promises them
a safe-conduct not only to Carthage but back to their homes.8
1 Gest. Coll. i, § 4 (Opt. Op. 246 ; P. L. xi. 1260 b).
2 Contra Cresc. iii, §§ 47, 51 (Op. ix. 458-62 ; P. L. xliii. 522, 525) ; Fleury,
xxn. viii. 3 Cod. can. eccl. Afr. cvii (Mansi, iii. 810 d).
4 q.v. in Gest. Coll. i, § 4 (Mansi, iv. 53 sq. ; Opt. Op. 246 sq. [P. L. xi.
1260 sq.]). It contains Ea quae, the rescript in question ; the whole being
addressed to Marcellinus, as his commission to preside at the Conference.
6 On which see the Gesta Collationis in Mansi, iv. 7-286, or in Opt. Op.
225-332 (P. L. xi. 1223-1433) ; Tillemont, Mem. vi. 188-91, xiii. 499-504,
516-61 ; Fleury, xxn. xxviii-xl ; and Augustine's resumi of the Gesta in
his Breviculus Collationis, written c. 411 (Op. ix. 545-80 ; P. L. xliii. 613-
50). 8 Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 501-3. 7 Fleury, xxn. xxvi, note z.
8 Gest. Coll. i, § 5 (Mansi, iv. 54-6 ; Opt. Op. 247 sq. [P. L. xi. 1261 sq.] ;
Excerpta ad Don. Hist. pert, in Aug. Op. ix, app. 50 sq. [P. L. xliii. 817-19]) ;
Fleury, xxn. xxviii, and Brev. Coll. i, § 2 (Op. ix. 546 ; P. L. xliii. 614).
C2

20 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part ra
(2) The Donatist bishops accepted the invitation ; and, by way
of impressing their strength upon the pubHc mind, entered Car
thage, in a body, 18 May1 to the number of two hundred and
seventy-nine. The Catholics numbered two hundred and eighty-
six.2 When all had arrived, the High Commissioner issued a
second order in which he fixed the date and the place of meeting,
1 June, in the Baths of Gargilius. Each party was to choose seven
representatives to address the Conference, seven more as counsel,
and four, besides, to superintend the officials of his Commission
who were to take the minutes. No one but these eighteen on either
side was to be admitted. All the bishops of either side were to
declare in writing, before the discussion opened, that they would
be bound by whatever their deputies did in their name. They were
also to admonish their people in sermons to keep the peace. The
Maximianists were not to be admitted ; and the Primates of each
party, Catholic and Donatist, were to give the Commissioner
guarantees, under their sign manual, from all its members that they
accepted his order in every detail.3 These guarantees the
Donatists handed in, 25 May, under the signatures of their two
Primates, Januarian, bishop of Casae Nigrae, and Primian, bishop
of Carthage 4 : while the Catholics complied by a letter subscribed
in the name of all, by Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and Primate of
Africa, and Silvanus, bishop of Summa and Primate of Numidia.5
' If the Donatists are converted,' they add, ' and induced to join
the Church, the Catholic and Donatist bishops shall occupy the
throne by turns ; no innovation, for it has prevailed in Africa from
the first, in the case of episcopal converts from schism. But if the
people are scandalized at there being two bishops allowed in one
place, then both shall resign and a third be elected.' 6 It was the
most memorable thing in connexion with the Conference ; and
their efforts after peace were well seconded by two sermons 7 of
1 Gest. Coll. i, § 14 (Mansi, iv. 60 b ; Opt. Op. 249 [P. L. xi. 1266 c] ; Aug.
Op. ix, app. 52 o [P. L. xliii. 821]).
2 Brev. Coll. i, § 14 (Op. ix. 550 e ; P.L. xliii. 620).
3 Gesta Coll. i, § 10 (Mansi, iv. 57-9 ; Opt. Op. 248 sq. [P. L. xi. 1263-6] ;
Aug. Op. ix, app. 51 sq. [P. L. xliii. 819-21]) ; Fleury, xxn. xxviii.
4 Gest. Coll. i, § 14, ut sup. ; Brev. Coll. i, § 4 (Op. ix. 545 sq. ; P. L. xliii.
615). 4
5 Gest. Coll. i, § 16 (Mansi, iv. 61-3 ; Opt. Op. 249 [P. L. xi. 1267] ; Aug.
Op. ix, app. 53 c [P. L. xliii. 821]) ; Fleury, xxn. xxix.
f « Aug. Ep. cxxviii, § 3 (Op. ii. 378 E ; P.L. xxxiii. 489) ; Brev. Coll. i, § 5
(Op. ix. 546 ; P. L. xliii. 615).
7 Serm. ccclvii, ccclviii (Op. v. 1391-8 ; P. L. xxxix. 1582-90).

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 21
Augustme, preached to the Catholics, in view of the arrival of the
Donatists, during the Whitsuntide Ember Days,1 17-20 May, on
the blessedness of the peacemakers. ' Don't say, when you see
the Donatist rival of your bishop coming, " I can't stand So-and-so,
because he slanders my bishop." The best service you can do your
bishop just now, is not to take up and defend his cause. You would
like, however, just to tell the fellow your mind ? Well : I don't
say,"Be silent", but "Speak: onlynottohim, but to God/or him".'2
(3) On 1 June 411, the day appointed, Marcellinus and his
suite took their places in the great hall of the Baths of Gargilius 3 ;
and the bishops, eighteen for either side, were ushered in.4 The
seven Catholic disputants 5 were headed by Aurelius the Primate,
Augustine and his two friends, Alypius of Tagaste and Possidius of
Calama. The chief representatives of the Donatists 6 were Primian,
their Primate at Carthage, the violent Petilian of Cirta in Numidia,
the voluble Emeritus of Caesarea in Mauretania, and the fanatical
Gaudentius of Tamugada in the heart of the country of the Circum
cellions, and, like Bagai, one of the strongholds of Donatism. The
Donatists declined the invitation of the High Commissioner to be
seated.7 ' I have hated the congregation of the wicked,' they
said, ' and will not sit among the ungodly.' So Marcellinus
announced, with no less tact than courtesy, that he would stand
too 8 ; and for eleven hours, during the whole of a long summer-
day, the Court was held, all standing. But the day was wasted
in preliminaries, for the Donatists were bent on obstruction. All
the bishops on either side had to be challenged, 266 Catholic 9 and
1 Serm. ccclvii, § 5 (Op. v. 1394 v ; P.L. xxxix. 1585).
2 Ibid., § 4 (Op. v. 1393 a ; P.L. xxxix. 1584).
3 Gest. Coll. i, § 1 (Mansi, iv. 51 c ; Opt. Op. 246 [P. L. xi. 1257]).
4 Ibid., § 2 (Mansi, iv. 52 sq. ; Opt. Op. 246 [P. L. xi. 1259]) ; Fleury,
xxn. xxxii.
5 Chosen, 30 May, and nominated in the Mandatum Caiholicorum : Gest.
Coll. i, § 55 (Mansi, iv. 74-80, ad fin. ; Opt. Op. 256 [P. L. xi. 1273 A] ;
Aug. Op. ix, app. 53-8 [P. L. xliii. 821-7]) ; Fleury, xxn. xxxi. It is a
lengthy document, and important, for in it the Catholic bishops give
a summary of their argument both as to the question of principle and as
to the question of fact. See also Brev. Coll. i, § 10 (Op. ix. 548 d ; P. L.
xliii. 617).
8 Gest. Coll. i, § 148 (Mansi, iv. 128 ; Opt. Op. 276 [P. L. xi. 1320 b]) ;
25 May.
7 Gest. Coll. i, § 144 (Mansi, iv. 126 c ; Opt. Op. 276 [P. L. xi. 1319 a]).
8 Gest. Coll. ii, §§ 3-5 (Mansi, iv. 168; Opt. Op. 290 [P. L vi. 1353 sq.]) ;
Brev. Coll. ii, § 1 (Op. ix. 551 d ; P.L. xliii. 521).
' The number of signatories to the Mandatum Caiholicorum of 30 May
Gest. Coll. i, § 58 (Mansi, iv. 81 b ; Opt. Op. 276 [P. L. xi. 1273 c]) : see also
§214.

22 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part in
279 Donatist 1 — a wearisome business 2 for them, but outof it emerges
a situation of interest to us. Reckoning 120 absentees and 64 sees
vacant, the Catholic episcopate of Africa then had a total of 470
prelates ; the Donatist returns, though not so complete, point to
a figure not much less. It was ' the eleventh hour ' 3 by the time
that these tiresome formalities were over ; and the Conference ad
journed, according to the interval required by the president for the
transcribing of the minutes, till the next day but one ; but this
second meeting, of 3 June, was wasted over other details.4 Not
till 8 June was the Conference resumed. At first, it looked as if
mere obstruction would once more triumph ; for the Donatists
insisted on raising questions as to which side was plaintiff and
which defendant,5 and which had the right to the description
' Catholic '.6 But, in the course of the discussion the Donatists, at
last, were brought to the main point, and put in a document which
they had been preparing since the first session.7 It was in answer
to the instructions 8 given by the Catholic episcopate to its dele
gates at the first meeting ; and, as these instructions recited both
the Scriptural passages 9 on which the Catholic theory of the
Church rested and the various instruments, back to the days of
Constantine, by which they claimed that the facts as well were on
their side,10 the controversy was, at last, to be taken on its merits.
Augustine who, so far, had scarcely opened his mouth, now took
the lead. For he forced his opponents to face the question of prin
ciple, and to examine the arguments from Holy Writ which
represents the Church not as a select community of saintly persons
but as a mixed society in which, till the Final Judgement, ' the
1 Gest. Coll. i, § 213 (Mansi, iv. 163 c ; Opt. Op. 288 [P. L. xi. 1350 a]).
2 Described in Gest. Coll. i, §§ 99 sqq. ; (Opt. Op. 260 sqq. [P. L. xi. 1280
sqq.]) ; and Brev. Coll. i, §§ 12, 14 (Aug. Op. ix. 549 sqq. ; P. L. xliii.
618 sqq.).
3 Gest. Coll. i, § 219 (Mansi, iv. 164 a ; Opt. Op. 289 [P. L. xi. 1352 a]).
4 Gest. Coll. ii (Mansi, iv. 167-82 ; Opt. Op. 290-4 [P. L. xi. 1353-63]).
6 Gest. Coll. iii, §§ 15 sqq. (Mansi, iv. 184 sq. ; Opt. Op. 295 [P. L. xi.
1365 sq.]).
6 Gest. Coll. iii, §§ 22 sqq. (Mansi, iv. 185 ; Opt. Op. 295 sq. [P. L. xi.
1366]) ; and Brev. Coll. iii, § 3 (Op. ix. 554 c ; P.L. xliii. 623).
7 Gest. Coll. iii, § 258 (Mansi, iv. 235-41 ; Opt. Op. 313-15 [P. L. xi.
1408-14] ; Aug. Op. ix, app. 64-7 [P. L. xliii. 834-8]) ; Brev. Coll. iii, § 10
(Op. ix. 558 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 628) ; Fleury, xxn. xxxviii.
8 Mandatum Caiholicorum in Gest. Coll. i, § 55, ut sup.
9 i. e. ' The Wheat and the Tares, the Threshing-floor, the Sheep and
the Goats, The Net, ibid., § 4 (Aug. Op. ix, app. 55 sq. ; P. L. xliii.
824). ^
10 Ibid., § 6 (app. 57 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 82G sq.).

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 23
evil be ever mingled with the good '-1 If that be so, he argued,
whatever the merits or demerits of Caecilian and his consecrator,
Felix, their guilt affected no one but themselves. It could not
prevent the Church from being the Church.2 The discussion then
naturally turned to the question of fact 3 ; and the documents
relating to Caecilian, from the time of Constantine onwards,4 on
which the Catholics had customarily based their defence, were read
and considered. So also were those which the Donatists held to
make for their contention. But these latter were shown to be but
few, and were found, on examination, as in the case of the records
of the Council of Cirta,5 4 March 305, to make against them. Sup
posing Caecilian was condemned by the Council of Carthage, 312,
to which the Donatists assigned so much importance, no more
prejudice ought thence to attach to him than should ensue to
Primian who was condemned in absence by a Council of Maxi
mianists at Cabarsussi, 393 : precisely as Caecilian had been con
demned, while absent, by the partisans of Majorinus. ' Ah ! but ',
said one of the Donatist spokesmen somewhat incautiously, ' the
affair of one man does not in any way affect the case of another.'
But this was the standing contention of the Catholics, so far as
the question of principle went. Let the crimes alleged against
Caecilian be proved to have been what they may, yet this would
in no way have affected his successors and the bishops of Africa ;
still less, the Universal Church.6 It was then substantially shown,
by the reading of further records, that Felix had been cleared and
that, in one court after another, Caecilian had been acquitted ;
till at last, the definitive sentence of Constantine, 316, had finally
pronounced him innocent.7 Marcellinus, at length, declared the
discussion at an end ; and directed the bishops to withdraw till
he had drafted his decision. It was night by the time that he was
ready to read it ; and lights were brought in before the bishops
1 Gest. Coll. iii, § 261 (Opt. Op. 316 ; P. L. xi. 1414 c), ' Quaestio de
ecclesia,' &c, Document No. 126; Aug. Op. ix, app. 68 b (P. L. xliii. 838 sq.).
The Gesta break off in the middle of the argument ; and, for the remainder,
recourse must be had to Brev. Coll. iii, §§ 15, 16 (Op. ix. 562 sq. ; P. L. xliii.
631 sq.).
2 Brev. Coll. iii, § 23 (Op. ix. 566 a ; P.L. xliii. 637).
3 Brev. Coll. iii, §§ 24-42 (Op. ix. 567-79 ; P. L. xliii. 637-50).
4 Beginning with the Report of Anulinus in 313, Documents, i, No. 217.
6 Documents, i, No. 216.
6 Brev. Coll. iii, § 28 (Op. ix. 570 e ; P.L. xliii. 641).
7 See the documents connected with the five investigations in Documents,
i, Nos. 191, 199, 218, 200, 201, 219, 198.

24 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part in
re-entered. The High Commissioner then delivered judgement in
favour of the Catholics on every count.1
(4) On 26 June he supplemented it by an edict,2 not now as
judge but as the executive officer charged by the Emperor to carry
his sentence into effect. As no one ought to be condemned, he
begins, for the faults of another, the misdeeds of Caecilian, had
they been proved, could not have affected the Universal Church ',
but it had been proved that Donatus was the author of the schism,
and that both Caecilian, and his consecrator, Felix, were blameless.
Magistrates, proprietors, and tenants, therefore, are to put an end
to Donatist meetings for worship, in cities and on their estates.
Churches, temporarily restored to the Donatists, are to be handed
over to the Catholics. All Donatists who refuse to join the Church
shall be subject to the rigour of the law ; their bishops, for the
better execution of this edict, are to return home at once ; and
lands, where Circumcellions are reported, shall be immediately
forfeit. There was an appeal, of course, from this edict, by the
Donatists ; but it resulted only in their final condemnation. By
Cassatis quae3 of 30 January 412, Honoriusp, nnulled all rescripts
that they might have obtained in their favour, and confirmed all
former laws by which they had been condemned. Freemen were
to be fined, and slaves to be beaten. Their clergy were to be
deported, and their churches restored to the Catholics. It was
the death-blow to Donatism. Marcellinus, indeed, was involved
in the overthrow 4 of his friend Heraclian, and was put to death,5
13 September 413, by Marinus now Count of Africa, 413-14. The
hopes of the Donatists rose once more. But Marinus was soon
superseded 6 ; and edicts, confirmatory of the measures of re
pression 7 as of the official minutes of the Conference,8 dashed them
again ; while, in place of Marcellinus, another Commissioner,
Dulcitius, was appointed to enforce the union. Donatist bishops
and their flocks came over in crowds.9
1 Brev. Coll. iii, § 43 (Op. ix. 579 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 650).
2 For the Sententia Cognitoris in Gest. Coll., ad fin. (Opt. Op. 317 ; P. L. xi.
1418-20); or Aug. Op. ix, app. 69 sq. (P. L. xliii. 840 sq.); Fleury, xxn.xl.
3 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 52, and Aug. Op. ix, app. 70 sq. (P. L. xliii. 841 sq.).
4 Gibbon, c. xxxi (iii. 338 sq.) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 828.
6 Jerome, Dial. adv. Pel. iii, § 19 (Op. ii. 804 ; P. L. xxiii. 588 c) ; Aug.
Ep. cli, § 3 (Op. ii. 518 e ; P.L. xxxiii. 617) ; Fleury, xxm. xi.
6 Orosius, Hist, vii, § 42 (Op. 583 ; P. L. xxxi. 1171 b).
7 17 June 414 ; Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 54.
8 30 August 414; Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 55.
» Possidius, Vita, § 13 (Op. x, app. 265 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 44).

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 25
§ 8. It only remains to notice the literature of the last crisis of
Donatism. (1) The edicts provoked a fresh outbreak of Circumcellion fury
in which Restitutus, a priest of Hippo, was murdered x ; and Inno
cent, another cleric, suffered mutilation.2 The ringleaders were
brought before Marcellinus, 412. He extorted a confession from
them but used no tortures properly so called, such as fire, iron
hooks, or the ' Little Horse ', but only the scourge which, as
St. Augustine observes, ' is used by teachers of the liberal arts, by
parents, and often by bishops themselves in the administration of
justice '. 3 An interesting confession : revealing, as it does, both
the barbarity of the time and the way in which Christianity miti
gated the rigours of the law and, in its theology, was in turn
influenced by them. In these and other cases Augustine employed
his privilege of intercession, against extreme penalties, both with his
friend Marcellinus and with the Proconsul Apringius 4 his brother.
It was about this time that he was engaged upon a long and
interesting letter to the High Commissioner 5 in answer to some
difficulties felt by a thoughtful inquirer named Volusian, a Roman
noble who was uncle to Melania the younger, and was ultimately
persuaded by her to become a Christian. One of his difficulties
was the oft-debated question whether the precepts of the Sermon
on the Mount did not make civil government impracticable.
' These precepts ', says Augustine, — as to ' turning the other cheek '
and ' not resisting him that is evil ', — ' relate rather to the inward
disposition of the heart than to the outward conduct.' Moreover,
our Lord, before Caiaphas, did not act upon this precept ; but, in
a Court of Justice, demanded justice.6 ' Further,' says Augustine,
' severities to criminals may be the truest mercy, and war itself
may be waged in conformity with the benevolent design that, after
1 Aug. Epp. lxxxviii, § 6, cv, § 3 (Op. ii. 297 E ; P.L. xxxiii. 305, 397) ;
Contra Cresconium, iii, § 53 (Op. ix. 462 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 525).
2 Ep. cxxxiii, § 1 (Op. ii. 396 ; P. L. xxxiii. 509).
3 Ibid., § 2 (Op. ii. 396 e ; P. L. xxxiii. 509) ; Fleury, xxn. xxvi, and
Document No. 177.
4 Ep. cxxxiv (Op. ii. 397-9 ; P. L. xxxiii. 510-12) ; Fleury, xxn. xlvii
The Proconsul of Africa ruled only over ' Zeugitana ', the other five pro
vinces being under the Vicar of Africa; but both were of small authority,
at the opening of the fifth century,1 compared to the military ruler of the
Diocese, viz. the Count of Africa, Hodgkin, I. ii. 242 sq.
6 For the letter of Marcellinus and Augustine's answer, see Epp. cxxxvi,
cxxxviii (Op. ii. 400 sq., 410-19 ; P. L. xxxiii. 514 sq., 525-35).
6 Ep. cxxxviii, § 13 (Op. ii. 415 b ; P. L. xxxiii. 530), and Document
No. 178.

26 THE FIRST DECADE (i) part ui
the resisting nations have been conquered, provision may be more
easily made for enjoying in peace the mutual bond of piety and
justice.' x The Sermon on the Mount, in short, represents only part
of our Lord's teaching. In our day, as in Augustine's, men get into
difficulties by not looking for its counterpart, in the rest.2
But to return to the edicts. The work of union went on apace ;
and the magistrates, under the direction first of Marcellinus and
then of his successor Dulcitius, took care that they should be put
into execution.
(2) Meanwhile, every publicity was given to the Minutes of the
Conference. They were posted up at Carthage ; and there, as at
Tagaste, Constantine, Hippo, and other places, they were read
in church during Lent.3 But they were too lengthy 4 to take much
effect, so they were put out, in summary form, by Augustine in his
Breviculus Collationis,5 412, with a view to getting the proceedings
of the Conference fully known. Such was the object also of the
letter of the Council of Numidia held at Cirta, 14 June 412, which
they addressed to the Donatist laity. It ranks as Augustine's one
hundred and forty-first epistle, and was not without effect.6 For,
in the next, he congratulates the people of Cirta on their return
to the Church ; 7 while he made further appeal to the Donatist
laity, in his Ad Donatistas post Collationem,8 412, not to allow them
selves to be misled by anything that their bishops might report
to the discredit of the Conference, as that the Catholics had bought
a verdict.9 (3) Two curious episodes bring out, one the sullen, and the other
the fiery, type of fanatic who had to be reconciled.
In 418 Augustine had occasion10 to pay a visit to Caesarea in
Mauretania. Here he met the Donatist bishop of the place,
1 Ep. cxxxviii, § 14 (Op. ii. 415 g; P. L. xxxiii. 531), and Document
No. 178.
2 See C. Gore, The Sermon on the Mount, 86 sq.
3 De gestis cum Emerito, § 4 (Op. ix. 627 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 700).
4 They consisted originally of 587 articles, the titles of which have come
down to us, but of these only 281 are extant, Gest. Coll. (Opt. 245 ; P. L. xi.
1258) ; Fleury, xxn. xl. It is quite enough to read 39 articles in church !
6 Op. ix. 545-80 (P. L. xliii. 613-50).
6 Ep. cxli (Op. ii. 456-61 ; P. L. xxxiii. 577-83) ; Fleury, xxn. xlix.
7 Ep. cxlii (Op. ii. 461-3 ; P. L. xxxiii. 583-5).
8 Op. ix. 581-616 (P. L. xliii. 651-90).
9 Ibid., § 57 (Op. ix. 615 B ; P. L. xliii. 687).
10 On business committed to him by Pope Zosimus, Possidius, Vita, § 14
(Op. x, app. 266 c ; P.L. xxxii. 45) ; Epp. cxc, § 1, cxciii, § 1 (Op. ii. 700 B,
711 B ; P.L. exxxii. 857, 869) ; Floury, xxiii. lv.

chap, i INNOCENT I ; DONATISM 27
Emeritus, who had been one of their spokesmen at the Conference.
Most of his flock had rallied to the Church, but a few still clung
to him. Meeting him in the street, Augustine proposed that they
should continue their conversation in the church. So they with
drew thither x ; and, as the discussion between two such protago
nists drew crowds to hsten, Augustine took occasion to address
them in his Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem,2 in the course
of which he repeated the offer, made at the Conference, to receive
Emeritus and others, as bishops, if they would be reconciled.3 Two
days later, 20 September, 418, a conference was held, of which the
minutes have come down to us in the De gestis cum Emerito.* But
Emeritus would not be drawn. For all his facility of speech at
Carthage, he confined himself now to a protest against the use
wliich the Catholics were making of that Conference. ' The minutes
show ', he said, ' whether I gained or lost : whether I was overcome
by truth or by force.' 5 Then he relapsed into silence. He lost
a few more adherents. But he was not himself disturbed.
Next year, 419, Dulcitius, as High Commissioner, visited Tamu-
gada (Timgad) to carry out the pohcy of union ; and wrote, for
the purpose, to Gaudentius the Donatist bishop, who had also been
one of the champions of his party at Carthage. Timgad was in the
centre of the Circumcellions' country, in the Aures mountains ; and
its bishop, though a cultivated and eloquent man, was touched with
their fiery temper. He had threatened, if the edicts were imposed
there, to burn himself and his flock, with the church over their
heads. Dulcitius wrote to dissuade him ; but he replied in two
letters, reaffirming his resolve : and these Dulcitius forwarded to
Augustine for an answer.6 Hence, after a time (for Augustine wrote,
at first, that he was too busy 7), the Contra Gaudentium8 420.
Gaudentius had appealed, by way of precedent, to the case of the
Jew, Razis, who ' fell upon his sword ' to avoid slavery 9 (2 Mace.
xv. 7-46) . In Book I, Augustine accepts 2 Maccabees as Scripture 10 ;
1 De gestis cum Emerito, § 1 (Op. ix. 625 c ; P.L. xliii. 697).
2 Op. ix. 617-24 (P. L. xliii. 689-98).
3 Sermo, &c, § 1 (Op. ix. 618 b ; P.L. xliii. 691).
4 Op. ix. 625-34 (P. L. xliii. 697-706) ; Fleury, xxiii. lv.
5 De gestis, § 3 (Op. ix. 627 d ; P. L. xliii. 700).
« Retract, ii, § 59 (Op. i. 61 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 654) ; Fleury, xxiv. c. xxn.
7 Ep. cciv, § 4 (Op. ii. 765 r ; P. L. xxxiii. 940).
8 Op. ix. 635-76 (Op. xliii. 707-52).
• Ep. cciv, §§ 6, 7 (Op. ii. 766 ; P. L. xxxm 941).
10 Contra Gaud, i, § 38 (Op. ix. 655 sq. ; P. L. xlm. 729).

28 THE FIRST DECADE (i)
and, in commenting on the case, observes that it is irrelevant.1
The object of the penal laws against the Donatists is not their death
but their reformation ; or, at the worst, their banishment.2
Gaudentius sent a rejoinder 3 ; and in Book II Augustine replies
with a final answer. Both parties address themselves, with weari
some calm, to the well-worn arguments — Gaudentius torch-in-hand
the while !
We do not know whether Emeritus remained a Donatist to the
end, or whether Gaudentius carried out his threat. Dulcitius pro
posed to Augustine eight questions on several passages of Scripture,
and Augustine rephed, 422-5, by extracts from his other works, in
the De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus,1 and specially from a book that
he had written about 421, for the High Commissioner's brother,
entitled Enchiridion ad Laurentium.5 It was ' an excellent abridge
ment of divinity '. Eighteen years later, by the capture of Car
thage,6 October 439, the Vandals became masters of Africa 7 ; and
a Donatist was at liberty to please himself. The Laws of the
Empire had ceased to run in Africa. Donatism also ceased to be
of importance ; but there were Donatists in Numidia to the days
of St. Gregory the Great,8 and till the Arab invasion.
1 Contra Gaud, i, § 36 (Op. ix. 654 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 728).
2 Ibid., § 41 (Op. ix. 657 sq. ; P. L. xliii. 731).
3 Ibid, ii, § 1 (Op. ix. 665 v; P.L. xliii. 741).
4 Op. vi. 121-40 (P. L. xl. 147-70).
5 Op. vi. 195-242 (P. L. xl. 231-90). e Fleury, xxiv. xxiii.
7 Ibid. xxvi. xiii; Gibbon, c. xxxiii (iii. 403 sq.); Hodgkin, I. ii. 932.
For the wickedness of Carthage, which was the real reason of her downfall,
as indeed of that of the Empire too, see Aug. Conf. iii, § 1 (Op. i. 87 d ;
P. L. xxxii. 683) ; Ep. cxxxviii, § 14 (Op. ii. 416; P. L. xxxiii. 531), and
Document No. 178; and Salvian, De gub. Dei, vii, §§ 16, 17 (Op. 160-4;
P. L. liii. 142-5).
8 See the extracts from his letters in Opt. Op. 334-6 (P. L. xi. 1435-8).

CHAPTER II
THE FIRST DECADE (ii) :
AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC
III
Augustine and Jerome, while the former was still in the thick
of the conflict with Donatism, were brought into controversy :
first, Augustine with the Manichaeans ; then Jerome and Augus
tine with each other ; finally, Jerome with Vigilantius. Shortly
afterwards, Alaric captured Rome.
§ 1. Augustme, in 404, had to deal with Felix the Manichaean.1
Felix was one of their elect, and of their doctors. He came to
Hippo to spread the tenets of his sect 2 ; and, after a first conference
in which he undertook to maintain the truth of the writings of
Manes, a second was agreed upon, to be held in the church of
Hippo. It took place 7 and 12 December 404 ; and the minutes,
as taken down by notaries public, have come down to us as De
actis cum Felice Manichaeo.3 Felix had given a guarantee to the
magistrates that he was ready to be burnt, with his books, if
anything in them were found false 4 ; for then, as during the
Reformation, a champion staked his life before a Disputation by
way of attesting his sincerity.5 Thus challenged, Augustine took
up the letter of Manes which his followers called the Epistle of the
Foundation,6 and which he had dealt with, some eight years
previously, in his Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vocant Funda-
menti? ' Prove to us ', he asked, ' how Manes is an Apostle ;
for we do not find him in the Gospel.' 8 ' Nay : but you prove
to me how Christ fulfilled his promise to send the Holy Ghost.' 9
Augustine read the story of the descent of the Holy Ghost at
1 Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 412-14 ; Fleury, xxi. Iv-lvii.
2 Retract, ii, § 8 (Op. i. 45 ; P. L. xxxii. 633).
3 Op. viii. 471-500 (P. L. xiii. 519-52) ; Possidius, Vita, § 16 (Op. x,
app. 267 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 46 sq.).
4 De act. c. Pel. i, § 12 (Op. viii. 479 v>; P.L. xiii. 527).
5 e. g. Farel and the Anabaptists in dispute at Geneva, 14 March 1537,
B. J. Kidd, Documents, No. 287.
6 De act. c. Fel. i, § 1 (Op. viii. 471 B ; P.L. xiii. 519).
7 Op. viii. 151-82 (P. L. xiii. 173-206).
8 De act. c. Fel. i, § 1 (Op. viii. 471 d ; P. L. xiii. 519). 9 Ibid, i, § 2.

30 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) partiii
Pentecost, from the Acts of the Apostles.1 Whereupon Felix
demanded : ' Give me then one of the Apostles who may either
teach me what Manes taught, or else demolish his doctrine.'2
' Manes ', said Augustine, ' had not made his appearance in the
days of the Apostles ; but I will tell you of one of them who
condemned his teaching by anticipation ; ' and he read from
1 Tim. iv. 1 how ' in the latter times some should depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to
be received with thanksgiving'. ' Did Felix agree that all meats
were pure, and marriage lawful ? ' 3 Felix shied at the query,
and proceeded : ' You say that the Holy Ghost came in Paul.
But Paul wrote that our knowledge is imperfect ; yet that, when
perfection shall come, our knowledge will be superseded. Well :
Manes is come now. He has taught us the beginning, the middle
and the end ; he has instructed us in the creation of the world,
the causes of day and night, the courses of sun and moon ; and,
as we have not found these things in Paul or the other Apostles,
we believe him to be the Paraclete.' 4 We need not plunge into
the abysses of ' the Persian tale ',5 nor pursue further the meander-
ings of the Disputation. The chief attraction of Manichaeism,
as Felix here admits was its promise to gratify curiosity about
the material universe. We should look upon any such promise,
on the part of a rehgious teacher, as a sure sign of charlatanism ;
but, in a world which knew nothing of scientific research, the
promise was alluring. This may well account for the fact that
Manichaeism was a long-lived error ; and reappeared again and
again till it was put down in the crusade against the Albigenses,6
1208-29. Quite as attractive was the attempt of Manichaeism
' to turn the Gospel into a philosophy of nature ; for men are
always ready to substitute the speculative for the practical'7
when they want a way of escape from the difficulties of things
as they are. So the Manichaean professed to give demonstration,8
and by that means to dispense with faith ; in particular, to give
knowledge of the physical universe, which Christianity does not
1 De. act. c. Pel. i, § 4. 2 Ibid, i, § 6. 3 Ibid., § 7. 4 Ibid., § 9.
6 De utilitate credendi, § 36 (Op. viii. 70 d ; P. L. xiii. 92).
0 Gibbon, c. liv (vi. 124) ; R. C. Trench, Med. Ch. Hist. c. xv ; C. Hard-
wick, Middle Ages, 188 sq., 286 sq,
7 R. C. Trench, Hulsean Lectures for 1845 5, 21.
8 Aug. Conf. iii, § 12, v, § 12 (Op. i. 92 d, 112 d ; P. L. xxxii. 688, 711).

chap, n AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 31
pretend to bestow. The followers of Manes, therefore, would
fill up the blanks of this defective system, while exploiting its
terms, such as ' redemption ', ' restoration ', and the Hke, for his
own purposes ; and looking down upon the ordinary Christian
as unscientific and credulous.3 Of such contempt, Augustine's
Contra Faustum Manichaeum,2 c. 400, furnishes us with the best
examples. A good deal of it is occupied with the refutation of
what then passed for ' science ' but to us seems the wildest non
sense : yet we find ourselves met there by many of the modern
objections to Christianity, e.g. disparagement of the Gospel-
narratives ; criticism of the two genealogies, as at variance with
each other 3 ; the substitution of mere behef for duty,4 and a good
deal of subjective criticism of the New Testament.5 It was,
however, in offering to satisfy the demand that a man ought to
be able to find in the Bible an ' Inquire-within-upon-every thing ',
that the strength of Manichaeism lay. This was the claim for
superiority which — to return to the Disputation — Felix put in
for Manes. ' He is the Paraclete, and will teach us everything.'
' But we do not read in the Gospel ', rephed Augustine, ' that
Christ hath said, " I send you the Paraclete to instruct you con
cerning sun and moon ". His design was to make Christians, not
mathematicians ; but if Manes has told you all the secrets of
this world we live in, then tell me how many stars there are.
You are bound to answer me, since you assert that the Holy
Ghost has taught you things of this kind.' 6 Felix found himself
in a difficulty, and asked for a delay.7 A second Disputation was
held on 12 December, when Felix yielded to Augustine's argu
ments and had the candour to become a Catholic.8 Augustine,
in previous works, had shown that the supreme need is not
scientific attainments, but to know God ; and that, while demon
stration has its place, yet faith is a reasonable principle.9 In the
De natura boni contra Manichaeos,10 c. 404, he proceeded to show
1 Aug. Conf. vi, § 7 (Op. i. 122 e ; P. L. xxxii. 722).
2 Op. viii. 183-470 (P. L. xiii. 207-518).
3 Contra Faustum, iii, § 1 (Op. viii. 189 c ; P.L. xiii. 213).
4 Ibid, v, § 3 (Op. viii. 196 ; P. L. xiii. 221).
5 Ibid, xxxii, § 7 (Op. viii. 454 d ; P. L. xiii. 501). Note § 8 where
Augustine appeals, in reply, to the doctrine of a progressive revelation.
6 De act. c. Fel. i, § 10 (Op. viii. 477 b-e ; P. L. xiii. 525).
7 Ibid., § 20 (Op. viii. 485 o ; P.L. xiii. 534).
8 Ibid, ii, § 22 (Op. viii. 500 e ; P. L. xiii. 551 sq.).
9 e. g. in De util. cred. of 391 and De fide rerum quae non videntur of 399,
ut sup. w Op. viii. 501-18 (P. L. xiii. 551-72).

32 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) part in
that God is the sovereign-good, and that evil is not in natures
proceeding from Him, but in a perverted will ; and he followed
it up by the Contra Secundinum Manichaeum,1 c. 405, in which
he answers the charge of having abandoned Manichaeism oat
of fear, and for the sake of his prospects.
About the same time, in a pamphlet now lost, he replied to a
retired Colonel, named Hilary, who had lost his temper with the
clergy over a new piece of ritual — not ceremonial 2 — lately intro
duced at Carthage, where they had taken to singing Psalms at
the Offertory and during the Communion.3 The chants in question
consisted of the Responsory Psalm called the Ojfertorium in the
one place and the Communio in the other. These two, with the
Introit, were ' covering ' chants, to be sung while long ceremonies
were going on. They must be distinguished from Gradual,
Alleluia, and Tract which were sung for their own sake while
nothing else was going on, and represent the ancient psalmody
alternating with the lessons of the Synagogue service.4 All this,
however, was new to the gallant Colonel on half-pay ; and he is
the first on record of a goodly company who have similarly em
ployed their leisure in our own day.
§ 2. In this year, 405, there came to an end a correspondence 5
which had gone on at intervals for some ten or twelve years and
had brought Jerome and Augustine into controversy, 394-405,
over matters of more interest to us than Manichaeism. Two
questions of moment were involved. First, Could the Septuagint
claim an absolute authority ? or, to put it the other way round,
Was Jerome right in undertaking a new revision from the Hebrew
such as we learn from the Prologus Galeatus of 391 he had then
in hand, at the risk of shocking prepossessions in favour of familiar
versions ? Secondly, Was St. Peter's weakness and St. Paul's
rebuke at Antioch simulated or real ? Each of the two great
1 Op. viii. 523-48 (P. L. xiii. 577-602).
2 A ' rite ' is the Order or Form of Service ; * ceremonies ' are the acts,
gestures, or ornaments used for its expression : see Archbishop Benson,
Read and others v. the Bishop of Lincoln, 70 sq.
3 Retract, ii, § 11 (Op. i. 45 f ; P. L. xxxii. 634).
4 Duchesne, Chr. Worship 5, 169, 173 sq., 187.
6 Jerome, Epp. cii, ciii, cv, cxii, cxv (Op. ii. 632-761 ; P. L. xxiii. 830-
935) ; and Aug. Epp. xxviii, xl, lxvii, lxxi, lxxiii, Ixxxii (Op. ii. 45-203 ; P. L.
xxxiii. 111-291); Tillemont, Mem. xii. 269-82, and^xiii. 300, 385 sq. ;
Fleury, xxi. xxviii, xxix ; J. B. Lightfoot, On afresh revision ofthe English
N. T?, % 1 ; and, for the chronology of these letters, H. Grutzmacher,
Hieronymus, i. 82-5.

chap, n AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 33
Doctors at length gave up an impossible position. Augustine
came to acknowledge the value of an independent translation
from the Hebrew original. Jerome learned the more important
lesson that Scripture could authorize no pious frauds. This
Augustine felt keenly. His experience of Manichaean impostures
prepared him to insist with special energy on the duty of truth
fulness in the cause of Truth.
Jerome had begun to hear of Augustine soon after the latter's
conversion in 386 ; for Augustine's friend Alypius, shortly before
he became bishop of Tagaste, 394-f429, paid him a visit at
Bethlehem, 393. On his return, Alypius probably told Augustine
of the tasks upon which Jerome was engaged, as we know he
told him of Jerome's personal appearance *¦ — his translations from
the Hebrew, as of the Book of Job, c. 393, and his commentaries
as on Galatians, 386-7. Augustine thereupon wrote him his
twenty-eighth epistle, 394, which initiated the controversy.
He begs that, in translating the Old Testament, Jerome would
note places where he diverges from the Septuagint, ' whose autho
rity is worthy of the highest esteem ' 2 ; and then he goes on to
urge that to take the dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul as
a piece of acting 3 got up in order to impress upon Christians the
blameworthiness of a Christian keeping the ceremonial law, as
Jerome had taken the scene in his commentary | on Galatians*
was to admit a dangerous principle. ' If you once admit into such
a high sanctuary of authority [as Holy Scripture] one false state
ment as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single
sentence of those books which, on appearing to any one difficult
in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be
explained away as a statement in which, intentionally and under
a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true.' 5 The
letter remained unanswered for nine years. It was entrusted to
Profuturus,6 a friend who was making a journey to Palestine.
But just as he was starting he was made bishop of Cirta, and died
shortly afterwards,7 without having either sent the letter on
to Jerome or returned it to Augustine. A year or so later, Augus
tine would seem to have sent Jerome a salutation at the end of
1 Aug. Ep. xxviii, § 1. 2 Ibid., § 4. 3 Ibid., § 3.
4 ' Simulata contentio,' Comm. in Gal. [ii. 11 sqq.] i, § 2 (Op. vii. 408 ;
P. L, xxvi. 340 c). 6 Aug. Ep. xxviii, § 3. 6 Ibid., § 1.
7 Aug. Ep. lxxi, § 2 (Op. ii. 160 B, c ; P. L. xxxiii. 241) ; cf. xl, § 8, and
Jerome, Ep. cv, § 1.
2191 in pj

34 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) partiii
a letter x to which Jerome replied by a subdeacon named Asterius
in a letter of 397 now lost.2 To Augustine's surprise, he made no
allusion to the letter sent by Profuturus ; and, surmising that it
had never reached him, Augustine, 397, wrote again, in his
fortieth epistle. Here he goes over the ground again,3 and asks
Jerome for a ' palinode ' in reparation for the wrong he had done
to ' Christian truth '.4 But this second letter of Augustine's
miscarried. For Paul, to whom he had entrusted it,5 proved
untrustworthy ; and let it be circulated in Rome and in Italy
without taking care that it should be forwarded to Jerome. It
was seen by the deacon Sisinnius in an island of the Adriatic ;
who, five years afterwards, told Jerome, 402, of its contents, at
Bethlehem.6 Jerome suspected something wrong ; but, unlike
himself, kept quiet. Then Augustine heard, through some
pilgrims returning from Palestine, what the state of affairs there
was. He at once wrote a third, and short, letter — his sixty-
seventh, of 402 — to excuse himself ; saying that the rumour of
his having published a book against Jerome and sent it to Rome
was quite untrue : he had merely sent a private and friendly
letter to express a difference of opinion on a point of Scriptural
interpretation.7 To this Jerome replied, in his hundred and
second letter, of 402, that he will not write in reference to the letter
which Sisinnius had shown him till he hears that it is really
Augustine's.8 But ' because you are young ', he adds, ' do not
challenge a veteran in the field of Scripture : for, like old Entellus,
I can still hit hard if I am roused ! ' 9 Augustine, in reply, sent
a fourth letter — his seventy-first epistle — by Cyprian the deacon,
403. He enclosed copies of his earlier letters by Profuturus, by
Paul,10 and by a third person n ; and explained how the first had
miscarried. Then he begged Jerome to translate the Scriptures
into Latin from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew,12
enforcing his request by the story of his colleague, the bishop of
Oea, in Tripoli : who, in reading Jonah iv. 6, almost broke up
the peace of his diocese by substituting the hedera of Jerome's
new version for the cucurbita which had been of old familiar to
1 Aug. Ep. xl, § 1.
2 Jerome, Ep. ciii, § 12. On the date, Tillemont, xii, n. lxxii ; Griitz-
macher, i. 83.
3 Aug. Ep. xl, §§ 3-6. 4 Ibid., § 7. « Ibid., § 9.
6 Jerome, Ep. ov, § 1. 7 Aug. Ep. lxvii, § 2. 8 Jerome, Ep. cv, § 10.
9 Ibid, cii, § 2. 19 Aug. Ep. lxxi, § 2. ll Jerome, Ep. cv, § 1.
12 Aug. Ep. lxxi, § 4.

chap, n AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 35
the senses and memory of all the worshippers and had been
chanted for so many generations in the church.1 Before receiv
ing this letter and its enclosures, Jerome wrote, in his hundred
and fifth letter of 403, to say that he had not yet received Augus
tine's original letter, nor an authenticated copy of that which was
published in Italy and shown him by Sisinnius 2 ; and he adds,
not unnaturally but rather testily, by way of conclusion : ' Fare
well, my son in years, my father in ecclesiastical dignity ; and
please take care, after this, that I be the first to receive whatever
you may write to me.'3 To this Augustine replied by a fifth
communication, reckoned as his seventy-third letter of 404, which
he sent by Praesidius, a bishop to whom he also gave copies of
the earlier correspondence, both Jerome's and his own. He
begged that the matter might be treated as between friends,
and not grow into a feud like that between Jerome and Rufinus.4
On receipt of this, Jerome was in a position, at last, to answer the
letters which Augustine had dispatched by Profuturus, Paul,
and Cyprian — the three principal letters 5 of the series. Cyprian
was in a hurry to return ; and Jerome had but three days in
which to reply before he started back.6 But, in his hundred and
twelfth letter of the end of 404 (for he mentions that Chrysostom
was no longer bishop of Constantinople 7), he touched on all the
points raised ; and, on the question of the scene at Antioch,
appealed to Origen,8 Chrysostom,9 and other Eastern expositors
to bear him out. ' They do not defend the use of falsehood in
the interest of religion, as you charge them with doing, but they
teach the honourable exercise of a wise discretion — in answer to
Porphyry who says that Peter and Paul quarrelled with each
other in childish rivalry.' 10 The tone of this reply was rather
tart ;' and, to excuse it, Jerome wrote again, the short letter sent by
Firmus, 405, which ranks as his hundred and fifteenth. ' Let us
exercise ourselves in the field of Scripture without wounding
each other.' No sooner had Augustine received this appeal than
he replied to Jerome's hundred and fifth, -twelfth, and -fifteenth,
in a sixth and long letter of 405 (his eighty-second), which was
the last that passed between them in this controversy. He goes
over the ground once more ; but the interest of the letter lies in
1 Aug. Ep., § 5. 2 Jerome, Ep. cv, § 1. 3 Ibid., § 5. 4 Ibid., § 6.
6 i. e. Aug. Epp. xxviii, xl, lxxi. 6 Jerome, Ep. cxii, § 1.
7 Ibid., § 6 ; Chrysostom left CP. 20 June 404.
8 Ibid., § 4. 9 Ibid., § 6. 10 Ibid., § 11.
D 2

36 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) part ra
its obiter dicta. It contains Augustine's famous tribute to Holy
Scripture : ' I have learnt to yield this respect and honour only
to the canonical books of Scripture : of these alone do I most
firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error 
As to all other writings ... I accept their teaching as true . . .
only in so far as they have succeeded in convincing my judgement
of its truths, either by means of these canonical writings them
selves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.'1 It also con
tains his no less celebrated testimony to the superiority of the
episcopate. ' I pray you ', he says, ' correct boldly whatever you
see needful to censure in my writings. For although ... a bishop's
rank is above that of a presbyter, nevertheless in many things
Augustine is inferior to Jerome.' 2 But throughout this corre
spondence Augustme showed himself the superior in something
better than rank. He proved himself the true gentleman, which
Jerome never was. On the merits of the question, each had some
thing to learn : Augustine, the reverence due to the original in
the interests of truth, and Jerome the supreme claims of truth
fulness in the same cause. They parted wiser men ; and—
wondrous to relate of a quarrel to which Jerome was a party —
better friends.
§ 3. Far different was the issue of the strife between Jerome
and Vigilantius,3 404-6.
Vigilantius was of Gallic birth,4 c. 370, the son of an innkeeper
at Calagurris,5 now Cazeres, in Aquitania II. The village was
in the district of Convenae 6 (Comminges), and lay on the high road
from Aquitaine into Spain : whence the inn between St. Bertrand-
de- Comminges and Toulouse, and in the diocese of Toulouse.
Vigilantius, whom Jerome calls Dormitantius and a tapster,7 was
employed in youth at his father's trade. But he was of a studious
disposition ; and Sulpicius Severus,8 363-f425, who had estates
in those parts, took him into his service, possibly as steward of
his property. He was ordained in the diocese of Barcelona,9
and, through Sulpicius, became acquainted with Paulinus,
1 Aug. Ep. lxxxii, § 3. 2 Ibid., § 33.
3 Tillemont, Mem. xii. 192 sqq., 266 sqq. ; Fleury, xxn. v, vi ; J. H.
Newman, Ch. F. c. xv.
4 Gennadius, De script, eccl., § 36 (P. L. Iviii. 1078).
5 Jerome, Adv. Vig., § 1 (Op. ii. 387 ; P. L. xxiii. 340 a).
6 Ibid., § 4 (Op. ii. 389 ; P. L. xxiii. 342 A).
7 Ibid., § 1 (Op. ii. 387 ; P. L. xxiii. 339 a).
8 Tillemont, Mim. xii. 586-611. » Gennadius, ut sup.

chap, ii AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 87
bishop of Nola 2 409-f31 ; a man who, after filling the high office
of Consul, 379, devoted himself to the life of an ascetic, 894, and
carried reverence for the saints, especially for St. Felix of Nola,
further than it had yet gone. After visiting Paulmus, 395,
Vigilantius set out for the East, 396, with letters of introduction
from Paulinus to Jerome 2 ; and it is pertinent to notice that,
shortly before this, Jerome had written to dissuade Paulinus
from making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the ground — already
taken by Gregory of Nyssa3 — and afterwards to be taken by
St. Boniface,4 in 748 — that places of pilgrimage, Jerusalem in
particular, were morally bad.5 Vigilantius was honourably
received by Jerome at Bethlehem, and was there at the time of
the earthquake in 396.6
But, before long, disagreements arose. Perhaps association
with three men of the hagiolatrous type in succession had by this
time become somewhat oppressive to Vigilantius ; perhaps the
atmosphere was simply stormy, as it periodically became, wherever
Jerome was. Anyhow, he begged to take leave ; and without
giving any reason. He returned to Gaul ; and, settling in his
native country, began to spread reports of Jerome as a partisan
of Origen. Jerome sent him a letter of rebuke,7 396. Then there
was a lull till some eight years later, when Riparius, a Gallic
presbyter, informed Jerome of the new teaching which Vigilantius
was spreading abroad against relics 8 and the keeping of Vigils 9 ;
and that, not without the favour of Exuperius, his bishop.10
Jerome replied in a letter of 404 which, for all its indignation,
is of interest as an absolute disclaimer, on his part, of the worship
of any other but God. ' We honour the relics of the martyrs, that
we may adore Him whose martyrs they are.' u Similar disclaimers
1 Paulinus, Ep. v, § 11 (Op. 25 ; P. L. Ixi. 172 c) ; for his life, see Tille
mont, Mem. xiv. 1-146.
2 Jerome, Epp. Iviii, § 11, Ixi, § 3 (Op. i. 327, 350 ; P. L. xxii. 686,
605). 3 Greg. Nyss. Ep. ii (Op. iii ; P. G. xlvi. 1012 d).
4 A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, Councils, &c., iii. 381.
5 Jerome, Ep. Iviii, § 4 (Op. i. 321 ; P. L. xxii. 582), and Document No. 145.
6 Adv. Vig., § 11 (Op. ii. 397 ; P. L. xxi. 340).
7 Ep. Ixi (Op. i. 347 sq. ; P. L. xxii. 602-6) ; important for Jerome's
admissions and disclaimers of Origenism.
8 Jerome, Ep. cix, § 1 (Op. i. 725 ; P. L. xxii. 906).
9 Ibid., § 3 (Op. i. 728 ; P. L. xxii. 909).
10 Ibid., § 2 (Op. i. 726 ; P. L. xxii. 907) ; Adv. Vig., § 2 (Op. ii. 388 ;
P. L. xxiii. 340).
11 Ibid., II, ut sup.

38 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) part in
are common in the Fathers x ; but the purpose of the letter was
to ask Riparius for the pamphlet of Vigilantius.2 This Riparius
sent him ; and, in a single night,3 for the messenger, Sisinnius,
was in haste to be gone,4 Jerome dictated ' the most extreme
and least convincing ' of his works, the Contra Vigilantium,5 406.
According to Jerome, Vigilantius had written ' not hastily, under
provocation, such as he may have felt on leaving Bethlehem ' ; but
deliberately, after the lapse of several years. He ' denied that
religious reverence is to be paid to the tombs of the martyrs '.
' Vigils ', he says, ' are to be condemned ; Alleluia must never be
sung except at Easter ; continence is a heresy ; chastity a hot-bed
of lust.' 6 This hardly reads like a dispassionate'summary ; and
we may take it that Vigilantius assailed, somewhat coarsely
perhaps, certain growing customs that he felt to be dangerous :
the reverence paid to relics by carrying them in costly shrines or
silken wrappings ; offering them to be kissed,7 with prayers to the
martyr ; vigils at the tombs of the martyrs, with their attendant
scandals,8 and with tapers,9 alleged miracles,10 and the like ; the
sending of alms to Jerusalem u which, as Vigilantius urged, had
better be spent on the poor at home than on persons living in the
Holy City under vows of poverty 12 ; and an exaggerated estimate
of virginity.13 A temperate warning would have been a well-timed
service to religion. For there were dangerous elements at work
in these observances. Augustine had not failed to notice the risks
belonging to wakes, and to popular devotions to pictures 14 ; while
Jerome himself admits the mischief that went on between lads
and lasses at the Easter Vigil.15 But Vigilantius assailed all with
indiscriminating impetuosity. He denounced all reverence for
the relics of the martyrs, and so needlessly offended a not un
natural Christian sentiment. For while the memory of persecution
1 e. g. Mart. Pol. xvii, § 3 ( = Eus. H. E. iv. xv, § 42) ; Ath. Orat. c. Ar.
ii, § 23 (Op. ii. 388 ; P. G. xxvi. 196 a) ; Epiph. Haer. lxiv (Op. i. 532 ;
P. G. xiii. 1084) ; Aug. De vera religione, § 108 (Op. i. 786 b ; P. L. xxxii.
169) ; Contra Faustum, xx, § 21 (Op. viii. 347 b ; P. L. xiii. 384) ; De
Civitate Dei, vin. xxvii, § 1 (Op. vii. 217 ; P. L. xii. 255).
2 Jerome, Ep. cix, § 4 (Op. i. 728 ; P. L. xxii. 909). .
3 Adv. Vig., § 3 (Op. ii. 389 ; P. L. xxiii. 341 sq.).
4 Ibid., § 17 (Op. ii. 401 sq. ; P. L. xxiii. 352).
6 Op. ii. 387-402 (P. L. xxiii. 339-52).
6 Adv. Vig., § 1. 7 Ibid., § 4. 8 Ibid., § 9. 9 Ibid., § 4.
10 Ibid., § 10. " Ibid., § 13. 12 Ibid., § 14. " Ibid., §§ 15-17.
14 Aug. Dr moribus eccl. Cath. (Op. i. 713 ; P. L. xxxii 1342)
15 Ado. Vig., § 9.

chap, n AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 39
was still fresh, the affectionate reverence1 for those who had
played the man was a thing to be at once esteemed and expected.
He also gave a shock to Christian instincts such as led Augustine
to hold it lawful to commend a soul in prayer to a martyr,2 by
denying outright that the Church at rest could intercede for the
Church militant.3 He did not deny that miracles were wrought
at the martyrs' tombs, but complained that they benefit none but
unbehevers ; and thus he implied that, as miracles were for the
unbelieving and the world now believed, the time for them was
past.4 He desired the abolition of all Vigils, save that of Easter,5
as the parents of disorder ; condemned the monastic life and the
celibacy of the clergy,6 though these had their value in an age
when, according to Salvian, 400-f80, hardly any one, outside the
ranks of the Religious and the clergy, was chaste,7 and when
Exuperius and other bishops, who sympathized to some extent with
Vigilantius, thought it safetopromotenonebut marriedmen to Holy
Orders 8 ; and he objected to lighting candles in the day-time at
the tombs of the martyrs,9 and to the frequent singing of Alleluia.10
But Jerome was not less indiscriminate in his defence. It is
vulgar, abusive, and, at points, inconsistent with itself. For he
partly denies the existence of the abuses in question, or allows
that they obtained only as popular and unauthorized devotions ;
and then asks how can Vigilantius presume to question practices
approved by Emperors11 and bishops.12 He defends the veneration
of relics, and demands, ' Who ever worshipped martyrs ? ' 13 He
denied that tapers were lit in the day-time to their honour ; but
affirmed that, throughout the East, lighted candles were used, by
way of showing joy, at the reading of the Gospel.14 The interest
of the discussion lies in the testimony which the disputants bear
to the influence on the mentality of Christians and the worship
1 e. g. Mart. Pol. xviii, § 3 (Eus. H. E. iv. xv, § 44) ; Cyprian, Ep. lx
(C. S. E. L. m. ii. 691-5).
2 Aug. De cura pro mortuis gerenda, § 6 (Op. vi. 519 d ; P.L. xl. 596).
3 Adv. Vig., § 6. 4 Ibid., § 10. 5 Ibid., § 9. 6 Ibid., § 2.
7 De gub. Dei, vii, § 17 (Op. 163 ; P. L. liii. 145 a).
8 Adv. Vig., §§ 2, 17 ; there were two rival policies for keeping the clergy
free from 'the corruption that is in the world through lust': (1) that no
married man should be ordained, (2) that no man should be ordained till
he was married. In either case, he was under vows. Rome stood for (1) ;
Spain and Gaul for (2) : see Fleury, xxn. v. 9 Ibid., § 7.
10 Ibid., § 1. He desired to have Alleluia confined to Easter, in opposition
to the custom of Spain and Palestine ; but, if Soz. H. E. vn. xix, § 4 is
correct, in accordance with the use of the church of Rome.
11 Ibid., § 5. 12 Ibid., §§ 5, 8. 13 Ibid., § 5. 14 Ibid., § 7.

40 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) part m
of the Church exerted from outside— from the Imperial Court 1 as
well as from decadent paganism. The carrying of lights, for
example, at the Gospel was simply a mode of doing honour to Him,
whose voice it is, that was borrowed from the torches carried before
a Praetorian Prefect in the Imperial service.2 It is only just to
Vigilantius to remember that our knowledge of his opinions comes
from a violent and unscrupulous adversary. Probably they were
a reaction, as violent, from what he had seen in the practice, also
extreme, of men like Sulpicius, Paulinus, and Jerome himself. We
cannot acquit him either of over-statement ; or of actual error
in doctrine as in the denial that the Church at rest could intercede
for the Church militant. And it is held by some that Sanctorum
communio got into the creed in order to protect the truth that
Vigilantius thus denied. But it is something in his favour that his
bishop, Exuperius of Toulouse, with others, both bishops and
laity, gave him their countenance 3 ; and certainly the super
stitions to which he took exception, though then but nascent and
capable, historically, of reasonable and charitable explanation,
increased in volume until they were finally extruded, as roughly as
he had impugned them, at the Reformation.4 IV
The din of these controversies was barely hushed, when a
disaster of appalling magnitude overtook the Western Empire by
the invasion of Alaric and the capture of Rome.5
§ 4. Alaric, 360-J410, first appears as a leader of auxiliaries Jn
1 J. W. Legg, Church Ornaments and their civil antecedents (1917) ; F. E.
Brightman, ' Byzantine Imperial Coronations ', in /. T. 8. ii. 359-92 (April
1901). 2 Cf. the Notitia Dignitatum of c. 402 (ed. O. Seeck), which has, for the
insignia of the Praetorian Prefects of Illyricum and Italy, a book of
mandates reposing on a richly covered table and flanked by four lighted
tapers. The MS. of the early fifth century was copied in January 1436 for
Pietro Donato, bishop of Padua, and this facsimile is MS. Canon. Misc. 378,
now in the Bodleian Library. The pictures of the insignia of the two
Prefects occur on fol. 90 and fol. 131 verso. For torches, similarly carried
before the Pope at the Introit, c. a. d. 800, see C. Atchley, Ordo Romanus,
i, § 8, p. 128. The Notitia is tr. in Translations and Reprints from European
History, vol. vi, No. 4. 3 Adv. Vig., §§ 2, 3.
4 e. g. Knox's account of the destruction done at Perth by ' the raschall
multitude' on 11 May 1559 in Doc. Cont. Ref, No. 345 ; or the rejection
of prayers for the dead by Art. xxiii of October 1552, assigned by the Royal
Chaplains — a condemnation subsequently dropped by the Forty-two
Articles : see C. Hardwick, Articles, 102, n. 2.
5 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. v. 522 sqq. ; Fleury, xxn. xix-xxi ; Gibbon,
xxx, xxxi (iii. 240 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, i. ii. 702-810.

chap, ii AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 41
the armies of Theodosius, with whom he learned his way into
Italy, across the Julian Alps, at the battle of the Frigidus, Septem
ber 394. He was not without culture ; and he was a Christian,
though an Arian. Raised to be King of the Visigoths,1 on the
death of Theodosius, 395, he led the revolt of his nation against
Arcadius, ravaged the Balkan provinces, and invaded Greece.
Athens was left untouched ; but Corinth, Argos, and Sparta, all
fell before him. Stilicho brought him to & standstill in Thessaly,2
in the spring of 395 ; but he escaped the toils. For, in his jealousy
of Stilicho, Rufinus had persuaded Arcadius to order the with
drawal of the Western legions ; and the Emperor was thus led to
be much more afraid of a possible rebel in Stilicho than of the
barbarian Alaric. It was an infatuated condition of mind ; and
when, under the title of ' Master-General of Illyricum ',3 Alaric
became both an official and an ally of the Empire, 396, with the
seat of his authority near Laibach,4 he threatened the frontiers
both of Arcadius and of Honorius, and could take his choice which
realm he would invade.5 Perhaps he came to the conclusion that
the lines of Constantinople were too strong, or perhaps the oracle
kept ringing in his ears, Penetrabisad Urbem. At any rate, Ravenna
lay but six days' journey over the passes that he had traversed in
the train of Theodosius.
§ 5. He decided upon the invasion of Italy, 400-5. In co-opera
tion with Radagaisus, who was campaigning in Rhaetia (Tyrol
and the Grisons) and trying to descend into Italy by the Brenner
orthe Spliigen, Alaric entered Italy by the Pass of the Pear Tree,6
down the valley of the Vippacco. Leaving Aquileia and Ravenna
untaken, he marched towards Milan. Meanwhile, the Rhine and
Britain were" denuded of troops for the defence of Italy : the
Twentieth Legion, for example, being withdrawn, at this crisis, from
Chester, where it had been stationed for three centuries ; and Stilicho
drove back Radagaisus after a campaign in Rhaetia, 401-2. Then
he returned to encounter Alaric. They met some twenty miles south
east of Turin 7 ; and on Easter Day, 402, at the battle of Pollentia
(Pollenzo), Alaric received a check which compelled him to with
draw for a time. Though no more than a battle drawn in favour
of the Roman arms, it was made the occasion of a triumph for
Honorius, 404. He crept out from behind the marshes of Ravenna.
1 Hodgkin, i. ii. 653. 2 Ibid. 657. 3 Ibid. 661, n. 1.
4 Ibid., 766. 5 Ibid. 663. 6 Ibid. 709 sq. 7 Ibid. 717.

42 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) pabt m
whither he had retired, December 402, to celebrate it in Rome.
It might, indeed, have had but melancholy memories as the last
Imperial Triumph ever celebrated there ; but it is famous beyond
all others as the Triumph which ended in the self-sacrifice of the
monk Telemachus1 and the final2 abolition of the gladiatorial
games. Having put them down for ever, Honorius retired once
more to Ravenna. But only just in time. For a second host
of barbarians under Radagaisus, a heathen and an Ostrogoth,
descended upon Italy, 405. He was hemmed in before Florence
and put to death by Stilicho,3 406. For a second time Stilicho had
deserved the title ' Deliverer of his Country '. But this could not
save him from palace intrigues. Olympius, a friend of Augustine's
in whom he put too much trust, undermined him in the favour of
Honorius, his son-in-law ; and he was put to death before the doors
of a church, in which he had taken sanctuary at Ravenna,4
23 August 408. It was an infatuation on the part of Honorius
worse than that of his brother Arcadius, when thirteen years
before he had dismissed Stilicho and the Western legions ; for no
one was now left to keep Alaric out of Italy. Incensed at their
patron's murder, the Gothic auxiliaries betook themselves to
Alaric, and prayed him to avenge the ill-treatment they had
received from the Roman legionaries, from whom Stilicho ever
protected them.5 Fruitless negotiations 6 ensued between Alaric
and Honorius : and, at last, Alaric decided to play the great game.
§ 6. In the autumn of 408 he once more invaded Italy, with
a view to the capture of Rome. It was thrice besieged, 408-10.
The first siege took place in the autumn of 408, and was raised by
ransom, in spite of the efforts, if we may believe the story, of some
Tuscan diviners to keep Alaric at bay by enchantments. They had
been sent for by Pompeianus, the Prefect of the City ; and while
Pope Innocent, so it was said, was ready to put the safety of
Rome before his religion at such a crisis and consent to their
offering of sacrifices in public, no one dared take part in their
rites : and nothing came of them.7 Alaric then raised the siege at
1 Thdt. H. E. v. xxvi ; Gibbon, o. xxx, n. 60 (iii. 258).
2 Constantine had forbidden them, 1 October 325, by Cruenta spectacida,
Cod. Theod. xv. xii. 1.
3 Hodgkin, i. ii. 731-3. The remainder of the army of Radagaisus, with
Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, crossed the Rhine 31 December 406, and de
vastated Gaul, ibid. 739.
4 Ibid. 756. « Ibid. 760 sq. e ibid 766
7 Zosimus, Hist, v, §§ 40, 41 ; Soz. H. E. ix. vi, §§ 3 sqq

chap, ii AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 43
a heavy price : while Innocent left for Ravenna to make terms for
him with Honorius, and Alaric followed him as far as Rimini. But
the Emperor's envoy, Jovius, a pagan and Prefect of Italy, proved
an unskilful negotiator ; with the result that Alaric returned and
laid siege to Rome for the second time, 409. He seized the port,
and set up Attalus, the Prefect of the City, as a puppet Emperor.
Attalus proceeded to threaten Honorius at Ravenna, and to send
Constans to wrest Africa from his allegiance. But his expedition
towards Ravenna proved abortive ; and Constans, unsupported,
was easily defeated by Count Heraclian, who held Africa for
Honorius ; and, by closing the ports and stopping the corn-supply,
brought Rome to its knees through famine. Alaric thereupon
degraded the incompetent Attalus in the plains of Rimini, and
advanced to within three miles of Ravenna to bring Honorius to
terms. But the Western Emperor, in the interval, had received
reinforcements x from his nephew, Theodosius II. Alaric turned
and, for the third time, appeared before the walls of Rome. The
Senate prepared to make a desperate resistance ; but they had
not reckoned with their dependents. At midnight, so it was said,2
some slaves threw open the Salarian gate to the north-east of Rome ;
or, according to Orosius, Alaric carried the defences by assault.3
At any rate, on 24 August 410, the Goths entered and sacked the
City. The horrors that ensued were, perhaps, less than might have
been expected ; for the Goths were Christian, and Alaric had
given orders that the churches should be respected, specially the
two great basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul.4 A band of Gothic
soldiers broke into the palace of the aged Marcella on the Aventine,
demanded her buried treasure, and beat her because they could
not understand her plea of voluntary poverty. At length they
relented, accepted her story, and escorted her with her adopted
daughter, Principia, safe to the sanctuary of St. Paul's. But she
died of shock a few days afterwards.5 A Gothic captain burst into
a house where they kept the possessions of the church of St. Peter.
There was a Religious in charge ; and the soldier asked her,
courteously enough, for he was a Christian, whether she had gold
1 40,000 men, Zosimus, Hist, vi, § 8 ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 788.
2 Hodgkin doubts the story of this treachery, 739 sq.
3 Orosius, Hist, vii, § 39 (Op. 573 ; P. L. xxxi. 1163 a).
4 Ibid, and Soz. H. E. ix. ix, § 4.
5 Jerome, Ep. cxxvii, § 13 (Op. i. 260 ; P. L. xxii. 1094 sq.), and Docu
ment No. 149.

44 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) partiii
and silver in her possession. ' Plenty of it,' she replied, and
showed him the Sacred Vessels. ' They are the Apostle Peter's,'
she said, ' take them, if you are not afraid.' Fearful of the guilt
of sacrilege, the officer sent for instructions to Alaric ; and, at his
orders, the Consecrated Vessels were carried in procession by his
soldiery to a place of safety at St. Peter's.1 Thither, too, was
conducted a beautiful Roman matron, by a Gothic trooper. He
had offered her outrage ; but she bared her neck to his sword and
bade him strike instead. He raised his arm to strike, but relented ;
then he led her to the church, and, handing six gold pieces to the
officers stationed there, implored them to have her sent in safety
to her husband.2
§ 7. Far more tragic than the scenes which accompanied the
sack of the City was the effect of its capture on the Roman world.
Jerome was busy with his commentary on Ezekiel when the
tidings reached him. ' The whole world ', he exclaimed, ' has
perished in one City 3 ' ; and, in the letter in which he describes
the death of Marcella, he recalls how ' a dreadful rumour came
from the West. Rome had been besieged and its citizens had been
forced to buy their lives with gold. Then, thus despoiled, they
had been besieged again, so as to lose not their substance only
but their lives. My voice sticks in my throat ; and, as I dictate,
sobs choke my utterance. The City which had captured the whole
world is itself taken captive.' 4 Not less was the shock which the
news gave to St. Augustine. In his sermon, De Urbis excidio,s he
compares its overthrow to the destruction of Sodom. But,
whereas God showed His wrath in the complete destruction of
Sodom, towards Rome He had but manifested His displeasure —
or rather, His mercy. The multitudes who were suffered to
escape before Rome was burnt and, afterwards, were to be found
either in exile or among the Faithful Departed, are proof that the
City has been chastised, but not doomed.6 But beyond the
consternation thus reflected in letters and sermons of the time,
we have to note permanent effects of the capture of Rome.
(1) First, the immense political importance of the event, in the
1 Orosius, Hist, vii, § 39 (Op. 574 ; P. L. xxxi. 1163 sq.).
2 Soz. H. E. ix. x.
3 Comm. in Ezech. Praef. (Op. v. 3 sq. ; P. L. xxv. 16 A).
4 Jerome, Ep. ccxxvii, § 12 (Op. i. 959 ; P. L. xxii. 1094), and Document
No. 149. « Op. vi. 622-8 (P. L. xl. 715-24).
6 Ibid., § 8 (Op. vi. 628 b ; P. L. xl. 723).

chap, ii AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 45
shock that it gave to all that seemed most stable. Twice again
was Rome taken, in the fifth century ; and also, in the sixth.
But none of these three captures could have the significance of the
first. No one now remembers Gaiseric,1 455, Ricimer,2 472, and
Totila,3 546 ; but every one has heard the name of Alaric. Even
the desert felt the blow ; for barbarians invaded Egypt and turned
the monks of Scetis out of their solitudes. ' The world has lost
Rome,' said Arsenius, ' and the monks have lost Scetis.' 4 Like
the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, the capture of Rome by the
Goths was the end of an age. Jerusalem was to last till ' it was
trodden down of the Gentiles '. Now ' the times of its Gentile '
captors ' were fulfilled ' 5 ; and a new epoch in the world's history
was begun.
(2) Secondly, there was the hopeless and wretched exile of
Italians, pagan and Christian. Some fled as far as to Palestine,
where Jerome received them at Bethlehem ; and gave such hospi
tality as he could to fugitives of both sexes and of noble rank,
reduced at one stroke from great possessions to beggary.6 Melania
the elder, 350-f410, and her grandson Publicola, were among
them ; and Melania died there.7 Others made their way south
ward, ahead of Alaric. Thus Rufinus passed over to Sicily, and
stood on the further shore of the straits of Messina to watch the
flames of Reggio kindled by the Goths ; who, having left Rome
after three days 8 spent in pillaging the City, overran south Italy 9
as far as Calabria, and buried their leader Alaric in the bed of the
river Busento.10 Many fugitives crossed into Africa : the rich, to
the safe refuge of their estates there ; but the multitude to
Carthage, where they soon forgot their destitution in clamouring,
as St. Augustine tells us, for favourite actors in its theatres.11
Among the most illustrious of the refugees in Africa was the
widowed Proba, with Juliana her daughter-in-law and Demetrias
her grand-daughter. Less illustrious, but soon to become more
famous, was one who bestowed his commendation on the virgin
1 Gibbon, xxxvi (iv. 5). 2 Ibid. (iv. 44). 3 Ib. xliii (iv. 403).
4 H. Rosweyd, Vitae Patrum, v. ii, § 6 (p. 429 : Lugduni, 1617).
5 Luke xxi. 24.
6 Jerome, Comm. in Ezech. iii, Praef. (Op. v. 79-80 ; P. L. xxiv. 75).
7 Palladius, Hist. Laus. cxviii (P. G. xxxiv. 1227 c) = cap. liv (T. and S. ), § 6.
8 Orosius, Hist, vii, § 39 (Op. 575 ; P. L. xxxi. 1164 c).
9 Aug. De Civ. Dei, I. x, § 2 (Op. vii. 11 D ; P.L. xii. 24).
10 Hodgkin, I. ii. 806-8.
11 Aug. De civ. Dei, I. xxxiii (Op. vii. 29 sq. ; P. L. xii. 45).

46 THE FIRST DECADE (ii) pabt in
Demetrias — the monk Pelagius, with his companion Caelestius.
Albina *¦ also settled at Tagaste,2 with her daughter Melania the
younger and her son-in-law Pinian. The wealthy young couple
came to visit Augustine at Hippo ; and the people wanted to have
Pinian ordained priest in their church, though against hiB will.
Thus they would secure to themselves the riches and the prestige
of a great noble in exile ; for Melania had indeed sold her estates
in Spain and Gaul and distributed the proceeds to the poor, but
she retained those in Sicily, Campania, and Africa, and from these
she maintained churches and religious houses.3 Pinian therefore
would be a great catch for Hippo ; and an interesting correspon
dence 4 of Augustine's is bound up with the incident, in which he
discusses the obligatory character of an oath if taken under
compulsion.5 (3) Thirdly, by the capture of Rome, the way was left open for
her to assume ' her second ', i.e. as Milman says, ' her Christian
Empire '.6 When Innocent came back from Ravenna he found
the great families gone and no one to rival him in rank or authority.
The triumph of Christianity and the greatness of the Papacy were
thus both direct and immediate consequences of the fall of Rome.
(4) Last, and perhaps most lasting in influence, of the conse
quences of the work of Alaric, was the De civitate Dei? of
Augustine. It occupied him for thirteen years, 413-26 ; but was
published in instalments.8 ' The overthrow of Rome ', he says in
his Retractations, ' the pagans endeavoured to connect with the
Christian religion. . . . Wherefore I determined to write a treatise,
On the City of God, in order to refute the mistakes of some and the
blasphemies of others.' 9 The specific charge was no new one. It
had been current since the days of the Apologists. Now, however,
it was repeated with redoubled emphasis. Men said that the
desertion of the gods was the consequence of the spread of the
Gospel ; and that, irritated at the loss of the honour due to them,
they had abandoned the City which, under their protection, had
1 Palladius, Hist. Laus. oxviii, ut sup. = \iv, § 4 (T. and S.).
2 Aug. Ep. cxxiv, § 2 (Op. ii. 364 o ; P.L. xxxiii. 473).
3 Palladius, Hist. Laus. cxix (P. G. xxxiv. I228) = lxi, § 5 (T. and S.).
4 Epp. cxxv, cxxvi (Op. ii. 364-73 ; P. L. xxxiii. 473-83) ; Fleury, xxn.
xxiii, xxiv. 5 Ep. cxxv, § 4 (Op. ii. 365 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 476).
8 H. H. Milman, Latin Chr.9, i. 130.
7 Aug. Op. vii (P. L. xii. 13-804) ; Fleury, xxiii. vii-x.
8 De Civ. Dei, v. xxvi, § 2 (Op. vii. 144 a ; P.L. xii. 174).
9 Retract, n. xliii, § 1 (Op. i. 56 d, e ; P. L. xxxii. 647 sq.).

chap, ii AUGUSTINE, JEROME, ALARIC 47
grown to be mistress of the world. Augustine's answer is no mere
apology ; but a philosophy of history, past and for to come. The
work, he tells us, is divided into two parts : negative in the first
ten books, and constructive in the remaining twelve. In Books I-V
he re/utes the ordinary pagan notion that earthly prosperity is
bound up with the worship of the gods and its maintenance.
Books V-X are directed against the Neo-platonist position which
admits that misfortunes befall the worshippers of the gods ; but
contends that they ought, notwithstanding, to be adored for the
sake of the happiness they may bestow in a future state.1 Augus
tine thus arrives at the constructive part of the treatise, and treats
of the two civitates, or kingdoms, under which goes on the develop
ment of mankind — the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this
world. The former has for its subjects angels and men ; the
essence of the latter is apostasy from God. In the present age
alone do these two kingdoms interpenetrate and overlap one
another 2 ; for the citizens of the one move about as pilgrims
among the citizens of the other. In Books XI-XIV he describes
the origin of the two kingdoms in the creation of angels and the
fall of apostate spirits among them. In Books XV-XVIII he
treats of their development and progress ; and in Books XIX-XXII
of their final issues : sin and its punishment, righteousness and
bliss.3 Others before Augustine had taken up the pagan challenge
(put out, for instance, in the edict of Maximin the Thracian,4 238)
that the disasters of the Empire were due to the forsaking of the
gods occasioned by the Christians : Tertullian,5 Origen,6 Cyprian,7
Arnobius,8 and Ambrose 9 in reply to Symmachus. But Augus
tine's remained the great apology, as the Te Deum, the great hymn
of victorious Christianity. It is somewhat prolix, and abounds in
digressions — often of great value to the historian, the philosopher,
and the archaeologist — but still digressions. Yet it is great
because of its master-thought, of which the author never loses
1 Retract, n. xliii, § 1 (Op. i. 56 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 648).
2 De Civ. Dei, i. xxxv (Op. vii. 30 e ; P. L. xii. 46) : see also xi. i (Op. vn.
272 e ; P.L. xii. 317).
3 Retract, n. xliii, § 2 (Op. i. 57 ; P. L. xxxii. 648).
4 Ap. Eus. H. E. vi. vii, § 9 : for a good specimen of Augustine s reply
to the charge, see De Civ. Dei, ni. xxxi (Op. vii. 86-8 ; P. L. xii. 10).
5 Tert. Apol., § 40 ; Ad Scap., § 2 ; De Pall., § 2 ; Ad Nat. i, § 9.
8 Origen, Contra Celsum, iii, § 15 (Op. i. 456 ; P. G. xi. 937 b).
7 Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum (C. 8. E. L. in. i. 351-70).
8 Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i, §§ 1-3, 15 (P. L. v. 718-26, 736)
9 Ambrose, Ep. xviii, §§ 4-6 (Op. n. i. 833 sq. ; P. L. xvi. 972 sq.).

48 THE FIRST DECADE (ii)
sight, that the City of God ' abideth for ever ', though the greatest
City of the world has fallen ; and it makes much, in its opening
chapters, of ' the great Christian argument ' ] that, so far from the
fall of Rome being due to the Gospel, the actual siege and capture
of the City would have been accompanied by horrors of lust,
cruelty, and rapacity far more numerous had not its captors been
Christians, and Christian churches been there to shelter the citizens,
pagan as well as Christian, who took refuge in them at the word
of Alaric.2 Augustine had already dwelt upon this triumphal plea
for Christianity in his sermon De Urbis excidio ; and it forms the
motif of the Histories 3 of Orosius, 417-18. The work was under
taken at the request of Augustine : so says Orosius in the preface 4
which, we may note in passing, has a charm of its own, for it is
one of the few places in ancient literature where dogs are mentioned
with feeling. ' They alone, of all creatures, are on the look out to
do what the master wants : only, they wait for his nod.' 5 And it
was meant to be an appendix to the De Civitate Dei.6 Here the
reader should find proof — in a survey of history from Adam to the
year 417 — that, before the coming of our Lord, mankind was
subject to more wars, misfortunes, and evils of every kind than
since His appearance on earth. It was not the case therefore that
the introduction of Christianity and the abandonment of the gods
were responsible for the invasions of the barbarians ; from whom
Orosius had fled, out of Spain, to take refuge in Africa. His
Histories and the De Civitate Dei were the favourite books of the
educated 7 in the Middle Ages. Bede, in the earlier chapters of his
History,8 relies on Orosius, and King Alfred translated him into
Anglo-Saxon 9 ; while Charlemagne had the De Civitate Dei read
to him at meals.10 For its ideals were the inspiration of the Holy
Roman Empire ; and the papacy, from Gregory VIII to Inno
cent III, embodied them in practice.11
1 H. H. Milman, Latin Chr.9 i. 132 n.
2 De Civ. Dei, I. vii (Op. vii. 7 ; P.L. xii. 19 sq.), and Document No. 204.
3 Orosius, Op. 1-587 (P. L. xxxi. 663-1174).
4 Ibid. (Op. 1 ; P.L. xxxi. 663).
5 Ibid. (Op. 1 ; P.L. xxxi. 665 a) ; another such place is Tobit, v. 16, xi. 4.
6 Ibid. (Op. 4 ; P.L. xxxi. 667).
7 S. Dill, Roman Society in the last century ofthe Western Empire, 70 sqq.
8 Bede, H. E. i. 1-10.
9 King Alfred's Orosius, ed. H. Sweet (E.E.T.S , 1883).
10 Einhardus, Vita, § 24 (Mon. Germ. Hist. ii. 456).
11 A. Robertson, Regnum Dei, 219 sq.

CHAPTER III
THE EAST, c. 410 '
The East, while Rome was thus being besieged, experienced
a change of rulers, civil and ecclesiastical.
§ 1. On the death of Arcadius, 1 May 408, Theodosius II,1
408-|50, ascended the throne, a boy in his eighth year.2 He reigned
but he never ruled. For after the administration of Anthemius,3
408-14, which protected his minority, Theodosius grew up to be
weak and devout,4 and power passed into the hands of his sister
Pulcheria,5 399-|453. She was only two years older than himself ;
but ' she received the title Augusta,' 4 July 414, and ' continued
to govern the Empire near forty years '.6 She and her two sisters,
the princesses Arcadia and Marina, hved the hfe of Rehgious ; and
the palace of Theodosius II bore the aspect more of a Convent than
of a Court.7 But Pulcheria understood not only the practice of
rehgion but also the art of government. She provided for her
brother, first, suitable occupation in painting and illuminating ;
and then, for a wife, Athenais, who became the Empress Eudocia,8
421— f 60, but was ultimately forced into seclusion at Jerusalem,
444, on suspicion of unfaithfulness to her husband, by the ' superior
ascendant ' 9 of her sister-in-law ; but, all the time, Pulcheria
ruled discreetly in his name, over an undistracted and prosperous
empire. She was a princess of thoroughly noble character : and
' alone, among the descendants of the great Theodosius, appears
to have inherited any share of his manly spirit and abilities '.10
The Eastern Patriarchates also passed under new rulers about
this time.
1 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 1-132 ; Gibbon, xxxii (iii. 386 sqq.).
2 He was born 10 April 401, Fleury xxi. vii ; Hodgkin, i. ii. 44 sq.
3 Soer. H. E. vn. i. He built the Theodosian Walls, which now enclose
the ancient Stamboul. The walls of Constantine were demolished, but their
site marked by columns. Dissenters were only allowed places of worship
between the columns and the new wall ; hence their name 'E^okiovitoi
(mainly Eunomians), Thdt. Haer. Fab. Compend. iv, § 3 (Op. iv. 358 ; P. L.
1 xxxiii. 421 b).
4 For his character see Socr. H. E. vn. xxii ; Thdt. H. E. v. xxxvi,
xxxvii ; Fleury, xxiv. xxx.
5 For Pulcheria see Soz. H. E. ix. i-iii; Tillemont, Mim. xv. 171-84.
6 Gibbon, xxxii (iii. 384). 7 Socr. H. E. vn. xxi, § 5.
8 Ibid., § 9. 9 Gibbon, xxxii (iii. 389). 10 Ibid. (iii. 385).
2191 III j;

50 THE EAST, c. 410 part in
§ 2. At Constantinople, next but one in succession to Chrysostom,
Atticus had become bishop, 406-f25. He was prudent 1 and smooth
tongued.2 The Joannites disclaimed his communion, and desired
that Chrysostom's name should be commemorated on the diptychs.
But Atticus would not consent ; to do so would be to nullify his
own episcopate ; and the schism remained for the present.3 So
also did the separation of Arian from Catholic. The Arian bishop,
Dorotheus, dying in extreme old age, was succeeded by Barba ;
and in his day two distinguished presbyters, Timothy and George,
gave fresh life to Arianism. Timothy was a devoted student of
Origen ; and Socrates tells us that, while he himself had spoken
with Timothy, he could never understand how it was that Origen's
admirers could remain Arians when Origen himself had taught that
the Son was coeternal with the Father.4 Socrates forgets that
there was another side to Origen's teaching ; and that it is human
to take as much as you like of an authority and to leave the rest.
§ 3. At Alexandria Theophilus was nearing his end.
(1) Before he died he consecrated the eccentric philosopher and
sportsman, Synesius,5 to be bishop of Ptolemais, 410-J13, and
metropolitan of the Pentapolis. Synesius was born c. 370-5, of
an ancient and noble family 6 at Cyrene, who still clung to their
original paganism. He studied philosophy at Alexandria, as one
of the pupils of Hypatia, who playfully nicknamed him Mr. Other-
folk's-friend7 ; and, on his return home, though barely thirty years
of age, he was sent to Court by the oppressed cities of the Penta
polis to see if he could secure for them some relief from excessive
taxation. It was while on this mission that he delivered before
Arcadius that candid but futile lecture On Kingship,8 399, of which
1 Socr. H. E. vn. ii, § 1, xxv, § 1 ; Soz. H. E. vm. xxvii, § 5.
2 Ibid., § 4.
3 For his slowness to consent, see Thdt. H. E. v. xxxiv, § 13, and Innocent,
Ep. xxii (P. L. xx. 545 a) = Jaffe, No. 308. He gave in, at last, about 415 :
see Socr. H. E. v. xxv, § 2 ; and the correspondence between Atticus and
Cyril of Alexandria in Cyril, Epp. lxxv, lxxvi (Op. x. 204-8 ; P. 67. lxxvii.
348-60) ; Fleury, xxiii. xxvii.
4 Socr. H. E. vn. vi. 6-8. Socrates wrote the history of 306-439, under
Theodosius II: see Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 119-22; and Sozomen,
that of 324-415, between 443-50, ibid. 123-7.
6 Tillemont, Mem. xii. 499-554 ; Fleury, xxn. xli-xlv ; D. C. B. iv. 757-
80 ; Alice Gardner, Synesius of Cyrene (S.P.C.K. 1886) ; T. R. Glover, Life
and Letters, c. xiv ; and C. Kingsley, Hypatia.
6 Ep. lvii (Op. 197 ; P. G. Ixvi. 1393 b).
7 Ep. lxxx (Op. 228 ; P. G. Ixvi. 1433 a) ; for Hypatia, Socr. H. E. vn. xv.
8 Orat. de Regno, Op. 1-32 (P. G. Ixvi. 1053-1112) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 685:
and Document No. 119.

chap, iii THE EAST, c. 410 51
we have spoken as an unintended satire and an authority, there
fore, of first importance, on the Empire as it was at the opening of
the fifth century. After this patriotic and, but for the lethargy of
Arcadius, dangerous enterprise, Synesius returned to his books and
his country hfe.1 In 409, the clergy and people of Ptolemais sur
prised him by demanding him as their bishop ; for he was still
a pagan. But the country-side was being overrun by marauders.2
He was the only young man they knew of who had given evidence
of good abilities. They were determined to have him ; and it is
the picture of the times and the man, reflected in letters which
arose out of this request, that gives to Synesius exceptional interest.
Writing to his brother at Alexandria, he says 3 that he would be
wanting in feeling if he did not acknowledge the kindness of the
people in Ptolemais. But a bishop ought to be a heavenly person.
He ought to do as much business by himself as all the rest put
together4: and ' I am much too easy-going '. Besides, ' I have
a wife whom I have received from God, and the sacred hand of
Theophilus '.5 We may note in passing that this is an instance,
though the only instance on record, of a pagan husband being
married to a Christian lady with the blessing of the Church.6 ' I
am not willing to separate myself from her : but I hope to have
virtuous children by her : and Theophilus ought to know this.
Then there are other impediments — my views, for instance, about
the Resurrection 7 ; and my sporting-dogs : I cannot give these
up.' 8 But these objections were quickly overruled, and Synesius
was consecrated : family-man as he was, with the liberal views of
a philosopher and the tastes of a country-squire. Once a bishop,
he studiously maintained the traditions of his office, while acknow
ledging that he felt himself new to them. Thus, he writes to
Theophilus9 to tell him how he had entertained, but had not
admitted to communion, a bishop who had been consecrated by
' John [Chrysostom] of happy memory : suffer me so to speak of
him, since he is dead, and all disputes ought to end with this life.
You know better than any man the circumstances of this affair ;
and I understand you have been writing to Atticus to prevail with
1 De insomniis, § 9 (Op. 148 ; P. G. Ixvi. 1308 d).
2 Synesius, Catastasis, i (Op. 299-304 ; P. 67. Ixvi. 1565-74).
3 Ep. cv (Op. 246-50 ; P. G. Ixvi. 1481-9) ; and, for a summary of it, see
Fleury, xxn. xii ; A. Gardner, 104 sqq. ; and Document No. 120.
4 1484 b. 5 1485 b.
6 O. D. Watkins, Holy Matrimony, 495. 7 1485 b. 8 1488 b.
9 Ep. Ixvi (Op. 206 sq. ; P. 67. Ixvi. 1408 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxn. xiii.
E 2

52 THE EAST, c. 410 partiii
him to receive the adherents of that party.' 1 Synesius then goes
on to say that he knows but little, as yet, of the canons, and has
not yet been bishop a year.2 He hopes, therefore, that Theophilus
will advise him — with all the authority of the throne of St. Mark—
whether his treatment of the Joannite refugee was quite in order.
Theophilus must have mellowed in his old age for Synesius thus to
have ventured upon the mention of Chrysostom : or else it is
testimony to the irresistible charm of the writer himself. Certainly,
Theophilus took no offence. For, in the next letter,3 we find him
issuing a commission to Synesius to regulate matters of Church
order in Cyrenaica. Synesius observes that he holds himself
' bound to carry out, as a sacred law, whatever the throne of the
Evangelist should command ' 4 : an expression which well illus
trates the authority, amounting almost to a tyranny, of the Pope
of Alexandria. But most interesting of all the letters of Synesius
is that addressed * to the bishops of Christendom ', in which he
announces his excommunication of Andronicus, the governor of
Pentapolis.5 Andronicus was a petty tyrant, and had turned the
administration of justice into occasion for barbarity. He invented
new instruments of torture, and used them without cause or mercy.
The people, in their distress, had recourse to Synesius. He first
admonished the governor, who, though a Christian, flouted the
bishop's censure. Synesius then proceeded to sentence of excom
munication. ' Be every temple of God shut against Andronicus. . . .
Let no one, private person or magistrate, sit at the same table or
under the same roof with him. Let the clergy neither talk with
him while living, nor assist at his funeral when dead. And, if any
one despise this church of Ptolemais because of its insignificance, and
receive those whom she has excommunicated, not thinking himself
bound to obey because of her poverty, let him know that he dis
members the Church which Jesus Christ desires to be one.' 6 Never
was there a case in which the Church more clearly used her powers
in the interests of morality only ; and never a better illustration of
the vantage-ground she then occupied for its promotion owing
to her, as yet, unbroken unity. The principle of it was that any
decision of one ' bishop in matter of discipline should be ipso facto
1 1409 a. 2 1409 a, b.
3 Ep. lxvii (Op. 208-17 ; P. 67. Ixvi. 1412-32) ; Fleury, xxn. xliii.
4 1412 A.
5 Ep. Iviii (Op. 201-3 ; P. 67. Ixvi. 1399-1404) ; Fleury, xxn. xiv.
6 1401 c, d ; W Bright, Canons 2, 16 ; and Document No. 121,

chap, hi THE EAST, c. 410 53
recognized by all his colleagues.1 Andronicus submitted 2 ; and,
not long after, when he fell. into disgrace, Synesius showed that the
Church was as strong to befriend the helpless as to overawe the
guilty, by interceding for him with the tribunal by which he had
been condemned.3 He even went so far as to recommend him to
Theophilus. (2) Not long after, Theophilus died, 15 October, 412.4 He had
held the see for seven-and-twenty years ; and he is a conspicuous
instance of the deterioration of character consequent upon the
possession of wealth and power by one whose spiritual life burnt
low.5 Theophilus himself seems to have been aware of it ; for, in
his dying moments, he turned to the monk beside him and said :
' Happy art thou, Father Arsenius ; for thou hast always had this
hour before thine eyes.' 6 He was succeeded by his like-minded
nephew, Cyril,7 who was bishop of Alexandria 412-"j"44.
§ 4. Meanwhile Antioch, on the death of Flavian, passed into
the hands of Porphyrius,8 404-fl3 ; and the three Eastern Patri
archates were all out of communion with Innocent of Rome,
401-fl7, on the question whether the memory of Chrysostom
should be honoured by the recitation of his name among departed
bishops at the Eucharist.
1 Bingham, Ant. xvi. ii, § 10 ; and ' It belonged to the very essence of
Catholic unity that he who was excommunicate in one church should be
held excommunicate in all churches ', Newman's note to Fleury, xxviit. xiv
(iii. 357, note g).
2 Ep. lxxii (Op: 218 ; P. G. Ixvi. 1436 a).
3 Ep. lxxxix (Op. 230 sq. ; P. G. Ixvi. 1456 d), a beautiful little note, and
Document No. 122.
4 Socr. H. E. vn. vii, § 1 ; Fleury, xxn. xlvi.
5 W. Bright, in D. C. B. iv. 1008.
6 H. Rosweyd, Vitae Patrum, v. iii, § 5 (p. 430).
7 Socr. H. E. vn. vii, § 4.
8 Socr. H. E. vn. ix ; Soz. H. E. vm. xxiv, § 11 ; Thdt. H. E. v. xxxv, § 2.

CHAPTER IV
PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10
§ 1. The West, during the reign of Honorius, 395-f423, has for
its main interest, in affairs ecclesiastical, the problems, about sin
and the need of grace that came to the front with the name of
Pelagius. Not that he was the first to raise them. They were
occupying the minds of earnest Christians at Rome, some ten
years, or more, before the sack of the city. All were at one upon
the need of holiness, and the duty of a Christian to strive after
perfection. But they differed upon the theory of holiness.
Some would say that we attain it and do what is right, because
God gives us both the will and the power to accomplish it. In
other words, He first starts, and then supports, us by His grace ;
for, of ourselves, we can do nothing. If it be asked, Why this
inability to do right, unaided ? the answer they would give is that
the Fall is the source of all our infirmities, physical or moral,
death included. Adam sinned. All his posterity sinned in him.
Humanity, therefore, is depraved and sinful, a massa peccati1
or perditionis 2 ; and God, the all-righteous, can find in none who
share it any good save that which He puts there by His grace.
Augustine was, by the end of the fourth century, looked upon as
the foremost representative of this system. He had passed from
vice to a life of striving after holiness ; and he felt himself a monu
ment of grace. His theology flowed from his experience.
But there were pious Christians equally in earnest who had no
such experience. A man, they would say, is good because he wills
it, and takes pains to become so. Certainly, God assists him, but
by the gift of a free will, which is part of the original endowment
of our nature, to be afterwards reinforced by the illumination of
the Law, by the example of our Lord and His saints, and by the
purifying of baptism. But whatever .good we attain is to be put
down to ourselves. We are bound to do it ; for God would never
have commanded us to do it, had it not been possible for us to
1 Aug. De div. quaest. ad Siiuplicianum, I. ii, § 16 (Op. vi. 97 0 ; P. L. xl.
121). 2 Aug. De dono pers., § 35 (Op. x. 839 g ; P.L. xiv. 1014).

PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 55
fulfil the command. Indeed, we are bidden to be ' perfect '-1 A
man can then be actually without sin ; even if sin be taken to
include not outward and gross offences only, but imperfections
within the soul. Thus each of us starts where our first parents
started, free to choose either good or bad. There was no Fall.
There is no Original Sin ; for sin is a personal and voluntary thing,
and only begins where responsibility begins. There is no need of
grace. All we have to do is to exert our will, and to use the nature
that God gave us. This was the rival theory of sanctity ; and of
it the exponent, rather than the originator, was Pelagius.
§ 2. Pelagius is generally spoken of as of British,2 occasionally
as of Scotic,3 origin. A Scot, at this date,4 meant an Irishman ; and
Pelagius may have sprung from an Irish colony settled in what is
now south-west Wales or the West of England, for ' Briton ' would
cover an Lish resident in Britain.5 He was a monk 6 and a layman 7 ;
in figure a big man,8 thick-necked, broad-shouldered,9 with but one
eye ; in personal appearance well-groomed and with a confident
bearing.10 But he was a man of learning and piety also. He spoke
Greek and Latin equally well.11 He was an accomplished writer.
For character, no less than for ability,12 he stood high in the esteem
of his contemporaries. Augustine speaks of him as ' a man of holy
life and no small attainments as a Christian '.:3 He says that he
and his friends, ' though the adversaries of grace were, for con
tinence and good works, men worthy of all praise. They would
have sold all that they had to obtain treasure in heaven.' 14 And
1 Matt. v. 48.
2 Aug. Ep. clxxxvi, § 1 (Op. ii. 663 f ; P. L. xxxiii. 816) ; Orosius, De
arb. lib., § 12 (Op. 598 ; P. L. xxxi. 1182 d) ; Marius Mercator, Liber subn.,
§ 2 (P. L. xlviii. Ill A) ; Prosper, De ingratis, 11. 1, 2 (Op. 115 ; P. L. li. 94 b) ;
Bede, H. E. i. 10.
3 Jerome, Prol. in leremiam (Op. iv. 836 ; P. L. xxiv. 682 a) and Prol.
in lib. tert. ler. proph. (Op. iv. 924 ; P. L. xxiv. 758 b).
4 And until the eleventh century : see C. Plummer on Bede, H. E. i. 10.
5 J. B. Bury as quoted in A. Souter, The Comm. of Pelagius2, (1907).
6 Aug. De gest. Pel., § 36 (Op. x. 212 b ; P.L. xliv. 342) ; De Haeresibus,
§ 88 (Op. viii. 25 e ; P. L. xiii. 47).
7 Orosius, De arb. lib., § 4 (Op. 591 ; P. L. xxxi. 1177 a) ; Zosimus, Ep.
iii, § 3 (P. L. xx. 657 a).
8 ' That great fat dog of Albion ' and ' stuffed out with Scottish porridge ',
as Jerome calls him (Prol. in ler. and in lib. tert. Ier., ut sup.).
9 Orosius, De arb. lib., § 31 (Op. 621 ; P. L. xxxi. 120 b).
10 Ibid., § 16 (Op. 602 ; P. L. xxxi. 1185 c).
11 Aug. De gest. Pel., §§ 3, 39 (Op. x. 193 c, 213 B ; P.L. xliv. 321, 343 sq.).
12 Aug. De natura et gratia, §§ 6, 7 (Op. x. 130 ; P. L. xliv. 250).
13 Depecc. merit, iii, § 1 (Op. x. 71 d; P. L. xliv. 185 sq.) : see also § 5.
14 Ibid, ii, § 25 (Op. x. 54 o ; P. L. xliv. 167) ; and Ep. cxl, § 83 (Op. ii.
455 a ; P.L. xxxiii. 575).

56 PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 part iii
it was from zeal to promote piety that, among his earlier works,
Pelagius composed a Testimoniorum Liber x or book of Scriptural
extracts for devotional reading. Cyprian,2 it will be remem
bered, and the devout, but erratic, Priscillian 3 had done the same.
It is remarkable testimony to the high character of Pelagius — as
indeed of Arius and Nestorius — that not a breath of slander sullied
his name ; and that, in an age of bitter controversy. Nor should
it be. forgotten that error may be the work of good and able men :
the evident earnestness of Pelagius in the cause of practical religion
is beyond doubt. And, as further proof of it, we may note his
intimacy with St. Paulinus of Nola,4 who numbered him among his
correspondents.5 § 3. Pelagius arrived in Rome at least as early as the pontificate
of Anastasius, 399-f401 : perhaps, earlier. For Augustine says
that he ' had lived a long time there '. 6 High in the esteem of that
school of Roman piety which insisted, above all, on the power of
the will, he came into contact at Rome, c. 405, with influences
from the East. In that year Chrysostom mourns the defection
of ' the monk Pelagius ' 7 ; and on this has been built a supposition
that he was acquainted with the author of Pelagianism, and in
a measure responsible for it. True, Chrysostom's language about
grace is apt to be defective. He fails, for example, to give due
recognition to prevenient grace.8 But it is the language of a
preacher, zealous to quicken the wills of his hearers ; and his
career as a preacher was over before the Pelagian controversy
began. Moreover, the controversy belonged to the West ; and,
after all, the identification of Chrysostom's Pelagius with Pelagius
of Britain is purely conjectural. Not so conjectural, however, is the
connexion between teachers of the East and the British Pelagius,
when in Rome. Marius Mercator, fl. 418-60, a native of Africa,
who was at Rome c. 417-18, asserts that the opinions ascribed to
him had found expression some time before among certain Syrians,
1 Contra duas ep. Pel. iv, § 21 (Op. x. 480 d ; P.L. xliv. 623). Aug. also
refers to it as ' Capitulorum liber ', e. g. De gest. Pel., § 7 (Op. x. 195 A ;
P. L. xliv. 323).
2 C. 8. E. L. in. i. 35-184. . , 3 C. 8. E, L. xviii. 107-47.
4 Aug. Ep. clxxxvi, § 1 (Op. ii. 663 a ; P. L. xxxiii. 816).
13 De gratia Christi, § 38 (Op. x. 246 c ; P. L. xliv. 378).
0 De pecc. orig., § 24 (Op. x. 263 A ; P.L. xliv. 396).
7 Ep. iv, § 4 (Op. iii. 577 a ; P. 67. Iii. 596).
8 In Act. Apost. Hom. xxviii, § 3 (Op. ix. 224 a ; P. 67. lx. 212) : see
W. Bright, Lessons, &c, app. viii, and F. R. Tennant, The sources of
the doctrines ofthe Fall and Original Sin, 325 sq.

chap, iv PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 57
particularly with Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia
392-f428. Thence they were brought to Rome, under Pope
Anastasius, by the Syrian Rufinus. Too astute to give public
utterance to them himself, Rufinus communicated them to Pela
gius, who first give them to the world in his Commentary on ihe
Epistle to the Romans.1 This Rufinus is not to be confounded with
Jerome's friend, and afterwards foe, Rufinus of Aquileia ; though
he may be the same as ' a holy presbyter Rufinus of Rome ', to
whom Caelestius, the disciple of Pelagius,- was fond of appealing,
and who was, at this time, ' staying in the house of Pammachius ' 2
the friend of Jerome. Rufinus of Aquileia would never have stayed
there ; and, though it be true that Jerome himself reckons his
quondam friend as a forerunner of Pelagianism,3 this is merely one of
Jerome's controversial statements, and it is well known, what they
are worth. It is then probable that Pelagius, through the Syrian
Rufinus, drew his inspiration, in part, from Theodore of Mopsuestia.
If so, there was an historical, as there certainly is a logical, con
nexion between the two systems 4 ; for if we make light of human
sin and so of the need of grace, then, logically, we can reduce our
demand for a Saviour who is personally divine. But it was in
reaction from Western views other than his own, and, in particular,
from those already represented by Augustine, that Pelagius de
clared himself.5 About 405, a bishop, in conversation, happened
to quote with approval the prayer from the Confessions : ' Lord,
Thou hast commanded continence ; give what Thou commandest,
and command what Thou wilt.' 6 Pelagius was indignant.7 He
was alarmed at the relaxing effect on moral effort which such
a prayer might have. He thought it encouraged indolence ; and
he began to insist, in view of the excuses which the* easy-going
Christians of Rome made for themselves, out of the weakness of
1 Marius Mercator, Lib. subn., §§ 2, 3 (P. L. xlviii. Ill sq.).
2 Aug. De pecc. orig., § 3 (Op. x. 254 a ; P. L. xliv. 387). He may also
be the Rufinus of Jerome, Ep. lxxxi, § 2 (Op. i. 512 ; P. L. xxii. 736).
3 Jerome, Praef. iv in leremiam (Op. iv. 965-6; P. L. xxiv. 794 d).
4 For this connexion, note that ' the Nestorian Christ is the natural
Saviour of the Pelagian man ' (C. Gore, in C. Q. R., vol. xvi, No. 32 [July
1883], p. 298), and that one may pass either from Pelagianism to Nesto-
rianism (J. B. Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Predest. 101 sq.), or from Nestorianism to
Pelagianism (H. B. Swete, Theodore of Mops, on the minor Epp. of St. Paul,
i. lxxxvii. 5 Pelagianism was a reaction from Augustinianism, and not vice versa :
see Mozley, Predestination (ed. 1855), 50, and note ix.
6 Conf. x, § 40 (Op. i. 184 e ; P. L. xxxii. 796).
7 De dono pers., § 53 (Op. x. 851 b ; P.L. xiv. 1026).

58 PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 part hi
the flesh and so forth,1 on the capacity of our nature, as God made
it, to do His will. ' Give ! ' ' Why, you have ! It is simply a
matter of using the power which by nature God has given us.'
Pelagius then began to gather disciples about him ; and chief of
them was Caelestius.2 He, too, was of Irish birth ; and, in early
years, a man of singular piety who wrote three letters to his parents
' useful for the practice of virtue '.3 He was thus like his master,
both in his early development and in his zeal for the promotion of
a vigorous Christianity. But yet they differed. Quite the equal
of Pelagius in ability,4 Caelestius excelled him in outspokenness
and love of disputation. ' The one was frank, the other reserved ;
the pupil was blunt, where the master was not quite straight ; or,
shall we say, unrestrained, where he was diplomatic ' ? 5 Marius
Mercator also remarks upon his ' incredible loquacity ', by which
' he made many persons partakers of his infatuation '.6 And he had
all a logician's fondness for dilemma.7 His works, the Contra
traducem peccati 8 and the Definitiones 9 have perished ; but, to
judge from a reference to the former in the Commentary on ihe
Romans 10 by Pelagius, the absence of a Fall was the main point
emphasized in the theory of Caelestius. It was thus that Pelagius
and Caelestius propagated their teaching in Rome ; until, about
409, on the approach of the Goths, they left together for Sicily and
Africa. § 4. It is now time to give a brief sketch of their theory, i.e. of
Pelagianism as it may be gathered (a) from the fragments of their
works n and of the works of their follower, Julian,12 bishop of
1 Pelagius, Ep. ad Demetriadem, § 16 (Aug. Op. ii. app. 11 E, f; P.L.
xxxiii. 1110) and his De natura as referred to in Aug. De natura et gratia,
§§ 1, 7 (Op. «. 127 A, 130 c ; P.L. xliv. 247, 250).
3 Marius Mercator, Commonitorium, ii, § 1, and Liber subn. Praef., .§ 4
(P. L. xlviii. 83 a. 113 a).
3 Gennadius, Illustr. Vir. Catalogus, § 45 (P. L. Iviii. 1083 b).
4 Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, § 5 (Op. x. 434 a ; P.L. xliv. 574).
5 Depecc. orig., § 13 (Op. x. 258 d ; P. L. xliv. 391).
6 Liber subn. Praef., § 4 (P. L. xlviii. 113 a).
7 Dissertatio I, c. v in ibid. (P. L. xlviii. 279 o, d) ; and Aug. De per-
fcctione iustitiae (Op. x. 167-90 ; P. L. xliv. 291-318).
8 Marius M., Comm. ii, § 9 (P. L. xlviii. 86 b).
9 Aug. De perf. iusl., § 1 (Op. x. 167 a ; P. L. xliv. 293).
10 Printed in Jerome, Op. xi. 645-718 : on it, see A. Souter, The Com
mentary of Pelagius (1907).
11 Pelagius wrote (1) Comm. on St. Paul's Epp. (Jerome, Op. xi ; P. L.
xxx. 645-902) ; (2) Ep. ad Demetriadem (ib. Op. xi ; P.L. xxx. 15-45).
12 Ad Turbantium lib. iv and Ad Florum lib. viii, to be reconstructed
from their refutations in Aug. Contra Iulianum (Op. x. 497-710 ; P. L. xliv,
641-874) ; and Opus imperfeclum (Op. x. 873-1386 ; P. L. xiv. 1049-1608).

chap, iv PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 59
Eclanum 417-t54, in Campania (now Mirabella, to the south-east
of Benevento) ; (b) from the authors who wrote in condemnation
of Pelagianism x ; and (c) from the Acts of Councils and Letters of
Popes concerned in the controversy.2
(1) Pelagianism 3 starts from a Stoical conception of human
nature, and asserts first the unconditional freedom of the will.
Man was created free. This freedom consists in ' the possibility of
yielding to, or abstaining from, sin, at pleasure '.4 In every free
act we have to distinguish three elements — posse, velle, esse — being
able, willing, being. ' To be able to do this or avoid that, is an
affair of nature ; to desire, of the will ; to be, of action.' I can
quite well refrain from willing what is good or from carrying it
into action ; but I cannot fail to have the power both to will and
to do it. ' The first element then, i.e. the power, belongs properly
to God, who gave it me when He made me ; but the other two —
to desire and to be — rest with me, because they have their source
in my will. And praise is due to me in proportion to my good will
and good deeds.' 5 True, according to this doctrine of freedom,
man is placed in a position of independence over against God, and
merits a reward from Him according to his good will and good
works. But this must not blind us to the fact that the motives
of Pelagius were of the highest : (a) to plead for God as Creator
by ' defending nature ' 6 ; and (b) to rouse men to a sense of
responsibility by insisting on the unconditioned freedom of the
will.7 1 These are (1) Aug., for whose anti-Pelagian writings see Op. x (P. L.
xliv, xiv) ; W. Bright, The anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine (1880),
with valuable preface ; tr. P. Holmes and M. Dods (3 vols., T. and T. Clark,
1872-6) ; and Aug. De Haeresibus, § 88 (Op. viii. 25 sq. ; P. L. xiii. 47 sq.) ;
(2) Orosius, De arb. lib. (Op. 588-634 ; P. L. xxxi. 1173-1212) ; (3) Marius
Mercator, Commonitorium (P. L. xlviii. 63-108), and Liber subnotationum (ib.
109-72) ; (4) "Prosper of Aquitaine |*63 (the champion of Aug. against
Semi-Pelagianism), De ingratis (P. L. li. 91-148) ; Contra Collatorem [i. e.
Cassian t435] (P. L. li. 214-76).
3 Collected in Varia scripta ad hist. Pel. pert, i. e. the appendix to Aug.
Op. x. 63-162 (P. L. xiv. 1679-1792) ; and A. Bruckner, Quellen zur Ge
schichte des Pglagianischen Streites (1906). ,
3 TillemontTl/em. xiii. 561 sqq. ; Fleury, xxm-xxiv ; J. B. Mozley, Aug.
Doctr. Predestination, c. iii ; W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. i-lxviii ; Lessons,
157 sqq. ; Waymarks, 182 sqq. ; J. Tixeront, Hist. Dogmas, ii. 432-505 ;
H. W. Robinson, The Chr. Doctr. of Man, 178-95.
4 Pelagius, Libellus Fidei, § 13 (Op. x, app. 97 d ; P. L. xiv. 1718) ; and
Julian in Opus imperf. i, § 78 (Op. x. 920 e ; P.L. xiv. 1102).
6 Pelagius, Pro libero arbitrio, ap. Aug. De gratia Christi, § 5 (Op. x.
231 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 362), and Document No. 130.
6 Aug. De nat. et gratia, §§ 25, 39 (Op. x. 138 d, 143 f ; P.L. xliv. 259 sq.,
266). 7 De gest. Pel., § 5 (Op. x. 194 b ; P.L. xliv. 322).

60 PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 part iii
_^ (2) The possibility of living without sin followed as a second
assertion. Objection was taken to the unconditioned freedom of
choice on the ground that the will had been impaired from the first,
and so found itself ab initio inclined toward evil. This the Pela
gians resolutely denied.1 Freedom, according to them, is like
a pair of scales nicely balanced and capable of being inclined either
way 2 ; but by the will alone. There is nothing, therefore, to prevent
a man living without sin. And, while Pelagius, when on his guard,
would go no further than to say, ' What I affirm is that a man can be
without sin ',3 yet, when he could speak his mind to friendly ears,
he taught that philosophers before Christ had so lived,4 and he
prepared lists of Scriptural characters who, in his judgement, had
never sinned.5
(3) Sin, then, being a purely voluntary thing,6 it was asserted,
thirdly, that there is no such thing as Original Sin,7 i.e. a propensity
to sin which we each inherit through our origo or birth. This the
Pelagians rejected on four grounds, (a) Such a propensity, if it
existed, must have a cause. There is no sin but in the will. The
cause therefore could not be in the will of the child. It must be in
the will of God.8 (b) To admit it, would be to admit a sinful or
vitiated nature ; and that is Manichaeism.9 (c) If a sin of nature,
1 So Caelestius, Definitio 9, ap. Aug. De perf. iust, § 9 (Op. x. 170 d ;
P. L. xliv. 295).
2 Op. imp. iii, § 117 (Op. x. 1098 b, c ; P. L. xiv. 1297).
3 So Pelagius in his De natura, ap. Aug. De nat. et gr., § 8 (Op. x. 130 r;
P. L. xliv. 251) ; and De gest. Pel., § 16 (Op. x. 200 b ; P.L. xliv. 329).
4 Ad Demetriadem, §§ 3, 8 (Aug. Op. ii. app. 6 d, 8 e; P.L. xxxiii. 1101,
1104 sq.).
5 Aug. De nat et gratia, § 42 (Op. x. 144 f ; P. L. xliv. 267).
6 So Caelestius in Def. 2, ap. De perf. iust, § 2 (Op. x. 168 b ; P. L. xliv.
293). 7 The phrase Originale peccatum is first used by Augustine in his De dio.
quaest. ad Simplicianum [a. d. 397], I. i, § 11 (Op. vi. 85 b \'P. L. xl. 107).
It was probably suggested by ' originis iniuriam ' of Ambrose, as quoted
by Aug. in Contra duas epp. Pel. iv, § 29 (Op. x. 488 e ; P. L. xliv. 632)
from Ambrose, Apol. proph. David, i, § 56 (Op. I. i. 694 ; P. L. xiv. 873 c).
Ambrose goes back to ' contagium mortis antiquae ' of Cyprian, Ep. lxiv,
§ 5 (C. S. E. L. in. ii. 720) ; and Cyprian, in turn, to his ' master ' Ter
tullian's ' ex originis vitio ' (De anima, § 41). On this succession, see F. R.
Tennant, The Fall and Original Sin, 333, 336, 340. Augustine makes clear
what he means by ' peccatum ' in this connexion (not ' a sin ' [dpdpTij^a]
but a sinful condition [«papT-iri]), by using, instead, such words as
' vitium ' (De nat. et grat, § 3 [Op. x. 129 d ; P. L. xliv. 249]), 'aegritudo '
(ib., § 22 [Op. x. 136 a ; P. L. xliv. 257]), 'labes' (De Sp. et Uti, § 48 [Op.
x. 111b; P. L. xliv. 230]), and ' tabes ' (Op. imp. c. lui. vi, § 8 [Op. x.
1297 e ; P. L. xiv. 1513]).
8 Caelestius, Def. 4, ap. Deperf. iust, § 4 (Op. x. 169 a; P. L.,xliv. 294).
9 Op. imp. c. Iul. vi, §§ 8, 21 (Op. x. 1297, 1328 sq. ; P. L. xiv. 1513, 1548).

chap, iv PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 61
it would be indelible.1 (d) If Adam could thus transmit his sin
to his descendants, why could not a good man similarly transmit
his goodness ? 2 and why should not other sins be, in like manner,
transmitted ? 3 There is no such thing then as transmission of
sin : each of us starts anew : and, if our first parents did us any
harm, it was simply by bad example.
(4) But, fourthly, not only is there no Original Sin,4 there was
also no Fall. It would have been possible to deny Original Sin, and
yet to recognize a Fall, i.e. to allow that death, disease, ignorance,
and concupiscence came into the world as a consequence of Adam's
sin. But this would have been to admit that our nature, as God
made it, has been impaired ; and that Adam was created in a con
dition superior to that in which we now find ourselves. But this
is impossible ; nature is as sufficient now, as ever it was. ' Adam ',
therefore, ' was created mortal : and, had he sinned or not sinned,
would still have died.' 5 The institution of marriage before he
sinned is proof Of this ; for the purpose of marriage is to fill up the
voids caused by death.6 Further proof is to be seen in the con
tinuance of death since Christ came ; for, if death were the conse
quence of sin, then the removal of sin ought to have effected the
abolition of death.7 The threat, then, ' Ye shall surely die ', had
reference not to bodily death, but to the spiritual death of sin 8 ;
and ' Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return ', so far from
announcing a penalty, was simply a promise that the troubles of
life were to have an end.9 No doubt the troubles of Adam and Eve
increased after then' sin ; but they affected themselves only and
not their descendants.10'
(5) Similarly, in the fifth place, with regard to concupiscence.
They had it as well as we ; both in the wider sense of desiring what
is forbidden,11 and in the form of sexual concupiscence.12 That is
1 Op. imp. c. Iul, i. § 61 (Op. x. 92 c ; P. L. xiv. 1081).
2 Marius Merc. Comm. ii, § 10 (P. L. xlviii. 87 sq.).
3 Op. imp. c. lid. vi, § 21 (Op. x. 1329 b ; P. L. xiv. 1547).
4 For an explicit denial by Pelagius of Original Sin, see his words quoted
in Aug. De pecc. orig., § 14 (Op. x. 258 f; P.L. xliv. 391), and Document
No. 131.
5 Caelestius ap. De gest. Pel., § 23 (Op. x. 204 c ; P.L. xliv. 333).
6 Op. imp. vi, § 30 (Op. x. 1359 d ; P. L. xiv. 1580).
7 Ibid, ii, § 93 (Op. x. 988 s ; P.L. xiv. 1173).
8 Ibid, vi, § 30 (Op. x. 1359 s ; P. L. xiv. 1580).
9 Ibid, vi, § 27 (Op. x. 1348 a ; P.L. xiv. 1568).
10 Ibid, vi, § 27 (Op. x. 1348 c ; P.L. xiv. 1568).
11 Ibid, i, § 71 (Op. x. 913 v; P.L. xiv. 1094).
12 Ibid, iii, § 202 (Op. x. 1130 E ; P. L. xiv. 1336).

62 PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 part iii
part and parcel of our bodily nature ; as such, our Lord had it ;
and to see in it something evil, or a consequence of sin, is Mani
chaean.1 The matter may be clinched in one phrase of Caelestius :
' Infants newly born are in that condition in which Adam was
before he sinned.' 2 And, if it be asked how then do Pelagius and
his friends account for the ease with which we fall into sin and for
the universality of sin, they would reply that this has nothing to
do with our racial past, it is from force of habit. Sin with each of
us becomes second nature.3
(6) Such an account of sin led, sixthly, to a new doctrine of grace
and of the means of grace.
As to the means of grace, baptism of infants was the universal
practice of the Church of the fifth century. How then are we to
maintain that it is for remission of sins in the case of innocent
children ? The Pelagians did not maintain it. They retained
infant baptism,4 and even anathematized those who affirmed that
it was not necessary 5 ; but, they added, the gra'ce of baptism is
not the same for all. In the case of adults it is medicinal and
regenerating. In the case of infants, it is sanctifying only. ' Those
whom Christ made good by creation, He makes better by renewal
and adoption.' With infants, baptism looks not to the past but to
the future ; it has no cleansing, but only a benedictory, effect ; for
what infants receive at the font is ' spiritual illumination, adop
tion as children of God, citizenship of the heavenly Jerusalem,
sanctification and membership in Christ, with inheritance in the
kingdom of heaven '.6 Pelagians made a distinction between the
kingdom of heaven and eternal life. Life eternal infants could
attain without baptism 7 ; but baptism was necessary for admis
sion to the kingdom.8
With this limited view of the need and the grace of baptism,
went an equally limited conception of Grace 9 itself. Medicinal or
1 Op. imp. c. lid. iv, §§ 45-64 (Op. x. 1160-70 ; P. L. xiv. 1365-76).
2 De gest. Pel., § 23 (Op. x. 204 d ; P.L. xliv. 334).
3 Ep. ad Demetriadem, § 8 (Aug. Op. ii, app. 8 d ; P.L. xxxiii. 1104 sq.).
4 Libellus Fidei, § 7 (Op. x, app. 97 b ; P. L. xiv. 1718).
5 Contra duas epp. Pel. iv, § 2 (Op. x. 467 c ; P. L. xliv. 609).
6 Op. imp. i, § 53 (Op. x. 897 ; P. L. xiv. 1076), and Document No. 217.
7 So Caelestius, ap. De gest. Pel., § 23 (Op. x. 204 f ; P.L. xliv. 334).
8 De pecc. merit, i, § 26 (Op. x. 15 a ; P. L. xliv. 123).
9 On the meaning of the word Grace: (1) we must distinguish (a) its
meaning in Soripture = ' favour ' (W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, on Rom.
i. 5) from (6) its ecclesiastical meaning=' help', as in Aug. Enchiridion,
§ 28 (Op. vi. 237 ; P. L. xl. 282, ' divinum adiutorium '), or Ep. clxxv, § 2
(Op. ii. 618 o ; P.L. xxxiii, ' auxilium '). (2) The connexion between the

chap, iv PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10 63
recreative grace is not wanted ; for our nature is not diseased but
sound.1 But what of grace to avoid what is wrong and to do what
is right ? Is there any room for assisting grace ? Pelagius admitted J.
it, though Caelestius denied it absolutely 2 ; and Julian recognized
it as necessary only for supernatural attainments.3 ' I anathema
tize ', said Pelagius, ' him whothjnks or says that the grace of God
by whjchjQhrist came into this world to save sinners is not necessary,
not only every hour or every moment but for every act.' 4 But_iL
is necessary not_injirder jto do right, but ' to do it more easily '.5
Accordingly^ by grace he meant something less than the super
natural assistance of the Holy Spirit reinforcing the will from
within. Grace consists, according to Pelagians, in the endowments
bestowed upon a man at his creation, in the superiority to the
brute beasts which we owe to our possession of reason and free-will,
in the daily blessings of Providence, in the Mosaic Law, in the
Incarnation of our Lord as moving us to the love of God,6 but
above all in the illumination of His teaching and His example.7
Grace, therefore, in the view of Pelagius, operates on the will, in the
two is that, whereas we may feel kindly towards a man without going on
to help him, with God there is no such breach between feeling and action.
With him, to favour is to bless. (3) But it is important, for exegetical and
doctrinal purposes, to note this distinction : see J. J. Lias, The doctrinal
system of St. John, 257 sqq. ; J. P. Norris, Rudiments of Theology, 120 sqq.,
and B. J. Kidd, Articles, ii. 129 sq. (4) When we think of ' grace ' as
a ' gift ', of x"Pl* as X"Pta't1"' i* 's important not to separate the gift
from the Giver. ' The infusion of grace is merely a convenient theological
expression for the personal action of the Divine Paraclete ' (W. Bright,
Lessons, 162, n. 3). Grace is not something which God gives, and says
' Take it, or leave it ', but His personal action. It simply means the Holy
Spirit at work in the soul. God does not bestow something on us : He
works it in us. ' The power that worketh in us ' (Eph. iii. 20) is the biblical
expression for grace in its ecclesiastical sense. To forget this, is to expose
the doctrine of the means of grace, or the sacraments, to the charge, of
being so much mechanism, by overlooking the personal connexion they set
up or maintain between the soul and its God. But Catholicism is not
opposed to Evangelicalism. Augustine uses ' Grace ' and the ' Holy Spirit '
as synonyms, e. g. De Sp. et litt., § 5 ; De nat et gratia, § 25 (Op. x. 87, 138 c ;
P. L. xliv. 203, 259). (5) For the best descriptions of what ' Grace ' means,
see J. B. Mozley, Aug. Doctr. of Predestination, 323 ; W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr.
x ; H. P. Liddon, University Sermons, i. 44, 66, ii. 34, 188 ; Advent Sermons,
i. 234; Christmas Sermons, 217; F. Paget, Faculties and Difficulties2,
188 sqq. ; I. von Dollinger, First Age ofthe Church2, 184, 191.
1 De nat. et gratia, § 25 (Op. x. 138 B ; P. L. xliv. 259).
2 De gest. Pel., § 42 (Op. x. 215 a, b ; P. L. xliv. 345).
3 Op. imp. iii, § 106 (Op. x. 1092 sq. ; P. L. xiv. 1291).
4 De grat. Chr., § 2 (Op. x. 229 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 360).
5 Ibid., § 27 (Op. x. 243 b ; P. L. xliv. 374).
8 Op. imp. i, § 94 (Op. x. 928 ; P. L. xiv. 1111).
7 De grat. Chr., § 8 (Op. x. 233 F ; P.L. xliv. 364).

64 PELAGIANISM (i) : IN ROME, 400-10
main, ab extra, and, moreover, it rests with us, by making good
use of our free-will, to deserve it.1 There could, therefore, be no
predestination of a soul 2 irrespective of foreseen deserts 3 ; for the
first steps towards salvation are taken by the unaided forces of our
nature, grace coming in afterwards in order to make the attain
ment of it' easier.4
Such, in outline, is the system of Pelagius. Put more briefly, it
resolves itself into ' two main propositions : (1) We do not need
supernatural Grace, because (2) We do not bring into the world
with us Original Sin. In the development of his theory, Pelagius
probably began by laying down the former, and then went on at
once to provide it with a basis in the latter. Pelagianism, in one
word, is Naturalism 5 ; and, as such, like Arianism, a retrograde
movement toward paganism.6 We now proceed, in the next two
chapters, to trace its history up to its condemnation in the West.
1 De grat Chr., § 34 (Op. x. 244 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 376 sq.).
2 Aug. De praedest sanct, § 36 (Op. x. 814 c ; P.L. xliv. 987).
3 De gest. Pel., § 42 (Op. x. 215 c ; P.L. xliv. 345) — an extreme opinion
about merit, in which Caelestius stood alone.
4 De grat. Chr., § 27 (Op. x. 243 b ; P. L. xliv. 374). For a list of the
incomplete senses in which Pelagians admitted grace, see D. Petavius,
De Pelagianorum . . . Historia, ii, § 4 (Op. iii. 596 : Paris, 1644), and W.
Bright, Lessons, app. xix.
5 ' Pelagius, by denying Original Sin, argued against the necessity for
redemption, and struck at the root of Christianity,' J. Michelet, History of
France, i. 30 (tr. G. H. Smith) ; J. B. Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 52, 103 ;
and, for a defence of the denial, J. B. Bury, St. Patrick, 43 sq.
6 C. Merivale, The Conversion of the Northern Nations, 48 sqq. (1866),
and a striking story in Hefele, ii. 446, n. 3.

CHAPTER V
PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15
The events of the Pelagian controversy are grouped into four
stages ; and they occurred (i) in Africa, 410-15, where they centre
upon Caelestius and called for the intervention of Augustine ; (ii)
in Palestine, 415-16, where Pelagius was the protagonist and both
Jerome and Theodore entered the lists ; (iii) in Rome and Africa,
416-18, where the matter was taken up officially by the Popes
and the African episcopate and hastened to a conclusion by the
rescript of Honorius, 30 April 418. These events will occupy us in
this chapter and the next. Chapters VII and VIII will be devoted
to (iv) the aftermath of the controversy, in the struggle between
Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism, 418-31, and to a brief
review of the developments which issued in the Catholic doctrine
of Grace, 431-529.
§ 1. On the approach of the Goths, Pelagius and Caelestius left
Rome for Sicily. There they left the germs of their teaching to
work ; for, five years afterwards, three propositions embodying
it were addressed to Augustine for an answer by a layman of
Syracuse named Hilary.1 But it was only a flying visit ; and they
crossed to Africa. Pelagius visited Hippo, but kept his counsel
there. Thence he went to Carthage, where Augustine, who had
already heard of his opinions, saw him once or twice. But he was
then wholly absorbed in the Conference with the Donatists, 411 ;
and, meanwhile, Pelagius left Carthage for Palestine. Caelestius
remained ; and, on his endeavouring to obtain priest's Orders at
Carthage,2 he was denounced for heresy to Aurelius,3 by the deacon
Paulinus, who was then living at Carthage as the agent of the
Church of Milan 4 and, at the suggestion of Augustine, was busy
with the life of St. Ambrose.5
§ 2. Aurelius dealt with the accusation by summoning the
1 Aug. Epp. clvi, clvii (Op. ii. 542-59 ; P. L. xxxiii. 673-93) ; and De
gest. Pel., § 23 (Op. x. 204 F ; P.L. xliv. 334), and Document No. 180.
2 Ep. clvii, § 22 (Op. ii. 552 d ; P.L. xxxiii. 685).
3 Marius Merc. Comm., § 1 (P. L. xlviii. 68 sq.).
4 Praedestinatus [c. a. d. 450], lxxxviii (P. L. liii. 617 d) ; on this work,
see Bardenhewer, 604.
5 Ambrose, Op. i (P. L. xiv. 27^6) ; Bardenhewer, 514 sq.
2191 III j*

66 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part in
Council of Carthage,1 411-12.2 Augustine was not present 3 ; and it
was for Paulinus to establish the charges he had made. He pre
sented a memorial, accusing Caelestius of maintaining that (1)
Adam was created mortal and, whether he sinned or not, he was
to have died ; (2) The sin of Adam injured himself alone, and not
the race ; (3) Infants newly born are in the same state in which
Adam was before he sinned ; (4) The death or sin of Adam is not
the cause of the death of all mankind, nor the resurrection of
Christ of the resurrection of all mankind ; (5) The Law brings men
to the kingdom of heaven in the same way as does the Gospel ;
(6) Even before the coming of- the Lord there were impeccable
men, i.e. men without sin.4 Augustine has preserved for us a
fragment of tbe debate which followed upon the presentation of
these articles 5 ; and it will be observed that, while any one adopt
ing them would be committed to a direct denial of the Fall and to
an indirect repudiation of the need of Redemption, he would have
expressed no opinion on the hereditary transmission of sin. On
that point the propositions incriminated were silent. But the
point was immediately raised in debate ; and Caelestius took
advantage of the loophole left him to protest, with reference to the
second proposition, that it was an open question — this, of the
transmission of sin — and that he knew several presbyters, ' among
them Rufinus of Rome, the guest of Pammachius, who denied
original sin '. The Council passed the matter over for the moment,
and made no objection to the refusal of Caelestius to commit him
self to an assertion of the transmission of sin. But, in the discussion
of the third proposition, it came up again as an inference from the
practice of Infant Baptism so as quite to take the innovators by
surprise. Pelagius, in his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, had
never said a word of the baptism of infants ; and Caelestius now
professed ' I have always affirmed that infants need baptism, and
ought to be baptized ' — no less than adults — ' for the remission
of sins ', as he added some years later.6 What the Council wanted
1 Mansi, iv. 289-300 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 168 sqq. (E. Tr. ii. 446-8) ;
Aug. Op. x, app. ii. 73 sq. (P. L. xiv. 1691 sq.).
2 For the date, see Aug. Ep. clxxv, § 1 (Op. ii. 617 e ; P. L. xxxiii. 759).
3 Retract, ii, § 33 (Op. i. 53 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 644).
4 These six propositions are given in Marius Mere. Comm. (P. L. xlviii.
69 sq.), and he adds a seventh in Liber subn., § 5 (ib. 114 sq.). Augustine
gives the six in De gest. Pel., § 23 (Op. x. 204 ; P. L. xliv. 333 sq.), Docu
ment No. 180.
5 Aug. De pecc. orig., §§ 2, 3 (Op. x. 253 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 386 sq.).
6 In his letter to Pope Zosimus, 417, quoted ibid., 55 5, 6 (Ov. x. 255 ;
P. L. xliv. 368

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 67
to draw from him was, of course, a true statement as to the nature
of this need. But on this point, that it was the need of a Redeemer,
inasmuch as infants too have Original Sin, Caelestius was evasive.
' What more ', he asked, ' does Paulinus want ? ' Caelestius was con
demned, and departed for Ephesus, where he again endeavoured
to obtain promotion to the presbyterate.1 But his condemnation
is of less importance than the fact that it was due to collision
between his teaching and — not the doctrinal system (for the
point in question was, as yet, an open one) but — the institu
tions of the Church. So strongly established a practice was the
baptism of infants at the opening of the fifth century 2 that the
argument to be drawn from it in favour of Original Sin was at
once held to be decisive. At a later stage, Pelagianism was to
receive a second check from its incompatibility with another
institution of the Church, viz. prayer.3 But the check it received
when confronted with the universal and settled practice of infant
baptism was, for the moment, staggering. Caelestius had appa
rently quite overlooked the obstacle. He could not deny that in
fants were baptized, and that their baptism like that of adults,
was, as the Creed had it, ' unto remission of sins '. Their sin,
however, was not an act of will. It must therefore be a ' sin of
nature ' 4 ; and this simple argument established not only a Fall but
Original Sin.5 So much was clear : though it was not yet clear
in what Original Sin consisted.6 It was the task of Augustine
to elucidate this ; not, indeed, completely, nor quite successfully.
He only began the discussion of the problem. It lasted long after
1 Marius Merc. Comm., § 2 (P. L. xlviii. 70-3).
2 For passages involving its practice, see Tert. De baptismo, § 18 ; Origen,
In Luc. Horn, xiv (Op. iii. 948 ; P. G. xiii. 1835 b) ; In Rom. v, § 9 (Op. iv.
565 ; P. G. xiv. 1047 b), and the well-known passage in Cyprian, Ep. lxiv,
§ 5 (<7. 8. E. L. in. ii. 720), so often quoted by Aug. for the effect of baptism
in removing Original Sin, as in Contra duas epp. Pel. iv, § 23 (Op. x. 482 ;
P. L. xliv. 625), and in Sermo, ccxciv, § 19 (Op. v. 1193 d ; P. L. xxxix.
1347 sq.). Julian of Eclanum had great difficulty in getting rid of the
argument for Original Sin from Infant Baptism, e. g. Contra Iulianum, ii,
§§ 2 sqq. (Op. x. 525 sqq. ; P. L. xliv. 672 sqq.), iii, § 11 (Op. x. 558 ; P. L.
xliv. 708).
3 Ep. clxxv [A. d. 416], § 4 (Op. ii. 619 d ; P.L. xxxiii. 761).
4 Depecc. orig., § 6 (Op. x. 255 f ; P. L. xliv. 388).
5 Caelestius, however, refused to admit the inference, ibid., § 4 (Op. x.
255 b; P. L. xliv. 387 sq.).
6 On this, see J. B. Mozley, Aug. doctr. Pred., c. iv ; and for the ' alter
native theory ' (sc. to the traditional theory) ' supplied by evolution ',
F. R. Tennant, The origin and propagation of sin, 10 sq.
F 2

68 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 pabt in
his day ; and the solution to which he pointed was not accepted
without qualification.1
On the departure of Caelestius, with nothing to say, the moment
was ripe for the intervention of Augustine, 412 — first in sermons,
then in writing.
§ 3. Before separating, the Council of Carthage appears to have
draw] i up counter-propositions to those of Caelestius. But his
opinions had obtained some notoriety ; and Augustine, with
other bishops, informed of the situation, set himself, ' in sermons
and discussions,' 2 to counteract them as novelties destructive of
true belief in the Redemption. In a group of sermons known
to belong to this period,3 we have interesting samples of his argu
ments against Pelagianism. ' If man had not perished,' he says —
anticipating the Thomist by contrast with the Scotist view of the
cause of the Incarnation 4 — ' the Son of Man would not have
come.' s In the next sentence — again anticipating a striking
statement by Leontius of Byzantium, 485— f 543, of a far-reaching
principle 6 — he treats grace not as destructive but as corrective
and supplementary of nature. ' Man perished by free-will ; and
the God-man came in grace that makes the will really free.' Then
he comes to the argument from the baptism of infants which the
Council had used with such effect upon Caelestius. ' To say ', he
urges, ' that infancy has nothing for Jesus to save is to deny that
Christ is Jesus to Christian infants : and such denial is incom
patible with a sound Rule of Faith.' Then, proceeding on the
assumption that there can, in the Christian Church, be no forms
for form's sake, i.e. that Christian ordinances, unlike Jewish, are
sacraments,7 he contends that baptism, like the rest, must have
1 For ' Augustinian exaggerations ', see J. B. Mozley, Pred. 131, 155 sq.,
163 sq., 208, 297, 323-9, and W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. xiii. sq.
2 Retract, ii, § 33 (Op. i. 53 e ; P. L. xxxii. 644).
3 Sermones, clxx, clxxiv, clxxv, clxxvi (Op. v. 818 sqq. ; P. L. xxxviii.
926 sqq.); Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 576 sqq.; Fleury, xxiii. ii ; Duchesne,
Hist. ane. de VEglise, ii. 241, n. 1.
4 On these rival views, see W. Bright, Sermons of St. Leo a, 217 sq.
5 Sermo, clxxiv, § 2 (Op. v. 831 b ; P. L. xxxviii. 940) ; cf. St. Thos. Aq.
Summa, in. i. 3.
6 Leont. Byz. Contra Nest, et Eutych. ii (P. G. lxxxvi. 1333 b) : see
(J. Gore, Dissertations, 276, n. 3 (ed. 1907).
7 The Church has her ordinances, and yet has not gone back to Judaism,
because they are (1) few and simple, (2) not mere ordinances but sacra
ments : see Aug. Ep. liv, § 1 (Op. ii. 124 A ; P.L. xxxiii. 200) ; De cat. rud.,
§ 50 (Op. vi. 293 f; P. L. xl. 344); and Sermo, eclxxii (Op. v. 1104 0;
P. L. xxxviii. 1247). For the difference between Jewish and Christian

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 69
its accompanying grace. If then the rite confers spiritual grace,
infants who are brought to it, as also to Confirmation and Com
munion, must have a spiritual need. What is that need according
to the Pelagians ? The need, he replies, is of ' saving health '.
' Why run with the child to the doctor if he is not ill ? ' x In a later
sermon he declares that ' of all the mass of mankind derived from
Adam, there is no one who is not sick, and none is healed save by
the grace of Christ . . . and if infants brought to baptism are
affirmed to have no inherited sinfulness, then we ought to say in
church to those who bring them (not " Suffer little children to come
unto me " but) " Take those innocents away ! " " They that are
whole have no need of a physician but they that are sick." Christ
" came not to call the righteous, but sinners ".2 . . . Let parents
make their choice ; and either confess that, in their children there
is sin to be healed, or else cease to bring them to the Great Physi
cian.' 3 Thus Augustine, no doubt, at the instance of archbishop
Aurelius, put the faithful at Carthage on their guard against Pela
gianism. He developed against Caelestius the argument from the
sacrament of Baptism ; just as Cyril of Alexandria afterwards
urged against Nestorius the argument from the Eucharist.4
Augustme was soon asked to deal with the new doctrines, for the
benefit not now of the populace but of the educated, in writing.
Marcellinus who, as High Commissioner of Honorius, had but
lately presided over the Conference of Carthage, 411, was a devout
Catholic and a friend of Augustine. He took an intelligent interest
in the theological questions of the day,5 but was wearied with the
question, ' Why should infants be baptized ? ' and with the im
possible answers 6 which Pelagians gave to it. He wrote to
Augustine for his opinion.7
§ 4. The reply was the first of the long series of anti-Pelagian
treaties ; and was entitled De peccatorum meritis ac remissione et
ordinances, see In Lev. Q. lxxxiv (Op. iii. 524 B ; P.L. xxxiv. 742 sq.) ; and
W. Bright, St. Leo2, 136.
1 Sermo, clxxiv, § 7 (Op. v. 833 sq. ; P. L. xxxviii. 943 sq.).
2 Mark ii. 17, the one place in the Gospels where it is clearly taught that
sin is a disease, and our Lord the physician. So the Church is a hospital,
where ' curantur aegroti ', Pacian, Ep. iii, § 4 (P. L. xiii. 1066 b).
3 Aug. Serm. clxxvi, § 2 (Op. v. 840 b ; P.L. xxxviii. 951) : see also Serm.
cxv, § 4, ccxciii, § 11 (Op. v. 576, 1181 ; P. L. xxxviii. 657, 1334).
4 Cyril, De recta fide, § 38 (Op. ix. 35 ; P. G. lxxvi. 1189) ; and Ep. xvii
(ad Nest, iii) (Op. x. 72 ; P. G. lxxvii. 113).
5 Aug. Ep. cxc, § 20 (Op. ii. 706 b ; P. L. xxxiii. 864).
6 e. g. De pecc. merit, i, § 63 (Op. x. 35 f, g ; P. L. xliv. 146 sq.).
7 De gest. Pel., § 25 (Op. x. 205 D ; P.L. xliv. 335).

70 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part in
de baptismo parvulorum,1 412. In Book I he takes up at once the
Pelagian argument, § 2, that Adam would have died not from desert
of sin but from necessity of nature. Certainly, § 3, Adam was
created mortal ; but had he continued in obedience he would not
actually have died ; he would have passed to immortality.2 This
immortality, § 6, he lost by sin ; and so became subject to death
not by the necessity of nature but by the desert of sin, for, § 8, ' by
one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin '.3
Then, relying on a mistranslation which makes St. Paul speak of
Adam as the one man ' in whom all sinned ',4 Augustine proceeds
to argue, §§ 9 sqq., that the sin of Adam has implicated all his
descendants. No mere imitation of his example, §§ 9, 10, will
explain the mystery of sin ; and this is clear from the analogy of
justification, § 11, which does not consist in the imitation-of Christ
but in our incorporation into Him. So condemnation, § 19, has
its root not in the mere following of Adam but in our community
of nature with him. Thence the treatise travels on naturally to the
rationale of infant baptism. It is not, § 23, simply that they may
be admitted to the kingdom of heaven ; but, § 24, that they are
spiritually sick and in need of the Physician. Baptism, in other
words, is administered, § 33, to children in order that they may
receive remission of original sin. In Book II he shows, by way
of attacking the Pelagian notion that perfect sinlessness has been
attained by certain persons in this life, that, § 7, though by the
grace of God and our own free-will we can be without sin, yet,
§§ 8-25, as a matter of fact, no one ever has been sinless, for there
are none who have not occasion to say, ' Forgive us our trespasses '.
The reason for this is, §§ 26-33, that none desire it so earnestly as
they should. Finally, § 34, our Lord alone is without sin. He had
scarcely finished these two books when he came across the Com
mentary of Pelagius on St. Paul's Epistles.5 Here he found it
maintained, in opposition to original sin, that, if the sin of Adam
is prejudicial to those who do not sin, the righteousness of Christ
1 Op. x. 1-84 (P. L. xliv. 109-200). ' Here are found the loci classici for
the teaching of St. Augustine on sanctifying grace,' Bardenhewer, 486.
2 This is the uniform teaching of the Fathers, see Ath. De Inc. iii, § 3,
iv, § 6, and Newman, Select Tr. of Ath. ii. 1 sq. Contrast the protectant
teaching in K. R. Hagenbach, Hist. Doctrine, § 245.
3 Rom. v. 12.
4 'In quo omnes peccaverunt ' for iip' Z wavres fcapror, on which see
R. C. Trench, St. Aug. as an Interpreter*, 121, n. 3 (1881).
5 De peer., merit, iii, § 1 (Op. x. 71 D ; P. L. xliv. 186).

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 71
is similarly efficacious for those who do not believe.1 This was the
occasion of Book III. It took the form of a letter to Marcellinus in
which Augustine shows, § 2, how infants are counted among the
faithful and are benefited by what parents and sponsors do for
them. Such is the first anti-Pelagian treatise ; in which Augustine
is careful to attack opinions only, and not names ; and, when he
is obliged to mention Pelagius by name, to speak of him in terms
of high regard.2
§ 5. A letter from an inquirer named Honoratus drew from
Augustine a pamphlet De gratia Novi Testamenti,3 before Mar
cellinus had digested the De peccatorum meritis. Marcellinus found
a difficulty in Augustine's handling of the question of sinlessness ;
for he could not reconcile the possibility of a man's bing with
out sin with the actual fact of none being sinless save our Lord.
This was the occasion of the second anti-Pelagian treatise, De
Spiritu et littera,i written toward the end of 412. Scripture gives
us, § 1, several examples, says Augustine, of things that are possible
but have never happened. Marcellinus, however, will reply, § 2,
that they are such as God alone can do ; whereas for a man to be
without sin belongs to the sphere of human action. It does so
belong ; but it is also the gift of God, and therefore a work which
God alone can do. The gift in question, § 5, is not merely that of
free-will, but of Grace, i.e. of the Holy Spirit at work in the soul.5
For, § 6, law without love is but ' the letter that killeth ' ; good as
it is, it only serves to excite by its prohibitions the desire for what
is forbidden.6 But when ' the love of God hath been shed abroad
in the heart through the Holy Ghost which was given unto us ',7
then desire is changed into love of what the law commands, and so
' the Spirit giveth life '. Thus, § 7, a good life, as being within the
power of God, is possible for us ; although, in His wisdom, He has
allowed no instance of it. Augustine then goes on to contrast,
§§ 8-32, the work of ' the letter ' with that of ' the Spirit ' 8 ;
§§ 33-42, what was attainable under the Old Covenant with what
Grace can effect under the New ; §§ 43-9, the capacities of Nature
with the possibilities of Grace. Christ, §§ 50-1 . is thus the only source
of righteousness ; and, §§ 52-60, it is only by Grace that the will is
1 Depecc. merit, iii, § 2 (Op. x. 71 f ; P. L. xliv. 187).
2 Ibid., §§ 5, 6 (Op. x. 73 c, 74 b ; P. L. xliv. 188 sq.).
3 Ep. cxl (Op. ii. 422-56 ; P. L. xxxiii. 558-77).
4 Op. x. 85-126 (P. L. xiv. 201^6). 5 Document No. 176.
6 Rom. vii. 7, 11. 7 Rom. v. 5. 8 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.

72 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part in
set really free. He concludes, §§ 61-6, by reverting to the occasion
and purpose of the treatise which was to show that sinlessness, or
a holy life, is the work of God ; done indeed through man but none
the less the work of God. But no summary can do justice to
a treatise like this. Its contribution to the permanent enrichment
of religion lies in the working out of the contrast between ' the
letter and the Spirit ' which Augustine found in St. Paul. Without
ignoring all reference in the phrase to the contrast between the
literal and the figurative sense of Scripture, to which he had
learned from St. Ambrose1 to attach great weight, he read the
words, in the light of their context and of St. Paul's experience
as given in Rom. vii. 7-25, to mean that ' our sufficiency is of God '.
He took ' the letter which killeth ' to be law,2 considered as an
ab extra system of mere precept and prohibition. Such law may
enlighten the conscience as to duty 3 ; but it has an imperative
and minatory 4 tone. It sounds like a prohibitive mandate ; and
so, owing to the very contrariness of human nature,5 it only
irritates into rebellion 6 and fails of its purpose. It neither awakens
the feeling of love 7 for the commandment, nor gives grace and
power to fulfil it.8 Thus ' the letter killeth ' because it remains,
as it came, ab extra. But where the Law failed, as in St. Paul's
experience described in Rom. vii. 7-25,9 the Gospel succeeded.
The one was ' letter ' — mere written enactment ; the other is
' Spirit '. For we Christians have a life-giving presence of the
Holy Spirit which, by inwardly uplifting the will10 and writing
the law of God in the heart,11 imparts justification on condition of
faith 12 ; and thereby produces an obedience prompted by love 13
1 Conf. vi, § 6 (Op. i. 122 b ; P. L. xxxii. 722).
2 For this exposition, see W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. xix-xxi.
3 De Sp. et Uti, § 8. 4 Ibid., §§ 13. 16, 22. 5 Ibid., § 6.
6 Ibid., § 25. 7 Ibid., § 26. 8 Ibid., § 32.
9 Ibid., § 25. 10 Ibid., § 20. ii Ibid., §§ 29, 36, 42.
i2 Ibid., §§ 15, 16, 45, 51. In § 45 note ' Quid est enim aliud iustificati
quam iusti facti 1 ' with which cf. ' Gratia Dei, qua iustificamur, hoc est,
iusti effioimur ' (Retract, ii, § 33 ; Op. i. 53 e [P. L. xxxii. 644]), and ' Iustitia
Dei dicitur quod impertiendo earn, iustos facit ' (De Sp. et Hit, § 18). An
error of interpretation was thus imported into St. Paul's theology, owing
to Augustine's imperfect Greek, viz. that Sutaiovv means to ' make right
eous ' instead of to ' treat as righteous '. The Augustinian account of
Justification got into mediaeval theology, and is now embodied in the
Tridentine definition, ' Iustificatio ipsa . . . non est sola peccatorum remissio
sed et sanotificatio et renovatio interioris hominis ', Sess. vt, c. vii. This
is to confuse Justification (Rom. iii-v) and Sanctification (Rom. vi-viii) :
they are distinct, though, on the conversion and baptism of an adult,
the first is followed by the second.
13 Ibid., §§ 5, 36, 41.

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 73
and rendered with joy and gratitude.1 Yet the Law is not dis
paraged, nor free-will annulled. Nay, the one is fulfilled,2 and the
other is healed and so enabled to feel its freedom.3 Luther was
right when he spoke of this treatise as inspired. It is : it touches
the very heart of Christianity, as three men only have penetrated
to it, St. Paul, St. Augustine, and Luther himself.
§ 6. We must leave the Pelagian controversy for a moment, to
take a glance at a pamphlet of Augustine's, written early in 413,
which throws an interesting light upon cross-currents of theological
opinion and upon preparation for baptism at the time. Some lay
men sent him a brochure which taught that eternal life could be
won by faith, with baptism but without good works.4 Its authors
observed that divorced persons, who had left wife or husband and
married again, were not admitted to baptism. They ought to be
admitted, on embracing the faith, without abandoning their sin.
After baptism, let them be instructed in Christian morals, and
urged to confession. But should they continue all their life in sin,
provided only they kept the faith, ' they would be saved ; yet so as
by fire '.5 In the De fide et operibus6 Augustine dealt with these
subversive opinions. He began, §§ 1-7, by protesting against
indiscriminate baptism : we have to tolerate the wicked within
the Church, but we must take care that they are not admitted
when known to be such. Next, §§ 8-20, those who are preparing
for Baptism must be taught not merely the faith but the morals
of the Christian Church. Finally, §§ 21-6, those who are baptized
must remember that faith alone, without good works, is not
sufficient for salvation. So Augustine deals with the anticipations
of opinions common in the sixteenth century, and now known as
Solifidianism.7 § 7. We return to the dangers attendant upon the opposite pole
of religious thought ; for against them, at the request of arch
bishop Aurelius,8 Augustine warned his hearers at Carthage in
a sermon 9 of 25 June 413. Finding that the new opinions were
spreading widely in Africa, and that the admirers of Caelestius were
1 De Sp. et Kit, §§ 16, 18, 26, 42. 2 Ibid., §§ 6, 16, 21, 24.
3 Ibid., § 52. 4 Retract, ii, § 38 (Op. i. 55 d ; P. L. xxxii. 646).
5 Defide et operibus, § 2 (Op. vi. 166 a ; P.L. xl. 198).
8 Op. vi. 165-92 (P. L. xl. 197-230) ; Fleury, xxiii. x ; Bardenhewer, 481.
7 They are in view in Art. xii, and for the name, see C. Hardwick, Articles,
126. 8 De gest. Pel., § 25 (Op. x. 205 d ; P.L. xliv. 335).
9 Sermo, ccxciv (Op. vi. 1183-94; P. L. xxxviii. 1335-48); Fleury,
xxiii. xiv.

74 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part iii
retorting the charge of innovation and threatening their opponents
with the censure of the Eastern churches, Augustine preached
a controveisial sermon. The new opinions, he began, § 1, are
making rapid progress. The difference between us, § 2, is not
whether infants ought to be baptized, but on what grounds they
ought to be admitted to baptism. To say, §§ 3-4, that they need
baptism not to attain eternal life but only to enter the kingdom,
is a new and unheard-of doctrine : it is to set up a distinction
where, in Scripture, no distinction exists. And, further, as Scrip
ture mentions no ' middle place ' between " right ' and ' left ',
between ' the kingdom ' and ' fire eternal ', to be shut out from
the one is to be relegated to the other. ' An infant ', therefore,
§ 7, ' dying unbaptized, goes into condemnation.' Such is the
relentless severity of Augustine's logic. Not that he was wholly
forgetful of the divine equity ; for, in an earlier work, he had called
the fate of an unbaptized infant ' the mildest condemnation ' x ;
and, in a later, he held it to be so light that one could not say, ' Good
were it for that child, if it had not been bom '.2 He does waver ;
and, at times, is inconsistent with himself. But in this sermon his
tones were harsh enough ; and he fell back on his favourite text,
' 0 the depth, &c. ',3 for satisfaction. ' Scripture says so ; and I
cannot help it ' — so necessary, § 14, is baptism to salvation, in the
case of all who are ' children of wrath '.4 And such, § 15, we were,
because of our descent from Adam, ' in whom all have sinned '. If
the Pelagians should take this to mean, as they do, only that Adam
sinned first and we have sinned by following his example, surely
it was the devil, not Adam, who set the first bad example ; and
Abel, not Christ, who ought to have been our Saviour, for he set the
first good one. If again, § 16, they ask, ' Why, if those who are
born of a sinner, are sinners, are not those who are born of a be
liever righteous as he is ? ' — Augustine answers, ' This is a cavil :
the believer does not beget 'in that he is regenerate according to the
Spirit, but in that he is begotten according to the flesh. Similar
cavils are dismissed, with much more logic than they are worth.
Augustine was the keenest of disputants ; and there are traces of
i De pecc. merit, i, § 21 (Op. x. 12 c ; P. L. xliv. 120). It was forgotten
in the Ten Articles of 1536, ' and else not ' (C. Hardwick, Articles, 243), but
not by Hooker, E. P. v. lx, § 6, nor by our present rubric (the first at the
end of Public Baptism), which omits ' and else not '.

2 Contra Iulianum, v, § 44 (Op. x. 650 sq. ; P. L. xliv 809)
" Rom. xi. 33 : see § 7. 4 Eph. ii. 3.

3

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 75
eristic delight in this ex-professor of Rhetoric which, no doubt,
popular audiences of the day appreciated ; and which are quite
of a piece with the love of dialectics that characterized the Univer
sities of antiquity as well as of the Middle Ages. Augustine, § 17,
then remmds the people that, in allowing that infants are baptized
because they are spiritually in need, the Pelagians have admitted
too much ; and, § 19, he took out and read the celebrated passage
from St. Cyprian where it was stated what the nature of that need
is. ' If the greatest of sinners, when they turn to the faith, receive
the remission of their sins and baptism ; how much less ought we
to refuse it to an infant who is just born and hath not sinned, save
only that, by being born of Adam according to the flesh, he has, by
his first-birth, contracted the infection of the ancient death.' x To
appeal to the authority of St. Cyprian at Carthage would be to
leave the -impression that there was nothing more to be said ; and
the preacher created a great sensation. ' We will not call them
heretics,' he concluded, § 20, ' though we might justly do so. Mis
takes we can tolerate ; but not attacks on the very foundations
of the Church.' Augustine more than carried out his own advice ;
for, about this time, he received a letter from Pelagius and showed
that he still hoped the best for him by replying in terms of respect
ful cordiality, and making no allusion to the opinions associated
with his name.2
§ 8. Next year, 414, Hilary of Syracuse, a layman whom we have
already mentioned, informed him that Christians there were
maintaining (a) that a man can be without sin, (b) that he can
easily keep the commandments of God, if he likes ; (c) that an
infant, dying unbaptized, cannot justly perish, since he is born
without sin ; (d) that riches are an absolute bar to salvation ;
(e) that oaths are altogether wrong ; and (/) that ' the Church
without spot or wrinkle 3 is that wherein we now are, so that it can
be without sin.' 4 Riches and oaths, it may be observed, were both
things that might be dispensed with according to the Pelagians : so
that men might the more easily be without sin. To these questions
Augustine, as invited, replied in a letter 5 of 414. As to (a) whether
a man can live without sin, §§ 1-3, he will not go into the abstract
1 Cyprian, Ep. lxiv, § 5 (C. S. E. L. in. ii. 720).
2 Ep. cxlvi (Op. ii. 473 ; P. L. xxxiii. 596) ; and De gest. Pel., § 52 (Op.
x. 218 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 349). 3 Eph. v. 27.
4 Ep. clvi (Op. ii. 542 ; P. L. xxxii. 674).
5 Ep. clvii (Op. ii. 542-59 ; P. L. xxxii. 674-93) ; Fleury, xxm. xv.

76 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 pabt in
question. Enough that no one ever has, or does. It is the answer
of the second book of De peccatorum meritis. In regard to (b) that
it is an easy thing, if we like, to keep the commandments, §§ 4-10,
persons who think so may be put up with ; but it is an intolerable
error to hold that ' freewill by itself is competent to fulfil the
commandments of God '. It can only do so if it is assisted by
Grace, as is clear from the Scriptures. In respect of (c) the baptism
of infants, it is necessary, §§ 11-22, because infants are born in
original sin ; incorporation into the Second Adam being indis
pensable because of our solidarity with the First. Upon the fourth
question (d) whether rich men may be saved, §§ 25-39, he observes
that there is a place for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom ;
and proceeds to distinguish, by reference to the example of the rich
young ruler,1 between Counsels of Perfection that might require
the abandonment of riches and the Precepts of the baptismal vow
which run simply ' keep the commandments '. Coming to (e) oaths,
§ 40, they had better be avoided, as much as possible : not that it
is wrong to swear truly, but it is a very great sin to swear falsely.
And as to, §§ 39-40, (/) the purity of the Church, she endures in
this world among her members not only imperfect Christians but
sinners ; so that the Church on earth cannot be the ' Church with
out spot or wrinkle '.
§ 9. It is an interesting letter ; but far surpassed in interest — at
least, to the churchmen of that day — by the news of the self-renun
ciation of Demetrias, which caused Jerome, Pelagius, and Augustine
to shower their felicitations and advice upon her. Demetrias 2 was
the daughter of Olybrius, Consul in 395. She had fled from Rome,
on the approach of the Goths, and taken refuge at Carthage, accom
panied by Juliana her mother and Proba her grandmother on her
father's side. She was thus the heiress of the princely house whose
head had been Proba's husband, Sextus Petronius Probus, 334-f94 :
a man, as Ammianus tells us, who had estates in every region of the
Empire, and felt like a fish out of water whenever he was not a Vice
roy.3 Juliana and Proba had suffered much after landing in Africa,
from the avarice of Count Heraclian 4 ; and they resolved to marry
Demetrias to some wealthy protector in exile, though they would
have been better pleased to see her devoted to virginity. On the
i Mark x. 17-30.
2 Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 620-5 ; Fleury, xxiii. xii ; Newman, Ch. F.,
c. xiv. 3 Amm. Marc. Res Gestae, xxvn. xi, §§ 1-3.
4 Jerome, Ep. cxxx, § 7 (Op. i. 982; P. L. xxii. 1112).

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 77
eve of the wedding, Demetrias took them aback by declaring that
this had long been her intention. They gave her dowry to the poor.
And she received the veil from the hands of archbishop Aurelius.
Her rank and prospects rendered her self -dedication famous.
News of it spread far and wide, independently of the care which
Proba and Juliana took to acquaint Augustine 1 and Jerome 2 with
the event. Hence quite a literature : of which we have two
specimens from Palestine, from Jerome and Pelagius, besides
a note of warning, in respect of the latter, from Augustine himself.
(1) Jerome, now in his seventy-third year, sent Demetrias
a letter 3 to congratulate and encourage her. It is difficult to do him
justice, because of his excitable temperament. The news seems
to have carried him off his feet ; and, in apostrophes to Demetrias,
he exhausts the extravagances of language in describing what she
had donte. Every church in Africa, he says, §§ 1-6, ' danced for
joy at the tidings. Every island between Italy and Africa was
full of it. . . . Italy put off her mourning, and the ruined walls of
Rome resumed in part their olden splendour. . . . You would fancy
that the Goths had been annihilated.' After this outburst, Jerome
goes on to, § 7, praise the virtues and charities of Proba, specially
for having ' aided with her goodwill the desire which Demetrias
had formed ', and then ' to direct all his words to Demetrias her
self '. He recommends her to occupy her mind ' with the reading
of Scripture ' ; §§ 8-9, to guard her thoughts ; § 10, to practise
fasting, but, § ll,*not to excess for, as the philosophers tell us,
' virtues are means and all extremes are of the nature of vice ' and
' fasting is not a complete virtue in itself but only a foundation on
which others may be built ' ; §§ 12-13, to be careful about company
and conversation ; § 14, to be judicious in almsgiving, but not to
spend money on the building and adornment of churches — advice
which should rank Jerome with the Cistercians and with others,
often spoken of as the most hierarchical persons, who were almost
puritan in church-appointments. All this, says Jerome, is advice
' for one who is a Virgin, but also a lady of wealth and rank. Now
for, § 15, what concerns the Virgin herself. Be methodical, both in
devotion and study ; do a little weaving. Avoid, § 16, Origenism !
Not too much, § 17, solitude ! but keep clear, § 18, of married
1 Aug. Ep. cl (Op. ii. 516 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 645)
2 Jerome, Ep. cxxx, § 1 (Op. i. 976 sq. ; P. L. xxii. 1107).
-* Ep. cxxx (Op. i. 976-97 ; P. L. xxii. 1107-24).

78 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part iii
women and of " gay and giddy girls who deck their heads, and wear
their hair in fringes, who use cosmetics to improve their skin, and
go in for tight sleeves, gowns without a crease and dainty shoes."
Better make a friend of a girl who is unconscious of her good looks ;
and does not, when she goes out, throw back her cloak to show her
neck and bust. As for, § 19, young men who " curl their hair and
scent themselves with musk ", I will only say of them, in the words
of the poet, " Too much savour is an ill-savour." 'x
After all, the letter, though unmistakably Jerome's, is one of
his best, most moderate and most judicious. Newman speaks of
the advice' it gave to Demetrias as ' sage and sobering '.2 And
rightly. Demetrias was in danger of Pelagianisnr ; for she had
been made so much of — by rich but good women, and by distin
guished ecclesiastics 3 — as to be in danger of spiritual pride.
(2) As if by instinct, Pelagius also wrote to Demetrias,* 414. ' I
write ', he says, § 1, ' at the wish of your mother ; and, § 2, as is my
custom when giving instruction about holiness of life, I would
begin by drawing your attention to the strength of human nature.
The way to encourage people to aim at perfection is to make them
hopeful of acquiring it. Now, § 3, the dignity of our nature consists
chiefly in free-will. God has made us by nature equally capable
of good or of evil ; and we may turn our will as easily to the one
as to the other. Wise men among the heathen have used their
powers for good, from sheer goodness of nature. " If then, men
without God have shown what sort of a nature God gave them,
consider what is open to Christians whose nature and life have
been trained to better things, and who are even assisted by the aid
of divine grace." The capacities of nature, § 4, are clear from the
testimony of conscience : for conscience sits enthroned in the .
citadel of the soul, and distributes praise or blame as we do well
or ill. Numbers, § 5, have lived, under that law only, saintly lives :
as, § 6, Abel, Joseph, Job : the last, in particular, having shown
us the hidden riches of nature and how, what he did, all can do.
You are, § 7, a diligent reader of Scripture, Demetrias, and you1
know how it is full of instances bearing out the strength of the will ;
1 Martial, Epigrammaton, n xii. 4, 2 Newman. Ch. F.2 271.
3 Including Pope Innocent I, Ep. xv (P L. xx. 518 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 302.
4 His letter is given in Aug. Op. ii, app. 5-18 (P. L. xxxiii. 1099-1120)
and in Jerome, Op. xi (P. L. xxx. 13-45). Aug. alludes to it in De grat Chr.
§§ 23, 40 (Op. x. 240 h; P.L. xliv. 371, 8) : seo Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 631 sq. ;
Fleury, xxiii. xiii ; Newman, Ch. F.2 273.

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 79
so that, § 8, sin must be ascribed to the will alone, and not to any
fault of nature. Adam was ejected and Enoch translated, the
latter no less than the former, owing to the use he made of his
freedom of will ; and, if it be asked, How then do we all find it so
hard to do right ? the answer is that the difficulty is entirely one
of habit. We have each got so accustomed to sin that with each
of us sin has become second nature. But, if there have been saints
before the Law and the coming of the Saviour, a higher perfection
is open to us who have been furnished with His grace, cleansed by
His blood, and incited to holiness by His example.' Pelagius then
passes on, §§ 9-10, from general principles to precepts specially
meant for the guidance of Demetrias. He recommends Bible-
reading and prayer. But he recurs, before long, to his favourite
theme that, § 11, all turns upon a good will : and then tells her that
whereas rank and wealth come from her parents, she alone can
bestow on herself the true riches. The letter now becomes more
discursive, and begins to repeat itself. If God's commandments
are difficult, no one knows better the measure of our strength than
He who gave it us. Slackness,1 § 16, is the real trouble ; but we
forget that God is too just to command what is impossible, and too
good to condemn what we cannot help. If, § 17, sinful habit has
smothered the goodness of nature, the remedy is to be found in
penitence and a change of will. We may even, § 25, merit God's
grace, and so easily resist the devil by the help of the Holy Spirit.
The Catholic doctrine of ' merita ' is that they are ' munera ' 2 ;
but much of the letter is excellent — if we could only forget that
Pelagius wrote it. But there crops up, every now and then, the
author's unbalanced belief in ' the power and perfectibility 3 of
unaided human nature ' ; his spiritual pride ; and the tendency
of his system to ' dull the sense of sin ' 4 by allowing God to be
thought of as a good-natured Being and so lowering the standard
of the divine requirement. Its main fault lies in what it leaves out.
Thus, it mentions grace ; but is defective both as to its nature
and its need, and as to our insufficiency apart from it. Something
1 Document No. 127 ; and for aKifiia, or sloth considered as indifference,
see St. Thos. Aq. Summa, n. i. 84 ad 4, and F. Paget, The Spirit of Disci
pline, 1-50.
2 Aug. Ep. cxciv, § 19 (Op. ii. 720 a ; P.L. xxxiii. 880) ; and W. Bright,
St. Leo 2, 189.
3 J. B. Mozley, Lectures, &c, No. xi, on the Pelagian doctrine of per
fectibility. 4 Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 104.

80 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part in
of this sort was the impression left on Augustine by the letter.
When first it came into his hands, he tells us that it nearly con
verted him to the belief that Pelagius was coming round. But, on
further consideration, he saw that grace, on his lips, was a term of
' ambiguous generalities '.1
(3) It was, in the main, against one point in the letter to her
daughter that, in co-operation with Alypius, Augustine sent
a letter of warning to Juliana,2 417-18. Demetrias is not to think,
as Pelagius had suggested, that her spiritual riches are her own
work.3 Two more anti- Pelagian treatises — the third and the fourth in
the series — left his hands before the controversy travelled, for an
interval, to the East.
§ 10. The third was entitled De natura et gratia 4 ; and was
written early in 415, in reply to the De natura of Pelagius. Tima-
sius and James, two young men of birth and education, had been
induced by Pelagius to give up secular prospects for an ascetic
life ; and also to embrace his theory. They were, however, pro
foundly impressed by Augustine's arguments in favour of Christian
Grace ; and they sent him the De natura, with a request that he
would supply them with an answer to it.5 As may be guessed
from its title, the object of the author was to demonstrate the
sufficiency of human nature for good.6 ' It was possible ', he con
tended, ' to live without sin ' by the grace or aid of God ; but ' he
illustrated this position by a reference to natural faculties, and
spoke of a capacity of not sinning which nature, as endowed with
free-will, had received from God.' 7 Either sin was avoidable, or
else it was something for which we were not responsible ; and not
being a ' substance ', it could not vitiate our nature as such.8
Supposing, however, that a man had not escaped sin ? What then ?
In that case, of course, he stood in need of divine help, by way of
1 De grat. Chr., § 40 (Op. x. 246 f ; P.L. xliv. 379).
2 Ep. clxxxviii (Op. ii. 692-7 ; P. L. xxxiii. 848-54). 3 Ibid., § 5.
4 Op. x. 127-64 (P. L. xliv. 247-90) ; Fleury, xxiii. xv.
5 Aug. Epp. clxxvii, § 6 (Op. ii. 624 ; P. L. xxxiii. 767) ; clxviii (Op. ii.
602 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 741 sq.), quoted in De gest. Pel., § 48 (Op. x. 217 ;
P. L. xliv. 347 sq.) ; and clxxix, § 2 (Op. ii. 630 ; P. L. xxxiii. 774).
0 De nat. et grat, §§ 1, 7 (Op. x. 127, 130 ; P. L. xliv. 247, 250).
7 W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. xxii ; cf. De nat. et grat, §§ 12, 53 (Op. x. 132,
149 ; P. L. xliv. 252 sq., 272 sq.).
8 De nat et grat, § 21 (Op. x. 135 o; P. L. xliv. 256). For this theory,
that evil is ' simply a privation of good ', see Aug. Conf. iii, § 12, vii, § 18
(Op. i. 92 e, 140 ; P. L. xxxii. 688, 743) ; and Deperf. iust, § 4 (Op. x. 169 A ;
P. L. xliv. 294) ; Ath. De Inc. iv, § 5 ; Mozley, Aug. Doctr, Pred, 271.

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 81
exceptional intervention, as when a doctor is called in to dress
a wound.1 Such intervention consisted in forgiveness.2 ' Of real
grace, as a supernatural preservative against sin, there was no
recognition throughout the treatise.' 3 But there was much ' vindi
cation of nature ', as if the goodness of the original creation was
impeached by the tenet of a subsequent corruption 4 ; much
affirmation of human sinlessness 5 ; and much appeal to Catholic
writers — Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and
Augustme himself — in support of the Christian's power over sin.6
Augustine meets these assertions one by one ; and follows up
other positions that arise out of them, e.g. the characteristic
incapacity of Pelagius to admit that one sin may involve penal
abandonment to another.7 But the general drift of the De natura
et gratia is, as its title suggests, to show that Grace is not contrary
to Nature ; but that Nature, being corrupted and weakened by
sin, has need of being ' delivered and governed by Grace '.8 We
need not pursue the analysis of the treatise in detail ; yet some of
its obiter dicta are worth notice :
(1) Augustine bears testimony to Pelagius, not only to his
character 9 and abilities,10 but also to his motives : for, if he
exaggerates free-will, he does so for the glory of the God of nature,
and Pelagius, therefore, has the best of intentions. He even gives
an equivocal sense to Grace — so much so that Augustine thought,
on first reading, that his opponent was coming round ; but, as he
read on in the De natura, he found that by Grace Pelagius only
meant natural endowment, and is afraid that he used the term
disingenuously .u
(2) He denies salvation to all who are unbaptized.12 In judging
Augustine's theology, we have constantly to bear in mind how
strongly it is coloured by his logic and by his personal experience.
(3) He condemns the Pelagian theory as inadequate. It reduced
1 De nat et grat, § 29 (Op. x. 139 f ; P. L. xliv. 261).
2 Ibid., § 20 (Op. x. 135 ; P. L. xliv. 256).
3 Ibid., § 25 (Op. x. 138 d ; P.L. xliv. 259).
4 Ibid., § 59 (Op. x. 152 ; P. L. xliv. 275 sq.).
5 Ibid., § 42 (Op. x. 144 ; P. L. xliv. 267).
6 Ibid., §§ 71 sqq. (Op. x. 158 sqq. ; P. L. xliv. 282 sqq.).
7 Ibid., § 24 (Op. x. 137 ; P. L. xliv. 258).
8 Retract, ii, § 42 (Op. i. 56 d ; P. L. xxxii. 647).
9 De nat. et grat, §§ 1, 7 (Op. x. 127 a, 130 c ; P.L. xliv. 247, 250).
10 Ibid., § 6 (Op. x. 130 b ; P. L. xliv. 250).
11 Ibid., § 12 (Op. x. 132 ; P. L. xliv. 252 sq.).
12 Ibid., § 9 (Op. x. 131 ; P. L. xliv. 251).
2191 III Q

82 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part in
the office of Christ to the role of an instructor 1 ; or, at any rate, it
left Him no more than the meritorious cause of pardon.2 But
neither of these functions is enough ; nor the two together. The
Saviour must also be acknowledged as nothing less than the
recreative and life-imparting Christ of the Gospel ; the Source of
Grace, prevenient and co-operative 3 ; the spiritual Restorer of
the human race.4 Catholic Christianity is to Augustine what it
was to Athanasius ; and the Saviour is not only Example or
Teacher, and Redeemer, but Restorer as well.5
(4) He uses the words commonly quoted in favour of the Im
maculate Conception of our Lady. ' I put aside ', he says, ' the Holy
Virgin Mary : for, in honour of our Lord, I would rather she were
not brought into the discussion, when we are talking about sin.'
But note the context. He is dealing with the Pelagian argument,
drawn from a long succession of Old Testament saints, in favour
of the conclusion that numbers have lived without sin : ' men
from Abel to John ' and ' women from Deborah to the mother of
our Lord and Saviour herself, whom piety requires us to acknow
ledge as without sin '. Then he continues : ' I would rather her
name were not brought into the discussion ; for how are we to
know how much additional grace, for the entire conquest of sin,
was bestowed upon her whose privilege it was to conceive and give
birth to Him who had no sin ? ' 6 Not only is the passage not
ad rem for the support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Con
ception. It positively excludes it.
§11. The year in which the De natura et gratia was dispatched,
in answer to Pelagius, had not closed before Augustine had sent
off, in reply to Caelestius, the fourth anti-Pelagian treatise entitled
De perfectione iustitiae hominis,7 about the end of 415. It was
addressed to Eutropius and Paul, two refugee bishops from Spain
who had sent him a paper, brought by some churchmen from Sicily,
and containing a series of questions so framed as to reduce the
anti-Pelagian position, about sin and sinlessness, ad absurdum.
i De nat et grat, § 23 (Op. x. 136 e ; P. L. xliv. 257 sq.).
2 J. B. Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 101.
3 De nat. et grat, § 35 (Op. x. 142 c ; P. L. xliv. 264)
4 Ibid., §§ 39, 50, 60, 62 (Op. x. 143 sq., 148, 152, and esp. 153 f ; P. L.
xliv. 266, 271, 276 sq.).
5 Ath. De Inc. viii, § 4, x, § 1 (Op. i. 42, 44 ; P. G. xxvi. 109 c, d, 112 sq.).
6 De nat. et grat., § 42 (Op. x. 144 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 267)
7 Op. x. 167-190 (P. L. xliv. 291-318) ; W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. xxiv sq.
118-49.

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 x 83
Augustine had no doubt that these Definitiones, or arguments in
the form of dilemma, were the work of Caelestius.1 They smack
of the smart barrister. ' First of all,' runs the first, ' I should like
to ask the person who says that one cannot live without sin, What
is sin ? Something that can be avoided, or something that cannot ?
If it cannot be avoided, then it is not sin. If it can, then a man can
be without sin.' Sixteen of such ' captious interrogatories ' and
their refutation occupy §§ 1-16. ' They all tend to one point, that
men can live entirely without sin : and that there is no tenable
ground between this position and the denial of all responsibility
or, in other words, of the reality of sin.' 2 Augustine then examines,
§§ 7-43, the array of testimonia or texts which Caelestius found
quoted against his thesis or himself alleged in its favour ; and he
concludes, § 44, by declining to censure, though he will not defend,
the theory of sinlessness. The treatise was thus clearly written
before the Council of Carthage, 1 May 418, by whom the theory
was condemned.3
§ 12. So ended the earlier series of writings with which Augustine
intervened in the matter of Pelagianism, when there arrived at
Hippo a youth who was to be the means of transferring the
controversy, temporarily, to the East. His name was Taulus
Orosius, fi. 414-18. On Michaelmas Eve, 409, the Vandals, Alans,
and Sueves had entered Spain.4 A few years later they were suc
ceeded by the Arian Visigoths 7 ; and before these fled the Catholic
clergy, among whom was Orosius. He was born at Bracara in
Gallaecia, now Braga in Portugal. In the barbarian invasions he
narrowly escaped with his life ; and came to Hippo, 414, for he
wished to consult Augustine about Priscillianist and Origenist
opinions, now flooding his native country. He thinks them a worse
disaster than its bloodthirsty foes.6 In his Consultatio,1 414,
addressed to Augustine, he puts first the errors of Priscillian, § 2,
who said, with the Manichees, that the soul was part of the Divino
substance conveyed into the body to be punished according to
i De perf. just, hom., c.i. (Op. x. 167 b ; P.L. xliv. 293).
2 W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. xxv.
3 Cone. Garth., a. d. 418, cc. 7-9 ; Aug. Op. x, app. ii. 107 (P. L. xiv. 1729).
4 Orosius, Hist, vii, § 40 (Op. 578 ; P. L. xxxi. 1167) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 824.
5 Ibid., § 43 (Op. 584 ; P. L. xxxi. 1171 sq.) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 836.
6 Orosius, Consultatio, § 1 (P. L. xxxi. 1213 a) ; Aug. Ep. clxvi, § 2 (Op.
ii. 583 a ; P.L. xxxiii. 721).
7 P. L. xxxi. 1211-16 ; Aug. Op. viii. 607-10 (P. L. xiii. 665-70) ; C. 8. E. L.
xviii. 151-7 ; Fleury, xxiii. xvi. G 2

84 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 part in
its deserts, and used SabelHanizing language in respect of the
Trinity. Then he goes on to say, § 3, how Avitus, one of his fellow-
countrymen, went to Jerusalem, to avoid the confusion in which he
was getting involved by the maintenance of these errors, only to
return with the doctrine of Origen. Some of it, as on the Trinity,
was a corrective of Priscillianism ; but it had errors of its own,
e.g. that angels, devils, and souls were of one substance but had
received these different ranks according to their merit ; that the
eternal fire was not fire but remorse of conscience, and only eternal
in the sense of lasting indefinitely, so that all souls, and the devil
himself, would ultimately be saved. ' Remember me then,' § 4,
concludes Orosius, ' most blessed father ; and the many like me
who wait upon your word, that it may drop upon them as the dew.'
Augustine was pleased with Orosius, whom he describes to
Jerome as ' a religious young man, in age my son, in rank my fellow-
presbyter, of a lively wit, a ready tongue, and an ardent desire
for knowledge '-1 He replied to him in his Ad Orosium contra
Priscillianistas et Origenistas,2 415. In regard to, § 1, Priscillianism,
he refers him to his anti-Manichaean writings ; but, §§ 2-3, the
soul is no part of the Divine substance. It is created out of nothing,
as are the rest of God's works. As to, §§ 5-6, Origen's universalism,
not only the ' fire ' but the ' life ' is called ' eternal '. The world,
§ 9, was not made to punish spirits, but by the goodness of God.
Whether, §11, the stars are animated, I cannot say. I believe
that there is a celestial hierarchy — thrones, dominions, princedoms,
powers — but ' that you may despise me whom you think so great
a doctor, I confess I know neither what „they are nor wherein they
differ '. He ends, § 14, by warning his eager young correspondent
against trying to know more than is revealed.
One of the questions, however, which Orosius h&d raised, had
already come before Augustine's notice, 412. Jerome had been
consulted by Marcellinus on the question of the origin of souls.
Is each man's soul created along with his body ? Or does he owe
it, as he owes his body, to his parents ? Does Creationism or
Traducianism offer the best account of the origin of the soul ? ' I
remember your little problem,' writes Jerome to Marcellinus and
his wife Anapsychia ; ' but, as you are in Africa, why not ask the
bishop Augustine ? He is both learned and holy ; and will give
i Aug. Ep. clxvi, § 2 (Op. ii. 583 o ; P. L. xxxiii. 720 sq.).
2 Op. viii. 611-20 (P. L. xiii. 669-78).

chap, v PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15 85
you his opinion — or, rather, mine— by word of mouth.' 1 But
Augustine was as perplexed with the question as Jerome himself.
So making an emissary of the insatiable Orosius, who had revived
the topic, Augustine sent him to Palestine as bearer of two impor
tant letters to Jerome ; the one, on the origin of the soul ; the
other, on the question of the equality of sins — both of the spring
of 415.
In the former, or Liber de origine animae hominis,2 Augustine,
after, §§1,2, introducing Orosius, takes it for granted that the soul
is, § 3, immortal, not part of the Godhead, § 4, incorporeal, and
that, § 5, it has fallen into sin of its own will. ' What I want to
know ', he continues, § 6, ' is, Where it contracted that guilt which
is the cause of the condemnation even of an infant dying unbap
tized ? In my book, § 7, De libero arbitrio, which I wrote against
the Manichees, I stated four opinions on the origin of the soul ; that
all souls are derived from that of the first man : that new souls are
made daily for this or that individual : that, if souls pre-exist,
either God sends them into bodies, or they enter into bodies of
themselves. I see, § 8, from your letter to Marcellinus that the
second opinion is yours, viz. that God makes a soul for every man
as he is born. I wish it were mine ; but I find difficulty in adopt
ing it.3 The difficulties arise, of course, in connexion with Original
1 Jerome, Ep. cxxi, § 1 (Op. 948 sq. ; P. L. xxii. 1085). Jerome held the
ordinary Eastern view, viz. Creationism, supporting his position by such
texts as Ps. xxxiii. 15 ; Zech.* xii. 1 ; John v. 17, &c, as in his Contra
loann. Hierosol., § 22 (Op. ii. 427 ; P. L. xxxiii. 375 a). This view
was held by Hilary of Poitiers, De Trin. x, § 20 (Op. ii. 334 ; P. L.
x. 358 a), and Tract in Ps. xci, § 3 (Op. i. 266 ; P. L. ix. 495 c), and
has become the dominant view in Christendom : see the six views given in
Fleury, xxm. xvii (ii. 248, note f). On the question between Creationism
and Traducianism, see K. R. Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctrine, § 106 ; H.
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, § 74 ; R. I. Wilberforce, The Incarnation,
29 ; H. P. Liddon, Some elements of Religion, 92 sqq. ; A. L. Moore, Essays,
75 sqq. ; F. R. Tennant, Sources, &c, 329 sqq. ; J. B.-Baker, Chr. Doctrine,
302 ; J. Wilhelm and T. B. Scannell, M anual of [Roman] Catholic Theology4,
i. 206-10.2 Aug. Ep. clxvi (Op. ii. 583-94 ; P. L. xxxiii. 720-33) ; Fleury, xxm. xvii.
3 Aug. thought that Creationism was inconsistent with the transmission
of sinful propensity, as he says in his treatise against the Creationist, Vin-
centius Victor [c. 419-20], De anima et origine eius, i, § 10 (Op. x. 342 b ;
P. L. xliv. 500 sq.) ; but he never felt certain about the question (Retract.
I. i, § 3 [Op. i. 4 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 587]), and was never a convinced advocate
of the Western view, viz. Traducianism, which is found in Tert. De anima,
§§ 19, 27, and has for its biblical basis, Gen. v. 3 ; Ps. li. 5 ; Rom. v. 12-19 ;
1 Cor. xv. 22 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; Hebr. vii. 10. It was held by Gregory of Nyssa,
De anima et resurrectione (Op. iii. 241 a ; P. 67. xiv. 1250) ; whereas the
Eastern view was held by Lactantius, De opificio Dei, § 19 (Op. ii ; P. L.
vii. 75 sq.).

86 PELAGIANISM (ii) : IN AFRICA, 410-15
Sin and the punishment of infants dying unbaptized. Their lot
seems wholly unjust, § 25, if they are entirely new souls created
on purpose for each body : yet condemned they must be, if the
voice of Scripture and of the Church is to mean anything. As to
those, § 27, who think to get themselves out of this difficulty by
supposing that souls pre-existed and are appointed to different
bodies, according to their deserts in a former life, that is an opinion
which I cannot believe. It is one thing to sin in Adam ; but quite
another to sin, no one knows where, extra Adam and, for so sinning,
to be shut up in Adam, i.e. in a body born of Adam's kin, as in
a prison. Pray God, § 27, help me out of my ignorance by your
means ; and, if not, give me grace to be content not to know.'
The second letter, entitled De sententia Iacobi,1 sc. that ' he
who shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty
of all ',2 discusses the question of the relation of sins to each other.
If you admit, as St. James seems to say, that, § 4, the virtues
are inseparable, are you not bound to the conclusion that all
sins are equal ? This was the Stoic opinion. Jerome had denied it,
in the case of Jovinian. But the Pelagians, with their affinities to
Stoicism, had adopted it. The opinion made light of the difference
between heinous and trifling sins ; and so it favoured their tenet
of there having been men altogether without sin. But one vice,
as Augustine points out, § 9, is often destructive of another. Sins,
therefore, cannot be equal. And all that St. James appears to
mean is that every sin is an offence, § 16, against the one principle
of love, which alone is the fulfilling of the law. But, on this point
also, Augustine is ready to defer to Jerome's opinion.
1 Ep. clxvii (Op. ii. 594-602 ; P. L. xxxiii. 733-41) ; Fleury, xxm. xvii.
2 James ii. 10.

CHAPTER VI
PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN PALESTINE, AFRICA,
ROME
With these important letters,1 and with a copy of the letter to
Hilary,2 all three bearing on the points at issue with Pelagius,
Orosius set sail from Carthage ; and, about midsummer 415,
arrived in Palestine.
§ 1. Here he found Jerome, for all his weight of years, already
in controversy with Pelagianism. For Pelagius had preceded
him, and had been marked down by Jerome almost from his
landing in the country. He was Rufinus resurrected ! He was
a Latin ecclesiastic, moreover, influential with John, still bishop
of Jerusalem, 386-f417 ; and, what is more, influential with
great ladies of the Roman aristocracy — had he not been writing
to Demetrias ? — whom Jerome looked upon as his especial
preserve. (1) In answer, therefore, to an inquirer named Ctesiphon,3
Jerome had begun, 415, to attack the Pelagian theory of human
sinlessness. He traced, § 1, the new opinions to the Pythagoreans
and Stoics ; insisted, § 3, that, according to Scripture, no man had
ever lived ' without sin ' ; accused, § 5, the Pelagians of trifling
with the word ' grace ', as if it meant simply free-will and the
moral law ; denounced, §§ 5-8, the thorny syllogisms or Defini
tiones of Caelestius, to which, it will be remembered, Augustine
had replied in his De perfectione iustitiae ; repelled, § 9, the
imputation of Manichaeism, so freely made by the Pelagians
against their opponents ; and declared, § 10, that to assert the
Fall and the need of real Grace was not to call nature evil nor to
deny free-will in man. He ends, § 13, by promising to return to
the question on a larger scale.
(2) Old as he was, he lived to fulfil his promise in the Dialogus
adversus Pelagianosf 415. It was the last of his controversial
1 Epp. clxvi, clxvii. 2 Ep. clvii.
3 Jerome, Ep. cxxxiii (Op. i. 1025-42 ; P. L. xxii. 1147-61) ; Fleury,
xxm. xviii ; Tillemont, Mim. xii. 328 sq.
4 Op. ii. 693-806 (P L. xxiii. 495-590) ; Tillemont Mim xii 330 sqq, ;
Fleury, xxin, xviii.

88 PELAGIANISM (iii), 4i5-18, IN part hi
works, wanting none of the old vigour ; and it acquired such
a reputation for literary finish that even the Pelagians acknow
ledged its distinction.1 To avoid persons and keep only to
opinions, says Jerome in the prologue, I will call myself Atticus and
my opponent Critobulus.2 ' I hear then', says Atticus, § 1, at
the opening of Book I, ' that you affirm, Critobulus, that men can
live without sin.' ' I do affirm it ; but I do not go on to say, as
is imputed to us, " without the grace of God ". Free-will is part
of His grace.' ' That is just the point,' § 2, replies Atticus, ' What*
do you mean by grace ? Is grace only our original nature, or is
it needed in every act ? ' ' In every act,' admits Critobulus : ' yet
one would hardly say, § 3, one cannot mend a pen without grace ;
else what becomes of our free-will ? ' ' But, § 5, according to
Scripture, we need God's aid in everything,' says Atticus. ' If
so,' § 6, is the reply, ' the promised reward is due not to me, but
to Him who wrought in me.' ' But to revert ', §§ 7, 8, continues
Atticus, ' to the point from which we started — as to the possibility
of sinlessness. We will to be sinless : why then are we not actually
sinless ? ' ' Because ', answers Critobulus, ' we do not exert our
will to the full.' ' But no one, § 9, has ever lived without sin.'
'I am talking about possibilities,' §§10, 11, says the Pelagian,
' God commands us to be perfect, and He does not command
what is impossible. Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth, § 12, for
instance, are described as perfect.' But Atticus will not admit it ;
' faults are attributed to each of them ' ; and so the discussion
proceeds, § 13, to the stock texts of Pelagianism : ' Whosoever
is born of God sinneth not ' [1 John iii. 9], which Atticus counters
with ' If we say that we have no sin,' &c. [1 John i. 8]. ' Be ye
perfect, § 14, as your heavenly Father is perfect ' [Matt. v. 48,
cf. Deut. xviii. 13], and, § 24, ' Now unto Him that is able to keep
you without sin,' &c. [Jude 24]. Then follows, §§ 25 sqq., a criti
cism of the Capitula 3 of Pelagius : where, however, it should be
remembered that we have no means of getting at their context
and are dependent solely on Jerome's quotation of them, for such
extracts, § 27, as that ' All men are ruled by their own will,' or
that, § 31, ' The kingdom of heaven is promised even in the
Old Testament.' The Dialogue then returns, §§ 32 sqq., to the
1 Aug. Op. imp. c. Iul. iv, § 88 (Op. x. 1181 f ; P.L. xiv. 1389)
2 Dial. adv. Pel., Prol., § 2 (Op. ii. 695 sq. ; P. L. xxiii. 498).
3 Sometimes called Testimoniorum Liber.

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 89
original thesis ' that a man can be without sin, and easily keep the
commandments of God if he chooses ' : and Books II and III
contain an elaborate refutation of it from Scripture — tedious,
indeed, but final. He ends by referring Critobulus to Augustine,
and averring that Pelagianism is due to Origenism.1 So far for
the general outline of the Dialogue : there are one or two details
of interest. He alludes to Apollinarianism. ' Some do not dare to
confess the complete manhood of Christ, lest they should be com
pelled to accept the belief that He had the sins of a man.' 2 The
answer, of course, is that sin is not necessary to complete manhood.
He, at last, takes Gal. ii. 11-14 reasonably ; and abandons the
theory that St. Peter and St. Paul were playing a part.3 ' Chris
tians,' he says, ' if they have been overtaken by sin, must be saved
after they have been punished ' 4 : a passage interpreted of
a purgatory between death and judgement. As to Christian
worship, white vestments are mentioned as in use by the clergy 5 ;
and the Eucharist is spoken of as ' the sacrifice of His Body '.6
He observes that, John vii. 53-viii. 11, the story of the woman
taken in adultery is ' found in many codices both Greek and
Latin '.7 And when he says that ' so much as this depends upon
our free-will, viz. that we will, desire and give assent to the course
we choose ',8 he has been held to assign the initiation of good to
man's free-will, or, in other words, to incline towards semi-Pela
gianism, the system largely provoked by exaggerations for which
Augustine was himself responsible.
§ 2. So Jerome was occupied when Orosius, after his arrival in
Palestine, came, as he says, ' to sit at his feet ' 9 : and Orosius
was presently invited by John,30 bishop of Jerusalem 386-f417,
to attend the Diocesan Synod of Jerusalem,11 28 July 415. When
the Synod met, Orosius was allowed a seat with the presbyters :
and on being asked what he knew of the events of the controversy
1 Dial. adv. Pel. iii, § 19 (Op. ii. 804 sqq. ; P. L. xxiii. 588 sqq.).
2 Ibid, i, § 20 (Op. ii. 716 ; P. L. xxiii. 514 a).
3 Ibid, i, § 22 (Op. ii. 718 ; P. L. xxiii. 516 a).
4 Ibid, i, § 28 (Op. ii. 726 ; P. L. xxiii. 522 c, and note e).
5 Ibid, i, § 29 (Op. ii. 727 ; P. L. xxiii. 524 a).
6 Ibid iii, § 15 (Op. ii. 800 ; P. L. xxiii. 585 a).
7 Ibid, ii, § 17 (Op. ii. 762 ; P. L. xxiii. 583).
8 Ibid, iii, § 10 (Op. ii. 793 ; P. L. xxiii. 793 c, and note b).
9 Orosius, Apol., § 3 (Op. 590 ; P. L. xxxi. 1176 b).
i° Ibid., § 3 (Op. 590 ; P. L. xxxi. 1176 c).
11 The authority for this Synod is Orosius, Apol. or De arb. lib., §§ 1-6
(Op. 588-93 ; P. L. xxxi. 1173-8), or C. 8. E. L. v. 603-11 ; Mansi, iv.
307 sqq. ; Hefele, Conciles, il. i. 176 sq. (E. Tr. ii. 449 sq.) ; Fleury, xxm. xix.

90 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
he told his story. Prompted, no doubt, by Jerome and by his
own desire to upset the influence of Pelagius in the East, he told
them of the condemnation of Caelestius at Carthage, 411-12, and
how Augustine, in the De natura et gratia had replied to Timasius
and James against the De natura of Pelagius ; and read to the
assembly his letter to the Sicilian Hilary. Whereupon, at the
' bishop's request, Pelagius was shown in. ' Do you hold ', he was
asked, ' the opinions to which Augustine has replied ? ' ' What
has Augustine to do with me ? ' he answered. Orosius expected
John of Jerusalem simply to be the registrar of the decisions of
Carthage and of Augustine's opinions. But to undeceive him,
and, at the same time, to quell the outcry raised by the insult to
Augustine, the bishop bade Pelagius, though a layman, to take
his seat, like Orosius, among his clergy, remarking, ' I am
Augustine here '. ' If you represent Augustine ', broke in Orosius
and his friends, ' give us the sentiments of Augustine.' Ignoring
this challenge, John simply asked Orosius whether what had been
read was to be taken as referring tb Pelagius ; and, if so, to state
his charge. ' Pelagius has told me that he taught that a man
could be without sin, and easily keep the commandments of God,
if he chose. Is that your teaching ? ' asked John, turning to the
burly1 defendant. ' It is.' ' Well then,' interposed Orosius, ' this
is just what the Council of Carthage, Augustine, and Jerome
himself in his letter to Ctesiphon and in the Dialogue he is now
engaged upon, are agreed in condemning ! ' 2 Orosius evidently
imagined that John would allow that to settle the matter. But
the bishop did not take that view ; and asked if Orosius, with
Posserius and Avitus his fellow-presbyters, would enter a formal
indictment against Pelagius. They declined : and Orosius, who
was a person with more zeal than tact, made the fatal mistake
of replying that he had simply come to inform John of the sentence
of the African episcopate.3 But the Africans had only condemned
Caelestius ; and, even if they had condemned Pelagius as well,
their decision could not bind or compromise an independent
Church. John, therefore, stuck to his point, and requested
Pelagius to explain himself on the question of sinlessness. ' I did
1 For the personal appearance of Pelagius, see Orosius, Apol., §§ 16, 31
(Op. 602, 621 ; P. L. xxxi. 1185, 1200 b) ; and Jerome, Dial. adv. Pel. i, § 28
(Op. ii. 726 ; P. L. xxiii. 522 b).
2 Orosius, Apol., § 4 (Op. 591 ; P. L. xxxi. 1177 B).
3 Ibid., § 5 (Op. 591 sq. ; P. L. xxxi. 1177 o).

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 91
not say ', was his answer, ' that human nature has received the
capacity of sinlessness : what I said was that, if a man will strive
and wrestle for his own salvation so as to avoid sin and to walk
in the commandments of God, he has this possibility from God * :
and without the grace of God it is impossible to become perfect.' 2
This apparently liberal concession to his opponents on the part
of Pelagius, Orosius leaves out. We have it on the authority of
Augustine. Thereupon the bishop turned to Orosius and asked
whether the admission was not, after all, satisfactory. — • Do you
deny the efficacy of God's help ? ' ' Certainly not,' said Orosius.
But John spoke in Greek and Orosius in Latin, and the interpreter
had been caught tripping. Orosius, therefore, beginning to feel
out of his depth, suggested that the question was of Latin origin.
' Let it be referred to Pope Innocent.' It was a: happy suggestion ;
the synod agreed 3 ; perhaps others, too, were conscious of their
being able to get no further. And they broke up at once, without
having taken any minutes.4 Six or seven weeks later, on 13
September 415, came the Feast of the Dedication of the Church of
the Resurrection, and Orosius went to pay his respects to the
bishop. John unexpectedly denounced him as having blasphe
mously said that ' not even with the help of God is it possible for
a man to live without sin '. ' I never said so,' retorted Orosius 5 :
and to clear himself he wrote, probably with the aid of Jerome,
his Liber apologeticus de arbitrii libertate, 415, our main authority
for the events of the synod just narrated. It was addressed to
' the priests ' 6 of Jerusalem, and consisted chiefly of an attack
on Pelagius. Orosius, for instance, unfairly accuses him of saying
that he himself was without spot of sin 7 ; and is needlessly
emphatic about Pelagius' personal appearance.8 Yet the Apology
is important, and gives much information. One result of the
collision which prompted it was that the reference to Innocent was
not carried out.
1 De gest. Pel., § 54 (Op. x. 220 b ; P.L. xliv. 351) ; Ep. clxxxvi, § 36 (Op.
ii. 675 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 829 sq.).
2 De gest Pel., § 37 (Op. x. 213 a ; P. L. xliv. 343).
3 Orosius, Apol., § 6 (Op. 592 sq. ; P. L. xxxi. 1178 b, c).
4 ' A useful institution,' says Augustine, who had a sense of humour,
' they prevent bad men from telling lies, and good men from forgetting,'
De gest Pel. (Op. x. 213 e ; P. L. xliv. 344).
6 Orosius, Apol., § 7 (Op. 593 ; P. L. xxxi. 1178).
8 Presbyters are now coming to be called ' sacerdotes ' (ibid.), as well as
the bishop. 7 Ibid., § 16 (Op. 601 ; P. L. xxxi. 1185 b).
8 Ibid., §§ 16, 31, ut sup.

92 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
§ 3. Meanwhile, two Gallican bishops, Heros of Aries, 409-12,
a disciple of St. Martin, and Lazarus of Aix, 409-12, both of whom
were undeserving of the censures bestowed upon them by the
hasty Zosimus,1 417— "j"18, had been ejected from their sees,2 and
had taken refuge in Palestine. Here they fraternized with Jerome
and Orosius ; and, finding the opinions of Pelagius busily dis
cussed, they were ' offended ', says Augustine, ' by his perverse
disputations ',3 and took the step which Orosius declined of
drawing up a formal indictment. This they supported by extracts
from his writings 4 ; by the charges brought against Caelestius
at Carthage,5 411-12; by the opinions imputed to Pelagians in
Sicily 6 ; and by excerpts from an anonymous work generally
attributed to Caelestius,7 and presented it to Eulogius, bishop
of Caesarea 404— yl7, and metropolitan of Palaestina I. He
thereupon summoned thirteen bishops, including John of Jeru
salem, to meet, in the ancient Lydda, at the Synod of Diospolis,8
20 December 415. Eulogius presided : and Augustine gives the
list of those present.9 Neither Heros nor Lazarus was there :
the one, it appears, was ill, and the other would not come forward
without him.10 Pelagius, therefore, was left with the advantage.
For, when the indictment was read and interpreted, there was no
promoter to take up the suit against him. Moreover, he knew
Greek well, while his judges did not understand Latin u ; and as
Easterns, they would be disposed to judge favourably a teacher
who, like St. Chrysostom, was wont to insist on the power of the
will. These preliminaries we gather, as well as the proceedings
of the Council, from ' the minutes of the case of Pelagius ' as pre
served in Augustine, De gestis Pelagii12 written in 417. Pelagius
then was called, and produced letters in his favour from illustrious
1 Zosimus, Epp. ii, § 4, iii, § 3 (P. L. xx. 651 a, 656 a) ; and contrast Aug.
De gest. Pel., § 53 (Op. x. 219 b ; P. L. xliv. 350).
2 Prosper, Chronicon, ad. ann. 412 (Op. 739 ; P. L. li. 590 sq.) ; Cod.
Theod. xvi. ii. 21 ; Fleury, xxm. v.
3 De gest. Pel., § 53 (Op. x. 219 b ; P. L. xliv 350).
4 Ibid., § 2 (Op. x. 191 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 320).
5 Ibid., §§ 23, 24 (Op. x. 204 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 333 sq.)
6 Ibid., § 23 (Op. x. 204 ; P. L. xliv. 334).
7 Ibid., § 29 (Op. x. 207 G; P.L. xliv. 337).
8 Mansi, iv. 311 sqq. ; Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 177 sq. (E. Tr. ii. 450 sqq.) ;
Fleury, xxm. xx.
9 Contra Iulianum, i, §§ 19, 32 (Op. x. 507 f, 517 E ; P. L xliv 652 663)
10 De gest. Pel., §§ 2, 39, 62 (Op. x. 191 sq., 213 d, 224 d; P L xliv 329
343, 355). n Ibid., § 3 (Op. x. 193 a: P.L. xliv 321)
12 Op. x. 191-228 (P. L. xliv. 319-60) ; W. Bright, Anti-P Tr 150-201

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 93
bishops,1 including the courteous but irrelevant letter from
Augustine himself.2 The bishop of Jerusalem next gave an
account of the proceedings of his Synod, not without reflections
on Orosius 3 ; and the charges were taken one by one, in four
series :
(1) The first series 4 consisted of certain propositions attributed
to Pelagius, as from his own writings. They were ten in all : and
he was asked whether he owned them, and if so, to explain.
(a) ' Have you said that the knowledge of the law is a sufficient
safeguard against sin ? ' Pelagius explained, by a reference to
the LXX of Isa. viii. 20 : 'He hath given unto them the help
of the law ' — that we are helped by the knowledge of the law not
to sin : and the Council accepted the explanation.
(b) ' Have you said that all men are guided by their own will ? '
' Yes, I said so because our will is free. God assists us to choose
the good : and the man who sins is in fault, because he has free
will.' This was accepted.
(c) ' Have you said that, in the Day of Judgement, all sinners
will be eternally condemned ? ' The accusers fastened upon the
assertion because it did not distinguish sinners who had been
forgiven through the merits of Christ, from sinners who had not
sought such forgiveness and would therefore be condemned.
Pelagius merely covered the statement by an appeal to Matt.
xxv. 46 : ' these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but
the righteous into life eternal.' The objection was captious, but
interesting, for it drew from Pelagius a repudiation of Origenism :
and the episode, together with Augustine's comments on it, is
important as showing that, on all sides, Origen's universalism
was regarded as heretical at that date. The Council readily
assented to Pelagius' explanation.
(d) ' Have you said that evil does not even enter into tho
thoughts of the righteous ? ' ' No, it is a mere misrepresenta
tion : what I said was that a Christian ought to take care to think
no evil.'
(e) ' Have you said that the kingdom of heaven was promised-
oven in the Old Testament ? ' Pelagius explained this to the
satisfaction of the Synod, by a reference to Dan. vii. 18 — ' The
saints of the most High shall take the kingdom ' ; but in so doing,
he availed himself of the ambiguity of the expression ' Old
i Degest Pel, § 50. 2 lb., § 52. 3 lb., §§ 37-9. 4 lb., §§ 2-28.

94 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
Testament ', to disguise the possible, and probably his real, meaning
that the Law is as good as the Gospel, for the purposes of salvation.
It might mean either the Old Testament Scriptures or the older
religious system of which they are the record.
(/, g, h, i) ' Have you said that a man, if he likes, can be without
sin ; and written to a pious widow — Juliana, the mother of
Demetrias — maintaining three propositions, suggesting something
of the kind in her case ? ' Pelagius replied that ' on turning from
sin, a man may by his own exertions and the grace of God, be with
out sin ' is what he had really said. The Council caught at this
recognition of grace ; but did not stop to cross-examine Pelagius
as to the sense in which he employed the term, and when he
supported his denial that he had ignored it by anathematizing
his opponents, not as heretics but as fools, they once more accepted
his protestations.
(k) They passed on to a tenth statement attributed to him :
that the Church on earth is ' without spot or wrinkle '. Pelagius
explained that the Lord made it so in Baptism : and this was
considered sufficient.
(2) The Synod next proceeded to question him in regard to
a second series,1 viz. the six counts charged against Caelestius
at the Council of Carthage, 411-12. As to the fourth of these,
that ' before the coming of Christ, there were men without sin ',
Pelagius explained that all he meant — whatever may have been
the meaning of Caelestius — was that there were holy men in
those days. He wished to assert not their sinlessness but their
sanctity. For the other five propositions of Caelestius he dis
claimed all responsibility, and, ' for the satisfaction of the
Council ', he went so far as to anathematize all who held them.
In this way he condemned all denial of Original Sin : a point
which Augustine is quick to fasten on, saying that, if Pelagius
was absolved by the Council, it was only because Pelagianism
had been ' first condemned by the Council and by its, author '.
(3) A third series 2 consisted of the three articles referred to
Augustine, as current in Sicily, by Hilary, a layman of Syracuse
One of these, ' that a man can be without sin if he will ', had been
previously explained by Pelagius to the Council, and the remain
ing two he now repudiated.
(4) The fourth and final series 3 consisted of eleven statements
1 De gest Pel. §§ 23, 24. 2 Ibid., § 23. 3 Ibid., §§ 29-42.

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 95
gathered, but not verbatim, as was admitted, from a book ascribed
to Caelestius. In respect of the first of these that ' we do more
than is commanded us ', Pelagius observed that what he had
said was that the virginal life was not commanded : to which
the Synod, of course, assented. The second, that ' the grace and
help of God is not given for each several act of duty but consists
either in the original endowment of free-will or in law and teach
ing '; and the third, ' that grace is given according to merit, for
were it given to sinners God would seem to act unjustly ', Pelagius
disowned for his part, but disingenuously. A fourth, that ' any
one might possess all virtues and graces ', is not important : he
succeeded in explaining it to the satisfaction of the Council : and
the remainder, up to the eleventh, which ran ' men must by
penitence become worthy of mercy ', he disposed of by dis
claiming all responsibihty for statements that were not his own.1
Finally, he added a general affirmation of belief in the Trinity
and in all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches : and on these
terms he was recognized by the Synod as ' within the communion
of the Catholic Church '.2
What then is the value of this acquittal ? It was the question
which Augustine set himself to consider in the pamphlet which
he addressed to Aurelius of Carthage, De gestis Pelagii. ' Morally,
none at all,' is his answer.3 He speaks of the Palestinian bishops
with great respect. He points out that they were under great
difficulties for getting evidence ; they had the defendant before
them, without his accusers ; he spoke their language well, but
they had to rely on an interpreter — not always accurate — for
his 4 ; and the controversy, as a whole, was strange and new
to them.5 So situated, what more natural than that Eulogius
and his fellow-bishops should acquit Pelagius ? They would be
disposed to place the best construction on his assurances 6 ; and
he thus obtained an acquittal on false pretences, and at the
expense of opinions which they understood him to disown.
Pelagius, of course, got no little prestige from the verdict, and
made the most of it 7 ; and Augustine himself was probably
forced by policy to speak well of the Council. He says, indeed,
that the business ought to have been adjourned till the accusers
1 De gest Pel. § 43. 2 Ibid., § 44. 3 Ibid., § 45.
4 Ibid., §§ 2, 39. 5 Ibid., § 45. 6 Ibid., § 9.
7 Ibid., § 54 sq.

96 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
came forward 1 : a remark which shows how slowly the elementary
principles of justice made way in the Church, e.g. that the accused
must not have his own way without the presence of the accusers
face to face. But he contends that, in acquitting Pelagius, they had
condemned the main propositions of Pelagianism,2 and holds
that Pelagius ' stole absolution \3 Nor had Jerome, though for
different reasons, a better opinion of ' that wretched Synod of
Diospolis '.4
§ 4. The immediate issue of the Synod was a triumph for
Pelagius. The Latin colony at Bethlehem had been the head
quarters of the opposition to him and his patron, John ; and the
situation looks very much like that of twenty-one years earlier
when John drew down upon his head the wrath of Jerome and his
friends for standing by Rufinus. Jerome, it is pretty clear, had
made the bullets for Orosius, Heros, and Lazarus to shoot ; and
Pelagius now retaliated on Jerome.
(1) Pelagius himself was the first to take the field.5
(a) He wrote a letter, in a tone of ' carnal conceit and elation ',6
informing a friend of his in Holy Orders that ' the judgement of
the fourteen bishops has not only vindicated my statement that
a man can be without sin, and easily keep the commandments of
God, if he chooses ; but it has completely broken up the whole
band of conspirators '.7 The statement, however, as submitted
to the Council, had not contained the word ' easily ' — of such
critical importance from the point of view of doctrine.
(b) He then addressed, to Augustine, a ' paper in defence of
himself ',8 and sent it by a citizen of Hippo named Charus, in
deacon's Orders of some eastern diocese. Here he professes to
give an account of the Synod and of his own replies to the ' Gallic '
charges, in which he verbally acknowledges grace, and then
proceeds to qualify his position.9
1 De gest. Pel. § 45.
2 Ibid., §§ 3, 5, 8, 41, 45 ; Contra Iulianum, i, § 19, iii, § 4 (Op. x. 507 sq.,
554 d ; P. L. xliv. 652 sq., 703) ; De gratia et lib. arb.. § 10 (Op. x 723 ;
P. L. liv. 887 sq.) ; and Ep. clxxxvi, §§ 31 sqq. (Op. ii. 673 sqq. ; P. L.
xxxiii. 827 sqq.).
3 ' Absolutionem suam fallendo furatus est,' De pecc. orig., % 15 (Op. x.
259 f ; P. L. xliv. 393).
4 Ep. cxliii, § 2 (Op. i. 1067 ; P. L. xxii. 1181),
5 Fleury, xxm. xxix.
8 De gest. Pel., § 55 (Op. x. 220 e ; P. L. xliv. 350).
7 Ibid., § 54 (Op. x. 219 e ; P.L. xliv. 350).
8 Ibid., § 57 (Op. x. 221 e ; P. L. xliv. 353),
9 Ep. clxxix, §§ 7. 8 (Op. ii. 632 ; P. L. xxxiii 776).

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 97
(c) Further, he addressed to Jerome his Pro libero arbitrio x
in four books. Here again he acknowledged grace ; but limited
its scope to the ' capacity ' for goodness, bestowed, as he said,
by the Creator, as distinct from ' volition ' and ' action '. The
two latter he referred entirely to man's will ; and even under this
limitation, he represented grace as merely ' facilitating obedi
ence ' ; or as consisting of instruction, warning, promises ; or,
more properly, of the example of Christ.2 Thus he confined God's
grace to the office of ' assisting the capacity ' 3 ; but the point is,
How ? It turned ' out that the assistance was, in the past, only
by remission of sins ; and in the future, by the moral value of
our Lord's example and nothing more. And a passage asserting
that man is born ' with a capacity for either good or bad but with
nothing besides ' is a virtual denial of any inherited taint.4
Pelagius, it may be added here, admitted grace in six senses : as (1)
Nature with free-will, (2) Remission of sins, (3) Law and Teaching,
(4) Inward illumination, (5) Baptismal adoption, and (6) Eternal
Life. Augustine's contention is that take these, and specially the
moral example of our Lord (which, after all, is only teaching, though
a very persuasive form of it) in their fullest sense, yet all fall
short of what St. Paul means by grace.5 He looks upon Pelagius'
language as consistently evasive 6 ; and in one place he points
out that Pelagius appears to regard grace as given ex abundanti.7
§ 5. Next year, another protagonist on the Pelagian side
entered the lists against Jerome : for Theodore, bishop of Mop
suestia 392-f428, in 416 published five books under the title
Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by their own
will.8 It was a cleverly framed title, because it implies that
i Bardenhewer, 504.
2 De gratia Christi, § 45 (Op. x 248 ; P. L. xliv. 380), where note the
comment of Augustine on the inadequate senses in which Pelagius admitted
grace ; and see W. Bright, Lessons, &c, app. xix.
3 Ibid., § 5 (Op. x. 232 a; P. L. xliv. 362): ' possibilitatem adiuvat ' :
' the phrase supposes a foundation of independent power in the will, to
which Grace is an addition,' Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 55 sq.
4 ' Capaces utriusque rei,' De pecc. orig., § 14 (Op. x. 258 E, F ; P L.
xliv. 391), and Document No. 131.
5 D. Petavius, De Pel. et Semi-Pel. Hist, ii, § 4 (Op. iii. 596 : Lutetiae
Parisiorum, 1644).
8 Degest. Pel., § 47 (Op. x. 216 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 347) ; Ep. clxxix, § 3 (Op.
ii. 630 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 774.)
7 Ep. clxxxvi, §§ 34, 35 (Op. ii. 675 ; P. L. xxxiii. 829).
8 For information about this book, and excerpts from it, we are indebted
to (a) Marius Mercator, Symbolum Theodori (P. L. xlviii. 219 a) ; and (b)
Photius, Bibl, cod. clxxvii (Op. iii. 121 ; P. G. ciii. 513).
2191 in H

98 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
Jerome and Augustme were insulting Nature, and disparaging
God's handiwork ; and the latter, as is well known, had great
difficulty in shaking off this imputation of Manichaeism.1 Marius
Mercator will have it that Theodore's book was directed against
Augustine ; but Augustine was his master. The attack was
meant for Jerome.2 To do Theodore justice, we must remember
his moral zeal ; he had a deep sense of the power of our Lord's
human example. So he posed as a conservative Christian, object
ing to this new ' plague from the West '. 'It was an invention
of Aram ' (Hieronymus), he said, ' an exceedingly conceited
person who, because he knows a little Hebrew thinks it his duty
to put every one to rights.' 3 Five propositions 4 sum up his
arraignment of Jerome as teaching that (a) Sin comes not from
choice but from corrupted nature ; (b) Infants are tainted with
sin from birth, and receive baptism and the eucharist for its
remission ; (c) No man is righteous ; (d) Even Christ, since He
took our nature, could not be sinless ; and (e) Marriage is of
the province of the corrupted nature. These propositions are as
clever as the title of the treatise which contained them : they are
all of the nature of a reductio ad absurdum of the Catholic position.
They are also important as showing what was attributed to
Catholics by their adversaries ; while Theodore's comments are
not less interesting, as, for instance, when, in respect of the
second, he proceeds to give his rationale of Infant Baptism.
'It is in order ', as he says, ' to that remission of sins which they
will attain hi the last day.' 5 Jerome, at whom these shafts were
aimed, did not see the treatise. If he had,  ! But it might
have been too much for the old man ; and, as it was, some
Pelagians, of a rougher sort, made a raid on the monastery at
Bethlehem, and Jerome barely escaped with his life.6
So ends the second, or Palestinian, stage of the controversy : its
third belongs to Africa and Rome, 416-18.
§ 6. In the spring of 416 Orosius returned to Africa.
He brought a letter from Jerome to Augustine,7 and another
from Heros and Lazarus which was read 8 at the Council of
i e. g. De nat. et grat, § 21 (Op. x. 135 ; P. L. xliv. 256).
2 Marius M., op. cit (P. L. xlviii. 222 d, n. 3). 3 Photius, ut sup.
4 Ibid. ; Fleury, xxm. xxviii. 6 Ibid. (Op. iii. 122 b ; P.G. ciii. 517 a).
8 De gest. Pel., § 66 (Op. x. 227 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 358) ; Jerome, Epp. cxxxv-
cxxxvii (Op. ii. 1044-6 ; P. L. xxii. 1161-4) ; Jaffe, Nos. 325-7.
7 Jerome, Ep. cxxxiv (Op. i. 1042-4 ; P. L. xxii. 1161 sq.).
8 Aug. Ep. clxxv, § 1 (Op. ii. 617 i> ; P.L. xxxiii. 759).

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 99
Carthage1 of midsummer, 416, before some seventy bishops of
Proconsular Africa under the presidency of Aurelius. Augustine,
of course, was not among them, for Hippo belonged to the
province of Numidia. In their Synodal Letter,2 addressed to
Pope Innocent, they inform him that, § 1, not content with the
condemnation of Caelestius ' some five years ago ', they think
it desirable that both Pelagius and Caelestius should be anathe
matized, unless they will anathematize their errors for the
protection of others. Let Innocent, § 2, therefore support the
Council ' with the weight of the Apostolic See ' ; for, § 3, Pelagius
does not admit grace in the Scriptural sense. If the Pope should
think, § 4, on looking at the minutes of Diospolis, that Pelagius
was rightly acquitted, then let him reflect that Pelagianism is
incompatible with the institutions of the Church : whether with
prayer — on this theory, our Lord need not have taught His
disciples to pray ' Lead us not into temptation ', and ought not
to have bidden us ' Watch and pray ' but only ' Watch ', while
the precatory blessing, § 5, which we bishops use ' over the
people ' 3 that ' they may be strengthened with might by the
Holy Spirit in the inner man ' 4 is also, on this theory, made in
vain — or, again, § 6, with Infant Baptism. We look, therefore,
with confidence to the judgement of your Reverence : and desire
your prayers, most blessed Pope.
Next, at the Council of Milevum,5 the bishops of Numidia, to
the number of sixty-one, under their primate, Silvanus of Summa,
met in 416, Augustine among them. They also wrote to Pope
Innocent 6 : quoted, § 2, ' God will not suffer you to be tempted
above that ye are able,' from 1 Cor. x. 13, as fatal to Pelagian
naturalism ; drew his attention, § 3, to the impiety of an error
which robbed adults of prayer and infants of Baptism ; and
expressed, § 5, their conviction that the offenders would ' give
i Mansi, iv. 321 sq. ; Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 183 sq. (E. Tr. ii. 455);
Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 690 ; Fleury, xxm. xxx.
2 Aug. Ep. clxxv (Op. ii. 617-20 ; P. L. xxxiii. 758-62).
3 Fror the episcopal benediction, super populum, in the Gallican rite, at
the moment of Communion, see Duchesne, Chr. Worship 6, 101 sq., 222 sq.
4 Eph. iii. 14-16. Note this argument for the meaning of Grace : (a)
nothing less than the personal operation of the Holy Spirit within the soul ;
(6) something more than ' favour ' : its ecclesiastical is fuller than its
biblical sense.
6 Mansi, iv. 325 sqq. ; Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 184 sq. (E. Tr. ii. 455) ;
Fleury, xxxiii. xxx.
6 Aug. Ep. clxxvi (Op. ii. 620-2 ; P. L. xxxiii. 762-4).
H2

100 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
way to the authority of his Hohness drawn from the authority
of the Holy Scriptures '.
Once more, in support of these endeavours to gain the ear of
Innocent, Augustine and four other bishops, who were personally
known to him, expostulated with the Pope in a private letter, 416.
Considerable anxiety was felt in Africa as to the line which the
Roman church would take.1 Pelagius had lived for some time
in Rome, and was held in esteem there.2 Two dignitaries, Zosimus
who as Pope, 417-fl8, succeeded Innocent, and Sixtus, who also
became Pope, 432-f40, were known to be favourable towards
him 3 ; others held that he had received nothing but his due when
acquitted at Diospolis.4 Fearing, therefore, that Innocent should
be won over to his side, the five prelates 5 point out, § 2, that the
Palestinians only acquitted him because he had verbally admitted
grace. The question, however, § 3, is not whether Pelagius is
guilty or otherwise of heresy, though it would be as well if the
Pope would summon him to Rome and examine him as to ' what
he means by the grace that he confesses ' — usually, §§ 4, 5, no
more than ' free will, remission of sins, or the Law ' ; anything,
indeed, short of the help of the Holy Spirit. The question is
whether the doctrine ascribed to Pelagius should or should not
find a place in the Catholic Church. So they beg to send to the
Pope, § 6, copies of Pelagius' De natura and of Augustine's
De natura et gratia written in reply ; and they have taken the
liberty of marking important passages in the latter which they
trust his Holiness ' will not find it irksome to look at '. About
the same time Augustine also sent copies of the book of Pelagius
and of his rejoinder to John bishop of Jerusalem 6 ; and dispatched
a letter,7 both long and important, to Paulinus of Nola, 353-f 431 —
a friend of Pelagius 8 but a poor theologian — to put him on his
guard 9 and detach him, if possible, from the Pelagian interest :
for the sanctity of Paulinus would have lent great eclat to his
side. In it he summarizes the controversy, and then enters on
its merits. ' In particular, he refutes the fancy of those who,
i Possidius, Vita, § 18 (Op. x, app. 269 e ; P.L. xxxii. 48).
2 Ep. elxxvii, § 2 (Op. ii. 622 f ; P.L. xxxiii. 765).
3 Ep. cxciv, § 1 (Op. ii. 715 e ; P. L. xxxiii. 874).
4 Ep. elxxvii, § 2 (ut sup.).
5 Ep. elxxvii (Op. ii. 622-8 ; P. L. xxxiii. 764-72) ; Fleury, xxm. xxx.
8 Ep. olxxix (Op. ii. 630-3 ; P. L. xxxiii. 774-8) ; Fleury, xxm. xxxi.
7 Ep. clxxxvi (Op. ii. 663-76; P. L. xxxiii. 815-32); Fleury, xxm.
xxxviii. 8 Ibid., § 1. » Ibid., § 29.

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 101
not daring to deny the necessity of Baptism and not choosing
to acknowledge original sin, affirmed that infants sinned before
they were born ' x ; and the letter is important in that, in the
course of this refutation, Augustine develops his views of ' merit ' 2
and of predestination 3 as an absolute selection of a ' certain
number ' 4 of souls out of the multitude of ' vessels of wrath ',
and so as the necessary explanation of the non-salvation of
infants dying unbaptized.5
§ 7. The three letters to Pope Innocent, 402-J17, were delivered
by a bishop named Julius, and on 27 January 417 he wrote three
several replies 6 : (a) The first — In requirendis 7 — was addressed
to the Council of Carthage. His episcopate, it should not be
forgotten, is a land-mark in the development of the Papal
theory : and ' it is only owing to the fame and power of St. Leo,
440-f61, who, soon after, succeeded to the Bishopric of Rome,
that the part he took in originating the Papacy has not been
fully recognized '.8 Accordingly, he begins, § 1, by congratulat
ing the Africans on having referred the matter — though they
had done no such thing — to the ' judgement ' of his see, which
he describes as ' the source of the whole episcopate ' ; and,
further, on having so acted ' because the institutions of the
fathers decreed . . . that whatsoever was done in the provinces
. . . should not be taken as concluded, until it had come to the
knowledge of this See '. There is nothing in the carefully worded
reference of the matter to Rome by the Africans to suggest that
they had acted on these grounds ; and no such ' decree of the
fathers ' is known to exist.9 The Pope then set forth, §§ 4-7, the
need of Grace, because of our dependence upon God, and pro
nounced, §§ 8-9, that, as Pelagius and Caelestius had denied it,
they were therefore ' excommunicate '.10
(b) By Inter caeteras11 he replied, in much the same terms to
the Council of Milevum, magnifying, at the outset, § 2, the duty
of reference to Peter. He then observes, § 3, that the Pelagian
practically says, What need have I of God ? and that, § 5, his
1 Ibid., §§ 12, 13. 2 Ibid., § 16.
3 Ibid., §§ 23, 24. 4 Ibid., §§ 25, 26; 6 Ibid., §§ 27-30.
6 Aug. Epp. clxxxi-clxxxiii (Op. ii. 635-42 ; P. L. xxxiii. 779-88)=
Innocent, Epp. xxix-xxxi (P. L. xx. 582-97); Fleury, xxm. xxxiv. In
this correspondence thr question of Original Sin does not come up.
7 Jaffe, No. 321. * 8 E. Denny, Papalism, § 638. 9 Ibid., § 636.
10 See also Contra 'duas epp. Pel. ii, § 6 (Op. x. 435 ; P. L. xliv. 575).
11 Jaffe, No. 322.

102 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN partiii
theory is incompatible with yet a third institution of the Church,
viz. Infant Communion, in favour of which he cites ' Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you \1
(c) Finally, by Fraternitatis vestrae 2 he replies to the five
prelates. He can, § 2, neither affirm nor deny that there are
Pelagians at Rome ; for, if there are any, they take care to lie
low. As to Pelagius' alleged acquittal, § 3, he had his doubts.
Some laymen, indeed, had brought him a document professing
to be the minutes of the Council of Diospolis ; but, as he could
not be sure of its authenticity, he had refrained from pronouncing
upon the sentence. If Pelagius, § 4, ought to be sent for, let it
be done by those who are nearer. His book, § 5, which we have
read, is enough to condemn him. ' God have you in His keeping,
dearest brethren.'
These letters were almost the last to which the great Pope,
Innocent I, set his hand, for he died on 12 March 417 — a prelate,
says Milman, apart from his ' rank and position ', of ' commanding
character '.3 Their arrival in Africa caused the liveliest joy ;
and it was with reference to them, and to the rejoicings with
which they were received, that, in a sermon at Carthage of 23
September 417, Augustine expressed himself in a summary of
the situation usually but incorrectly quoted as Roma locuta est :
causa finita esf— as if the Papal decision alone 4 had settled the
matter. But what he actually said was that ' in this matter
[1 he decisions of] two councils ', Carthage and Milevum, to wit,
' have been sent to the Apostolic See. Rescripts have come
thence as well. The cause is finished.' 5 It was ' finished ' on
the joint authority of the decisions of the, two African Councils
and the replies which the Pope had returned to them.
It is remarkable that all these decisions had been taken before
i John vi. 53. His argument is quoted with approval by Augustine in
Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, § 7 (Op. x. 435 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 576), aifd used by
him in ib. i, § 40 (Op. x. 429 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 570) ; and Sermo, clxxiv, § 7
(Op. v. 834 a ; P.L. xxxviii. 943 sq.) ; cf. J. Bingham, Ant. xv. iv, § 7.
2 Jaffe, No. 323. 3 H. H. Milman, Latin Chr. i. 112.
4 Elsewhere he says it was settled by Councils, the Apostolic See, and the
Roman Church and Empire, De pecc. orig., § 18 (Op. x. 260 g ; P.L. xliv.
394). 5 ' lam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam :
inde etiam rescripta venerunt ; causa finita est,' Sermo, exxxi, § 10 (Op. v.
645 v ; P. L. xxxviii. 734) : see W. Bright, Roman See, 130 ; E. Denny,
Papalism, § 632.

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 103
any_ one, either in Africa or in Rome, had possessed himself of
a certified copy of the proceedings in Palestine. Like Innocent,
Augustine also had his doubts. He suspected even that the
minutes of the acquittal of Pelagius at Diospolis were purposely
kept back x ; and wrote, as we have seen, to John of Jerusalem,
asking for a copy,2 on the ground of the incompatibihty 3 of
some statements in the ' paper ' 4 received from Pelagius with
the language of the book ascribed to him, to which his own De
natura et gratia was a reply. At last, 416-17, the minutes came
into Augustine's hands. He at once perceived that the ' paper '
of Pelagius was no fair account of the proceedings 5 ; and was
' thankful ' to find in the authorized record that the acquittal
of Pelagius was really a condemnation of Pelagianism.6 To
enforce this conclusion, he wrote, and addressed to Aurelius, the
De gestis Pelagii,7 417.
§ 8. Zosimus, 18 March 417— t December 418, succeeded Inno
cent ; and, if we may judge from his name, was a Greek.8 We
know nothing of his antecedents ; but his short, yet troublous,
record contrasts sharply with that of his predecessor, and he
cannot have enjoyed that long training in administration cus
tomary with the Roman clergy which produced from their ranks
a succession of calm and wise rulers like Innocent I. ' Zosimus ',
says Mgr. Duchesne, ' was an anomaly ',9 and his pontificate
a series of blunders. First among them was the favour he showed 10
to Patroclus,11 bishop of Aries 412-f26, an adventurer whom
Constantius III, February to September 421, now brother-in-law
of Honorius by his marriage,12 1 January 417, with Galla Placidia,
1 De gest. Pel., § 55 (Op. x. 220 e ; P.L. xliv. 351).
2 Ep. clxxix, § 7 (Op. ii. 632 o ; P.L. xxxiii. 776).
3 Ibid., §§ 2-6 (Op. ii. 630-2 ; P. L. xxxiii. 774-6).
4 De gest. Pel., § 57 (Op. x. 222 e ; P. L. xliv. 353).
' Ibid., §§ 57-8 (Op. x. 221-3 ; P. L. xliv. 352-4).
8 Ibid., 8§ 2, 65 (Op. x. 191 sq.r 226 ; P. L. xliv. 320, 358).
7 Op. x. 191-228 (P. L. xliv. 319-60).
8 So Lib. Pont; but its value ' for the time at which we now are ', on such
a point, is doubtful, L. Duchesne, Hist. ane. de VEglise, iii. 228, n. 1.
9 Hist. ane. iii. 228.
i° Preface, § 9, to Zos. Epp. ii, iii, in P. L. xx. 648 sq.
11 Fleury, xxm. iv, xiv. Patroclus was a partisan of Constantius, the
general who put down the usurper Constantine, 407 -fll ; Heros, on the
other hand, was a partisan of Constantine, by whom he had been in
truded into the see of Aries, according to Zosimus, Ep. ii, § 4 (P. L. xx.
651 a).
12 Soz. H. E. ix. xvi ; and, for the events preceding it, Gibbon, c. xxxi (iii.
340 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 823 sqq.

104 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
390-f450, had intruded into the see after banishing Heros.1 On
Maundy Thursday, 22 March 417, by Placuit Apostolicae,2 Zosimus
disregarded existing rights, and not only conferred upon him
metropolitan authority in four of the provinces of southern Gaul 3
but made him Papal Vicar over the whole of Gaul,4 with powers
like those of the bishop of Thessalonica in Eastern Illyricum.
Zosimus alleged, in support of these innovations, that the see of
Aries had been founded by Trophimus, an envoy from Rome, and
was therefore the mother-church of Gaul.5 The system of
metropolitans was barely set up in Gaul ; but one or two sees
held that rank.6 Protests accordingly were received from the
bishops of Vienne and Narbonne, each of whose sees was a civil
metropolis ; and again from the bishop of Marseilles who, though
his see was not situated in a civil metropolis, enjoyed a similar
authority over Narbonensis II ; but they were overruled.7
Zosimus had an eye only for his protege, Patroclus. It was not
to be expected, therefore, that Zosimus would do otherwise than
receive with interest an appeal from men whose reputation had
suffered under the accusations of Patroclus' rival, Heros, the
rightful bishop of Aries and his associate, who had also incurred
the displeasure of Zosimus,8 Lazarus, bishop of Aix. They were
not the men to recommend the doctrine of Augustine to the Pope.
(1) It may have been with some knowledge of the turn which
events were thus taking in Rome that Caelestius, in 417, made his
way thither. After his condemnation at Carthage, 412, he had gone
to Ephesus and been ordained priest.9 Thence he went on to
Constantinople ; but was driven away by Atticus,10 the foe and
the second successor, 406-f25, of Chrysostom. At last he made
for Rome, where Zosimus took him up.11 By way of prosecuting
1 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 412 (Op. 739 ; P. L. li. 589). Constantius seems
to have chased Heros out because, in the siege of Aries, 411, he tried to save
the life of Constantine by ordaining him to the presbyterate, Soz. H. E.
ix. xv.
2 Zosimus, Ep. i (P. L. xx. 642-5) ; Jaffe, No. 328.
3 Vienne, Narbonne i and n, and the Maritime Alps, ib., § 2 (P. L. xx.
644 a) ; and Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 230.
4 Zos. Ep. i, § 1 (P. L. xx. 643 a). 8 Ibid., § 3 (P. L. xx. 644 sq.).
6 In 400, at the Co. of Turin, Vienne and Aries were at issue over metro
political rights in Viennensis, c. 2 ; Hefele, ii. 426 sq.
7 Zosimus, Epp. vi, x, xi (P. L. xx. 666 sqq.) ; Jaffe, No. 332, 340, 341.
8 Zosimus, Ep. ii, § 4, iii, § 3 (P. L. xx. 651 a, 656 a).
9 Marius Merc. Comm., § 2 (P. L. xlviii. 70-3).
i° Ibid., § 3 (P. L. xlviii. 73).
11 Ibid., § 4 (P. L. xlviii. 75 a) ; Aug. De pecc. orig., § 8 (Op. x. 256 ; P. L.
xliv. 388 sq.).

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 105
the appeal which, five years earlier, he made to the Apostolic See,
Caelestius now presented a confession of faith, recapitulating all
the articles of the creed ' from the Trinity to the Resurrection
of the dead '. It was diffuse on the points not in question, but
silent on the real issue ; and Augustine is impatient at its irrele
vance. ' If ', concludes Caelestius, ' any disputes have arisen on
questions that form no part of the faith ... I merely offer for
your Apostolic examination my conclusions from the Scriptures ;
that, if I have erred through ignorance, your judgment may
correct me.1 I hold that infants ought to be baptized for re-
. mission of sins according to the rule of the universal Church and
the authority of the Gospel, for the Lord has declared that the
kingdom of heaven can be given to none but the baptized.2 I do
not, however, infer from this the theory of a transmitted sinfulness
— an inference utterly alien to the Catholic doctrine. According
to it, sin is not born with man : it is man who commits sin after
his birth. Sin, in fact, is not the fault of nature but of will.' 3
Caelestius means that there is no sin which is not personal 4 ;
and he insinuates that to maintain Original Sin is Manichaean.
On receiving this confession of Caelestius, Zosimus proceeded to
examine him before a local synod,5 September 417, in the basilica
of San Clemente.6 We do not possess its minutes ; but we know
what took place there from Magnum pondus7 September 417,
his letter to the Africans ; from the Libellus,8 417, of Paulinus the
Deacon, the accuser of Caelestius at Carthage ; and from the
De peccato originali,9 418, of St. Augustine. Caelestius was
introduced, and his written confession read. It expressed, he
replied, in answer to the Pope's repeated interrogations, his real
mind.10 Asked to condemn the statements imputed to him by
Paulinus at Carthage, he refused to do so. He was willing to
accept the doctrine laid down in the letters of Pope Innocent ;
1 Depecc.orig., §26(Op.x. 263 sq.; P. L. xliv. 397), and Document No. 132.
2 Ibid., § 5 (Op. x. 255 ; P. L. xliv. 388), and Document No. 132.
3 Ibid., § 6 (Op. x. 255 ; P. L. xliv. 388), and Document No. 132.
4 The answer to Caelestius, of course, is : In regard to what sin ought
infants then to be baptized 1
5 Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 720 sqq. ; Fleury, xxm. xiii.
8 Zosimus, Ep. ii, § 2 (P. L. xx. 650 a).
7 Ibid. (P. L. xx. 649-54) ; Jaffe, No. 329.
8 Aug. Op. x, app. 102-4 (P. L. xiv. 1724).
9 De pecc. orig., §§ 5-8 (Op. x. 255 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 388 sq.).
10 Zos. Ep. ii, § 3 (P. L. xx. 650 b). The question implied that the written
confession itself was free from error, according to Zosimus.

106 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
and nothing but approval was found for his confession of faith
and for his declaration1 at Carthage in acceptance of baptism
for infants. As for the charges of Heros and Lazarus, they knew
little of him. He had only met Lazarus ' in passing ' 2 : while
Heros had since apologized to him. The synod was thus led to
beheve that the Africans, and even Innocent, had gone too fast,
and that too much credit had been given to gentry like Heros
and Lazarus. Zosimus accordingly wrote to the Africans in this
sense.3 He deposed Heros and Lazarus,4 not without reflections
on their character 5 ; and unheard. He assured Aurelius and his
colleagues that ' the faith of Caelestius was completely satisfac
tory ' 6 ; granted a delay of two months for further representations
on their part ; and hinted that they had been going too fast and
too far.7 He himself as Tillemont drily remarks, ' went a little
faster 8 ' ; for, instead of acting on the principle of judicial
caution that he was recommending, he had condemned the
accusers of Caelestius in absence ; sent off a letter full of kindness,
as Tillemont observes, for Caelestius alone ; and ventured the
opinion that, after all, the question at issue was curious and
needless.9 Constantine, it will be remembered, similarly en
deavoured to belittle the gravity of the question at issue in
the Arian controversy, in his letter to Alexander, bishop of
Alexandria.10 But want of discernment in theology is one thing
in an Emperor : quite another in a Pope.
(2) Pelagius also succeeded in bringing his case to the notice of
Pope Zosimus. His patron, John, had been succeeded by Praylius,
' a man who well deserved the name ',u as bishop of Jerusalem,
416-"t25. He also seems to have thought Pelagius hardly used :
and now sent, as for Innocent, a letter 12 testifying to his soundness
of faith, which Pelagius enclosed with a letter 13 and doctrinal
1 Aug. Ep. clvii, § 22 (Op. ii. 552 e ; P.L. xxxiii. 685).
2 Zos. Ep. ii, § 4 (P. L. xx. 651 a).
3 Zosimus, Ep. ii. (P. L. xx. 649-54) ; Jaffe, No. 329.
4 Ibid., § 4 (P. L. xx. 651).
5 He speaks of them as ' turbines ecclesiae ', Ep. iii, § 3 (P. L. xx. 656 a) ;
Aug. as ' bonos fratres ', De gest Pel., § 53 (Op. x. 219 b ; P. L. xliv. 350).
6 ' Absoluta Caelestii fide,' Zos. Ep. ii, § 6 (P. L. xx. 652 b).
7 Ibid. 8 Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 722.
9 Zos. Ep. ii, § 6 (P. L. xx. 652). 10 Socr. H. E. i. vii, §§ 3 sqq.
ii Thdt. H. E. v. xxxviii, § 1.
i2 Not extant, but acknowledged in Zos. Ep. iii, § 2 (P. L. xx. 654 b),
Praylius afterwards revised his opinion about Pelagius, Marius Merc. Comm.
iii, § 5 (P. L. xlviii. 101).
13 Aug. De grat. Chr., § 32 (Op. x, 244 B ; P. L. xliv. 376).

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 107
statement of his own.1 The three documents were carried to
Rome by Caelestius ; and so they reached Zosimus. And the
correspondence also seems to have been accompanied by the
recent treatise of Pelagius in four books, Pro libero arbitrio.2
In the treatise, Pelagius made concessions in form ; and so
concealed" his opinions from all but the practised eye.3 In the
letter, two things, he said, were laid to his charge 4 : first, that he
had refused to admit infants to baptism and had promised them
the kingdom of heaven without it — whereas no such charge had
been made, and he was merely making use of the logicians' trick
known as ignoratio elenchi 5 ; secondly, that he put so much
confidence in free-will as to deny the assistance of grace. Verbally,
he did not deny it. ' We have a free-will ', says the letter ' either
to sin, or to forbear sinning ; and in all good works it is ever aided
by the Divine assistance. In Christians only it is assisted by
grace. In non-Christians, the good of their original creation is
naked and unarmed. The latter will be judged for not using their
free-will so as to obtain the grace of God : the former will be
rewarded because, by using their free-will aright, they merit the
grace of God, and keep His commandments.' Here, at any rate,
the real error comes out. Assisted by what grace ? And again,
' it is clear enough ', says, Augustine, ' that he means grace is given
according to merit '.6 But perhaps it escaped the notice of his
judges ; befogged, as they may well have been, by the irrelevances
of the doctrinal statement. In this Libellus Fidei, still extant,
Pelagius, like Caelestius in his confession, discussed every point
that was not in question from the Trinity to the Resurrection
of the flesh. On the doctrines of the Trinity 7 and of the Incarnate
Person8 of our Lord, he anticipates the exact definitions of the
Quicunque vult and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. On
baptism he is quite explicit, that ' it ought to be administered in
the same form of words to infants as to adults '.9 At last, he
seems to come to the point, ' We confess free-will, but hold at
the same time that we stand continually in need of the Divine
1 q.v. in Aug. Op. x, app. 96 sq. (P. L. xiv. 1716 sq.).
2 De grat. Chr., § 45 (Op. x. 248 ; P. L. xliv. 380).
3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., § 32 (Op. x. 244 c; P.L. xliv. 376).
5 De pecc. arig., § 19 (Op. x. 261 b, o ; P. L. xliv. 394).
6 De grat Chr., §§ 33, 34 (Op. x. 244 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 377).
7 Libellus Fidei, § 3 (Aug. Op. x, app. 96 o ; P. L. xiv. 1716) ; cf. the
Quicunque, v. 25. 8 Ibid., § 4 (app. 96 E ; P. L. xiv. 1717).
0 Ibid., § 7 (app. 97 b ; P. L. xiv. 1718).

108 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
assistance '-1 ' True,' is Augustine's comment, ' but what sort of
assistance ? That is the real issue : and that Pelagius avoids.' 2
But the papal eye was not so keen as to notice the evasion ; and
Pelagius had nicely calculated effects. On receiving his letter
and enclosures Zosimus summoned another synod (for they
reached him after the assembly in San Clemente was over), and
on 21 September 417 sent a second letter — Postquam a nobis3 —
to Aurelius and his colleagues in Africa. ' We have already,
§ 1, written to you', says Zosimus, 'about Caelestius.' Now we
have letters from Praylius, § 2, as well as from Pelagius himself.
They show that he spoke at Jerusalem precisely as Caelestius
here at Rome. If only, dear brethren, you had been here to hear
them read ! Hardly was there a place where they did not speak
of ' the grace or help of God '. Pelagius has been maligned, § 3,
and that, by busybodies like Heros and Lazarus, of whose shady
antecedents we send you a few particulars, perhaps unknown to
you hitherto. They ought to have been present to support their
allegations : and so ought Timasius and James. You were
somewhat too hasty in giving credit to what such accusers said.
We trust, §§ 5-7, that you will be more circumspect in the future,
and rejoice to find that, § 8, Pelagius and Caelestius ' have not
been brought back like the prodigal but have never been separated
from the Catholic truth '. We send you copies of Pelagius'
writings. You will be glad to see that — as we said of Caelestius —
' his faith ' also is ' completely satisfactory \4 Zosimus had now
committed himself hopelessly. True, his mistakes cannot be
quoted as fatal to Papal Infallibility.5 He erred on a question
oifact only, as to whether certain persons did or did not hold the
right faith ; but it was ' a very hasty judgement in a matter
touching the very centre of the faith '.6 Augustine had, therefore,
to minimize the ill-judged action of Zosimus, if, as he desires to
do, he was to represent Rome as consistently anti-Pelagian, and
1 Libellus Fidei, § 13 (app. 97 r> ; P. L. xiv. 1718).
2 De grat. Chr., § 36 (Op. x. 245 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 378).
3 Zosimus, Ep. iii (P. L. xx. 654-61) ; Jaffe, No. 330 ; Fleury, xxm.
xliv. 4 ' Absoluta eius fide,' § 8 (P. L. xx. 661).
5 ' Romanum Pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium
Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens . . . doctrinarn de fide
vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam definit . . . infallibilitate pollere '
is the definition : see H. Denzinger, Enchiridion, No. 1682.
6 E. B. Pusey, Second Letter to Dr. Newman, 219 ; and W. Bright, Anti-P.
Tr. xl.

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 109
to maintain his respect for the Roman See.1 Perhaps Zosimus
' dealt rather more leniently ', he says, ' with the case than the
stern discipline of the Church demanded '.2 But the language of
the letter of Zosimus goes beyond mere lenity. He speaks of the
' faith ' both of Caelestius and of Pelagius as ' sound ',3 and of
their statements as ' a good Confession '.4 The truth is, not that
Zosimus was a Pelagian, but that he was deceived by language
which was orthodox enough in appearance, but yet left the door
open to error. Nor need we be surprised. The subject was new
to him ; and Augustine tells us that he too was nearly taken in
by the language of Pelagius at first sight 5 when, on the arrival
of the letters of Zosimus in Africa, 2 November 417, he read the
enclosures they contained.
§ 9. The Africans were already aware of the trend of the
theological opinion in Rome. As early as the summer of 417
they had put Paulinus of Nola on his guard against the opinions
in favour with the Pope and his entourage 6 ; and they were more
or less on the defensive themselves. Paulinus, for instance, the
deacon who had laid information against Caelestius five years
previously and was still at Carthage when summoned by Basiliscus,
the bearer of the letters of Zosimus, 2 November 417, to sustain
his accusations before the Pope in person, sent off a Libellus,7
8 November 417, instead, and declined to go : the judge had
already declared for his adversary. Then the Primate himself
took action. Hastily summoning the few bishops at Carthage, he
prepared a lengthy memorial to Zosimus in answer to his letter
about Caelestius. ' Let him leave things in statu quo till he should
be better informed about the case.' 8 Next, when the bishops had
1 He slurs over his false steps' in De pecc. orig., § 8 (Op. x. 256 ; P. L. xliv.
388 sq.), but just hints them in §§ 9, 24 (Op. x. 256, 262 sq. ; P. L. xliv.
389, 396) by saying that Pelagius hoodwinked the Synod of Palestine, but
did not ultimately succeed in hoodwinking ' that See ' : see Tillemont, Mim.
xiii. 726.
2 Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, § 5 (Op. x. 433 F ; P.L. xliv. 574).
3 ' Absoluta fides ' is the term that he uses (a) of Caelestius (Ep. ii, § 6) ;
(b) of both Pelagius and Caelestius (Ep. iii, § 2) ; and (c) of Pelagius (Ep.
iii, § 8). 4 Zos. Ep. ii, § 5 (P. £ xx. 652 b).
5 De pecc. orig., § 20 (Op. x. 261 e ; P. L. xliv. 394).
8 Aug. Ep. clxxxvi, § 4 (Op. ii. 677 f ; P.L. xxxiii. 852) ; and L. Duchesne,
Hist. ane-. de I'Eglise, iii. 234 n.
' q.v. in Aug. Op. x, app. 102^ (P. L. xiv. 1724), or Coll. Avell., No. 47
(C. S. E. L. xxxv. 108-11) ; and on it see Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 729 ; Fleury,
xxm. xlvii ; Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 235.
8 This ' memorial ' or ' obtestatio ' is lost ; but its contents are more or
less recoverable from the reply Jesp. § 2] of Zosimus, Quamvis patrum, of

110 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
increased to 214 at the Council of Carthage1 in November 417,
Aurelius and his colleagues passed certain resolutions on the
doctrinal aspects of the question, and embodied them in a second
letter to Zosimus with the following preface : ' We have enacted
that the sentence which the venerable bishop Innocent pronounced
against Pelagius and Caelestius shall still continue till they shall
unequivocally confess that the grace of Jesus Christ assists us
not only to know, but also to do, what is right in every action : so
that without it we can neither have, think, say nor do anything that
belongs to true piety.' 2 This would be astonishing language to
use to a Pope, on the modern ultramontane theory ; but there
was an admixture of courtesy and adroitness in so appealing from
the living Pope to the authority of his predecessor. It saved
respect for the See, and at the same time gently hinted to its then
occupant that he had been ill-advised. Zosimus, they went on,
should not be content with a ' vague assent ' on the part of
Caelestius to the letter of Innocent. That would not be enough
for the weak brother ; and would be bad for the credit of the
Apostolic See.3 They also reminded him of Innocent's judgement
as to the small value of the acquittal of Pelagius 4 ; and respect
fully intimated that not they but he had been guilty of a hasty
credulity. He had taken Caelestius too easily at his own valuation,
and had failed to examine his language closely. Finally, they begged
to forward authentic accounts of all their proceedings 5 ; and en
trusted them, along with their own two letters, to the sub-deacon
Marcellinus, who also was the bearer of the memorial of Paulinus.6
§ 10. The correspondence had no sooner arrived in Rome than
Zosimus found it necessary to retrace his steps. By Quamvis
patrum,7 of 21 March 418, he replied to the Africans, in a letter re
markable alike for its grandiloquent language as to the authority
of his See, and for its practical surrender. ' So great is our
21 March 418 (Zos. Ep. xii [P. L. xx. 676 sq.] or Aug. Op. x, app. 104 sq.
[P. L. xiv. 1725 sq.] ; Jaffe, No. 342), and Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, § 5 (Op.
x. 433 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 573 sq.).
i De pecc. orig., §§ 8, 9 (Op. x. 256 ; P. L. xliv. 389).
2 Prosper, Contra Collat. v, § 3 (Op. 320 ; P. L. li. 227 o) ; Aug. Op. x, app.
102 d, e (P. L. xiv. 1723 sq.), and Document No. 129.
3 Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, § 5 (Op. x. 434 c, d ; P. L. xliv. 574).
4 De pecc. orig., § 9 (Op. x. 256 F ; P.L. xliv. 389).
5 Marius Merc. Comm. i, § 5 (P. L. xlviii. 77).
. 8 Paulini Libellus, § 4 (Op. x, app. 104 b [P. L. xiv. 1725]).
7 Zos. Ep. xii. (P L. xx. 676-8) ; Aug. Op. x, app. 104 (P. L. xiv. 1725 sq.) ;
Coll. Avell., No. 50 (C. S. E. L. xxxv. 115) ; Jaffe, No. 342.

chap, vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 111
authority,' § 1, he writes, 'that no decision of ours can be sub
jected to review. It was for that very reason that we were anxious
to carry you with us by consulting you at every step in regard to
Caelestius : but, on reading what you have sent us by Marcellinus,
§ 2, we quite admit the need for deliberation, and we need only
assure you that we have taken no final step and that things are
as they were in the days of Pope Innocent.' It was an attempt
to retreat with flying colours ; like James I who, in retiring
beaten from the House of Commons, always flourished his sovereign
rights. But the Africans had no further interest in the proceedings
of Zosimus : they were busy at Court instead. They got at
Honorius, as the Pelagians alleged, by bribes 1 ; but more probably
by making influence with his sister, Galla Placidia. By Ad con-
turbandam,2 a rescript addressed, 30 April 418, to Palladius, the
Praetorian Prefect in Italy, the Emperor recites that it has come
to ' the ears of our Clemency ', § 1, how, by the false doctrine of
Pelagius and Caelestius, the tranquillity of Rome and other places
has been disturbed. They are, therefore, § 2, to be banished from
the City ; and their followers, on the evidence of any informant,
are to be visited with confiscation and exile.
§ 11. We hear little more of Pelagius and Caelestius ; but it
was also a heavy blow for Pope Zosimus, thus to set the police upon
-him ! Yet it was the way of the Africans ; and they were now
ready, when the letter of Zosimus reached them, 29 April, to
recur, with better hope of success, to theological argument at the
Council of Carthage,3 of 1 May 418. All the five provinces of
Africa were represented, together with Mauretania Tingitana —
the hinterland of Tangier — which then belonged to the civil
Diocese of Spain. There were 215 bishops, under the presidency
of Aurelius and another. It was a ' plenary Council of the whole
of Africa ',4 according to Augustine ; and he himself was the soul
of the Council. Its sittings were held in the Secretarium 5— rather
i Aug. Op. imp. iii, § 35 (Op. x. 1066 a ; P. L. xiv. 1262).
2 Aug. Op. x, app. 105 sq. (P. L. xiv. 1727), and Document No. 133. The
rescript was probably obtained by Aurelius : see an Imperial letter to him
in Leo, Op. iii. 174 (P. L. lvi. 493), and the title to the rescript as found in
ib. iii. 170 (P. L. lvi. 490) ; Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 237, n. 3.
3 Aug. Op. x, app. 106-8 (P. L. xiv. 1728-30) ; P. Quesnel [1634-tl719],
ap. Leo, Op. iii. 165 sqq. (P. L. lvi. 486-90) ; Mansi, iii. 810-23, iv. 377 sq. ;
Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 190-6 (E. Tr. ii. 458 sqq.) ; Tillemont, Mem. xiii. 738
sqq. ; Fleury, xxm. xlviii.
4 Ep. ccxv, § 2 (Op. ii. 794 o; P.L. xxxiii. 972).
6 J. Bingham, Ant. vin. vii, §§ 1, 7, and Newman's note in Fleury, ii. 319,
note f.

112 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18, IN part in
more than sacristy — of the basilica of Faustus ; and in nine
canons it proceeded to lay down, under anathema, the Catholic
doctrine of Original Sin and the need of grace.1 No. 1 is directed
against the first proposition imputed to Caelestius at Carthage
in 412, and condemns those who say that death is not connected
with sin.2 No. 2 affirms that regeneration is needful for those who,
as infants, have done no sin but, as human beings, have inherited
a taint of sinfulness. On neither side, we may note, was it then
maintained that infant baptism was wrong or that it was a mere
ceremony — the two positions of the Anabaptists 3 and of Zwingli 4
respectively, in the sixteenth century, and of the spiritual descen
dants of either, in later days. The canon also put the Pelagians
into a corner by asserting that they evacuate the meaning of
' baptism for the remission of sins ' : for baptism, it asserts, is
[not for admission to the kingdom of heaven only but] for re
mission of sins then and there by it conveyed. No. 3 repudiates
the doctrine of a ' middle place where infants live in happiness who
die unbaptized ', i.e. it condemns the later ' limbus infantum '.5
For this reason it has been disputed 6 ; but, says Duchesne, it
is ' certainly authentic '.7 No. 4 is aimed at those who say that
grace only avails for pardon of past sins, but not for help in the
future ; No. 5 at those who admit grace as a help to avoid sin,
but take it as merely equivalent to instruction — as if it operates
on the intellect only, and not rather on the affections and the will
as well ; and No. 6 at those who say grace is only given to make
it easier to obey. And Nos. 7-9 deal with strange interpretations
foisted by Pelagians on certain texts of Scripture by which ' If
we say that we have no sin, &c. ' (1 John i. 8), is glossed as a mere
expression of humility, and ' Forgive us ' — not ' me ' — ' our
trespasses ' as an act of intercession or again of humility. It will
be noticed that these nine canons fall into triads : the first three
dealing with the relation of mortality to the Fall, the connexion of
infant baptism with original sin, and the impossibility of salvation
for unbaptized infants ; the next three insisting that grace is more
i Document No. 134.
2 For modern statements of this connexion, see H. P. Liddon, Advent
Sermons, i. 78 ; C. Gore, Romans, app. e (ii. 232 sq.).
3 B. J. Kidd, Documents ofthe Cont. Refi, No. 210.
4 Ibid., No. 214.
5 On the ' limbus infantum ', see St. Thos. Aq., Summa, Suppl. Ixix,
arts. 7 and 8 ; and on ' the middle place ', J. B. Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred.
129. 6 Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 191 sq. (E. Tr. ii. 459).
7 Hist. ane. iii. 236, n, 2.

chap.vi PALESTINE, AFRICA, ROME 118
than forgiveness, more than illumination, and does more than
simply facilitate obedience ; the last three asserting that even the
holiest persons have in truth sins, for which they must entreat
the pardon of God. The necessity for making such an affirmation
as this last sheds a lurid light on the mental and moral position
of later Pelagians. Other canons were added against Donatism 1 :
and a special provision, arising out of the case of Apiarius to be
considered later on, was made against transmarine appeals.2
§ 12. Blocked as he thus found himself both by Court and
Council, Zosimus saw there was nothing for it but to proceed to
the condemnation of Pelagianism.3 His attention had lately been
called to renewed dissensions in Rome itself on the subject,4 and
he resolved to retry Caelestius. But Caelestius declined,5 and
quitted the city.6 The Pope then issued his sentence, confirming
the decrees of the Council of Carthage in 417, and, in conformity
with the judgement of Pope Innocent,7 condemning anew both
Pelagius and Caelestius. They were to be reduced to the rank
of penitents if they abjured their errors,8 and if not, to be excom
municate. The sentence was embodied in a lengthy document
addressed by the Pope to the bishops of the various countries,
under the title of an Epistola Tractoria9 or Judicial Epistle.
It would be interesting to know how Zosimus managed to reconcile
his final with his former attitude, and how far he committed
himself to the doctrinal system of St. Augustine ; but the Tracto
ria 10 has not come down to us. It is, however, alluded to here
and there by Augustine ; and we gather that it exhibited, by
1 Nos. 9-16= Cod. Can. Eccl. Afr. 117-24 (Mansi, iii. 815 sqq. ; Hefele,
n. i. 193-5 [E. Tr. ii. 460 sq.]) ; Fleury, xxm. xlix.
2 No. 17 [125] ; Mansi, iii. 822 d ; Hefele, n. i. 195 (E. Tr. ii. 461).
3 Fleury, xxm. 1.
4 Referred to in the Rescript of Honorius, Aug. Op. x, app. 105 e (P. L.
xiv. 1727).
6 Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, § 5 (Op. x. 434 d ; P.L. xliv. 574).
6 Marius Merc. Comm. i, § 5 (P. L. xlviii. 77 sqq.).
7 Aug. Contra lulianum, i, § 13 (Op. x. 503 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 648).
8 De pecc. orig., § 25 (Op. x. 263 d ; P.L. xliv. 396) ; Ep. cxc, § 22 (Op. ii.
706 a; P.L. xxxiii, 863).
9 Properly a letter of summons (' trahere ', sc. by the Cursus publicus) as
to a Council, e. g. in Constantine's letter to Ablavius, the Vicar of Africa,
bidding him summon the bishops to the Council of Aries, 314 (Aug. Op. ix,
app. 22 c ; P. L. xliii. 785). Then it was applied to letters containing the
decisions of Councils. Hence=' judicial ' (Aug. Ep. xliii, § 8 ; Op. ii. 92 b ;
P. L. xxxiii. 163) or ' synodical '. See fuller note in Marius Merc. Comm.
iii, § 1 (P. L. xlviii. 90 sqq.)
10 Fragments in Zos. Epist, (P. L. xx. 693 sq.) ; Aug. Op. x, app. 108 sq.
(P. L. xiv. 1730 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 393.
2191 m X

114 PELAGIANISM (iii), 415-18
quotations from the Commentary of Pelagius on St. Paul, the
errors charged against Caelestius ; condemned Pelagius' theory
of a place of salvation, outside the kingdom of heaven, for infants
dying unbaptized x ; insisted on the doctrine of a transmitted
sinfulness and as its remedy on baptism, which, moreover, has
the same force both for adults and for infants 2 ; and was equally
explicit about the need of real grace.3 The Church of Africa thus
saved the Roman See from taking up a false position, and rescued
Zosimus from the complications of his own impulsive credulous-
ness. Yet there ensued no breach with Augustine : on the
contrary, we find the Bishop of Hippo entrusted, in 418, with
a special commission from Zosimus in Caesarea Mauretania.4
In Rome, too, the situation cleared : for the priest Sixtus (after
wards Pope Sixtus III, 432-f41), who had lent his patronage to
friends of Pelagius among the laity,5 now came in, and wrote
to the bishops of Carthage 6 and Hippo 7 to reassure the Africans ;
and Leo the acolyte, afterwards Pope Leo I, 440-f61, was the
bearer of his letter to Aurelius. Everywhere else the Tractoria
was eventually received with general acceptance ; and, in Africa,
signatures to it were required by the Government.8
i Aug. De anima, ii, § 17 (Op. x. 367 a ; P. L. xliv. 505).
2 Ep. cxc, § 23 (Op. ii. 707 d ; P. L. xxxiii. 865).
3 Zos. Fr. ii (P. L. xx. 693).
4 Ep. cxc, § 1 (Op. ii. 700 b ; P. L. xxxiii. 857) ; Fleury, xxm. lv.
5 Ep. cxci, § 1 (Op. ii. 709 o ; P.L. xxxiii. 867) ; Fleury, xxm. lvi.
6 Ibid. (709 b).
7 Ep. cxciv, § 1 (Op. ii. 715 d ; P. L. xxxiii. 874).
8 ' Dissertatio de const. Imp. in causa Pelagii,' in, iv, ap. Marius Merc.
xlviii. 394 sqq., 400 sqq., or Coll. Quesnell. xvi, xvn, ap. Leo, Op. iii (P. L.
lvi. 493 sqq.).

CHAPTER VII
THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM, 418-31.
Only nineteen bishops of Italy held out.1 They were headed
by Julian, bishop of Eclanum, 417-t54. He now became the
chief opponent of Augustine in what may be called the aftermath
of the Pelagian controversy proper, i.e. in the struggle between
Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism.
§ 1. While Julian's opposition was developing, and the news of
the condemnation of Pelagius had not yet reached Palestine,
Augustine was informed, by some friends of his there, that they
had some reason to think Pelagius a much-maligned man. The
friends were the Roman exiles Pinian, his wife Melania, and her
mother Albina.2 We last heard of them at Hippo ; but they had
now been resident, for a year or two, in Palestine.3 Here they had
a conversation with Pelagius, and begged him to condemn in
writing the opinions alleged against him. He assured them that
he believed Grace to be ' necessary not only at all hours and in
every moment, but also in every action ',4 and ' infants to receive
baptism for the remission of sins '.5 He read to them his Libellus
Fidei intended for Pope Innocent 6 ; and he tried to separate his
case from that of Caelestius. No doubt he had been included with
Caelestius in common condemnation by Innocent and the Africans ;
but he, at any rate, had been acquitted at Diospolis.7 Pinian and
his women-folk were naturally pleased with this disclaimer. But,
though sympathetic, they were a little suspicious ; and they wrote
to Augustine to inquire what it was worth. Augustine replied in
two treatises of 418, in order to expose its disingenuousness.
§ 2. Of these, the first is the De gratia Christi.8 Here he begins,
1 For their refusal, see Aug. Contra duas epp. Pel. i, § 3 (Op. x. 412 c ;
P. L. xliv. 551), and, for their memorial, Marius Mercator (P. L. xlviii.
509-26). 2 De grat. Chr., § 1 (Op. x. 229 a; P.L. xliv. 359).
3 They salute Augustine in Jerome, Ep. cxliii, § 2 (Op. ii. 1068 ; P. L.
xxii. 1182).
4 De grat. Chr., § 2 (Op. x. 229 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 360 sq.).
5 Ibid., § 35 (Op. x. 245 e ; P. L. xliv. 377).
6 Ibid., § 32 and Depecc. orig., § 1 (Op. x. 244, 253 ; P. L. xliv. 376, 385).
7 Depecc. orig., § 9 (Op. x. 256 d ; P. L. xliv. 389).
8 Op. x. 229-52 (P. L. xliv. 359-86) ; Fleury, xxm. liii.
I 2

116 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM partiii
§ 2, by showing the illusory and ambiguous character of the
language customary with Pelagius ; but, § 3, one passage quoted
from his Pro libero arbitrio, to which he referred Pope Innocent in
the Libellus Fidei, is, §§ 4, 5, explicit enough. It shows, §§ 6, 7,
that he only acknowledged Grace in regard to the possibility1
(posse) of choosing good or evil ; not in respect of willing (velle) or
being (esse) the one or the other.2 He confines its function to that
of assisting ' the natural possibility ' of choice 3 — a phrase which
' supposes a foundation of independent power in the will to which
grace is an addition '.4 But even such assistance, § 8, consists only
in ' instruction and revelation '. It may, §§ 9-13, teach us what we
ought to do, but it does not help us to do it. Further on, he comes
to a cardinal point. Contrasting, §§ 23, 24, a passage from the
letter of Pelagius to Demetrias with one of his disclaimers at
Diospolis, he shows that, according to him, grace is given in
payment for merit ; and therefore it is not really grace. Pelagius
is really, § 26, 'a proud assertor of the freedom of the will '. Nor,
§ 30, is that grace which is given merely to make obedience easier.
In no one passage, in fact, § 31, do Pelagius and Caelestius come
up to the required mark of acknowledging grace in the proper
sense of a supernatural aid to the will, consisting, § 38, in the
infusion of love.5 Pelagius may speak, §§ 42^, of grace as consist
ing in ' the example of Christ ' ; but that is only to lend a more
Christian colour to his theory, and to give naturalism a rosier hue ;
and, §§ 47-51, Pelagius can certainly not shelter himself under the
credit of Ambrose.
§ 3. In the next book Augustine treats De peccato originali,6 and
starts by pointing out, § 1, the inconsistency of admitting that
infants are baptized for remission of sins, and, at the same time,
maintaining that we are not affected at birth by the sin of our
first parents. Certainly it was, § 2, Caelestius who was most
explicit in denial of original sin, whether, §§ 3-4, at Carthage, 412,
or, §§ 5-6, before Pope Zosimus ; though Augustine, §§ 7-10,
i As in §§ 2, 5, 40, 43, 45, 52.
2 An important passage which contains, as Augustine says, ' totum dogma
Pelagii ', § 6, and Document No. 130.
3 De grat Chr., § 17 (Op. x. 238 b. c ; P. L. xliv. 369).
4 Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 55.
5 As to ' the nature or quality of . . . grace in itself ... as distinguished
from its effects . . . Augustine identifies [it] with the disposition of love ',
Mozley, 183.
8 Op. x. 253-76 (P. L. xliv. 383-410).

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 117
somewhat glossesover the proceedings of Zosimus ; but, §§ 11-13,
as is clear from the proceedings at Diospolis, there is little to
choose between disciple and master save that, where the one
was frank, the other was diplomatic.1 A single passage,2 § 14, in
the recent book of Pelagius, Pro libero arbitrio, is quite enough to
show with how little sincerity he had, at that Council, anathema
tized those who held that the sin of Adam harmed himself alone
and that infants are born in the same state in which Adam was
before the Fall. The truth is, § 15, he stole absolution there ;
and, § 16, to say, as he does, that the sin of Adam injured his
descendants not through heredity but because they all have
imitated his bad example,3 shows that ilwas only by tricking his
judges that he secured it. Be sure then, § 18, that ' Councils of
bishops, the Apostolic See, the entire Roman Church, and the
Roman Empire which, by the grace of God, is Christian ' have
been right in bestirring themselves against Caelestius and Pelagius.4
The latter, §§ 19-24, tried to trick the Apostolic See in the matter
of the necessity of baptism for infants ; but, in the end, in vain.
For. § 25, both he and his disciple were condemned. And rightly.
Pelagianism, §§ 26-8, is not, as its authors contend, an open
question ; it militates against primary redemptive truth, since it
involves the question whether Christ be truly the Mediator of all
men : and that, as the Second Adam in Whom, along with the
first Adam, the Christian Faith properly consists.5 The grace of
the Mediator, §§ 29, 30, is a much more potent instrument of
salvation than the Law which preceded it ; but, §§ 30, 31, we are
not to distinguish three epochs, as Pelagius does, and say that the
just lived at first under Nature, then under the Law, and at last
under Grace. As if the first were saved by Nature only, the second
by the Law, while Grace was not necessary till after the coming of
Christ ! His Grace extends backward as well as forward 6 ; and
the just men of the Old Covenant owe their salvation to it. To
1 De pecc. orig., § 13.
2 Ibid., § 14, Document No. 131, an explicit denial of original sin, quoted
verbatim from Pelagius.
3 ' Non propagine sed exemplo,' ibid., § 16.
4 It was not therefore the Roman See alone that settled the matter, as
is implied in the misquotation, ' Roma locuta est ; causa finita est ', supra.
5 ' In horum ergo duorum hominum causa proprie fides Christiana con
sists,' ibid., § 28.
6 The argument is that of Keble's poem for the Feast of the Circumcision,
in The Christian Year, ' Now of thy love,' &c. ; W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr.
xliii.

118 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM part in
deny, therefore, § 34, that what the first Adam had ruined can be
restored only in the Second Adam, is to offend against the Rule
of Faith. Lastly, § 38, there is the Pelagian objection to Original
Sin on the ground that it makes marriage an evil thing ; and man,
who is the fruit of marriage, no longer the work of God. But
marriage is in itself good, § 39, ' It was ordained ' — to borrow from
the Prayer Book paraphrase of Augustine's language at this point —
' for the procreation of children, for a remedy against sin, and for
the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have
of the other.'1 Whatever it may have of shameful, even in its
lawful use, § 42, is to be put down not to the original nature
created good, but to the corruption which that nature subse
quently received.
Such, then, was the reply of Augustine to Pinian ; and, with
the two books in which it was contained, he sent him all the acts
of the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius both in Africa and
at Rome.2
§ 4. About the same time he wrote the letter to Sixtus,3 toward
the end of 418. Theologically, it was one of the most momentous
of all Augustine's letters ; for it elaborated those extreme positions
of Augustinianism which provided the cause — and, in a measure,
the justification — of Julian and semi-Pelagianism.
' I am glad to hear,' § 1, he tells the future Pope Sixtus III,
432-f40, ' that you have turned your back on your Pelagian
friends, and, § 2, 1 take the opportunity, afforded me by the return
of your messenger, of sending you a few points to use in dealing
with their objections.' First, § 3, they are under the impression
that we are deprived of free-will if we admit that, without the help
of God, we have not even a good will. But the first movement
toward good in the will is from God.4 Secondly, § 4, they think
that to say that God, apart from any antecedent merits, ' has
mercy on whom He will ', is to make Him a respecter of persons.
But if he who has sinned receives a merited condemnation and he
who is pardoned an unmerited grace, the one has no cause for
complaint nor the other for boasting ; and this is precisely a case
where there is no respect of persons, when all were involved in one
1 ' Fides, proles, sacramentum,' is a summary of §§ 39, 42, and occurs in
Aug. De gen. ad Uti ix, § 12 (Op. m. i. 247 D ; P.L. xxxiv. 397).
2 Ibid., § 8.
3 Ep. cxciv (Op. ii. 715-30 ; P. L. xxxiii. 874-91) ; Fleury, xxm. lvii.
4 ' Paratur enim voluntas a Domino,' ibid., § 5.

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 119
common mass of condemnation. Thirdly, §§ 5, 6, they say that it is
unjust, when both are in one and the same evil case, to pardon one
and punish another. It is, however, undoubtedly just to punish
both. Our part is to thank God that He has not treated us like
our fellows. If all were saved, the just retribution due to sin
would escape attention ; if none, the benefit of grace would pass
equally unnoticed. We must, then, seek for the cause of any
apparent unfairness, not in difference of merit, or the like, but
simply, with St. Paul (Rom. xi. 33-6), in the inscrutable depths
of the Divine Wisdom. But, fourthly, § 7, Pelagius himself, at the
Council of Diospolis, had seemed to condemn the error that grace
was given according to merits ; and, § 8, his disciples now hold
that, when he there admitted that grace was given without
reference to previous merit, the grace he meant was that human
nature of ours in which we were born without having deserved it.
Let no Christian be under any such illusion : when St. Paul
commends grace, he means not that by which we were created
men but that by which we were justified when we were bad men ;
and the argument then goes on, §§ 10-13, to expose other instances
in which Pelagius accepts grace in an inadequate sense, e.g. as
remission of sins. Fifthly, §§ 22-3, ' Men well excuse themselves ',
says the Pelagian, ' by asking, " Why should we be blamed if we
live ill, since we have not received grace to live well ? " ' Augustine
answers that they who live ill cannot truly say they are not to
blame ; for, if men do no ill, they live well. But, if they live ill, it
proceeds from themselves : either from the evil they brought with
them at their birth or from the evil they added themselves. If,
then, they are vessels of wrath, made for perdition, which is their
due, let them put it down to themselves as being formed of that
lump which God has justly condemned for the sin of that one man
in whom all have sinned ; if they are vessels of mercy, to His
unmerited Grace. ' Who art thou, 0 man, that repliest against
God ? ' But, sixthly, § 31, it is objected that this is, once more, to
ascribe to God respect of persons, or injustice. Take, then, the
case of infants. The Pelagians — forced to it whether by the plain
words of the Gospel or by the practice of the Church— admit that
no infant, except he be ' born again of water and Spirit ', can enter
into the kingdom of heaven. One such infant dies after baptism,
another still unbaptized : where does respect of persons come in
here ? What merits, §§ 32-3, have preceded ? None in the infants

120 THE OVER*THROW OF PELAGIANISM part in
themselves : they are drawn from the same mass. None in the
parents : for often it is the child of Christian parents that dies
unbaptized, while the child which has been baptized is one who
has been exposed by heathen parents, and picked up and brought
to the font by some good Christian. In the case, §§ 34, 35, of
Esau and Jacob, St. Paul said nothing of foreseen merits. Even
though one should say that God foresees their works, § 41, it is
ridiculous to say that God foresees the future works of those who
are to die in infancy. You cannot speak of those as future works
which are never to be done at all. But, in the seventh place,
§§ 42, 43, it may be said by the Pelagians that foreseen demerits,
at any rate, may be the reason why God punishes some infants
by letting them die unbaptized. What, then, becomes of the
Pelagian assertion that children dying unbaptized do not go to the
place of punishment ? Eighth, § 44, comes an objection against
original sin — ' How can parents pass on to their children what was
confessedly forgiven when they were themselves baptized ? ' It
is a mere cavil. Nor, § 45, is there much more in the ninth objection
drawn from the answer given for infants by their sponsors that
they ' believe in the remission of sins '. ' Yes,' is the Pelagian
gloss : ' remission to those who have any.' ' Why then ', replies
Augustine, § 45, ' does every infant receive Exorcism and Exsuffla-
tion ? These rites 1 are but a mockery, if the child is not in the
power of the devil.' And he ends his long letter by begging Sixtus
to let him know if he hears of any other objections to the Catholic
Faith, and what answers are customarily given in Rome.
It was a disastrous document ; coming, as it did, from a Doctor
with so great a name as Augustine. Eight or nine years later it
furnished the occasion to two uncompromising treatises, 426-7,
De gratia et libero arbitrio 2 and De correptione et gratia 3 ; and so to
semi-Pelagianism, of which these were the prelude : while it now
reaffirmed that tenet of predestinarianism which, eleven years
earlier, had made its first appearance in Augustine's writings with
two books of 397, addressed to Simplicianus,4 bishop of Milan
397-f400. According to this doctrine,5 the ' mass ' — a word taken
i For these rites, see Duchesne, Chr. Worship ", 296 ; T. Thompson, The
offices of Baptism and Confirmation, 111, 125, 167, 239.
2 Op. x. 717-44 (P. L. xliv. 881-912).
3 Op. x. 749-78 (P. L. xliv. 915-46).
4 De div. quaesi ad Simpl. i. ii, § 16 (Op. vi. 96 sq. ; P. L. xl. 120 sq.).
0 For typical statements of it, see De div. quaesi ad Simpl. [a. d. 397],
i. ii, 5 13 (Op. vi. 95 ; P. L. xl. 118) ; De nat. et gr. [a, d. 415], §§ 4, 5 (Op.

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 121
from a Latin version of Rom. ix. 21 — or ' lump ' of the children of
Adam is ' a mass of perdition ' 1 or ' condemnation '.2 By a divine
decree, irrespective of any foreseen goodness in the one part or
evil in the other, God separated one portion of mankind from the
rest, ordaining the one to eternal life and the other to eternal
punishment. If it be asked where the justice of such predestina
tion and reprobation3 comes in, it is, of course, an inscrutable
mystery. ' The law of God's secret justice rests with Him alone.' 4
But it is to ' the mass of perdition ' that we are referred for its
defence. ' Had mankind ', as Dr. Mozley expounds St. Augustine,
' continued in the state in which they were originally created, the
consignment of any portion of them, antecedently to all action,
to eternal punishment, would have been unjust. But all man
kind having fallen from that state by their sin in Adam, and
become one guilty mass, eternal punishment is antecedently due
to all ; and therefore none have any right to complain if they are
consigned antecedently to it ; while those who are spared should
thank God's gratuitous mercy.' 5 The theory is an instance of
Augustine's one-sided and remorseless logic. Scripture, it is true,
makes predestinarian statements ; but there are passages, as
plain, in the opposite direction. These, on the contrary, Augustine
explains away. Thus he glosses the natural force of the text that
' God willeth all men to be saved ' 6 by taking ' all ' to mean not
x. 129; P. L. xliv. 249 sq.) ; Ep. clxxxvi [a. d. 417], §§ 25, 26 (Op. ii.
671 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 825) ; Contra duas epp. Pel. [a. d. 420], ii, § 15 (Op.
x. 440 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 581 sq.) ; Enchiridion [a. d. 421], § 25 (Op. vi.
232 sq. ; P. L. xl. 277 sqq.) ; Tract, in Ioann. xlvii (Op. iii. 606 sqq. ; P. L.
xxxv. 1732 sqq.) ; De Civitate Dei [a. d. 413-26], xxn. xxiv, § 5 (Op. vii.
692 a ; P. L. xii. 791 sq.) ; Contra IuUanum [a. d. 421], v, § 14 (Op. x.
635 sqq. ; P. L. xliv. 792) ; and specially developed in De corrept et grat.
[a. d. 426-7], §§ 13-16 (Op. x. 757 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 924 sq.), and in [428-9]
De praed. sanct. and De don. pers., esp. the latter, § 35 (Op. x. 839 sq. ;
P. L. xiv. 1014), and Document No. 188. See also Mozley, Aug. Doct. Pred.,
c. v.
1 'Massa perditionis', De corrept et grat, § 16 (Op. x. 758 e ; P. L. xliv.
925) ; De don. pers., § 35 (Op. x. 839 a ; P. L. xiv. 1014) ; Contra lui. v,
§ 14 (Op. x. 636 o ; P.L. xliv. 792).
3 ' Massa damnationis ', Ep. cxciv, § 4 (Op. ii. 716 d ; P. L. xxxm. 875).
3 Augustine, and not only Calvin, teaches a double predestination, e. g.
' Praedestinatum ad interitum ', De perf. iust, § 31 (Op. x. 181 E ; P. L.
xliv. 308) ; ' Damnandi praedestinati ', De pecc. merit, ii, § 26 (Op. x. 54 f ;
P. L. xliv. 167); and 'Quos praedestinavit ad aeternam mortem', De
anima, iv, § 16 (Op. x. 395 G ; P.L. xliv. 533), i. e. Reprobation, not mere
'Dereliction. 4 De pecc. merit, ii, § 32 (Op. x. 57 a ; P. L. xliv. 170) ; Quaesi ad Simpl.
I. ii, § 16 (Op. vi. 97 ; P. L. xl. 121).
6 Mozley, Aug. Doclr. Pred. 150. 6 1 Tim. ii. 4.

122 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM part iii
' all men ' but ' some men out of all classes and ranks of men '.1
The rest, that are suggestive of predestination, he takes and erects
into a system scarcely less absolute than that of Calvin ; for,
though there is a gap between the Saint and the Reformer,2 it
would not be well to make too much of it.3 Augustine overpassed
the truth in two directions. First, he asserted the transmission
not merely of sinful propensities but of a personal sin : i.e. he held
that Adam's sin was by actual imputation the personal sin of each
and all.4 God therefore must have condemned all ; but if He, for
an inscrutable reason, chooses to elect some to life, He is not
unjust, for He does but abandon the rest to their deserved doom.
Next, he asserted, as an inevitable consequence of absolute
predestination, that grace is irresistible 5 ; where the end is
assured, the means must be as certain of their effect. But it is
the pitilessness rather than the logic of the system that appals us.
We must bear in mind, then, that in a barbarous age like Augus
tine's — when, for example, the exposure of children 6 was a thing
of everyday occurrence — no sentiment of humanity would have
been there to make him shudder at its extreme rigour. Chrysostom,
it will be remembered, could not conceive of eternal punishment
except as eternal torment, for torture was an everyday incident
i Enchiridion, § 27 (Op. vi. 235 ; P. L. xl. 280).
2 On the difference between them, see D. Petavius, S. J. [1583-fl652],
De Theol. Dogm. x, cc. vi-ix (Op. i. 689-704 ; Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1644).
3 Mozley sees little difference, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 284, n. 3, and note xxi,
413 sqq. ; but his reviewer sees more, in Christian Remembrancer, xxxi.
171 sqq. (July 1856) : see also C. Hardwick, Articles, 161 sq. ; W. Bright,
Lessons, 178 sq. ; and A. M. Fairbairn in Cambr. Mod. Hist ii. 365. Augus
tine's predestinarianism was modified by his acceptance of the Church and
the Sacraments ; whereas ' Calvin, finding sacramentalism logically in
compatible with his view of " the decrees ", invented a new theory of
sacraments which reduced them from. channels or means of grace to seals
of a grace otherwise bestowed on the elect ', W. Bright, Lessons, &c, 180,
n. 1. Christian sacraments were thus lowered to the level of Jewish ordin
ances, W. Bright, St. Leo 2, 187.
4 He relied on in quo of Rom. v. 12 as in Ep. cxciv, § 22 (Op. ii. 722 a ;
P. L. xxxiii. 882). For the interpretation he put upon it, see Contra lui.
i, § 20 (Op. x. 508 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 654). Julian, who knew Greek, whereas
A. was a poor Greek scholar, corrected in quo for propter quod (i(p' to),
ibid, vi, § 75 (Op. x. 705 o ; P. L. xliv. 808 sq.) ; W. Bright, Lessons,
174, n. 1.
5 Adam simply had ' adiutorium sine quo non fit ' ; but we need more,
and the grace we have is ' adiutorium quo fit ', i. e. an assistance which,
once given, inevitably produces the effect intended, De corrept. et grat, § 34
(Op. x. 769 c ; P. L. xliv. 957) ; Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 163-8 ; W,
Bright, Lessons, 175 sq. Such grace, in later phrase, was called ' Indefectible
Grace '.
6 Ep. cxciv. § 32 (Op. ii. 725 e ; P. L. xxxiii. 886).

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 123
in the courts of law. At the end of 418 it looked as if this ruthless
system was shortly to become dominant.
§ 5. There arose, to take the field agamst it, Julian,1 bishop of
Eclanum 417~t54. He was born about 386.; the son of a bishop
named Memor,2 and his wife Juliana.3 Baptized in infancy 4 and
ordained Reader,5 he married, while still young, a lady of rank
named Ia. Their epithalamium 6 was written by Paulinus of Nola,
who had some connexion with the family : while Memor was also
well known to Augustine.7 Ia, it- would seem, died shortly after
their marriage ; for, 408-9, Julian was already a Deacon. So it
appears from a letter of that year from Augustine to his father ;
where Augustine sends greetings to the ' youth ' as his ' son and
fellow-deacon ',8 and asks him to ' come and stay '. Innocent I
must also have had a good opinion of him, for one of his last acts
was to consecrate him, when little more than thirty, bishop of
Eclanum in Campania.9 But after Innocent's death Julian
declared himself ; and, in spite of the intimacy of his family with
Augustine, he made no scruple of taking the lead against him, and
paid no deference to his age and authority.10 He was a cultivated
man, of quick wits, learned in the Scriptures, and master of Greek
as well as Latin.11 Not an ascetic, like Pelagius, he would be the
more able to rally the ordinary man to his side. Not a mystic, like
Augustine, he could use the Aristotelian dialectic 12 against him
as if it represented the last word in everything. Tenacious and
irrepressible, he seemed to Augustine an ' exceedingly forward
young man ',13 ' loquacious in discussion, abusive in controversy,
and false in profession.' 14 He, in his turn, would be convinced
that the anti-Pelagian movement, now victorious in the West, was
i See ' De Iuliano et eius scriptis ' in Aug. Op. x. 865-72 (P. L. xiv.
1035^8) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 814-23 ; Fleury, xxm. li.
2 Ep. ci (Op. ii. 271 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 367 sqq.).
3 Marius Merc. Liber subn. in scr. lui. iv, § 4 (P. L. xlviii. 130 sq.).
4 Contra lui. i, § 14 (Op. x. 504 D ; P.L. xliv. 649).
5 Paulinus, Carmen, xxv. 144 (Op. 604 ; P. L. Ixi. 636.
6 Paulinus, Carmen, xxv (Op. 601-8 ; P. L. Ixi. 633-8).
7 Contra lui. i, § 12 (Op. x. 503 b ; P. L. xliv. 647).
8 Ep. ci [A. D. 408], § 4 (Op. ii. 272 d ; P.L. xxxiii. 369).
9 Marius Merc. Comm. iii, § 2 (P. L. xlviii. 96).
i° Contra lui. iii, § 1, v, § 3 (Op. x. 552 f, 627 d ; P.L. xliv. 701, 783).
11 Gennadius, De script, eccl., § 46 (P. L. Iviii. 1084).
12 Contra lui. i, § 12, ii, § 37, iii, § 7 (Op. x. 503 c, 551 c, 556 a ; P.L. xliv.
647, 700, 705).
13 Ibid, ii, § 30 (Op. x. 545 f ; P.L. xliv. 694).
14 Op. imp. iv, § 50 (Op. x. 1163 c ; P. L. xiv. 1368 sq.) ; for his loquacity,
see also Contra lui. ii, § 16 (Op. x. 537 d ; P. L. xliv. 685).

124 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM part in
fatal to belief both in the equity of God and in the responsibility
of man ; and, moreover, represented a crude form of pietism,
from which he must rescue Christianity at all costs, if it was to
keep hold of cultivated people.1 We find him, therefore, in
conflict : first, with Zosimus, 417— fl8 ; then with Augustine ; and
finally with Pope Boniface, 418-f22.
§ 6. The Tractoria of Zosimus was sent to the principal churches
of Christendom : in the East to Antioch, Egypt, Constantinople,
Thessalonica, Jerusalem 2 ; in the Western Empire to Africa 3 and
to the various metropolitans. The Court of Ravenna required all
bishops to sign the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius ; and
we have still the letter which Honorius addressed to archbishop
Aurelius,4 and that in which Aurelius passed on the Imperial
Orders to his subordinates.5 No one refused in Africa. But in
Italy it was different. The injunctions of another Augustine,
metropolitan of Aquileia, 407-f34, provoked a refusal from
a group of his suffragans and their clergy. They declined to
condemn the absent ; and, as to doctrine, they put in a memorial
which, whether rightly or not attributed to Julian, in all proba
bility expresses his mind. This Libellus fidei 6 begins, in Part I,
as did that of Pelagius, by stating the Creed — ' We believe in God,
the Father, almighty, &c.' — but is less evasive than his on the
points really at issue. Thus the memorialists acknowledge, in
Part II, § 1, ' the grace of Christ ' as co-operating with free-will.
It is ' the perpetual helper and companion of all good acts '. But,
§ 2, it ' will not follow those who refuse it ' : and, § 3, ' if one man
is good and another bad, the difference is due to fault of ours and
not to the will of God '. They assert, Part III, that, § 18, grace is
necessary ; so, § 19, is baptism, which should be administered to
infants in the same words as to adults. But they deny [II, § 11]
Original Sin, which they term ' natural sin, or whatever else you
like to call it ', so as to affix to the Augustinian doctrine the
imputation of a covert [III, § 17] Manichaeism. And they quote
1 For his scorn of Catholics as uneducated and stupid, see Contra lui. ii,
§ 37, iv, § 4 (Op. x. 551, 627 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 700, 783 sq.) and Contra duas
epp. Pel. iv, § 20 (Op. x. 480 ; P. L. xliv. 623).
2 Marius Merc. Comm. i, § 5 (P. L. xlviii. 81 sqq.).
3 Prosper, Contra Collai, § 5 (Op. 320 ; P. L. li. 228).
4 Dudum quidem of 9 Jan. 419 (Aug. Op. x, app. 109 d ; P.L. xiv. 1731).
5 Of 1 Aug. 419 (Aug. Op. x, app. 109 sq. ; P. L. xiv. 1731 sq.).
6 Aug. Op. x, app. 110-13 (P. L. xiv. 1732-6) ; Marius Merc. Op. i, app. ii
(P. L. xlviii. 509-26) [the references in the text are to M. M.] ; Fleury,
xxm. li.

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 125
Chrysostom in their support, as denying, Part IV, § 11, that
infants brought to baptism are ' stained with sins ' : an irrelevant
quotation, for Chrysostom by ' sins ' means ' actual sins '. But
they went so far in the way of concession as to admit a proposition
which Caelestius had been condemned for ignoring, viz. [Ill, § 21]
' that the whole human race died in Adam and has been raised
again in Christ '. Their memorial is thus a frank improvement
upon the original Pelagianism, and they contend that their
position [IV, § 2] is in accordance with ' the Catholic Rule ' of
Faith. If anything further is to be said, they are willing to be
corrected ; if not, the case should be referred to a General Council.1
Pelagius and Caelestius had put in their memorials, and so claimed
to be Catholics. They would therefore give them the benefit of
the doubt and [IV, § 8] neither condemn them unheard nor defend
them in their absence. [§ 9] ' Let your Holiness rest assured that
widely as the flood may now rage against us, it will never be able
to shake the house that is built on the righteousness of Christ.'
Julian also wrote two letters to Zosimus.2 One of them is lost ;
but it would seem that in it he identified himself with the position
of the memorialists, for Zosimus is said to have condemned him 3
as well as the authors of the remonstrance. In the second, pre
served for us in fragments by Marius Mercator,4 Julian and his
friends repudiated three propositions usually attributed to
Pelagius and Caelestius : that mankind did not die in Adam nor
rise .again in Christ, that infants are born in Adam's unfallen
condition, and that Adam was created mortal and would have died
in any case. The letter was carefully ' circulated all over Italy ',
and shown about by Julian's friends as ' an entirely admirable
production '.5 But to no effect, so far as the personal fortunes of
Julian and eighteen bishops of his party 6 were concerned. Excom
municated and deprived by the Pope, they were also banished
by the Emperor. Nothing daunted,7 in 418, they tried to make
interest at Ravenna for a new hearing before a General Council ;
1 For the reply to this demand, see Aug. Contra duas epp. Pel. iv, § 34
(Op. x. 492 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 637).
2 Op. imp. i, § 18 (Op. x. 880 f ; P. L. xiv. 1057).
3 Contra lulianum, i. § 13 (Op. x. 504 a ; P. L. xliv. 648).
4 Liber subn. in verba lui. vi, §§ 10-13 (P. L. xlviii. 140-3) ; and Aug.
Op. x, app. 115 sq. (P. L. xiv. 1738 sq.).
6 Marius Merc. Liber subn. vi, § 10 (P. L. xlviii. 140 sq.).
8 Contra duas epp. Pel. i, § 3 (Op. x. 412 c; P.L xliv. 551).
7 Marius Merc. Comm. super nam. Caelesi iii, § 1 (P. L. xlviii. 90 sqq.).

126 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM part in
and Zosimus, 3 October, had to write and warn some clerics of
his at Court to checkmate their machinations.3 But the Count
Valerius, a devout 2 and studious 3 official, of anti-Pelagian
sympathies, prevented them gaining the ear of Honorius.4 Julian,
with his friends, accepted the inevitable. He tried, indeed, but
without success, to obtain the sympathy of Rufus,5 bishop of
Thessalonica 410-f31 : then, as they journeyed eastwards, he
sought the interest of Atticus 6 of Constantinople, 406-f26 ; but
all in vain. At Alexandria,7 at Antioch, and at Jerusalem he
found the doors closed against him. Only Theodore, bishop of
Mopsuestia 393-f428, showed him any countenance.8 He was
really of one mind with the Pelagians ; and with him the exiles
found a refuge, about 423.9 Some of them rallied to the Church ;
but before he reached the safe retreat of Mopsuestia, Julian had
made up his mind that the future was his. He was the Athanasius
of his day 10 ; certain of ultimate triumph, let Councils, Popes, and
Emperors be all against him ; the champion of a faithful minority,
engaged in righteous protest against a powerful and fashionable
error. § 7. In this conviction, and with the knowledge that he had
nothing to lose, he hailed the opportunity of crossing swords with
Augustine, 419. Count Valerius had seen a Pelagian statement
that Augustine implicitly condemned marriage as a medium of the
transmission of sin. The Count was a man of robust faith, and
laughed at this calumny. But he was in correspondence with
Augustine, and may have mentioned the charge. Augustme, at
any rate, felt bound to answer it, and addressed to Valerius, early
in 419, the first book of his De nuptiis et concupiscentia. He
recognizes, § 5, the honourableness of the married estate ; and
explains that, §§ 12, 13, while concupiscence is not inherent in
marriage nor derived from its first institution, it came in, § 19,
1 Zos. Ep. xiv. (P. L. xx. 679 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 345.
2 Aug. Ep. cc (Op. ii. 761 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 925 sq.).
3 Aug. De nuptiis, i, § 40 (Op. x. 300 D ; P. L. xliv. 436).
4 Ibid, i, § 2 (Op. x. 281 a; P.L. xlviii. 413).
5 Contra duas epp. Pel. i, § 3, ii, § 1 (Op. x. 412 c, 431 a ; P.L. xliv. 551,
571). 6 Caelestine, Ep. xiii, § 1 (P. L. 1. 469 b) ; Jaffe, No. 374 ; Aug. Op. x,
app. 130 d (P. L. xiv. 1755).
7 Coll. Avell., No. 49 (C. S. E. L. xxxv. 113-15) ; Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii.
264, n. 3.
8 Marius Merc. Praef. in Symb. Theod., § 2 (P. L. xlviii. 215 a).
9 Ibid., note a. 10 Op. imp. c. lid. i, § 75 (Op. x. 919 ; P. L. xiv. 1100).

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 127
accidentally by the sin of the first man.1 Fecundity and sex, § 23,
are good in themselves, since they are the work of the Creator.
If anything is shameful, § 24, it proceeds from another cause,
i.e. from the strife of the flesh against the Spirit, which is the
consequence of sin. The holy. estate of matrimony, § 18, makes
good use of this evil for the production of mankind. Concupiscence
however, §§ 20-22, is the reason why those born in lawful wedlock
from the children of God are not born children of God, but subject
to the power of the devil till they are freed, as were their parents,
by grace. Concupiscence, § 28, remains in the baptized, but not its
guilt ; and, § 30, that is why they are still inclined to sin. To this
Julian rephed in ' four thick books ' 2 addressed to Turbantius,3
which can be recovered, in large part, from Augustine's rejoinder.
Meanwhile, certain extracts were sent to Valerius from the first
book of Julian's four. Valerius sent them on to Augustine,
through his and Augustine's mutual friend Alypius, who had been
at Ravenna. To satisfy Valerius, Augustine wrote off a hasty
reply 4 in the second part of the De nuptiis et concupiscentia,5 of 420.
Here he defends the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, and shows
how widely it differs from Manichaeism, with which Julian
persisted in identifying it. It is one thing to say that human
nature has received a taint ; another to assert that its material
part is intrinsically evil. But when Julian's work itself came into
Augustine's hands, he found that the extracts did not agree with
the original.6 So he published a second and fuller rejoinder in his
Contra Iulianum Pelagianum 7 of 422, in six books. The first two
are a critique of Julian from i, § 3, the authority of the Catholic
Fathers ; showing that, §§ 15-20, the East is not less opposed to
Pelagianism than the West, and dealing with, ii, § 2, the five argu
ments of the Pelagians against Original Sin : (a) that it makes the
devil the author of human birth ; (b) that it condemns marriage ;
(c) that it denies all sins were remitted in baptism ; (d) that it
i 'Proles, fides, sacramentum ' occur again in §§ 13, 19.
2 Contra Iulianum, i, § 2 (Op. x. 498 a ; P.L. xliv. 642).
3 Op. imp. c. lid. iv, § 30 (Op. x. 1149 D ; P. L. xiv. 1353), from which
it appears that, by 430, Turbantius had become a Catholic.
4 Ep. ccvii (Op. ii. 774 ; P. L. xxxiii. 949 sq.) ; De nuptiis, ii, §§ 1, 2 (Op.
x. 301 ; P. L. xliv. 437) ; Praef. in Op. imp. (Op. x. 873 sq. ; P. L. xiv.
1049). Alypius took it to Valerius, Op. imp. i, § 7 (Op. x. 877 f ; P.L. xiv.
1053). 5 Op. x. 301-34 (P. L. xliv. 437-74) ; Fleury, xxiv. xviii.
6 Ep. ccvii (Op. ii. 774 o ; P.L. xxxiii. 950).
7 Op. x. 497-710 (P. L. xliv. 641-874) ; Fleury, xxrv. xxiv.

128 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM part iii
charges God with injustice, and (e) that it makes us despair of
perfection. In the remaining four books he takes Julian's four
books seriatim ; reaffirming, unfortunately, some of his own
extreme positions, e.g. in what sense ' God willeth all men to be
saved V or that from the common mass of perdition some are
chosen freely while others are vessels of wrath 2 ; but also re
stating familiar and telling considerations, e.g. those drawn from
the exorcism, exsufflation, and baptism of infants3 in proof of
Original Sin. Julian, then in Cilicia, retaliated, c. 424 — such was
his fertility and volubility as a controversialist — with eight
books addressed to Floras, a bishop of his party, against Augus
tine's second book, De nuptiis 4 ; and the long-drawn dispute was
brought to a close by a treatise of 429-30 which Augustine did not
live to finish, and which is therefore known as his Contra secundam
luliani responsionem imperfectum opus.5 Six only of the eight
books of Julian are here dealt with, section by section. His words
are copied down and Augustine's reply appended ; so that the
greater part of Julian's treatise is extant, and we may judge of the
man first-hand.
Julian's controversial methods were verbose, irrelevant, and
vulgar. He was ' offensive to those who dislike idle talk and wish
to stick to the point '.6 He called his opponents names : rarely
speaking of Catholics but as Traducianists or Manichaeans,7 and
deriding Augustine himself as that ' Punic preacher ',8 ' dullest ' 9
and ' most stupid of men ' 10 ; while, in allusion to a passage in the
Confessions,11 he has the bad taste to charge him with admitting
that his mother drank too much wine.12 The truth seems to be
that Julian was disappointed and mortified at being left in a
minority ; which he also regarded as a faithful remnant carrying
on a righteous resistance against error supported by ' the powers
i Contra Jul. Pel. iv, § 44 (Op. x. 606 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 760).
2 Ibid, v, § 14 (Op. x. 635 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 792) ; one of his most unqualified
and yet typical statements of predestination and dereliction.
3 Ibid, vi, §§ 10, 11 (Op. x. 668 d, 669 a; P.L. xliv. 828 sq.)
4 Op. imp. c. lui. ii. 127 (Op. x. 1003 f ; P.L. xiv. 1195).
6 Op. x. 873-1386 (P. L. xiv. 1049-1608) ; Fleury, xxv. xxiv.
8 Op. imp. iii, § 20 (Op. x. 1059 f ; P. £. xiv. 1255).
7 e. g, ibid. iii. § 35 (Op. x. 1065 a; P.L. xiv. 1262).
8 Ibid, i, § 7 (Op. x. 877 f ; P.L. xiv. 1033).
9 Ibid. ii. § 28 (Op. x. 967 a ; P.L. xiv. 1153).
10 Ibid, iii, § 145 (Op. x. 1106 b ; P. L. xiv. 1306).
11 Conf. ix, § 18 (Op. i. 164 a ; P.L. xxxii. 772).
12 Op. imp. i, § 68 (Op. x. 910 o ; P.L. xiv. 1089).

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 129
that be '. From his exile in Cilicia he taunts his adversaries with
appealing to the mob x and to the secular arm 2 ; and he dubs the
Roman clergy ' turncoats '.3 But, apart from the embitterment
of exile, there is much excuse for Julian. Augustine had asserted
the condemnation of the unbaptized, and the irresistibihty of
Grace. As to the former, Julian's moral sense recoiled from the
terrible assertion.4 He looked upon it as a libel on God ; and he
took the line afterwards taken by John Stuart Mill against Cal
vinism, which he mistook for Christianity,5 holding that Augus-
tinianism was immoral, inasmuch as it offended against our
primary idea of justice.6 Then, in protest against the indefecti-
bility of Grace,7 he repudiated determinism,8 and accused Augustine
of quibbling about free-will.9 Had Augustine been more balanced,
probably Julian would not have gone so far astray. We must
therefore make allowances for Julian. But we must also
make allowances for Augustine, in view of his own personal
history and of his intensely logical mind. For these were the
sources of two great defects in Augustinian theology. He had
an imperfect conception of the equity of God ; and reason may
judge, as Butler argues, whether Scripture teaches what is plainly
inconsistent with the teachings of nature and conscience.10 He had
also an imperfect conception of the responsibility of man. Even
with regard to the good he brought him to a sort of fixedness
before his time.11 But, if we have no power of resisting Grace, our
adhesion to God is not free, and our responsibility is impaired.
A Julian, therefore, had his place in saving the Church from the
excesses of an Augustine.
§ 8. This aim — if we may now go back a few years— had inspired
i Op. imp. ii, §§ 1, 2 (Op. x. 957 ; P. L. xiv. 1142 sq.).
3 Ibid, iii, § 35 (Op. x. 1066 ; P. L. xiv. 1262).
3 Contra Iulianum, i, § 13 (Op. x. 503 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 648).
4 Op. imp. i, § 48 (Op. x 892 ; P. L. xiv. 1070) ; for Augustine's answer
and its fallaciousness, see Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 78.
5 J. S. Mill, Examination of Sir W. Hamilton's Philosophy, 128 sq.
8 Op. imp. i, §§ 28, 37, 50 (Op. x. 884, 886, 894 ; P. L. xiv. 1061, 1063,
1072). 7 It appears as early as De Sp. et Uti, § 60 (Op. x. 120 sq. ; P. L. xliv.
240 sq.) ; on which see Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 159, 239^2.
8 Contra duas epp. Pel. ii, §§ 9, 10 (Op. x. 436 sq. ; P. L. xliv. 577), for
the oharge that Grace = Fate.
9 Op. imp. i, §§ 76 sqq. (Op. x. 919 sq. ; P. L. xiv. 1101 sq.) : see Mozley,
op. cit. 245 sqq.
10 J. Butler, Analogy, n. iii, §§ 1, 13 (Works, ii. 164, 174 : ed. J. H. Ber
nard). 11 Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 247 sq.
2191 m K

130 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM part iii
some letters of his that reached Rome early in the pontificate of
Pope Boniface I, 418-f22. The one was written by himself alone,1
and charged the Catholics with being Manichaeans.2 The other
was addressed by Julian in company with his eighteen fellow-exiles
to Rufus,3 bishop of Thessalonica 410-f31. By the vigilance of
some Roman churchmen the two letters came into the hands of
Boniface. The Pope gave them to Alypius,4 bishop of Tagaste
394-f430, who, about the end of 419, was returning from Italy to
Africa with the extracts from Julian Ad Turbantium intended for
Augustine. He desired him to show them to him ; since his name
was invidiously mentioned in both.5 In reply, Augustine dedicated
to Pope Boniface his Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum,6 420, in
four books. Book I is an answer * to the letter which Julian is said
to have sent to Rome ' ; and, in it, Augustine examines the
charges levelled by Pelagians against Catholics ; of, §§ 4, 5, destroy
ing free-will ; of saying, § 9, that marriage was not ' instituted of
God ', and, §§ 10, 11, that its use is of the devil ; of holding, § 12,
that the saints of the Old Testament were not freed from sin, and,
§§ 13, 14, that St. Paul and the other Apostles were stained with
impurity because they owned themselves subject to concupiscence.
It is in dealing with this fifth objection that Augustine makes the
interesting statement that, §§ 17-24, whereas he had once taken
Rom. vii. 7-25 as descriptive of the state of mind of one ' under the
law ',7 now he took it of the regenerate. Sixth, Catholics were
alleged to say, § 25, that, in taking flesh, Christ Himself was made
subject to sin ; and, seventh, § 26, that Baptism did not thoroughly
extirpate sin but left its roots in the evil flesh. This last was an
ingenious attempt to dislodge Catholics from the vantage-ground
of their argument from Baptism, by taking advantage of Augus
tine's oft-repeated and self-evident assertion that, after Baptism,
there remains concupiscence to be resisted. ' This, however,'
replies Augustine, § 27, ' is called sin because it is the result of
sin.' Then he discusses in seven ' antitheses ', §§ 29^41, Julian's
1 Contra duas epp. Pel. i, § 3 (Op. x. 412 c ; P.L. xliv. 551).
2 Ibid., § 4 (Op. x. 413 b ; P. L. xliv. 552).
3 Ibid, i, § 3 (ut sup.).
4 Ibid, i, § 3 (Op. x. 413 A ; P.L. xliv. 551).
6 Ibid, i, § 9 (Op. x. 415 ; P. L. xliv).
8 Op. x. 411-94 (P. L. xliv. 549-638) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 824 sqq. ;
Fleury, xxiv. xix.
7 Exp. qu. prop, ex Ep. ad Rom., §§ 44, 45 (Op. iii. 910 ; P. L. xxxv.
2071) ; Exp. Ep. ad Gal, § 47 (Op. iii. 971 ; P. L. xxxv. 2139); De div. qu.
ad Simpl. i. i, §§ 7, 9 (Op. vi. 83 sq. ; P. L. xl. 105 sq.).

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 131
exposition of the Pelagian point of view, and incidentally mentions,
§ 37, that, to his own knowledge, sudden conversions to Christianity
were matters of daily occurrence. The book concludes, § 42, with
a brief dismissal of Julian's plea for a rehearing of the whole case,
i.e. for a General Council. The case was closed : all that was
wanted was that he and his friends should ' do penance ' ; and it
will be remembered that, in the hold of Count Valerius on the
Emperor, Catholics had, and intended to use, the means of keeping
the door shut. ' General Councils may not ', i.e. cannot (non
possunt), ' be called together without the commandment and will
of Princes.' x In the remaining three books Augustine addresses
himself to the letter of the Pelagianizing bishops to Rufus, the
Papal Vicar for Eastern Illyricum. In it ' the writers . . . began
by making free use of the nickname of Manichaeans. They then
vilified the Roman clergy as a set of cowardly turncoats, and
represented the anti-Pelagian doctrine as fatalistic and injurious
to the divine impartiality.'2 Book II deals with these charges.
Thus, §§ 1-4, Catholics hold the middle doctrine between Mani
chaeans and Pelagians ; and, §§ 5-8, the doctrine of the latter was
never approved by the Roman clergy, though Zosimus for some
time treated Caelestius with undue consideration. Under the
name of Grace, §§ 9-12, they do not set up Fate ; nor, §§ 13-16,
attribute to God respect of persons, though it may be noted that
at this point, § 15, there occurs a characteristically predestinarian
statement of the Divine action. They maintain, § 17, that Grace
is not given according to merit, and, §§ 18-23, that God inspires
us with the first desire of goodness. Book III is devoted to an
examination of further, § 1, charges made by Pelagians against
Catholics ; as if, §§ 2, 3, the teaching of the latter were disparaging
to the Old Law, and, §§ 4, 5, incompatible with a full recognition of
the efficacy of Baptism. ' They charged their opponents ' next,
§§ 6-13, ' with not admitting that the Holy Spirit had aided the
good men of the Old Testament'; whereas, of course, like its
moral teaching, ' they belong to us of the New ' ; and ' with
insulting the sanctity ', §§ 14, 15, of Prophets and Apostles, nay,
§ 16, of our Lord Himself ; and they represent us, §§ 17-23, as
content to look for the fulfilment of the commandments of God in
the life to come. The argument, §§ 24^6, then anticipates the final
topics of the whole treatise, as discussed in Book IV. Hitherto,
1 Art. xxi. 2 W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. xlvi.
K2

132 THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM partiii
says Augustine, § 1, we have been repudiating misrepresentations
of our teaching ; now let us examine the five points on which our
adversaries are wont to dwell in support of theirs. They insidiously
descant, §§ 2, 3, on the excellence of (1) God's creative works,
§§ 4, 8, and of (2) marriage, § 9, with a view to excite prejudice
against Original Sin ; of (3) the Law, §§ 10, 11, and (4) free-will,
§§ 12-16, in order to render distasteful the notion of unmerited
Grace ; and of, §§ 17-19, the lives of the Saints, by way of showing
that men are not so frail after all, and that there have been persons
exempt from sin even in this life. Of course, all these things are
good, replies Augustine. Thus (1) our nature is good, § 4, being
the work of the good God ; but, having fallen, § 6, it stands in need
of a Saviour. (2) Marriage is good, and instituted of God ; but,
§ 9, the concupiscence that accompanies its use is due to sin.
(3) The Law is good ; though, § 11, all it can do is to show us what
sin is without removing it. (4) Free-will, again, is natural to man ;
but, § 13, it is now so impaired that it must first be renewed by
Grace. And so, too, (5) the righteousness of the Saints is real ; but,
§ 1 8, it is not perfect. Finally, there remains the standing grievance
of Julian and his friends that, § 20, ' a dogma not less foolish than
impious has been received throughout nearly the whole West ;
and that unlearned bishops, sitting at home and not in synod,
have been compelled to affirm it by their signatures.' Perhaps ;
but the opposite teaching is a novelty, and the Fathers have
condemned it by anticipation. Cyprian, §§ 21-8, and Ambrose,
§§ 29-30, are quite explicit about the Fall, the need of Grace, and
the imperfection of all earthly holiness ; and, §§ 32-4, it is by no
means every heresy that requires — though, of course, it would
like — an Universal Council to confute it.
§ 9. Taunts like these could never have been flung but at a
hopelessly beaten foe. Boniface was neither disposed nor free to
reopen the question ; and from his accession we may regard the
overthrow of Pelagianism,1 420, as complete. All its leaders were
now abandoned by the East. Atticus of Constantinople drove
Julian and his friends from the Eastern Capital.2 Theodotus of
Antioch, 420-f8, at a Council there, 424, banished Pelagius from
Jerusalem.3 Caelestine of Rome, 422-t32, ejected Caelestius
i Fleury, xxiv. xxv.
2 Caelestine, Ep. xiii, § 1 (P. L. 1. 469 b).
3 Marius Merc. Comm. iii, § 5 (P. L. xlviii. 100 sq.). This is the last
mention of Pelagius.

chap, vii THE OVERTHROW OF PELAGIANISM 133
from Italy,1 and he was finally banished from Constantinople,
429.2 After their condemnation at the third Oecumenical Council,
in Ephesus,3 431, Pelagius and Caelestius disappear. Julian,
'hunted by popular detestation from town to town', settled at last
to teach in a school, and died, 454, in an obscure town of Sicily.
His last act was to sell all he had for the relief of the poor in
a grievous famine.4 Our compassion goes out to him ; but we
must not let it blind us to a sense of what we owe to his great
opponent, Augustine. ' With a dulled sense of sin ' and ' a de
pressed standard of virtue, Pelagianism . . . tended to the moral
tone of . . . the religion which denies the Incarnation. The
asceticism of its first promulgators and disciples could not neutra
lize the tendencies of a system opposed to mystery and to grace,
and therefore hostile at once to the doctrinal and the moral
standard of Christianity. The triumphant overthrow of such
a school was the service which St. Augustine performed to the
Church.' East and West had now declared themselves to be on
his side ; though the East had never sympathized with, and the
West soon repudiated, ' the excess to which he pushed the truth
which he defended '.5 In brief, the traditional theology was
decisive, both in East and West, in favour of two points : (a) the
need of Grace, in view of (b) the ' original ' flaw in human nature.
i Prosper, Contra Collat xxi, § 2 (Op. 363 ; P. L. li. 271 b).
2 Marius Merc. Comm. Praef. (P. L. xlviii. 65 sqq.) ; presented to
Theodosius II, 429.
3 Ibid. (P. L. xlviii. 66 sq.), and the Relatio (of the Council addressed
to Pope Caelestine), § 6 ; Mansi, iv. 1337 b = Caelestine, Ep. xx, § 6 (P. L.
1. 522 b).
4 H. H. Milman, Latin Chr.1 i. 164.
5 Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 106: see a similar judgement in C. Merivale,
The Conversion ofthe Northern Nations, 47 sq. (1866).

CHAPTER VIII
AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, AND THE
CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE, 429-529
We have now to deal with the rivalry between Augustinianism,
or ' the excess to which Augustine pushed the truth which he
defended ', and semi-Pelagianism ; with the elimination of both ;
and with the final acceptance of a Catholic doctrine of Grace.
§ 1. In Africa,1 426, there was a monk of Adrumetum, now Susa
in Tunis, by name Florus, a native of Uzalis. While on a visit to his
home in company with Felix, one of the brethren, he came across
the letter of Augustine to Sixtus, copied it, and sent it back to
Adrumetum by Felix. Without the knowledge of the abbot,
Valentine, Felix read it to the community. About half a dozen
were perturbed, and thought that it annihilated free-will ; and,
when Florus returned, they fell upon him as the author of the
dispute thus raised about the matter. Florus then showed the
letter to fhe abbot ; who, after some hesitation, at length allowed
two of his monks — Cresconius and Felix 2 — afterwards joined by
' another ' Felix — to go and obtain explanations from Augustine
himself.3 On their arrival at Hippo, Augustine received them
kindly, and wanted to supply them with all the literature relating
to the Pelagians. But there was no time to get copies made : for
they wished to get back, and to heal their dispute, by Easter,4
3 April 427. The bishop therefore contented himself with giving
them a letter to the abbot,5 to say that misunderstanding was at
the bottom of the matter.6 But he kept them, after all, over
Easter (because it was about then that ' the other Felix ' 7 arrived
with further news of the disorders at Adrumetum) : read and
explained, beside his letter to Sixtus, several other documents of
importance in the recent controversy ; and, at last, sent them
i Aug. Op. x, Praef., §§ 25, 26 (P. L. xliv. 91-8) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiii.
872-8 ; and Fleury, xxiv. xlv-xlvii from Aug. Epp. ccxiv-ccxvi (Op. ii.
791-9 ; P. L. xxxiii. 968-78).
2 Ep. ccxiv, § 1 (Op. ii. 791 B ; P. L. xxxiii. 968 sq.).
3 Ep. ccxvi; §§ 2, 3 (Op. ii. 796 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 975).
4 Ep. ccxiv, § 5 (Op. ii. 792 e ; P.L. xxxiii. 970).
6 Ep. ccxiv. • Ibid., § 6 (Op. ii. 792 b ; P. L. xxxiii. 970).
7 Ep. ccxv, § 1 (Op. ii. 793 d ; P.L. xxxiii. 971).

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 135
back with these and with a new book dedicated to abbot Valentine
and his monks.1
(1) It was the De gratia et libero arbitrio,2 427. Referring, § 1, to
the dissensions at Adrumetum, Augustine observes that we must
equally avoid, §§ 2-5, denying free-will in order to establish grace
and, §§ 6-9, denying grace in order to establish free-will. Grace,
§§ 13-15, is not given according to merit, as the Pelagians say ;
nor does it consist simply, § 23, in the Law ; § 25, in Nature ; or,
§ 26, in the remission of past sins. We cannot merit it, §§ 27-30
— I do not now say by good works (for that has been dealt with
already), but — by good-will ; for, §§ 31-2, it is God who endues
us with a good- will, and, § 41, ' has so great a power over men's wills
that He turns them whither He wills and when He wills ' : ' either,
§ 43, by inclining them to good of His free mercy, or to evil in
accordance with their deserts — and this, by that judgment of His
which is sometimes open and sometimes secret, but always just.'
The best instance, §§ 44-5, of grace is in infants : they have no
merit to attract it, nor demerit, save original sin, to repel it ; nor
is there any reason why one should be preferred before another
save in the secret judgements of God. ' Read over, § 46, what I now
write, dear brethren, continually; and God give you understanding.'
We need hardly be surprised that they failed to understand.
Augustine, in this treatise, disclaims any denial of freedom 3 ; but,
in fact, ' he teaches that the will is not only rendered helpless for
good by the Fall but is absolutely determined for good by the-
coining of Grace ; and he compares our condition to that of the
angels.4 We are ' free from evil ' 5 instead of ' free for evil or good ' ;
while others, as ' determined for evil ' are ' free from good '. This
was simply to use the word ' free ' in an esoteric sense : 'free for
good,' in the sense of being turned by a dominant Grace toward
i Ep. ccxv., §§ 2, 3 (Op. ii. 794 ; P. L. xxxiii. 972 sq.j.
2 Op. x. 717-44 (P. L. xliv. 881-912).
3 Ibid., § 31 (Op. x. 734 a ; P.L. xliv. 899).
4 ' Certum est nos facere, cum facimus ; sed Ille facit ut faciamus,
praebendo vires efficacissimas voluntati,' ibid., § 32 (Op. x. 735 a ; P.L.
xliv. 900 sq.). Free-will is thus ' a state of bondage to righteousness '
(Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 236), and ' a combination of free-will with
necessity ', like that of God, the Angels, and the Saints ; for we attribute
to them ' a necessity on the side of goodness ', and yet the operation of
a genuine will. The peculiarity, therefore, of Augustine's theory does not
consist in the combination, but in the introduction of necessity before its
time (ibid. 247).
5 ' In tantum libera est [sc. voluntas] in quantum liberata est [sc. a
dominante cupidine],' Retract, i. xv, § 4 (Op. i, 25 b ; P. L. xxxii 609).

136 AUGUSTINI ANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
good, and secured against a lapse into evil. The abbot, indeed,
acknowledged the treatise in a letter of thanks 1 ', but some of the
brethren not unnaturally observed, when they read it : 'On this
showing, we ought not to be censured when we do wrong : our
superiors should be content with instructing us and praying for us 2 ;
for it is not my fault if, according to Augustine, I have no freedom.'
(2) The objection was brought to his notice ; and he dealt with
it in a second treatise addressed to Valentine and his monks,
under the title of De correptione et gratia,3 427. Recalling, § 2, the
doctrine of Law, Grace, and Free-will, he shows, § 3, that only by
Grace are we free to do well. ' Why then ', it is objected, § 4, ' are
we bidden to do well, when it is not we who do it, but "God who
worketh in us both to will and to do ".' ' Better ', is the reply, ' if
we do well to give God thanks ; and, if not, to pray for the grace we
have not yet received.' ' Meanwhile then ', the monks are repre
sented as pleading, § 5, ' let not our superiors rest satisfied with
teaching us what we ought to do and praying for us : but let them
not correct or reprove us for, § 6, what is not our fault, so long as
we have not received it.' ' It is, however, your own fault, §§ 7-8,
that you are wicked ; and, still more, that you refuse to be cor
rected for it.' ' But ', they persist, § 9, 'we have not received
obedience ; why, then, are we corrected as if it were in our power
to bestow it on ourselves ? ' The answer strikes deeper down when
it says : ' There is a depravity in you : and, § 12, whether you
belong to the class of those who have not heard the Gospel ; or of
those, who, after having heard it and being converted, have not
persevered ; or of those who refused it out of hand ; or to the class
of infants unbaptized, you have not been separated from the mass
of perdition, and so deserve not correction but eternal condemna
tion.' Those, on the other hand, § 13, who have been so separated,
hear and obey and have bestowed upon them the gift of perse
verance to the end because, §§ 14-16, they are predestinate. Why
God, § 17, has given this gift of final perseverance to one and not
to another, it is impossible to say4: ' 0, the depths,' &c, is the only
solution. His ways, § 19, are inscrutable. We must therefore,
1 Ep. ccxvi (Op. ii. 796-9 ; P. L. xxxiii. 974 sq.).
2 Retract, ii, § 67 (Op. i. 64 B ; P. L. xxxii. 656).
3 Op. x. 749-78 (P. L. xliv. 915-46) ; Tillemont, xiii. 878 ; Fleury, xxiv.
xlvii. 4 For a summary account of the doctrine of Final Perseverance, seo
Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 208.

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 137
§ 25, correct the sinner, though we do not know whether the disci
pline will be of any advantage to him, nor whether he be predestinate
or no. There is, however, a further difficulty here, § 26 : ' Adam
was not separated from the mass of perdition ; it did not exist in
his day ; why then was not the gift of perseverance bestowed on
him ? and, if he did not have it, how is he guilty for not perse
vering ? ' ' Adam ', is the reply, §§ 27-34, ' in his state of innocence
before the Fall, did not need more than such assistance as makes
perseverance possible — adiutorium sine quo non fit 1 — for he had
the capacity of choice. He was given therefore all that he needed.
We, his offspring, owing to the state of corrupted nature conse
quent on the Fall, are weaker and need more ; our power of choice,
i.e. our free-will, is gone ; we therefore have a controlling grace —
adiutorium quo fit2 — such as makes perseverance certain.' Ours,
therefore, is, §§ 35-8, the ' greater freedom ' 3 of ' irresistible ' 4 grace.
It belongs, § 39, to those who are predestinate ; their number is
fixed 5 ; but, § 43, as none of us knows whether he be included in it
or not, he must let himself be corrected, even though the correction
may turn out in his case to have been only inflictive.6 And, §§ 44-9,
we must endeavour the salvation of all men, just because we cannot
tell whom God intends actually to save.
Augustinianism was becoming more and more an ' offence '.
God, it would seem from the treatises sent to Adrumetum, had
given numbers of men no opportunity : and yet He would punish
them. Voices were certain to be raised in protest by other
Christian teachers.
§ 2. Meanwhile, a recrudescence took place, in Gaul and Britain,
427-30, of the older Pelagianism.
(1) In Gaul it was connected with Leporius,7 a native of Treves,
and a monk of blameless life. He ascribed his blamelessness to his
i De corrept. et gratia, § 32.
2 Ibid., § 34, and. Document No. 187. The semi-Pelagians took exception
to this passage.
3 'Maior libertas", ibid., § 35 (Op. x. 769 e ; P. L. xliv. 937).
4 ' Subventum est igitur infirmitati voluntatis humanae ut divina gratia
indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter ageretur', ibid., § 38, and Document
No. 187 ; and see Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 163-8.
5 Certus numerus ', § 39 ; ' Certissimum et felicissimum numerum ', § 42
(Op. x. 772 a, 773 f ; P. L. xliv. 940, 942).
8 Not a ' salubre medicamentum ', but a ' poenale tormentum ', § 43 (Op.
x. 774 b; P.L. xliv. 942).
7 Cassian, De Inc. Chr. i, §§ 4, 5 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 23 sq.) ; Gennadius
[c. 450-500], De script, eccl., § 59 (P. L. Iviii. 1092 sq.) ; Tillemont, Mem.
xiii. 878-85 ; Fleury, xxiv. xlix.

138 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
own free-will ; for he was a disciple of Pelagius. The interest of his
case, however, is that it illustrates the connexion between Pela
gianism and Nestorianism. For Leporius went on to conceive the
spiritual experience of our Lord in terms of his own. The Saviour
also, he held, was an ordinary man. He had used His free-will so
well as to have lived without sin. His is the great Example. We
can profit from it if we choose.1 The letter 2 in which he published
these opinions gave no little scandal ; and Cassian, 360-f435, now
settled iii Provence since c. 415, urged him to withdraw.3 But to
no purpose. The bishops intervened : in particular, Proculus of
Marseilles ; and Leporius, driven from Gaul, took refuge in Africa.
Here he came under the influence of Augustine 4 ; and it may have
been he who took part, as one of the seven priests in company with
two bishops, in the nomination of Heraclius to be Augustine's
successor in the see of Hippo.5 At any rate, he came to acknow
ledge his error, and made public confession of it at Carthage. Then,
in a recantation 6 addressed to Proculus and others, he confesses
that ' God was born of Mary ',7 and that ' Jesus is the only, not the
adopted, Son of God ' 8 ; thus repudiating his anticipation of
Nestorianism. There follows a similar repudiation of Pelagianism.
' We likewise execrate what we said in ascribing to Christ labour,
merit and faith ; making Him almost like one of the Saints, though
this was far from our intention.' 9 Aurelius and Augustine sub
scribed the recantation 10 ; and wrote to commend him once more
to Proculus and the bishops of Gaul.11 It is possible that Augustine
himself was the author of the document put into the mouth of
Leporius ; in any case, he must have the credit of making a genuine
convert from Pelagianism.
(2) In Britain, shortly afterwards, the same credit fell, but on
a larger scale, to Germanus,12 bishop of Auxerre 418-f48, and
Lupus,13 bishop of Troyes 433-t79. Pelagius himself had left
Britain in early life ; but Severian, a bishop there who had adopted
1 Cassian, De Inc. Chr. i, § 3 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 21 sq.).
2 Leporii Libellus, § 8 (P. L. xxxi. 1227 b).
3 Cassian, De Inc. Chr. i, § 4 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 24 b).
4 Aug. Ep. ccxix, § 1 (Op. ii. 811 A; P.L. xxxiii. 991).
5 Ep. ccxiii (Op. ii. 788-90 ; P. L. xxxiii. 966-8).
6 Leporii Libellus (P. L. xxxi. 1221-30).
7 Ibid., § 2. 8 Ibid., § 3. 9 Ibid., § 8. 10 Ibid., § 10.
11 Aug. Ep. ccxix [a. d. 426] (Op. ii. 810 sq. ; P. L. xxxii. 991 sq.).
12 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 1-30 ; Fleury, xxm. xlvi.
i3 Tillemont, Mim. xvi. 126-41.

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 139
his opinions, had a son named Agricola devoted to their propa
gation.1 The clergy, as a rule, were firm in their loyalty to the
traditional faith ; though a British bishop, Fastidius 2 by name,
may have been influenced by Pelagian ideas. The laity found them
more attractive. At length, as Britain had no divines of learning
sufficient to deal with the new propaganda, it was resolved to
appeal to the mother-church of Gaul. ' At a numerous synod,' 3
Germanus, according to his biographer, Constantius of Lyons,
c,490, and Lupus were sent 'to uphold in Britain the belief in divine
grace.' 4 But according to Prosper, who has the advantage over
Constantius of writing as a contemporary, it was Pope Caelestine
who sent Germanus ' as his representative ' ; while, shortly after
wards, he sent Palladius, 431, as bishop to Ireland.5 He thus ' took
pains ', says Prosper, not only ' to keep the Roman island Catholic,
but to make the barbarian island Christian '.6 The two statements
as to the source of the mission of Germanus are not necessarily
inconsistent : Pope and Council may alike have had their share
in it. Germanus had been ' Duke ' 7 of a wide district, before he was
unwillingly taken and consecrated 8 to be his successor by Amator,
bishop of Autissiodorum (Auxerre), besides being a man of birth
and wealth. Lupus was a few years his junior, the brother of
Vincent of Lerins, and one of the correspondents 9 of that grand
seigneur, the poet and letter-writer, Sidonius Apollinaris,10 bishop
of Urbs Arverna (now Clermont-Ferrand) 469-f79. Both envoys,
therefore, were men of distinction, apart from their episcopal rank.
They crossed to Britain ; and, * after preaching in churches, and
even in streets and fields and in the open country ',11 they at last
succeeded in bringing the Pelagians to confront them, apparently
at Verulam : for it is in reference to this event that there occurs the
first known allusion to the story of St. Alban, Germanus being said
to have visited his tomb after the overthrow of the Pelagians.12
Germanus and Lupus then lent their aid to the Britons ; both of
i Bede, H. E. i, § 17.
2 Gennadius, De script eccl., § 56 (P. L. Iviii. 1091 a) ; Bardenhewer, 505 ;
Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 268, n. 3.
3 Constantius, Vita, xix, § 41 (Acta SS. lui. vii. 211).
4 Bede, H. E. i, § 17.
5 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 429, 431 (Op. 744 ; P. L. Iviii. 594 sq.).
6 Prosper, Contra Collai xxi, § 2 (Oy. 363 ; P. L. Iviii, 271).
7 Vita, § 1 (Acta SS. lid. vii. 202). 8 Ibid., § 5 (202 sq.).
9 P. L. Iviii. 63-5, 551 sq., 554 sq.
10 Tillemont, Mem. xii. 195-284 ; Bardenhewer, 606 sq.
11 Vita, § 47 (Acta SS. lui. vii. 213). 12 Ibid., § 49 (213).

140 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
them by their prayers and Germanus by his generalship, to win the
Alleluia victory over Picts and Scots,1 at Easter, 430, the site of it
being traditionally associated with ' Maes-Garmon ', or ' German's
Field ', near Mold in Flintshire.2 With that they departed, having
freed the land from ' foes spiritual and corporeal '.3 But Germanus
came again to finish the destruction of Pelagianism in 447, accom
panied this time by Severus, bishop of Treves 446-f55, the
disciple of Lupus. Interesting as it is to us, the revival and over
throw of Pelagianism proper in Britain was not so serious a matter
as the semi-Pelagian movement.4 To this we must revert, as it
developed on either coast of the Western Mediterranean ; in Africa,
and in the South of Gaul.
§ 3. In Africa, about 427, a Carthaginian monk named Vitalis
maintained the purely natural origin of the first movements of
faith or good desire ; and that God only inclines the will to good by
setting before it His law, which we may accept or refuse.5 But
subsequent to the initial act of faith which he thus referred to the
unassisted will, Vitalis acknowledged the need for Grace. This
was to affirm what, from the seventeenth century onwards, has been
called semi-Pelagianism 6 ; and ' the whole question ', as Hooker
puts it, was ' now grown unto this issue, whether man may [i.e. can]
without God, .seek God '.7 ' If he may,' replies Augustine in
a letter to Vitalis,8 appealing once more to the settled institutions
of the Church, ' then, § 2, we must revise our habits of public
worship. Thus we shall not pray for those to whom we preach the
Gospel, but only preach to them. So raise your voice, Vitalis,
against the prayers of the Church ; and when — as at the inter
cessions on Good Friday 9 — you hear the priest at the altar exhorting
the people to pray for unbelievers that God would convert
them, for catechumens that He would inspire them with a desire
i Vita, §§ 51-2 (213 sq.) ; Bede, //. E. i, § 20.
2 W. Bright, Chapters 3, &c, 22. 3 Vila, § 52 (Acta SS. lui. vii. 214).
4 On semi-Pelagianism, see J. Tixeront, Hist. Dogm. iii. 264-301, and
W. Bright, Lessons, app. xx.
5 Aug. Ep. ccxvii, § 1 (Op. ii. 799 ; P. L. xxxiii. 978) ; Fleury, xxiv. 1 ;
W. Bright, Lessons, 292 sq.
6 For this date, see Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 274, n. 1, and J. Tixeront,
History of Dogmas, iii. 265, n. 4. Prosper's phrase is simply ' Pelagianae
pravitatis reliquiae ', Aug. Ep. ccxxv, § 7 (Op. ii. 824 b ; P.L. xxxiii. 1006).
7 R. Hooker, E. P. v. app. i (ed. J. Keble, ii. 547).
8 Ep. coxvii (Op. ii. 799-809 ; P. L. xxxiii. 978-86), and Document
No. 186.
9 L. Duchesne, Chr. Worship s, 172 sq. ; and, for a relic of them, our
three Good Friday collects.

chap, vm AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 141
for baptism, and for the faithful that they may persevere through
His grace, greet these pious exhortations with a laugh, and say
that you will not pray God for unbelievers that He may make
them believers ; for this is not a gift of His mercy, but the function
of their will. But,' he concludes, § 30, ' I am disposed to beheve that
you agree with us that we ought, as is our wont, to pray to God
for those who are not willing to believe that they may be willing
to believe, and so forth . . . You ought then undoubtedly to acknow
ledge that the wills of men are anticipated (praeveniri) by God's
grace, and that God makes them will the good as to which they
were unwilling.' Unfortunately, however, in reaching this con
clusion as to the need of prevenient, as well as of co-operating,
grace, Augustine had let it be seen only too clearly what he meant
by it. Apart from the unnatural interpretation of 1 Tim. ii. 4, now
customary with him, to mean, e.g. § 19, that none are saved except
by the action of God's own will, he speaks of, § 23, the divine
preparation of the will as a process in which the will is purely
passive ; of, § 24, the conversion of the unbeliever as effected
' with the ease of omnipotence ' and, § 26, of the priest at the altar
as praying God that He would compel the nations to come in. Thus
he evidently conceived of the ' prevenient ' action of grace as
dominant and determinative. We do not know how Vitalis took
it ; but the effect of such exaggeration was to rouse prolonged
opposition in the South of Gaul.
§ 4. Early in the fifth century, the Riviera, as we call it, was the
centre, for Gaul, of the religious life of the time. There were two
hearths from which it radiated : the isles of the Lerins, and
Marseilles. The isles of the Lerins1 lie off Cannes. The larger and nearer
the coast is St. Marguerite, formerly Lerona, famed for its citadel
in which ' the man with the iron mask ' at the end of the seven
teenth century, and whence Marshal Bazaine escaped in 1874.
Half a mile out to sea lies the smaller and more famous island,
once called Lerinum, but now St. Honorat, after the founder of the
monastic community there. Honoratus 2 was a saint of the type
of Sulpicius Severus 3 and Paulinus of Nola 4 : by birth a man of
1 A. C. Cooper-Marsdin, The School of Lerins, c. ii (1905), and The isles
ofthe Lerins (1913).
2 Tillemont, Mim. xii. 464-86 ; Fleury, xxiv. lvii ; T. S. Holmes, The
Christian Church in Gaul, 281 sqq.
3 Tillemont, Mim. xii. 586-611. " Ibid. xiv. 1-146.

142 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
rank and prospects, by vocation a Religious. Accompanied by his
brother Venantius, and under the guidance of Caprasius, a friend of
maturer years, he sought solitude in Greece. .But Venantius died
there, at Methone (Modon, in the South-west of the Peloponnese) ;
and the company returned to find, if they could, a wilderness in
the West. They found it, at last, off their own shores at Lerins :
which, for this reason, was the more attractive to Honoratus as
well as because it formed part of the diocese of the venerated
Leontius, bishop of Forum Iulii (Frejus) 419-f32. Such was the
origin of the abbey of Lerins, 408-1788. In its early days it stood
to France as did Whitby x to England. For it became a nursery of
scholars and bishops — Honoratus, himself bishop of Aries 426-f 9 ;
his pupil and successor, Hilary,2 bishop of Aries 429-f49 ; Vincent,3
the author of the Commonitorium, 434, and Salvian 4 of the De
gubernatione Dei, 439-51 ; Lupus, bishop of Troyes 429-f79 ;
Eucherius,5 bishop of Lyons 435-f50 ; Faustus,6 abbot of Lerins
433, and bishop of Riez 462-f 85 ; and Caesarius, bishop of Aries
502-f42, to whom by some,7 as by others to other members of the
school of Lerins,8 has been ascribed the Quicunque vult.
Some distance along the coast to the west of Lerins shone
a second beacon of Christian piety, at the ancient Phocaean colony
of Marseilles. It was kindled about five years after the founding
of Lerins, when, in 415, John Cassian 9 opened two monasteries,
one for men and the other for women, near Marseilles. Cassian
himself was born in Scythia,10 i.e. in the Roman province of that
name near the delta of the Danube, now the Dobrudja, of educated
and wealthy parents. Trained, with a friend named Germanus,
at one of the monasteries of Bethlehem, he visited the cells of
Egypt ; and, with Germanus, stayed there for ten years, 385-95.
Thence they passed to Constantinople, possibly driven out by
Theophilus ; for at the Eastern Capital Cassian was associated with
Chrysostom, who ordained him deacon. After Chrysostom's final
exile in 404, Cassian and Germanus were sent on a mission, 405,
1 W. Bright, Chapters 3, &c, 310 sq.
2 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 36-97 ; Holmes, 452 sqq. 3 Ibid. xv. 143-6.
4 Ibid. xvi. 181-94. 5 Ibid. xv. 110-36. 6 Ibid. xvi. 408-36.
7 As once [1901] by Dom Morin, though he now assigns it to Martin,
bishop of Braga 572-+80 (J. T. S. xii. 161-90, 337-59— Jan. and Apr. 1911).
8 As by A. E. Burn [1896] to Honoratus ; by Burn and C. H. Turner
[1900] to Eusebius of Vercellae ; by G. D. W. Ommanney [1897] to Vincent.
9 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 157-89 ; Fleury, xxiv. lvii ; and, for his writings,
P. L. xlix, 1, and tr. N. and P.-N. F. xi. 184 sqq.
i° Gennadius, De script, eccl , § 61 (P. L. Iviii. 1094 sq.).

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 143
to Rome by the clergy of Constantinople, to obtain the protection
of Innocent I for their persecuted archbishop.1 There Cassian was
ordained priest ; and, finding it safer, perhaps, to remain in the
West, he at length settled near Marseilles. As one who had lived with
the solitaries of Egypt and was now abbot of two important founda
tions, Cassian came to occupy a position of commanding influence.
He was the link between the monasticism of the East and the West ;
and, at the instance of Castor,2 bishop of Apta Iulia 419-t28, now
Apt, on a tributary of the Durance, some thirty-three miles east-
south-east of Avignon, composed two treatises — the Instituta,3
426, and the Collationes,* 429 — for the instruction and edification
of the monks. The Institutes deal with the external life of the
monk 5 ; and, after describing in Books I-IV, the life and rule of
the ascetic communities in Palestine and Egypt, the author pro
ceeds to delineate and denounce, in Books V-XII, the eight ' capital
sins ' 6 of monastic life. In the Collations, he aims at the internal
or spiritual perfection of the monk 7 : and the book is so called, as
recording, in twenty-four conversations, the reminiscences of
Cassian and his friend Germanus in their intercourse with the wit
and wisdom of the desert.8 Both works were written in a lively
style, and quickly won wide acceptance as manuals of monas
ticism. It was therefore the more alarming, to the friends of
Augustine, that in both there were traces of semi-Pelagianism.
And this is particularly the case with the thirteenth Collation, ' On
the protection of God '. ' God ', says the abbot Chaeremon there,
* no sooner sees in us the beginnings of a good will than He forth
with enlightens, strengthens and excites it to salvation : and
so causes that to grow which either He himself has planted or which
He sees to have sprung up by efforts of our own.' 9 And there are
other examples 10 of similar language, in which the initiative in
good is ascribed to us and to God its consummation only.
i Palladius, Vita, c. iii (Op. xiii. 11 d ; P. G. xlvii. 13 sq.).
2 Cassian, Op. i (P. L. xlix. 53 sq.).
3 Ibid. (P. L. xlix. 53-476) ; tr. N. and P.-N. F. xi. 201 sqq.
4 Ibid. (P. L. xlix. 477-1328) ; tr. N. and P.-N. F. xi. 295 sqq.
6 Inst, ii, § 9 (P. L. xlix. 97 A, b).
6 Inst v, § 2 (P. L. xlix. 203). On these ' Octo principalia vitia ', see note
in F. E. Brightman, The Preces Privatae of L. Andrewes, 319 sq.
7 Inst, ii, § 9 (ut sup.).
8 On which see J. O. Hannay, The Spirit and Origin of Christian Monas
ticism and The Wisdom ofthe Desert.
9 Coll. xiii, § 8 (P. L. xlix. 912 sq.).
10 Ibid., §§ 9, 11 (P. L. xlix. 919 sq., 923 a).

144 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, partiii
Cassian, therefore, and with him Hilary, now bishop of Aries,
429-f49, would, of course, disclaim all sympathy with Pelagianism ;
but they thought that Augustine had gone too far. They held,
with Vitalis, that we must, in the interests of human responsibility,
affirm, at all costs, that nature unaided can take the first step
towards its own recovery. Semi-Pelagianism was like Pela
gianism in saying that there was a time when grace was not
needed ; unlike it, in attaching a real sense to grace. On the other
hand, semi-Pelagians, though they might better be called semi-
Augustinians, as attaching a real sense to grace, differed from
Augustine in two points.1 They denied the need for prevenient
grace, and they held that grace was not irresistible.
§ 5. It was this state of Gallic opinion that led, in 428-9, to
Augustine's De praedestinatione sanctorum and De dono perseveran-
tiae — the second and last pair of his extreme books. He was
made aware of it by two zealous laymen, Prosper and Hilary,
both monks of Marseilles. This Hilary is to be distinguished from
the archbishop of Aries ; but is apparently the same as he who,
fifteen years earlier, had informed Augustine of the growth of
Pelagianism in Sicily. He is otherwise unknown to us. But
Prosper2 of Aquitaine, till his death in 463, gained increasing
reputation as the champion of Augustinianism : in poems, such as
the De ingratis 3 [before 430] directed against the ' graceless ' semi-
Pelagians, or the ironical Epitaphi/am Nestorianae et Pelagianae
haereseos,* 431-2 ; in a series of Pro Augustino responsiones,5 one of
them being against the objections to the Augustinian doctrine of
predestination entertained by Vincent of Lerins 6 ; and in a formal
treatise De gratia Dei et libero arbitrio liber contra Collatorem.7 This
last is directed against Cassian the author of the Collationes, and
takes up his assertions, one specimen of which has been quoted
above, to the effect that sometimes grace ' prevents ' the will, but,
as often as not, the will forestalls the action of grace. Prosper also
1 The two points were determined by reaction from Augustine's over
statements, and ' the Semi-Pelagians would have admitted grace to be
necessary at the outset as well as throughout the process, if Augustine had
not connected it with the ideas of irresistibihty in its working and of uncon
ditional predestination as its source ', W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. lv.
2 Tillemont, Mem. xvi. 1-31 ; Fleury, xxiv. lx, xxvi. xxiv ; Barden
hewer, 511 sqq. ; J. Tixeront, Hist. dogm. iii. 269 sqq.
3 Op. 105-89 (P. L. li. 91-148). * Op. 197-9 (P. L. li. 153 sq.).
5 Op. 203-56 (P. L. li. 155-202). 8 Op. 227^0 (P. L. li. 177-86).
7 Op. 307-66 (P. L. li. 215-76).

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 145
has left us his Chronicon x which continues that of Jerome ; and —
in the last of its three editions — carries events down to the sack of
Rome by Gaiseric,2 King of the Vandals, 455 ; and differs from its
predecessors in the prominence that it gives to the history of
Christian thought.
It was this Prosper — destined afterwards to take rank as the
loyal and lucid exponent of his master's theology — who, with
Hilary, now wrote to inform him of the opposition it was arousing
in the South of Gaul.3 ' I am unknown to you by face,' begins
Prosper, § 1 , but, § 2, I must let you know that many of the ser
vants of Christ who live at Marseilles and were already inclined to
disagree with certain points in your anti-Pelagian writings, have
been seriously put off by your book De correptione et gratia. They
are men of high character and great influence ; and, § 3, their
position is much as follows : — Certainly all men sinned in Adam,
and no man can be restored except through grace : but pre
destination leads, in the case of the fallen, to recklessness and, with
the good, to lukewarmness ; since neither diligence in the reprobate,
nor negligence in the elect, can make any difference. Virtue is
destroyed if the Divine Decree prevent the human will ; and pre
destination simply introduces a fatal necessity. Our belief, in
short, is contrary to edification ; and, were it trae, it ought not to
be preached. Others, § 4, more frankly Pelagian, hold that grace
consists in the gifts of nature : make good use of them, and you
merit the attainment of saving grace. As for infants and heathen,
§ 5, some of whom die before they come to years of discretion or
otherwise have the chance of attaining to saving grace, they are
saved or lost according as God foresees that they would have re
sponded or not, had they had the chance. But, in any case, God
willeth all men to be saved and, § 6, our Lord died for all. So far
as God is concerned, therefore, eternal life is prepared for all ; if, on
the other hand, you look to man's free-will, eternal life is for those
only who believe of their own accord and so merit the assistance
of grace. Thus, to say, as they do, that the initial step in a man's
salvation rests with himself is a serious thing : the more so,
§ 7, as it is said by men of high character, recently promoted to the
episcopate. Show them, § 8, that the Christian Faith is attacked
1 Op. 685-754 (P. L. li. 535-606). ' In lack of other sources, very impor
tant for the first half of the fifth century,' Bury's Gibbon, iii, app. i, p. 488.
2 Gibbon, c. xxxvi (iv. 5) ; Hodgkin, ii. 284.
3 Aug. Ep. ccxxv (Op. ii 820-5 ; P. L. xxxiii. 1002 7).
21 »l m L

146 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
by what they say ; that prevenient and co-operating grace are
compatible with the freedom of the will ; what is the relation
between predestination and foreknowledge ; and so, I pray you,
enlighten their understanding. It is well worth while, § 9, for
their leader is the distinguished Hilary, bishop of Aries ; and, in all
respects but this, he is an ardent admirer of your doctrine.
The other Hilary seconded the appeal of Prosper in much the
same terms 1 ; but he adds, § 6 (with special reference to the excep
tions of the Massilians to certain positions adopted by Augustine in
the De correptione et gratia2), that, according to them, to say the
gift of perseverance was not given to Adam while it is given to
some of his descendants is to drive the rest to despair ; and
again, § 7, that the number of the elect and of the reprobate is not
fixed. The Massilians, however, § 9, profess the warmest admira
tion for Augustine on all other points than the one now in dispute.
My letter, § 10, is simply an appendix to that of my friend Prosper.
§ 6. Old as he was, and much preoccupied, Augustine could not
bring himself to refuse the request of Prosper and Hilary. He
sent them a reply in two books.
(1) The first of these is known as his De praedestinatione sanc
torum.3 ' I fully acknowledge ', he writes, § 2, ' the difference
between those good men for whom you are anxious and their
predecessors.' They are semi-Pelagians, not Pelagians : ' they
only assert that the initial step to faith and salvation proceeds
from unaided free-will : this first step taken, all else, according
to them, is the gift of God. But, § 3, this will not stand. Not the
increase of faith only, but its first beginnings also are the gift of
God, if we are, § 4, to take St. Paul for our guide when he writes :
" To you it hath been granted, in the behalf of Christ, not only to
believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf " [Phil. i. 29] ; or
again; § 5, " Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account any
thing as from ourselves " [2 Cor. iii. 5]. I am aware, § 7, that I once
took their view and held that the faith by which we first come to
believe in God is no gift of His but a thing of our own ; so that, on
this showing, grace would come after faith. But this was before I
became a bishop. It was, § 8, a mistake ; and I was led to abandon
the error, which your neighbours still maintain, chiefly by the text :
i Aug. Ep. ccxxvi (Op. ii. 825-9 ; P. L. xxxiii. 1007-12) ; Fleury, xxiv.
lix. 2 esp. § 34.
3 Op. x. 789-820 (P. L. xliv. 959-92) ; Fleury, xxiv. Ixi ; W. Bright,
Anti-P, T. lvi.

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 147
"What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" [1 Cor. iv. 7].
Thus, §§ 9-10 faith itself is to be included in what we have received ;
and so, § 12, it is to be reckoned among the works which do not
precede but follow the grace of God. Faith then, § 16, in its com
mencement as well as in its perfection is a gift of God, and, like His
other gifts, is not bestowed upon all ; if some are left out, it simply
remains that God did not choose to give it them. And this brings
me, § 19, to the question of predestination. It is the prepara
tion for grace, and differs from it as the preparation from the gift
prepared for. Predestination differs also from foreknowledge.
By foreknowledge God knows even those things which He will not
Himself do ; sins, for instance ; by predestination He foresees
those things which He means to do. Grace, then, is predestination
taking effect ; as when He himself makes us do what He commands.
We act, § 22, and He causes us to act. Its highest examples, § 23,
are to be seen in infants, and in the Saviour ; for, § 24, by no
antecedent merits are infants that are saved to be distinguished
from the rest ; nor, § 30, had the Human Nature of our Lord done
anything that it alone should be united to His Divine Person.'
Augustine's argument here is at fault, because he overlooks the
impersonality of our Lord's Human Nature.1 But, he goes on,
§ 32, it was simply predestinated, or ' determined ' [Rom. i. 4 ;
R. V. marg.J, to this privilege, as St. Paul expressly says. So with
us. There are two sorts of calling ; one, common to those who
refuse to come to the wedding ; the other, peculiar to the pre
destinate, i.e. ' to them that are called according to His purpose '
[Rom. viii. 28] — a calling effectual and, § 33, ' without repentance '
[Rom. xi. 29]. These are called, § 34, not because they believe,
but in order that they may believe.2 Theirs, § 38, is an absolute
predestination, irrespective of foreseen piety ; and, §§ 39-41, the
calling includes everything, not excepting the faith which God
gives to those whom He calls. So, § 43, the first steps toward faith
are not of ourselves but are the gift of God.
(2) But what of its end ? The answer to this further question
is given in the De dono perseverantiae 3 : really a sequel to the
previous book, but called by this new title because, § 1, " we affirm ',
i Mozley, Aug. Doctr. Pred. 152 sqq. ; W. Bright, Anti-P. T. lvii ; and
St. Leo a, 137, 143, 150.
2 On this point, see Mozley, 146.
3 Op. x. 821-58 (P. L. xiv. 993-1034) ; Fleury, xxiv. lxii.
L 2

148 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
says Augustine, ' that final perseverance is a gift of God also. The
perseverance, § 2, of which it is said, " He that endureth unto the
end, the same shall be saved," is a gift of God ; as, § 3, is implied by
our praying forit. The Lord's Prayer, §§ 4-14, atleast as expounded
in St. Cyprian, De dominica oratione, is little else than a prayer for
perseverance. No less is implied, § 15, by the other prayers of the
Church. She prays that unbelievers may come to believe ; there
fore it is God who converts them to faith. She prays that the
faithful may persevere : God therefore it is who gives them the gift
of perseverance. He has foreseen that He will do so, and this is
predestination. But, § 16, it may be asked : " Why is not grace
bestowed according to men'smerits ? " " Because God is merciful."
" Why not upon all ? " " Because He is just." Of two children,
§ 21, equally affected by original sin, He takes the one and leaves
the other. Of two adult unbelievers, He effectually calls the one
and not the other. His judgements are unsearchable. Still more
inscrutable why, of two pious Christians, perseverance is given to
the one and denied to the other. All we can say is that the former
is of the number of the predestinate, while the latter is not. The
mystery, § 22, is impenetrable ; and its impenetrability we may
learn from our Lord Himself, when He said, § 23, " Woe unto thee,
Chorazin ! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for, if the mighty works
had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they
would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes " [Matt. xi.
21 sq.]. For it cannot be said, after this, that God refuses the
preaching of the Gospel to those only whom He foresees would not
profit by it. He refused it to Tyre and Sidon, who would have
profited by it. Why ? Simply because they were not predestinate.
But the Massilians, as Prosper has informed me, § 34, object that
this doctrine of predestination is a dangerous one to preach ; it
is incompatible, they say, with preaching, teaching and correction.
Yet St. Paul [Phil. ii. 13] and our Lord [John vi. 65] both taught
it ; and, § 35, will any one say that God has not foreseen to whom
He will give faith or final perseverance ? Now predestination is
nothing more than this foreknowledge and preparation of the
benefits of God by which those are most surely delivered who are
delivered. The rest of mankind, by the just judgement of God,
are left where they were, in the mass of perdition ; precisely where
the Tyrians and Sidonians were left who could and would have
believed, if only they had been allowed to see these miracles of the

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 149
Lord.' x Augustme thus asserts, with the most unqualified emphasis,
that perseverance is a pure gift, bestowed and withheld for reasons
to us inscrutable ; and that predestination and dereliction are alike
absolute. We can hardly be surprised, therefore, to find him
admitting that discretion must, of course, be used, §§ 58-60, in
preaching a doctrine like this to a general congregation ; they must
always be assumed to be among the predestinate. As for the
reprobate, § 61, they should be alluded to in the third person only.
Above all, §§ 63-5, we must urge the ordinary man to leave these
disputes to the learned ; and bid him remember that the lex orandi
is the lex credendi, i.e. that the language of the official prayers of
the Church is the layman's guide to right belief. As for myself,
§§ 66-8, 1 write under correction ; and look for it from the doctors
of the Church.
§ 7. So ended Augustine's part in the Pelagian controversy, save
for the brief and clear summary of its issues in the last chapter of
his De haeresibus,2 c. 428. This was a compendium of the history of
heresies, written toward the close of his life, in answer to the
entreaties of Quodvultdeus,3 deacon and afterwards archbishop
of Carthage 437-t54. In it Augustine makes use of the similar
compilations of Epiphanius 4 and Philaster,5 bishop of Brescia
379-|87. But he did not live to finish either this or the larger
Opus imperfectum.6 For, in the year when he began it, a great
disaster 7 happened to the Empire in Africa. Honorius died
27 August 423. His ' poultry and his people ' 8 passed under the
charge of John, a clerk in a Government Office, who declared
himself Emperor and ruled at Ravenna for eighteen months. But
the House of Theodosius were still masters of the resources of the
Empire ; and, with the aid of the Eastern Court, Valentinian III,
425--f55, the six-year-old son of the sister of Honorius, was re
instated in his inheritance ; and the West was ruled by his mother,
the Empress Galla Placidia, 425-150, for a quarter of a century.
The two chief supports of her throne were Boniface, Count of
i Document No. 188.
2 Op. viii. 1-28 (P. L. xiii. 21-50) ; Fleury, xxiv. lxiii, and Document
No. 189.
3 Epp. ccxxi-ccxxiv (Op. ii. 816-20 ; P. L. xxxiii. 997-1002).
4 Panarion, Op. i, ii. 1-1108 (P. G. xii. 173-1200 ; xiii. 1-832).
5 De Haeresibus (P. L. xii. 1111-1302 or C. 8. E. L. xxxviii).
6 For this, and the enormous industry of Augustine as a writer, see Ep.
ccxxiv, § 2 (Op. ii. 820 ; P. L. xxxiii. 1001).
7 Gibbon, o. xxxiii (iii. 394 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 844 sqq., n. 209 sqq.
8 Hodgkin, I. ii. 844 : see also Socr. H. E. vn. xxii ; Fleury, xxiv. xxxiii.

150 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
Africa 422-f32, a friend and correspondent1 of Augustine, and
Aetius, 400-f 54, a soldier, born of a barbarian family from Silistria,
and now nearest the person of the Augusta as Count of Italy. As
might be expected, the two were rivals : not patriots, for then they
would have combined to hold the Empire together. As it was,
Aetius contrived to bring the Count of Africa into suspicion of
disloyalty to the Empress ; and, in 427, to get him declared a
public enemy. Boniface, feeling himself too weak to withstand
the might of the Empire alone, summoned the Vandals to his aid.
They were, at that time, struggling with the Sueves and the Visi
goths for the mastery of Spain ; but, attracted by the riches of
Africa, they crossed the sea under their young King, Gaiseric,
428-f77, and overran its provinces — all the more readily as Africa
was Catholic and they were Arians. Early in 430 three cities only
remained inviolate : Hippo, Cirta, and Carthage.2 Augustine was
consulted by one bishop after another as to whether they should
remain at their posts, or take refuge in one of these fortified places,
and replied in a letter to Honoratus, bishop of Thiava.3 ' Remain
with your flocks ' was his first advice, § 1, ' and share their miseries.'
But it was too hard a saying. Some quoted, § 2, ' When they
persecute you in one city, flee ye into another.' Others answered,
§ 5, ' What is the good of our remaining simply to see the men
slain, the women ravished, the churches burned, and then to be
put to the torture ourselves to make us disclose the riches we do
not possess ? ' Augustine relented, § 6, reflecting on the flight of
St. Paul from Damascus and of Athanasius from Egypt. He
admitted their pleas, § 7, though under limitations. And so it came
about that his biographer, Possidius, and other bishops were shut
up with him in Hippo when the invaders blockaded the city from
May 430 to July 431. In the second month of the siege, Aurelius
archbishop of Carthage, died 20 July. In the third month, in the
seventy-sixth year of his age and the thirty-fifth of his episcopate,
Augustine died,4 28 August 430, his eyes fixed on the penitential
psalms and the sounds of a besieging host of Vandals in his ears :
taken away, it may well be said, from the evil to come. They
i Epp. clxxxv, clxxxix, ccxx (Op. ii. 643, 697, 812 ; P. L. xxxiii. 792, 854,
992) ; Fleury, xxm. xxxix-xli, xxiv. Iii.
2 Possidius, Vita, § 28 (Op. x, app. 278 c ; P. L. xxxii. 58) ; q,v. for the
devastation of Africa, Fleury, xxv, c. xxv.
3 Ep. coxxviiHOp. ii. 830-5 ; P. L. xxxiii. 1013-19) ; tr. Newman, Ch.F.,
o. xi, and Document No. 190. 4 Fleury, xxv. xxvi.

chap.viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 151
offered the Holy Sacrifice at his burial x ; and so passed away the
great Doctor of the Church who, more than any other since'
St. Paul, has shaped the mind of Western Christendom in its
thoughts of God and of His dealings by grace with His people.
The overstatements of his creed, due to the ' way ' in which he
himself had been ' led ', were ' corrected ', as he had prayed, by
later ' doctors of the Church ' ; and where they were cleared away,
Augustine, or where they held their ground, Augustinianism, for
more than a thousand years reigned supreme over the ideas,
theological 2 and even political,3 of Europe.
We have now to consider the modification of Augustinianism 4
in Gaul to 529.
§ 8. The last pair of Augustine's extreme treatises may have
confirmed Prosper and Hilary in their convictions, but they only
served to exasperate the other side. Since the condemnations
launched against Pelagianism by Councils and Popes, 417-18, with
the support of the East, 420-31, there had come into being a
doctrine of Original Sin and the need of Grace which could at last
claim to be Catholic. But it was now proposed by Prosper and his
friends to add to it certain Augustinian theories about predestina
tion and the distribution of Grace. The proposal was resented.
All along the Riviera pamphlets appeared in' protest ; nine
excerpta made from the two distasteful treatises by two priests of
Genoa, on which they sought Prosper's advice 5 ; and capitula in
two series, one of fifteen collected by Gallic scholars of Provence,6
and another of sixteen selected by Vincent of Lerins,7 432. To
these, as we have seen, Prosper sent Responsiones.8 But to no
effect. He aimed at passing off as part of the Catholic Doctrine
of Sin and Grace the opinions pecuhar to the bishop of Hippo,
and it was too late openly to succeed in the attempt. Prosper then
i Possidius, Vita, § 31 (Op. x, app. 279 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 63 sq.).
2 e. g. over Gottschalk, 805-f69, for whom see J. Sirmondi, Historia
Praedestinatiana, cc. xi, xii (P. L. Iviii. 689-92), and Mozley, Aug. Doctr.
Pred. n. xx; St. Thomas Aq., 1225-f74, for whom, as the exponent of
Scholastic Augustinianism, see ibid., cc. ix, x, and W. Bright, Lessons,
app. xxi ; J. Calvin, 1509-t64 ; C. Jansen, bishop of Ypres, 1635-f8, for
whom and for the struggles connected with Jansenism, 1642-56, see L. von
Ranke, Hist. Popes, ii. 396 ; W. H. Jervis, Hist. Gall: Ch., c. xi ; Mozley,
421 sqq. ; Chr. Remembrancer, xxxi. 193 sq. ; W. Bright, Lessons, 306 sq.
3 Sir T. Baleigh, Elementary Politics, 21, 23.
4 J. Tixeront, Hist. Dogmas, iii. 264 sqq. ; W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr. lix sqq. ;
Lessons, &c, 302. 6 Prosper, Op. 241-56 (P. L. li. 187-202).
6 Ibid. Op. 203-24 (P. L. li. 155-74).
7 Ibid. Op. 227-40 (P. L. li. 177-86). 8 Fleury, xxvi. xxiv.

152 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
abandoned the pen of the pamphleteer for the part of suitor with
ecclesiastical authority. Owing to the deaths of Aurelius and
Augustine, and to the breakdown of all Church action, Synods
included, in Africa, consequent upon the Vandal conquest,1 it was
useless to seek the support of authority there. So to shelter under
the authority of the Apostolic See, Prosper went to Rome, c. 431.
§ 9. He got little encouragement from Pope Caelestine,2 422-f 82.
The Roman See was on good terms with the semi-Pelagians of
Provence ; so much so that when Leo, now archdeacon of Rome
and afterwards Pope, 440-t61, wanted the support of expert
theologians against the Nestorians, he sought and obtained it from
Cassian,3 De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorianos,* 430-1. But
Caelestine would remember that two years earlier he had been
somewhat out of humour with the prelates of those regions ; and
in Cuperemus quidem,5 of 26 July 428, had taken them to task, not
without a touch of scorn in his reproofs, for abuses alleged to be
current among them. ' Some of you, I am told,' he writes, § 2,
' have officiated in church clothed in the unusual garb of cloak and
leathern girdle. You allege the command in the Gospel to " have
our loins girded about ". But, if you are trying to imitate John the
Baptist, you are superstitious. We ought to obey Scripture in
the Spirit, not in the letter : else why not carry burning lamps
and staves in your hands as well ? Your garb, no doubt, is excel
lent for monks and others who dwell in solitary places ; but, in
church, we bishops wear the ordinary dress of a gentleman. We
ought to be distinguished from the people not by dress but by
doctrine and manners.' Caelestine's reproof is interesting. It
shows, on the unimpeachable evidence of a Pope, that while, as yet,
there was, in the West, no specifically liturgical dress for the clergy
in church, nevertheless they ordinarily wore chasuble and alb for
Sunday clothes as would other gentlemen in their congregation.
i On the way in which the Vandal conquest affected the Church, see
Victor Vitensis [a. d. 486], Historia persecutionis Vandalorum (P. L. Iviii.
179-260, or C. 8. E. L. vii) ; and, for criticism and summary, Hodgkin. ii.
265-82. 2 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 148-57.
3 Gennadius, De script eccl., § 61 (P. L. Iviii. 1096 a).
4 Cassian, Op. ii (P. L. 1. 9-272) ; tr. N. and P.-N. F. xi. 551 sqq. ; Fleury,
xxv. xiii. Note i, § 3, where Cassian, like his opponent Prosper, observes
the connexion between Pelagianism and Nestorianism, and that you may
either start from the first and arrive at the second (P. L. 1. 21 a), or reverse
the process (ib. 23) : see Newman's note in Fleury, iii. 24, note o.
5 Caelestine, Ep. iv (P. L. 1. 430-6) ; Jaffe, No. 369 ; Fleury, xxiv. lvi,
and Document No. 192.

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 153
A couple of hundred years later, gentlemen in the congregation
would have been found wearing the tunic and breeches of their
barbarian conquerors ; and only the clergy retained the flowing
attire of the Roman gentleman x which, by this time, was becoming
specifically liturgical, though not even to-day specifically sacer
dotal 2 nor specifically eucharistic,3 but traditional and seemly.
Seemliness, however, to Caelestine consisted, for the clergy, in not
being superstitious and in not being singular, but in behaving like
a man of sense and a gentleman. He then goes on, § 3, to correct
other things that were amiss, from the same point of view. Do
not be too strict in refusing penance in extremis ; nor raise to the
episcopate, § 4, laymen who have not passed through the inferior
grades of the mmistry, nor, § 5, criminals ; and, § 7, let not a clerk
unknown to the diocese be set in its see to the exclusion of those
who have spent their life in its service, for a bishop ought not
to be given to an unwilling flock. ' Given ' he must be.4 Caelestine
takes it for granted that, as in the New Testament, appointment to
the ministry is from above : in the case of a bishop, at this date,
he is ' given ' by the comprovincials. But he should have the
consent of clergy, people and magistrates too. Finally, § 10,
I refer to you the case of Venerius, bishop of Marseilles 428-f52 ;
he is said to have rejoiced over the murder, two years ago,5 of his
colleague Patroclus, archbishop of Aries 412-f26. Thus Caelestine
had treated, rather disdainfully, on points of discipline, themonas-
tically-minded prelates who, from Lerins and Marseilles, were
climbing into possession of the sees of southern Gaul. At the
request of Prosper, he was not averse to letting them know his
mind again on the point of doctrine. In Apostolici verba 6 of
15 May 431, he wrote to Venerius of Marseilles and others telling
them not to let their presbyters preach about subtilties,7 and re
minding them that Augustine, on the score of his hfe and his merits,
had ever been in communion with the Apostolic See.8 Cassian, of
i C. Bigg, Wayside Sketches, 228, n. 1.
2 In the Ordo Romanus I of a. d. 800 all the clergy from Pope to acolyte
enter the church, for the eucharist, in chasubles, though the deacons do
not wear theirs during the Mass (§§ 5-7, 8 : ed. C. Atchley, 226-9) ; and,
at the present day, folded chasubles are worn by deacon and sub-deacon
at certain seasons, Ruhr. Gen. xix, § 6, and Barbier de Montault, Le costume
et les usages ecclesiastiques selon la tradition romaine, ii. 86 (Paris, 1898).
3 Ibid. ii. 82. 4 ' Nullus invitis detur episcopus.'
5 Prosper, Chron. Op. 743 (P. L. li. 594 a).
6 Ep. xxi (P. L, 1. 528-37) ; Jaffe, No. 381. 7 Ibid., § 2.
8 Ibid., § 3.

154 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part iii
course, could subscribe to this ; and it was cold comfort to Prosper.
The Pope said nothing about Augustine's doctrine ; and Prosper
had come to seek support at Rome as an Augustinian loyal on every
point save one — that he had adopted predestination to condem
nation ' post ' for ' ante praevisa merita vel demerita '-1 He had
hoped to get the Pope to take up his championship of Augus
tinianism ; and this was all he could obtain. It would even look
less than it really was ; for had not Caelestine aided in the repres
sion of Pelagianism in Britain, 429, and joined in its condemnation
at Ephesus, 431, without pledging himself to the system of its only
thorough-going opponent, Augustine ?
§ 10. Caelestine died 27 January 432 ; and, nothing daunted,
Prosper would try his successor Sixtus III,2 432-f40. Sixtus was
promising. He had once been the patron of Pelagianism at Rome,
but was converted by Augustine. Surely he would do something
for Prosper. So, at least, we may suppose Prosper hoped ; since, in
his attack on Cassian's thirteenth Conference, known as the Contra
Collatorem, 433-4, he tries to drag Sixtus into the fray, and observes
that ' the protection of God, which has wrought in Innocent,
Zosimus, Boniface and Caelestine, will also be found at work in
Sixtus. They chased away open wolves ; the present Pope will
have the glory of ridding us of wolves in secret.' 3 Cassian, Vincent,
Hilary, and Faustus were the wolves he meant. But Sixtus proved
as little inclined as his predecessor to hunt them down 4 ; nor did
Cassian think it worth while to take up Prosper's challenge.
(1) Vincent, of Lerins, however, put out his Commonitorium,5
434,6 in reply. His obj ect, as he states, § 1 , is to provide himself with
a general rule whereby to distinguish Catholic truth from heresy ;
and he sets down in writing what he has learnt from the Holy
Fathers, that he may have it by him as a commonitory or aid to
memory. This rule, § 2, in brief, is the authority of Scripture ; and
it would be all-sufficient, but that men differ in the interpretation
of Scripture. The rule, therefore, must be supplemented by an
i Prosper, Resp. ad cap. Gall, iii (Op. 207 ; P. L. li. 158 c) ; Fleury, xxvi.
xxiv ; J. Tixeront, Hist. Dogm. iii. 274, 278.
2 Tillemont, Mem. xiv. 259 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xv.
3 Prosper, Contra Collat. xxi, § 4 (Op. 365 ; P. L. li. 273 c).
4 On the theological position of Cassian contrasted with that of Augustine,
see Newman's note in Fleury, iii. 173, note p.
6 P. L. 1. 637-86 ; tr. N. and P.-N. F. xi. 131 sqq. ; and ed. R. S. Moxon
(Cambr. Patr. Texts), 1915 ; Fleury, xxvi. xxiii ; Newman, Ch. F., c. x,
and Document No. 196.
8 For the date, Comm. ii, § 29 (P. L. 1. 678).

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 155
appeal to that sense of Scripture which is supported by univer
sality, antiquity, and consent ; by universality, when it is the
faitb of the whole Church ; by antiquity, when it is that which
has been held from the earliest times ; by consent, when it
has been the acknowledged belief of all, or of almost all, whose
office and learning give weight to their determinations. He, then,
who would be a Catholic must take care to hold that faith which
has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Origen, § 17,
and Tertullian, § 18, are signal instances of the disregard for
antiquity and universality ; and, § 20, the true Catholic will
beware of novelties such as theirs — he does not add, but he means,
such as those of Augustine and Prosper also.1 Is then, § 23, Chris
tian doctrine to remain at a standstill ? and is there no room for
development in theology as in other sciences ? Certainly ; but it
must be real, and not one-sided, development : such development
as is analogous to the growth of the body from childhood to matu
rity, or of a plant from seed to full-grown tree. It must be an
explanatory, not an accretive, development : the elucidation and
adaptation of the old, not the addition of anything new. No rule is
better known, even where it is held open to criticism, than Vin
cent's Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus. It is a standard
known all the world over. What is less known is that it was a test
devised, in the first instance, to rule out the innovations of Augus
tine and Prosper, though both are unnamed.
(2) As in Gaul, so in Rome, under the archdeacon Leo, there was
a strong body of central opinion. They respected the condemna
tion of Pelagius and Caelestius, and were careful to render due
honour to Augustine. But they were determined not to follow
him to the limit of his extreme theories ; and made this clear, in
a series of writings, all anti-Augustinian, though with praise of
Augustine2; and all, it may be, from the same hand,3 viz. of
Arnobius Junior, so called to distinguish him from Arnobius of
Sicca,4 in Proconsular Africa, the author of Adv. Nationes, 303-5.
These were the Commentarii im Psalmos,5 the Praedestinatus,6 c. 440,
and the Conflictus Arnobii catholici cum Serapione Aegyptio,7 after
454. The last of tbe trio aims at proving the agreement of Rome
1 Tixeront, Hist. Dogm. iii. 279.
2 e. g. Arnobius, Conflictus, ii, § 30 (P. L. liii 314 c, d).
3 So Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 283, n. 1, and Bardenhewer, 604.
4 Bardenhewer, 201 sqq. 6 P. L. liii. 327-570.
8 P. L. liii. 587-672. 7 P. L. liii. 239-322.

156 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part in
with the great doctors of Alexandria, and is anti-Monophysite.
More important, as indicative of the central position now under
review, is the second. Under the form of a history of doctrine, the
author gives, in Book I, a catalogue of ninety heresies, plagiarizing
largely from Augustine, De haeresibus, from Simon Magus to the
Predestinarians. No. 88, on Pelagianism, recalls the condemnation
of Pelagius and Caelestius by Pope Innocent ; indicates the chief
points of their doctrinal system. ; and then the Catholic exceptions
to the same. No. 89 deals with Nestorius ; and in No. 90, we
arrive at the goal — predestinarianism. It is described at length
in Book II, where its salient features are accentuated, in a sermon
current under the name of Augustine ; and, in Book III, it is re
futed. But so semi-Pelagian is the refutation that the Praedesti-
natus may have emanated from Pelagians in hiding, of whom there
were representatives in Rome as in Italy. About 439 Julian of
Eclanum made an attempt to recover his see by an address to Pope
Sixtus, in which he pretended to have returned to orthodoxy. The
archdeacon Leo intervened, and foiled the attempt.1 It is possible
that the Praedestinatus was written by a disappointed adherent
of Julian to take it out of the ' right ', or Augustinian, wing of the
centre party as it had put up Leo to intervene. Be this so or not,
Leo was already engaged on formulating a declaration of the anti-
Augustinian orthodoxy now dominant, under his leadership, in the
Roman Church ; for such, apparently, is the purport of Praeteri-
torum sedis Apostolicae episcoporum auctoritates de gratia Dei,2
c. 435. On Free-will, on the need of Grace, and on the gift of
Perseverance, Leo's canons maintain the doctrine of Augustine,3
and not of the semi-Pelagians in Provence. Of the irresistibility
of Grace, of Predestination, and of the purpose of God to save all,
or only a part, of mankind, not merely is nothing said, but such
questions are definitely ruled out.4 Neither the one side nor the
other, neither the semi-Pelagians nor Prosper, ventured a reply.
The latter had not been able to obtain a condemnation ; and
peace was the result. But not exhaustion. Between 434 arid 461
two anonymous writings continued the discussion : the Hypo-
mnesticon contra Pelagianos et Caelestianos 5 and the De vocatione
i Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 439 (Op. 747 ; P. L. li. 598 a).
2 They are appended to Caelestine, Ep. xxi, as §§ 4-15 (P. L. 1. 531-7) :
see Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 285, and Tixeront, Hist Dogm. iii. 279 sq.
3 e. g. §§ 10, 14. 4 Ibid., § 15, and Document No. 197.
6 Aug. Op. x, app. 1-50 (P. L. xiv. 1611-64).

chap, vin AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 157
omnium gentium,1 both from the point of view of a restrained
Augustinianism.2 Such was, in fact, the official temper of the
Roman church at the time.3 Men followed Augustine, but in
sisted on human freedom ; and, as for the problems of predestina
tion and irresistible Grace, they either dismissed them altogether,
or discussed them only with a chastened zeal. So peace reigned
till the death of Pope Leo, f461 ; and from his intervention as
archdeacon, 435, to the reopening of the question, 475, by Faustus,
bishop of Riez 452-f85, the truce was prolonged, and ' the land
had rest forty years '.
It was a mere accident that led to the revival of the controversy,
and its continuance from 475-525 by Faustus and others.
§ 11. Faustus4 had been abbot of Lerins 433-52, and held by the
views of Grace that were the rule there. When, therefore, Lucidus,
one of his clergy, began to teach predestinarianism, the bishop,
finding persuasion useless, demanded that he should either retract
his teaching5 or be referred to the Council of Aries,6 473. Lucidus
assented ; and not only put his hand to a formulary offered for his
signature but also wrote a letter to the Council of Lyons,7 474,
protesting his loyal adhesion to the recent decisions.8 So far all
was well. But the Synod of Lyons commissioned Faustus to put
into literary form its decisions, with those of Aries, on the subjects
in dispute9; and hence his DeGratialibriduo10 Faustus contented
himself with using uncomplimentary language of his fellow-
countryman Pelagius (for he, too, was a Briton), but reserved his
argument for the destruction of predestinarianism. His point of
view was the semi-Pelagianism of Cassian, emphatically repudiat
ing, as he does, prevenient grace.11 The South of Gaul, however,
had long been familiar with language of this type ; and, if the
book had not found its way to Constantinople, the controversy
might have still slept on. But the De Gratia there fell into
i Prosper, Op. 847-924 (P. L. li. 647-722).
2 Tixeront, Hist Dogm. iii. 281 ; Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 286, n. 2.
3 Leo's sermons maintained this temper, Tixeront, iii. 280, n. 58.
4 Tillemont, Mem. xvi. 408 sqq. ; Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 609 sqq. ;
Bardenhewer, 600 ; and his works in P. L. Iviii. 775-890, and C. S. E. L. xxi.
5 By signing six anathematisms, given in Faustus, Ep. i (C. S. E. L. xxi.
162) ; A. Hahn, Symbole 3, § 172 ; Tixeront, Hist. Dogm. iii. 282 sq.
6 Mansi, vii. 1007 sqq. 7 Ibid. 1011 sq.
8 Faustus, Ep. ii (C. 8. E. L. xxi. 165) ; Tixeront, iii. 283, n. 66.
9 Faustus, Ep. i (P. L. iviii. 835), and preface to De Gratia (C. S. E. L. xxi.
3 sq.).18 P. L. Iviii. 783-836, or C. 8. E. L. xxi. 6-96 ; Tixeront, iii. 284 sqq.
11 e. g. De Gratia, i, § 9, ii, § 10 (C. S. E. L. xxi. 30, 11. 4 sq., 84, 11. 8 sq.).

158 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, partiii
the hands of certain Scythian monks who, through Possessor, an
African bishop living in exile there, made inquiries of Pope
Hormisdas, 514-f23, concerning the weight to be attached to the
name of Faustus.1 The Pope replied, after some delay, 13 August
520, that ' Faustus was not received ', and that the doctrine of the
Church, on the points in question, was to be found indeed, in Augus
tine, but had been formulated in the ' canons ' due, as we have
seen, to his predecessor St. Leo.2 Predestinarians as they were and
dissatisfied with this delay, the Scythians addressed themselves,
in the meanwhile, c. 519-20, to some refugee bishops from Africa,
now resident in Sardinia.3
§ 12. Chief of these was Fulgentius,4 bishop of Ruspe 507-t33, in
the province of Byzacena. He was an able adversary of Arianism
reintroduced into Africa by the Vandals, and a no less skilful
exponent of the Augustinian doctrine of Grace. The Scythian
monks then frankly adopted in their Liber ad Fulgentmm5 the
system of Augustine ; and ended by denouncing Pelagius, Caeles
tius, and Julian, with the writings of Faustus as having been
unquestionably directed ' against the opinion of predestination '.6
In a series of works, c. 523, Fulgentius took up their quarrel with
Faustus ; and echoed so faithfully the teaching of Augustine as
to have won the title of ' Augustinus abbreviatus '. He endea
voured, in fact, to crush out the revised semi-Pelagianism of
Faustus under the authority of Augustine. But all to no purpose.
Faustus had been dead some forty years when Fulgentius thus
tried to eradicate his influence. It remained ; and the strife
between semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism might have been
prolonged indefinitely in the south of Gaul, had it not been for the
conciliatory and statesmanlike genius of Caesarius, archbishop of
Aries 503-f43.
§ 13. Caesarius7 owed his early training to Lerins,8 and could
well appreciate the distaste for Augustinianism ; but, in after days,
c. 496-8, and as one of the clergy of his predecessor Aeonius, arch-
i ' Relatio Possessoris Afri,' ap. Hormisdas, Epp. (P. L. lxiii. 489 sq.)
2 Hormisdas, Ep. lxx (P. L. lxiii. 492 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 850.
3 Bardenhewer, 548.
4 Ibid. 616-18 ; Tixeront, iii. 287 sqq. ; and works in P. L. lxv. 151-842.
5 = Fulgentius, Ep. xvi (Op. 277-85 ; P. L. lxv. 442-51).
6 Ibid., § 28.
7 Works in P. L. lxvii. 1041-66 and the Vita prefixed to them, ib. 1001-
42 ; Bardenhewer, 611-13 ; W. Bright. Anti-P. Tr. lxiii. sqq.
8 Vita, i, § 5 (P. L. lxvii. 1003 a).

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 159
bishop of Aries 1 493-t502, he had ' come to love the Catholic
sentiments of Augustine ',2 as he said on his death-bed, but with
no liking for extremes. Caesarius was, perhaps, the greatest
popular preacher of the ancient Latin church ; and he wielded
a remarkable influence. But his preaching of Grace rendered him
an object of suspicion to certain of the Gallic hierarchy.3 One of
them sent him a letter of a semi-Pelagian tone 4 ; while bishops
of the neighbouring province of Vienne took advantage of a Council
at Valence,5 527-8, to invite him to come and clear himself there
before them. Caesarius was ill at the time ; but sent Cyprian,
bishop of Toulon 524-f49, and others to represent him. ' No
man ', said the memorial which Cyprian took with him, ' can make
any progress in the paths of God except he be first called by the
grace of God ; and a man only resumes his freedom of will when
he is redeemed by Christ setting him free.' 6 So Caesarius foiled
the attack for the moment ; but it might be repeated. He fortified
himself, therefore, with a series of Capitula7 or doctrinal proposi
tions from Augustine, which he sent to Pope Felix IV, 528-f30, for
approval. Felix modified the document,8 and returned it ; Caesa
rius modified it again, when so returned 9 ; added to it a doctrinal
statement or profession of faith, and then presented it for signa
ture to a gathering of his own at the Council of Orange,10 3 July 529.
There were only fourteen bishops present, for the consecration of
a basilica : himself and his thirteen suffragans. But, thanks to the
wisdom of Caesarius in securing first the co-operation,11 and after
wards the confirmation,12 of the Apostolic See, the decisions of the
Council of Orange came to rank, in point of authority, with those of
the weightiest synods of the Church. These decisions were twenty-
five in number,13 and consist either of extracts from Augustine,
1 Vita, §§ 7-10 (P. L. lxvii. 1004 sq.).
2 Ibid, ii, § 33 (P. L. lxvii. 1041 a).
3 Ibid, i, § 46 (P. L. lxvii. 1023 a).
4 Per filium nostrum, 25 Jan. 531, of Boniface II, Ep. i (P. L. lxv. 33 c).
5 Mansi, viii. 723 sqq. 8 Vita, i, § 46 (P. L. lxvii. 1023).
7 Mansi, viii. 722-4 ; nineteen in number.
8 He only retained eight, and dropped the rest, esp. Nos. 11-14, relating
to predestination and reprobation ; but he added sixteen drawn from
Prosper's extracts from Augustine, called his Sententiae, viz. Nos. 22, 54, 56,
152, 212, 226, 260, 297, 299, 310, 314, 317, 325, 340, 368, 372 : see Prosper,
Op. 547 sqq. (P. L. li. 431 sqq.).
9 By introducing a seventeenth, from elsewhere, Co. Orange, c. x.
10 Mansi, viii. 711 sqq.; Hefele, iv. 152 sqq.; W. Bright, Anti-P. Tr.
384 sqq. " Jaffe, No. 875. 12 Ibid., No. 881.
13 A. Hahn, Symbole3, § 174 ; H. Denzinger, Enchiridion, No. xxii, and
Document No. 238.

160 AUGUSTINIANISM, SEMI-PELAGIANISM, part iii
or of statements substantially his. But they skilfully avoid his
extreme positions, and fall into three groups. The first group
(cc. i, ii) simply affirms the doctrine of the Fall as against Pela
gianism, to the effect that, through Adam's sin, our nature as a
whole, not the body only but the soul as well, suffered a change
for the worse (c. i), and that not only death but sin was trans
mitted to his posterity (c. ii). The second group consists of six
canons (cc. iii-viii) directed against semi-Pelagianism. They insist
,on Grace an as invariable antecedent to all goodness ; Cassian, it
will be remembered, having maintained that some people are able to
come to God of their own free-will unaided by Grace. For Grace does
not wait on prayer, but calls it forth (c. iii) ; prepares the will (c. iv) ;
sets up the beginnings of faith in the soul (c. v) ; causes us to seek,
ask, and knock (c. vi) ; nature by itself being so weak (c. vii) and
so wounded by the Fall as to be dependent on Grace for its recovery
(c. viii). The third group (cc. viii-xxv) contains some striking
presentations of profound truths, e.g. ' God loves us not for what
we are by our own merits, but for what we are on the way to become
by His gift ', 1 but is a collection, taken as a whole, of a more
miscellaneous character. Its several items, however, are all
selected with a view to exhibit the chief aspects of one general
principle that man's spiritual activity depends throughout on
Grace, as originating, assisting, and sustaining it to the end. Not
a word, be it noted, of predestinarianism ; and for this reticence,
issuing as it did in a clearing of his system from extravagances,
Augustine, had he lived, would have had to thank the Roman See,
as that See, under Zosimus, had to thank him for saving it from
blundering into approval of Pelagianism. So the Church, and
neither Pope nor Doctor by himself, has kept the Faith. Finally,
the twenty-five canons are followed by a dogmatic statement
which puts positively and consecutively what they affirm point by
point and negatively. It reaffirms the need of Grace on the ground
of the mischief wrought by the Fall, which has ' warped and
weakened ' the human will for good. Grace, and not nature, was
the saving of the fathers of old time ; and, since the Advent, Grace
has equally been the source of all desire for Baptism. Once this
Grace is received in Baptism (not merely the predestinate but) all
1 ' Tales nos amat Deus quales futuri sumus ipsius dono, non quales
sumus nostro merito,' c. xii. This is the truth at the bottom of St. Paul's
doctrine of Justification by Faith. It is from Aug. De Trinitate, i, 5 21 (Op.
viii 763 f ; P.L. xiii. 833).

chap, viii AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 161
the baptized are capable of fulfilling the conditions of salvation
and therefore bound to fulfil them ; and, if there be any who hold
that any man is predestined to evil by Divine power — well, we do
not believe it, so let him be anathema. The Synod concludes by
returning to its immediate object and repeating its condemnation
by affirming that faith and love, as well before Baptism as after it,
are the result of God's inspiration : the conversion of the Penitent
Thief, as of Cornelius and of Zacchaeus, was not of nature but of
the gift of God.1
§ 14. And thus the Church adopted the fundamental position of
Augustine, but dismissed his speculations. The doctrine of Grace
is the doctrine of the Church. But thanks to its enemies who put
in a plea for Nature, it is a doctrine freed from the ruthlessness
with which Augustine caused it to be associated, and so rendered
at last broadly human.
1 The reference is due to these cases having been quoted*in favour of his
own theories by Cassian : see Prosper, Contra Collat, cc. vii, § 3, xvii, § 1
(Op. 324, 353 ; P. L. li. 231 sq., 261) ; and Ep. ad Rufinum, vi, § 7 (Op. 91 ;
P. L. li. 81).

2191 m M

CHAPTER IX
THE CASE OF APIARIUS
We may now leave the Pelagian controversy and turn our
attention Eastwards, where controversies not less grave await it —
the Nestorian and the Eutychian. But before we pass from the
West, we must go back, for a moment, to the pontificate of
Zosimus, 417-fl8, and consider the case of Apiarius, 418-26. It is
best treated as an appendix to the Pelagian controversy, though it
had no connexion with Pelagianism. It raised a different question,
on a point not of Faith but of Order : the question of appeal to
Rome. But the churches concerned were those of Rome and
Africa ; and their differences as to the constitution of the Church
were raised by the blunders of Zosimus precisely as were their
differences about its doctrine — and about the same time.
§ 1. Apiarius,1 c. 417, was a priest of Sicca Veneria in Africa (now
El Kef, some 110 miles south-west of Tunis) ; and, as a wretched
offender, was deposed and excommunicated by his diocesan, Urban,
bishop of Sicca,2 a friend and pupil of Augustine.3 Apiarius went
off straight to Rome to obtain redress from Zosimus. Not that
he could not have obtained it at home. For the canon law of
Africa repudiated transmarine appeals,4 and made ample provision
for correcting any miscarriage of justice on the spot. If a grave
charge were made against a bishop, twelve of his colleagues were
to be assembled to hear it ; against a presbyter, six bishops in
addition to his own ; in the case of a deacon, three.5 From this
tribunal of first instance the accused might appeal to a Provincial
Council presided over by the senior bishop of the Province, who in
Africa was Primate thereof : from the Provincial to the Plenary
Council of Africa under the Primate of Carthage.6 Ample protec-
i Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 775 sqq. ; Fleury, xxiv. vi, x, xi, xxxv ; W.
Bright, The Roman See, 136 sqq. ; E. Denny, Papalism, §§ 609-23.
2 See the Synodal Letter of the Co. of Carthage, 25 May 419= Cod. Can.
Eccl. Afr., No. cxxxiv (Mansi, iii. 831 a, b).
3 Ep. coxxix, § 1 (Op. ii. 836 a ; P.L. xxxiii. 1019).
4 Cod. can. eccl. Afr.; No. cv, c. 11 of the Co. of Carthage of 13 June 407
(Hefele, ii. 443). This Codex is a ' dossier constitue en vue de soutenir la
these africaine sur les appels a Rome ', Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 123.
6 Cod. can. eccl. Afr., No. xii (Mansi, iii. 715 b).
6 Cod. can. eccl. Afr., No. xxviii (Mansi, iii. 728 r>).

THE CASE OF APIARIUS 163
tion was therefore offered in Africa. But to a man with a bad
cause, the better the Tribunal on the spot the less he has to hope
from it. He is too well known. Apiarius therefore preferred the
Court across the sea. Now the Popes — as a rule — with the wisdom
that usually characterized the Roman See, had respected the
organization of the Church in Africa. But policy and tradition
that were native to the ecclesiastical statesmanship of his See were
foreign to Zosimus. He took up Apiarius, just as he had taken
Pelagius and Caelestius — perhaps to avenge himself on the African
episcopate for calling in the Court at Ravenna, to make him
reverse his decision in their case. At any rate, he threatened
Urban with deposition if he did not retrace his steps, and sent
Apiarius back with three legates into Africa, Faustinus, bishop of
Potentia, 418— f 25, in Picenum, and Philip and Asellus, presbyters,
the former of whom was afterwards sent by Pope Caelestine,
422-f32, to represent him, in a similar capacity, at the Council of
Ephesus, 431.
In Africa, meanwhile, the reception that awaited the legates of
Zosimus had been determined by two Councils.
§ 2. The Council of Carthage, 1 May 418, met the day after the
rescript of Honorius had appeared condemning Pelagianism, and
declared, in nine canons, the Catholic doctrine of original sin and
the need of Grace. In its seventeenth Canon the bishops enacted :
' If presbyters, deacons, or other inferior clerics complain in any
causes that they may have of the judgement of their own bishop,
let the neighbouring bishops hear them and settle the dispute.
If they should desire to appeal from them, they shall only do so to
African Councils or to the Primates of their provinces. But whoso
ever should think fit to appeal to transmarine Councils may not
be received into communion by any one in Africa.' 1 The canon,
at first sight, touches only presbyters, as if it were drawn up in
view of the case of Apiarius ; and it might seem that bishops were
not prohibited from making appeal to Rome. But the last clause
repeats in quite general terms the standing embargo of the Church
of Africa on all such appeals ; and that it meant to embrace any
case in which a bishop made an appeal of this kind, is clear on the
three following grounds.2 First, a variant of the Canon in the
collection of Dionysius Exiguus, 500-c. f550, runs : ' They shall
1 Cod. can. eccl. Afr., No. cxxv (Mansi, iii. 822 d ; Hefele, Conciles, n. i.
195 ; E. Tr. ii. 461).
2 Denny, Papalism, note 47, §§ 1251-2. M 2

164 THE CASE OF APIARIUS ' pabt ra
not appeal to transmarine judgements but to the Primates of their
own provinces, or to a Universal Council, as has often been deter
mined about bishops ; but whosoever, &c.' Next, Zosimus, and
finally an African Council in writing to Caelestine, took it as
prohibiting the appeal of bishops to Rome, as will be clear, if we
proceed. § 3. At a small Synod of Caesarea Mauretania,1 20 September 418,
the legates of Zosimus were received by Aurelius and invited to
declare the nature of their commission. They replied, at first, by
word of mouth only ; but, pressed for their written instructions,
they produced them at last in the shape of a Commonitorium in
which they were bidden to make four demands : (1) that bishops
should have the right of appealing to Rome — clearly Zosimus took
the seventeenth canon of Carthage as repudiating such right ;
(2) that bishops should be forbidden to go too often to Court — he
was thinking, no doubt, of the African intrigues at Ravenna that
has recently caused him such humiliation ; (3) that priests and
deacons excommunicated by their own bishop should have a right
of appeal to neighbouring bishops — and who was nearer neighbour
to a bishop of Africa than the bishop of Rome ? ; and (4) that
Urban, bishop of Sicca, should be excommunicated or even sent
to Rome, if he would not cancel his proceedings in the case of
Apiarius.2 As to the second and the fourth of these demands, they
were easily met. The African episcopate had already legislated
against going off to Court on frivolous pretences 3 ; and Urban
was perfectly ready to withdraw any decision of his that was
reasonably open to criticism.4 Moreover, the third requirement had
long ago been conceded 5 ; though what had it to do with the case
in question, unless the diocese of Sicca was adjacent to the diocese
of Rome ? But along with the first it was pressed upon the atten
tion of the Africans ; and in support of these two demands,
Zosimus referred them to the fifth 6 and the fourteenth 7 Canon
of Sardica respectively : quoting these, however, not as Sardican
1 So Van Espen, in his ' Dissertatio in Synodos Africanas ', x, § 3 (Op. iii.
273 : Lovanii, 1758) ; C. M. is now Algiers.
2 Letter of the Co. of Carthage of 25 May 419= Cod. can. eccl. Afr.,
No. cxxxiv (Mansi, iii. 830 sq.).
3 a. d. 407, Cod. can. eccl. Afr., No. evi (Mansi, iii. 807).
4 Ibid., No. cxxxiv (Mansi, iii. 831 b)
6 Ibid., No. xxviii (Mansi, iii. 728 d).
6 Hefele, ii. 120 ; and, as quoted by Zosimus, see Mansi, iv. 404.
7 Hefele, ii. 148 ; and, as quoted by Zosimus, see Mansi, iv. 405 sq.

chap, ix THE CASE OF APIARIUS 165
but as ' Nicene' -1 Naturally, the Africans were unable to find them
in the copy of the Acts of Nicaea which had been brought back with
him by CaeciHan, Archbishop of Carthage, 311-f45. They were also
unable to meet the assertion of Zosimus that ' so they said at the
Council of Nicaea ' by pointing out that what he attributed to the
Fathers of Nicaea was really a Canon of Sardica : for they did not
know the true history of Sardica, and, confusing it with the
secessionist Conciliabulum at Philippopolis, were wont to think
of it as an Arian synod.2 So they simply wrote to Zosimus and said
that, pending investigation, they would observe ' the two pretended
canons of Nicaea ', without prejudice. But the letter never reached
him. His tactlessness embroiled him, as with the Africans, so with
his clergy at Rome. They denounced him to the Court at Ravenna,
and he was actually proceeding to their excommunication,3
3 October 418, when he fell sick and, after a lingering illness,4 died
27 December of the year that cost him so many mortifications.
Zosimus, it must be owned — and he himself, as he lay hovering
between hfe and death, may have felt it — was not a success ; and
the resentments he had aroused flamed up into a contest for his
vacant throne between his archdeacon Eulalius5 and the majority
of the Roman presbyterate.6 The presbyters stood for one of their
colleagues, Boniface — a priest of years and experience, the friend
of Augustine 7 and the trusted agent 8 of Zosimus' wiser prede
cessor, Innocent I. Honorius at length, instructed by Galla
Placidia,9 banished Eulalius and installed Boniface, Easter, 419 ;
and it was the latter who thus came to be concerned with tho
second stage of the case of Apiarius.
§ 4. This was opened up at the Council of Carthage,10 25 May 419,
The legates of Zosimus remained at Carthage during the contested
election of his successor. Their errand was at a standstill ; for
1 ' Ita dixerunt in concilio Nicaeno ' are his words, Mansi, iv. 404 a.
There is no reason to doubt his good faith : see Hefele, ii. 464, n. 1.
2 e. g. Aug. Ep. xliv, § 6 (Op. ii. 103 f ; P. L. xxxiii. 176).
3 Zos. Ep. xiv (P. L. xx. 678-80) ; Jaffe, No. 345.
4 Coll. Avell., No. 14 (C. S. E. L. xxxv. 59).
5 Fleury, xxrv. vii-ix.
6 The documents relating to this contested election are in Coll. Avell.,
Nos. 14-36 (C. S. E. L. xxxv. 59-82).
7 He addressed to Boniface his Contra duas epp. Pel.
8 Palladius, Vita, § 4 (Op. xiii. 13 a ; P. G. xlvii. 15).
9 Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 250.
i° For the acta of this synod see Mansi, iv. 401-15, and 419 sqq. ; Hefele,
Conciles,- u. i. 198 sqq. ; ii. 465, E. Tr.) ; and for its Synodal Letter, Cod.
can. eccl. Afr., No. cxxxiv (Mansi, iii. 830 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxiv. x, xi.

166 THE CASE OF APIARIUS partiii
the African episcopate had to consider whether its provisional
answer was to hold good permanently. And this was the busmess
of the plenary council, of two hundred and seventeen bishops, that
now met under Aurelius, the Primate of Carthage.1 On the motion
of the president the copy of the Nicene Acts preserved at Carthage
was read 2 : then, on the demand of Faustinus,3 the Commoni
torium of Zosimus.4 But the reading of these instructions was
interrupted by Alypius, bishop of Tagaste, as soon as the first of
the two Canons alleged to be Nicene had been recited.5 ' I don't
know how it is,' said he, ' but we did not find those words any
where in our copies of the minutes of Nicaea ' ; and he moved
that as the original acts were understood to be at Constantinople,
Aurelius should write to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria,
and Antioch, and ask for authentic copies.6 Faustinus objected :
let the Synod write to the Pope and ask him to institute the
inquiry.7 But this would have been to place the decision in the
hands of a party to the dispute ; and, taking no notice of the
opposition of the papal legate, the Council resolved that a copy
of the Acts of Nicaea, as recited, together with the enactments of
former African Councils (including, therefore, the seventeenth
canon of the previous Council of Carthage now in question),
should be added to the minutes of the Synod 8 ; and that Aurelius
should write to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and
Antioch, to obtain from them copies of the genuine Acts of Nicaea.
If, then, the Canons which Zosimus alleged were found in these
Acts, they were to be observed ; but if not, the matter should be
considered further in Synod.9 Meanwhile, they were to be observed
ad interim, and, of course, ' what was decided at Nicaea has the
approval of the Council ' 10 — an important affirmation on the part
of the Africans, for hereby they made quite clear the grounds on
which they were making the present concession, and at the same
time reserved their liberty of action for the future.11 As for
1 Aurelius presided, along with Valentine, primate of Numidia ; next
was seated Faustinus, the papal legate ; then the bishops ; then the other
two papal legates who were only presbyters, Mansi, iv. 402 b.
2 Acta, § 1 (Mansi, iv. 402 sq.).
3 Acta, § 2 (403 c). 4 Acta, § 3 (403 sq.).
6 Acta, § 3 (404, a b). 8 Acta, § 4 (404 d). ' Acta, § 5 (405 b).
8 Accordingly the Creed (Acta, § 10 ; Mansi, iv. 407 sq.) and the Canon,
of Nicaea (ib. 407-15) follow here.
9 Acta, § 9 (Mansi, iv. 406 sq.). 10 Acta, § 7 (Mansi, iv. 406 b).
11 Before adjourning, the Council made six canons relating to accusations
against the clergy, Cod. can. eccl. Afr., cc. 128-33 (Mansi, iii. 826 sq.).

chap, ix THE CASE OF APIARIUS 167
Apiarius, he made full confession of his offences ; while Urban, his
bishop, corrected some informalities of the sentence against him,
and the offender was allowed to officiate anywhere but at Sicca.1
A Committee was appointed, Augustine being one of its members,2
to draft a letter to Pope Boniface, 418-f22, in pursuance of the
resolutions.3 He was requested to write for himself to the Eastern
prelates in whose churches ' the truest copies ' 4 of the Nicene Canons
would naturally be found ; but if, on inquiry, the alleged Canons
should prove to be Nicene and to be observed as Nicene in Italy,
' we will mention them no more and will make no difficulty about
allowing them. Such arrogance, however, as that of Faustinus we
do not expect to have to put up with again ' : and they took care
quietly to preclude any possibility of misinterpretation of the
word ' neighbouring ' by taking it for granted that it must refer
' to the bishops of the Provinces ' of Africa.5 We may observe, in
passing, that, in this letter of Augustine and others on behalf of
the African episcopate, there is no recognition, on their part, of
any authority over them belonging to the Pope, save such as can
be found in the legislation of Nicaea ; while Zosimus himself, in
seeking to base his action on Nicene enactments, offers testimony,
for his part, equally incompatible with the later theory of papalism.
He claims no inherent, but only a delegated, authority. Even this
claim turned out to be ill-founded. Of the deputation to Antioch
we know nothing ; but the replies from Atticus of Constantinople 6
and Cyril of Alexandria 7 are still extant ; and so is the Latin
version, known as ' Attici ', made at Constantinople for comparison
with the ' Vetus ' or ' Caeciliani ' brought back to Carthage by that
prelate. Needless to say, the Canons in question were conspicuous
by their absence ; and the Africans simply contented themselves
by forwarding the documents to Boniface, 26 November 419,8 as
if the incident were closed.
§ 5. It was reopened, for its third and final stage, under Pope
Caelestine, 422-f32. Apiarius had taken up work in Tabraca,9
1 Cod. can. eccl. Afr. cxxxiv (Mansi, iii. 831 b).
2 Ibid, cxxvii (Mansi, iii. 823 b, c).
3 For this letter, Quoniam Deo placuit, see ibid, cxxxiv (Mansi, iii. 830-5).
4 Mansi, iii. 834 b. 6 Ibid. 835 e.
8 Cod. can. eccl. Afr. cxxxvi (Mansi, iii. 838)=Atticus, Ep. (P. G. lxv.
649 sq.).
7 Ibid, cxxxv (Mansi, iii. 835 sq.) = Cyril Ep. Ixxxv (Op. x ; P. G. lxxvii.
377). 8 Ibid, cxxxviii (Mansi, iii. 842 d).
9 Tillemont, Mem, xiii. 860.

168 THE CASE OF APIARIUS part in
a city on the coast not far from Hippo. But meanwhile, in another
city of that diocese, named Fussala,1 a centre of Donatism,2
Augustme, with the consent of the Primate of Numidia, had set up
a young friend of his as bishop, named Antony, because he could
talk in Punic, the language of the district.3 Antony's rule was
oppressive. He was more zealous to sheer his sheep than to feed
them ; and by Augustine and a Council of bishops he was deprived
of his see, but not deposed from the episcopate.4 Antony thereupon
hastened to Rome ; and, armed with a letter of recommendation
from the Primate who must have been a dotard,5 procured from
Pope Boniface orders for his reinstatement, ' if he have faithfully
described the state of the case '.6 Returning to Africa, he flourished
the document there, and threatened to call in the secular arm for
his restoration.7 It was too much for Augustine; and, after
taking measures to win over the Primate, he sent to Caelestine
a dossier of the case, with a letter 8 detailing what had happened.
He congratulates Caelestine on his peaceable accession,9 and not
without reason. Boniface, after an illness, had written to the
Emperor warning him that the old rivalries between sections of
his flock were ready to break out again into schism upon his
death 10 ; whereupon Honorius replied that, should there be rival
claimants again for the see, his government would see to it that
neither candidate should be allowed to succeed.11 And this may
account for the peaceable succession of Caelestine. To his con
gratulations Augustine appended an earnest supplication. Let
not the Pope countenance the employment of the police to en
force the rulings of the Apostolic See ; should such a wrong be
done to the people of Fussala and Antony be thrust once more
upon them, he himself would have to resign his bishopric.12 We
know no more of Fussala ; but probably Augustine's respectful
but urgent outspokenness prevailed with Caelestine ; for we find
the Church there ruled from Hippo within a short time of Augus
tine's death.13 But the Africans did not forget the incident when
i On this affair see Aug. Ep. ccix [a. d. 423] (Op. ii. 777-80 ; P. L.
xxxiii. 953-6) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 836 sqq. ; Fleury, xxiv. xxxiv.
2 Aug. Ep. coix, § 2. 3 Ibid., § 3. 4 Ibid., §§ 4, 5.
6 Ibid., § 6. 6 Ibid., § 9.
7 Ibid., § 9. 8 Ep. ccix (ut sup.). 9 Ibid., § 1.
i° Boniface, Ep. vii, of 1 July 420 (P. L. xx. 765 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 353.
u Coll. Avell., No. 37 (C. S. E. L. xxxv. 83), and Document No. 153.
12 Aug. Ep. ccix, § 10 (Op. ii. 780 ; P. L. xxxiii. 956).
13 Ep. ccxxiv, § 1 (Op. ii. 819 F ; P.L. xxxiii. 1001).

chap, ix THE CASE OF APIARIUS 169
the case of Apiarius came up again. At Tabraca his conduct
proved a repetition of the offences that had caused his removal
from Sicca. He was excommunicated: appealed once again to
Rome, and was received by Caelestine who, without hearing his
accusers, restored him to communion, and sent him back to Africa
accompanied, as before, by Faustinus, the legate whom the
Africans had found so overbearing. A Council (the twentieth) of
Carthage, 424, was summoned to consider the situation.1 Faustinus
asserted the privileges of the Roman church, and demanded that
the decision of the Apostolic See should be accepted as final. But
the Africans did not take this view of their liberties. They spent
three days in examining for themselves into the conduct of
Apiarius at Tabraca, Faustinus the while trying to obstruct the
inquiry and Apiarius to cover himself by evasion. At last, how
ever, the miserable creature broke down and confessed his enor
mities.2 The legate was baffled; and the bishops, seizing their
advantage, wrote to Caelestine an account of their proceedings
in their Synodal Letter.
It is the famous document, so unwelcome to papalists, beginning
Optaremus.3 ' We could wish that, like as your Holiness intimated
to us, in your letter sent by our fellow-priest Leo, your pleasure
at the arrival of Apiarius, so we also could send you these writings
with pleasure, respecting his clearing of himself.' 4 They then
detail the inquiry to the point of the breakdown of Apiarius,5 and
continue : ' Premising, therefore, our due regards to you, we
earnestly implore you that, for the future, you do not readily
admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to
your communion those who have been excommunicated by us,
because your Reverence will readily perceive that this has been
prescribed by the Nicene Council. For, though this seems to be
there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity, how
much more did the Council will this to be observed in the case of
bishops, lest those who had been suspended from communion in
their own province might seem to be restored hastily or unfitly by
your Hohness ? Let your Holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that
unprincipled taking shelter with you of presbyters likewise and
inferior clergy, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers hath
1 Tillemont, Mim. xiii. 860-6 ; Fleury, xxiv. xxxv ; Hefele, ii. 480 sq.
2 Cod. can. eccl. Afr. cxxxviii (Mansi, iii. 839).
3 Ibid. (Mansi, iii. 839-44).
4 Ibid. (839 b). 5 Ibid. (839^2 a).

170 THE CASE OF APIARIUS part in
the Church of Africa been deprived of this right, and the Nicene
Decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of
inferior rank but the bishops themselves to their own metro
politans. For they have ordained with great wisdom and justice
that all matters should be terminated where they arise ; and they
did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting
to any province for the priests of Christ [i.e. the bishops] wisely to
discern and firmly to maintain that which is right, especially
since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgement may
appeal to the Council of his province or even to a general Council
[sc. of all Africa], unless it be imagined that God can inspire
a single individual with justice and refuse it to an innumerable
multitude of priests [i.e. bishops] assembled in Council. And how
shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since
it will not be possible to send thither the necessary witnesses,
whether from weakness of sex or of advanced age or any other
impediment. For that your Holiness should send any [sc. legate]
on your part, we can find ordained by no Council of the Fathers.
Because with regard to what you have sent us by our brother-
bishop Faustinus, as being contained in the Nicene Council, we
can find nothing of the kind in the more authentic copies of that
Council, which we have received from the holy Cyril, our brother-
bishop of the Alexandrine Church and from the venerable Atticus,
bishop of Constantinople, and which we formerly sent by Innocent
the presbyter and Marcellus the sub-deacon, through whom we
received them, to Boniface, the bishop, your predecessor of
venerable memory. For the rest, whosoever desires you to
delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders ' — here they
are referring to a memorial of the people of Fussala, which
was supported by Augustine's covering letter and deprecated
Caelestine's complying with a request to reinstate their bishop
Antony — ' do not comply : lest it seem that we are intro
ducing the pride of secular dominion ["we" that we say not
"you": they mean coercive powers placed at the disposal of the
Roman see by such rescripts as those of Valentinian I and Gratian]
into the Church of Christ, which exhibits before those who desire
to see God the light of simplicity and the splendour of humility ;
for, now that the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the
Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting
our brother Faustinus that, through the uprightness and modera
tion of your Holiness, our brotherly charity not being violated,

chap, ix THE CASE OF APIARIUS 171
Africa will by no means any longer be forced to endure him. And
so, Sir and Brother, may our Lord long preserve your Holiness to
pray for us.' x
§ 6. We may, in conclusion, consider the bearing of this"" letter
on the theory of the constitution of the Church. ' The Africans
maintained : (1) that the bishop of Rome had no right to receive
to communion bishops or others excommunicated by the bishops
of Africa ; (2) that the Provincial Synod was the appointed
tribunal of appeal, subject to a Plenary Council of Africa ; (3) that
transmarine appeals were illegal, for the Nicene Council had
ofdered [c. 5] that all causes should be terminated where they
arose ; (4) that an Oecumenical Council is the supreme authority ;
(5) that the canons which Caelestine and his predecessors had
asserted to be Nicene were not authentic ; (6) that the legatine
system is not to be tolerated ; (7) that Faustinus, in particular,
was not wanted. Both the tone and the contents of the letter are
incompatible with papalism : it could never have been written by
a body of men who held that the papal sovereignty was of divine
institution : it is proof positive that such sovereignty was ' not —
to use the phrase of Leo XIII in Satis cognitum of 28 June 1896 —
" the venerable and constant belief " of the " age " of the African
episcopate atthe timewhen St. Augustine was itsmost distinguished
ornament.' 2 But the hour of that episcopate had nearly struck :
the Vandal conquest wrecked it : and, with the disappearance of
synodal action in Africa, the field was left free, in the West, for
papalism to build on the ruins of the old Conciliar Constitution of
the Church. 1 Cod. can. eccl. Afr. (842 sq.), and Document No. 154.
2 E. Denny, Papalism, §§ 621-2.

CHAPTER X
THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II, 408-f50
I. THE GREAT SEES. II. MONASTICISM
In the first half of the reign of Theodosius II the government
was in the hands of his minister, Anthemius, 408-14 ; and, after
him, of the Emperor's sister, Pulcheria.

At this time there sat in the great sees of Constantinople,
Alexandria, and Antioch, Atticus, Cyril, and Alexander. They
were men of very different character. The memory of Chrysostom
was the question that brought them into contact, sometimes into
collision, with each other ; and all three, ultimately, to a renewal
of communion with the see of Rome, which had steadily supported
Chrysostom with the authority of the West.
§ 1. Atticus,1 bishop of Constantinople 406-f25,2 was a man of
great ability 3 ; kind, courtly, and scholarly 4 ; no persecutor,5
though deeply pledged against the memory of John. He was a
fair preacher ; thoughnot (said the tradition of the capital, with John,
of course, in mind) of the sort to have his sermons received with ap
plause or taken down in shorthand.6 Full of sympathy with the
afflicted, Atticus succoured Christian refugees,7 c. 420, from the
persecution newly broken out in Persia in the last year of lazd
gerd I, 399-'f420.8 He sent money to the famine-stricken people
of Nicaea, with instructions that it was to be used in relief of the
poor and not of professional beggars : and, further, that in its
1 Soz. H. E. viii. xxvii, §§ 3-7 ; Tillemont, Mim. xii. 416-33.
2 d. 8 Oct. 425, ace. to Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 313.
3 Socr. H. E. vi. xx, § 3, vn. ii, § 1, xxv, § 1.
4 Ibid. vn. ii, §§ 3, 4. 5 Ibid., § 2. 8 Ibid., § 7.
7 Ibid. vn. xviii, § 3.
8 Ace. to Socr. H. E. vu. xviii, § 1 he was no persecutor ; but this must
be corrected by the Passions of Abda, 31 March 420 (Thdt. H. E. v. xxxix),
and of Narsai, 420 ; for which see J. Labourt, Le christianisme dans Vempire
perse, 105-9. lazdgerd I, however, only punished individuals. A general
persecution (Tillemont, Mim. xii. 356-63) broke out under his son Bahram V,
and had been going for thirty years when Thdt. (v. xxxix, § 5) wrote in 450,
with an interval after the peace of 422 (Socr. H. E. vn. xx, §§ 12, 13) between
Rome and Persia.

chap, x I. THE GREAT SEES 173
distribution no account was to be taken of religious opinion, only
of need and character.1 He protected the Novatianists at Con
stantinople, when asked by the orthodox to suppress them.2 He
even succeeded in rallying to the Church a number of Joannites.
But his own churches in the city were thinly attended, while their
assemblies in the suburbs were thronged ; and bishops, as well as
the populace, stood out in loyalty to John.3 Before his death
Atticus gave way, under pressure from the peacemaker, Alexander,
bishop of Antioch 4 ; and was succeeded by Sisinnius, 426-f7, the
priest of a suburban church. Sisinnius had all the kindliness of
Atticus, without his ability.5 He consecrated the orator, Proclus,
secretary of Atticus, to be bishop of Cyzicus,6 and thrust him on
its people without election. They resented the imposition ; and
Proclus, destined hereafter for eminence as theologian and as
bishop of Constantinople, 434-f46, lived on for the present in the
capital : where, by his preaching and his goodness, he won all
hearts. After a brief episcopate Sisinnius died, 427.7 A contest
seemed imminent for the succession. One aspirant was Philip of
Side in Pamphylia, a scholar-priest of whose Historia Christiana,
published in 430, Socrates has but a sorry, though probably just,
opinion. He says it is a long and rambling work.8 The friends of
Proclus put him forward also. To quash the rivalry the Emperor
stepped in, and appointed Nestorius.9 He was born at Germanicia,
but baptized and educated at Antioch, where, as a preacher with
a fine voice and a fluent delivery,10 and as head of a monastery near
the city,11 he was a priest of some distinction.
§ 2. At this time Alexander was bishop of Antioch,12 41 3-f21.
He succeeded Porphyrius, a scoundrel according to Palladius, but,
in the eyes of Theodoret, who is a better authority for Antiochene
affairs, a munificent13 and capable ruler. Not the ruler but the
devout ascetic shone in Alexander. He was a great teacher too,
1 Socr. H. E. vn. xxv, §§ 3-8. 2 Ibid., § 15.
3 Cyril, Ep. Ixxv (Op. x. 202 ; P. G. lxxvii. 349 b).
4 Ibid. (Op. x. 202 sq. ; P. G. lxxvii. 349 sqq.) ; Socr. H. E. vn. xxv, § 2;
Fleury, xxni. xxvii. 5 Soor. H. E. vn. xxvi ; Fleury, xxiv. xliv.
6 Socr. H. E. vn. xii, § 1 ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 704-19.
7 Socr. H. E. vn. xxviii. 8 Ibid. vn. xxvii.
. 9 Ibid. vn. xxix ; Fleury, xxiv. lv.
i° Socr. H. E. vn. xxix, § 2 ; Thdt. Haer. Fab. Comp. iv, § 12 (Op. iv. 369 ;
P. L. lxxxiii. 433 a, b).
11 Evagrius, H. E.i,§7 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2436).
12 Thdt H. E. v. xxxv ; Tillemont, Mim. x. 650 sqq. ; Fleury, xxiii.
xxvi 13 Thdt. H. E. v. xxxv, § 2.

174 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part in
whose teaching was commended by his life not less than by
fluency of speech. So says Theodoret x : and Cyril grudgingly
allows that Alexander had ' the gift of the gab '. 2 But his
eloquence drew itspersuasivenessfromhischaracterof peace-maker.
(1) He was the means of finally healing the Antiochene schism ;
for he went to the church of the Eustathians, carried the congrega
tion off in joint-procession with his own people to the Cathedral,3
and afterwards received into the ranks of the clergy of Antioch all
those who had been ordained by Paulinus, 362— f 88, and Evagrius,4
388-f92. (2) He caused the diptychs of his church to be enriched by the
name of St. John Chrysostom 5 ; acknowledged as bishops two
of his adherents, Elpidius of Laodicea, and Pappus 6 ; and sent
envoys to Pope Innocent, who should acquaint him with these
happy tidings and desire his communion. The request was
supported by Cassian, 360-f435, a disciple of Chrysostom, then
living at Rome, and gladly acceded to by Innocent in synod. In
the Synodal Letter, Apostolici favoris, c. 415, the Pope ' welcomes
the communion of the chusch of Antioch '.7 He followed up his
official communication by a note to Alexander — Quam grata
mihi 8 — to tell him how pleased he was with his deputies. Then he
sent off Ecclesia Antiochena 9 to Boniface, afterwards his successor,
but now his representative in Constantinople, to let him know
of the peace at last reigning between the two sees of Peter. We
may note in passing this evidence for the now ruling theory of
a Petrine hierarchy. At the same time Acacius of Beroea, 381-
f437, one of Chrysostom's most implacable opponents,10 wrote for
reconciliation to Innocent : he approved, he said, of all that
Alexander had done. But it was no genuine offer, as will presently
appear from a letter of Cyril to Atticus u ; and Innocent may have
1 Thdt. H. E., §§ 2, 3. 2 Ep. lxxvi (Op. x. 207 ; P. G. lxxvii. 357 b).
3 Thdt. H. E. v. xxxv, §§ 3, 4.
4 Innocent, Ep. xix, § 1 (P. L. xx. 541 a) ; Jaffe, No. 305.
5 Thdt. H. E. v. xxxv, § 5. The diptychs, ace. to Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v.
AiVtu^o, were of three classes : D. virorum (eminent living persons,
kings, benefactors, &c.) ; D. episcoporum (the roll of saints canonized) ;
D. mortuorum (the roll of the faithful departed). For their place in the
rite see Duchesne, Chr. Worship 6, 85.
6 Innocent, Ep. xix, § 1 (P. L. xx. 541 b).
7 Ibid., § 1 (P. L. xx. 542).
8 Ep. xx (P. L. xx. 543) ; Jaffe, No. 306.
9 Ep. xxiii (P. L. xx. 546 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 309.
10 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 219-27.
11 Ep. lxxvi (Op. x. 207 ; P. G. lxxvii. 357 b, o).

chap, x I. THE GREAT SEES 175
suspected as much. He replied in Ad gaudere litterasf and con
tented himself with referring Acacius to Alexander. He would
receive Acacius into communion on condition that he first satisfied
the bishop of Antioch.
(3) A third letter of Innocent to Alexander is of more permanent
interest than the correspondence that passed between them over
the rehabilitation of John. It begins Et onus et honor,2 and
touched four points of importance, some of them in answer to
questions which Alexander had addressed to the Pope. A difficulty
had arisen in the island of Cyprus where the bishops, ' distressed ',3
as Innocent says, by the dominance of Arianism at Antioch, had
disregarded the sixth canon of Nicaea by filling up sees on their
own authority, without reference to Alexander or his predecessors.
(a) The primary question, then, was as to the basis of ' patri
archal ' authority ; and it is answered, though in an obiter dictum,
by appeal to the theory which was first officially put forth under
Pope Damasus, and now reigned at Rome, that Peter was bishop,
and not merely founder, of Antioch first and of Rome afterwards.
Accordingly, says Innocent, the Nicene Council gave an authority
to Antioch extending ' not only over one province but over a whole
diocese ; and this honour was assigned to it not so much for the
greatness of the city, as because it was the first see of the first of
the Apostles ; and it would not yield even to Rome were it not
that it only enjoyed for a time him whom Rome possessed to the
end '.4 The Damasine theory, thus adopted by Innocent, is an
unhistorical one. Origen is the first to assert that Peter was
bishop of Antioch 5 : the Canon of the Mass makes it clear that he
did not rank as bishop of Rome 6 ; while, if the patriarchal system 7
had its roots in the personal history of St. Peter, then, though
Innocent could, on this showing, easily explain why Antioch, the
Apostle's ' first see ', should rank after his final see of Rome, he
would have been hard put to it to say why Antioch, the see of the
master, should rank, as it actually did, third among the great
sees of Christendom at Nicaea, and not take precedence of Alex
andria, the see of St. Peter's disciple Mark.8 The truth is, that
1 Ep. xxi (P. L. xx. 543 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 307.
2 Ep. xxiv (P. L. xx. 547-51) ; Jaffe, No. 310 ; Fleury, xxiii. xxvi.
3 Ibid., § 3. 4 Ibid., § 1.
5 Hom. vi in Luc. (Op. iii. 938 ; P. G. xiii. 1815 a).
8 In ' Communicantes,' &c.
7 On this new development of the hierarchy [viz. the Patriarchal System]
see Fleury, ii. 270, note i. 8 C. H. Turner in C. M. H. i. 173.

176 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part in
neither the civil pre-eminence of a city which was what gave rank
to a see in the East, nor the Apostolic origin of the see which was
the standard of a bishop's dignity in the West, was the sole factor
in determining the hierarchy of place among bishops, as it actually
worked out.1
(b) Accordingly, when Alexander went on to ask whether
ecclesiastical arrangements should necessarily follow the civil
divisions of the Empire, his question and Innocent's answer afford
an excellent instance of the way in which the Eastern and the
Western mind differed. When Valens erected part of Cappadocia
into a distinct province, Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, contended
' that the ecclesiastical divisions should follow the civil '.2 Basil
resisted for a time, but was eventually obliged to give way.3 The
custom established itself : the metropolitan was simply the
bishop who presided over the city which was a metropolis in the
civil sense ; and the convenience of the arrangement was, no doubt,
the reason for its reaffirmation from time to time as by the Council
of Chalcedon,4 451, and the Quinisext or Council in Trullo,5 692.
The simplicity of the rule was its recommendation. When a city
became important in secular affairs, then, automatically, its bishop
ceased to be subject to the prelate of a place ecclesiastically more
venerable, perhaps, but practically of less account. And even in
the West the principle took effect. ' Thus " in the seventh century
Seville lost the primacy of Spain to Toledo as the residence of tho
Visigothic kings " 6 ; thus, after the breaking up of the kingdom
of Aquitaine in the twelfth century, first one, and then another,
great see shook off the authority of the primatial church of
Bourges 7 ; and thus Paris, for many ages a suffragan see of Sens,
became at last, in 1622, an Archbishopric' 8 But Innocent, who,
like Damasus, would with justice oppose the opinion that Rome
and the other patriarchates — save Constantinople — owed their
pre-eminence simply to the civil dignity of their cities, laid down,
in response to Alexander's query, the opposite principle, based on
the precedent set by Damasus in regard to Eastern Illyricum :
1 For this hierarchy and the causes which shaped it, see Duchesne, Chr.
WoTshi/io c i
2 Greg.Naz. Orat. xliii, § 58 (Op. ii. 813 ; P. G. xxxvi. 572 a).
3 Tillemont, Mim. ix. 176 sqq.
4 Chalo., c. 17 ; W. Bright, Canons 2, xliv.
5 Canon 38 ; Hefele, v. 229.
6 J. M. Neale, Essays on Liturgiology, 290.
7 Ibid. 291. 8 W. Bright, Canons 2, 201

chap, x I. . THE GREAT SEES 177
' It does not seem fitting that ' the Church of God should change
her course to suit the shifting requirements of worldly govern
ments. If, therefore, a province be divided into two parts by the
Emperor, it ought not to have two metropolitans ; but to keep
to its ancient custom.' 1 But suppose part of an ecclesiastical
province was detached from its former sovereign, and incorporated
into another kingdom — as Northumbria, between the Tweed and
the Firth of Forth, passed from England to Scotland — what then ?
On Innocent's principle the claims of the Archbishopric of York
to metropolitical authority over Scotland, at least as far as that
tract of country was concerned, held good 2 ; and the Lowland
bishops, at any rate, ought to have continued their obedience to
York. But to this the clergy of the days of Alexander I of Scot
land, 1107-t24, objected.3 On the other hand, when in 1266
territories included in the diocese of Sodor and Man (i.e. the Isle
of Man 4 and the Sudereys,5 or Hebrides ; Orkney and Shetland
being the ' North Isles ') were ceded by Magnus VI of Norway, 1263-
f81, to Alexander III of Scotland, 1249~t86, the ecclesiastical
rights of the Archbishop of Trondhjem were expressly reserved 6:
while the first Scottish archbishopric was erected not in Edinburgh
but at St. Andrew's,7 1472, and London continues to this day in
subjection to Canterbury.
(c) In reply to Alexander's question as to the extent of the
authority of Antioch over Cyprus, Innocent proceeded to apply
his theory of the Petrine hierarchy. He held that the Cypriot
bishops, in filling up sees without reference to the bishops of
Antioch, had disregarded the sixth canon of Nicaea. The Council
had, in his view, established the authority of ' the first ' of Peter's
two sees over a whole ' diocese ' or group of provinces. The
Cypriot bishops should, therefore, procure Alexander's approval
for episcopal consecrations within their own island. Alexander
should not only consecrate metropolitans, but his assent should
be a necessary preliminary to the appointment of simple bishops 8
i Ep. xxiv, § 2 (P. L. xx. 548 sq.).
2 A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, Councils and Eccl. Doc. ii. 260, note a.
3 Ibid. ii. 170 ; G. Grub, Eccl. Hist Scotland, i. 206 sq.
4 Man was transferred to York, 1458, by Calixtus III, 1455-+8.
6 The ' Sudereys ' or ' The Isles ' was made independent of Trondhjem,
c. 1472, and afterwards made suffragan to the archbishopric of Glasgow,
which was constituted 1479 : see R. L. Poole, Hist. Atlas of Modern Europe,
Map xxvi. 6 Grub, i. 327. 7 Ibid. 376,
8 Ep. xxiv, §§ 1, 3 (P. L. xx. 548 sq.).
2191 m iq-

178 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part in
— a rule, says Tillemont, which ' gave a great authority to
patriarchs and enfeebled the authority of metropolitans ,.1 But
Innocent's decision was not maintained. The Council of Ephesus,
431, dealt with the question of the Ius Cyprium from a different
point of view, and decided for the Cypriots, though provisionally.
' If it has not been a continuous custom for the bishop of Antioch
to hold ordinations in Cyprus, the island shall be free.'2 The
claims of Antioch3 turned out to be due to the purely secular
circumstance of the prefect of Cyprus being appointed by the
dux of Antioch ; and owing to the opportune discovery, c. 488, of
the body of St. Barnabas in the soil of his native island,4 the
' autocephalous ' position of the Cypriot church was recognized
by the Council in Trullo,5 692, and remains to this day. It is
a standing reminder that neither the civil rank of a city nor the
Apostolic connexions of a see, neither the favourite Eastern nor
the prevalent Western principle, has by itself, or in conjunction
with its rival principle, sufficed to create the hierarchical arrange
ments of Christendom as we know them to-day.
(d) Finally, as Arianism died hard, Alexander had doubted
how to deal with Arian clergy who came over to the Church.
Innocent replied : ' As on the principle that is now the accepted
rule in the case of lay converts from heresy.' Such persons were
acknowledged as baptized, but they were required to submit to
Confirmation, for in their heresy they could not have ' received
the Holy Spirit '. In the same way clerical converts ought not to
be recognized as having received the Holy Spirit in ordination, but
should take rank as simple laymen6— a decision which later
ecclesiastical law has in effect set aside. So ended this most
instructive correspondence of Alexander with Innocent.
(4) Dismissing from his mind his own difficulties with Cyprus,
Alexander returned to the task of making peace over the memory
of Chrysostom, and went to Constantinople to urge the people to
demand of Atticus the restoration of his predecessor's name to the
diptychs.7 He had no success with Atticus, who would not yield,
i Tillemont, Mim. x. 655.
2 Co. Eph., c. 8 ; W. Bright, Canons 2, xxix sq., 135 sqq.
3 Discussed in Fleury, ii. 114, note i.
4 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 447, xvi. 380.
5 Balsamon in c. 39 (P. G. cxxxvii. 649 b). Theodore Balsamon was
patriarch of Antioch, 1193-tl200. He speaks of the church of Cyprus as
free and autocephalous, In c. 3 Cone. CP. (Op. i. 88 ; P. G. cxxxvii. 320 a) :
see also Bingham, Ant. n. xviii, § 2. 6 Ep. xxiv, § 4 (P. L. xx. 549 sqq. ).
7 Cyril, Ep. lxxv (Op. x. 202 ; P. 67, lxxvii. 349).

chap.x I. THE GREAT SEES 179
as we learn from Miramur prudentiam — a letter addressed by
Pope Innocent to Maximian, a Macedonian bishop. Maximian had
been a friend of Chrysostom, and had entreated Innocent to
recognize Atticus. ' Not until he has given the same satisfaction
in the matter of John as has just been given by Alexander,' was
the answer.1 So things stood when Alexander died. He was one
of those ' who in a short time fulfilled a long time ' ; and he did
more for the Chusch in his brief episcopate than many who ruled
for half a life-time.2 He was succeeded by Theodotus, 421-t9,
a man ever strict with himself and gentle towards others.3 He
united with his flock the remnant of the Apollinarians 4 ; and
yielded to the popular demand that he should replace the name of
Chrysostom which he had removed again from the diptychs of his
native Church. This done, however, Theodotus took fright ; and,
lest he should incur the displeasure of Atticus, desired Acacius of
Beroea to write and explain to him that he had acted under
pressure. Acacius would have desired that Theodotus had stood
firm ; but he complied with the request, and also wrote to Cyril
in similar terms to make excuses for his chief.5 The priest who
carried his letter to Constantinople let out its contents, and
a demonstration was feared in favour of Chrysostom. At last
Atticus weakened. He went to the Emperor and asked what he
was to do. ' What harm ', replied Theodosius, ' can there be in
writing a dead man's name on a tablet for the sake of peace ? ' So
Atticus yielded, and the name of Chrysostom was vindicated at
Constantinople as at Antioch. But Atticus thought it prudent
to write at once to Cyril, in justification of his conduct. ' One must
sometimes ', he says, ' put peace before rules, though we ought not
to habituate the people to govern, as in a democracy. Still,
I do not think I have offended against the canons, for John's
name has been inserted not on a list of deceased bishops only, but
of inferior clergy and laity also.' 6 It was a mean man's letter,
Cyril's reply was inhuman : ' I would as soon be induced to
replace the name of Judas on the list of the Apostolic College as
that of John on the diptychs.' 7 But Isidore of Pelusium, f440,
i Innocent, Ep. xxii (P. L. xx. 545 a) ; Jaffe, No. 308.
2 Tillemont, Mim. x. 656. 3 Thdt. H. E. v. xxxviii, § 1.
4 Ibid., § 2.
5 This letter of Acacius is lost, but we know of it from Cyril's letter to
Atticus, Ep. lxxvi (Op. x. 207 ; P. L. lxxvii. 357 b).
6 Cyril, Ep. lxxv (Op. x. 203 ; P. G. lxxvii. 352 a).
7 Ep. lxxvi (Op. x. 206 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 356 b).
N 2

180 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part in
<tr
remonstrated with Cyril, and bade him beware of passion like that
of his uncle Theophilus, and of maintaining divisions in the
Church under pretence of piety.1 Cyril at last submitted, and by
429 the three great sees of the East were once more in communion
with Rome, which had steadily held aloof from all who did injustice
to the memory of Chrysostom.
§ 3. Theophilus died, in a spirit of compunction at his own
worldliness,2 on 15 October 412, and was succeeded by his nephew,
Cyril,3 as archbishop of Alexandria, 412-f44. Cyril was his sister's
son, and a native of Alexandria. He was brought up under
Serapion in the Nitrian desert. But asceticism did not subdue his
ambition ; and Isidore of Pelusium warned him that his thoughts
were not in the wilderness but in the world.4 After five years in
Nitria he received a welcome summons from his uncle to return to
Alexandria. Here he was ordained ; and in teaching and preach
ing acquired a considerable reputation. He went with his uncle
to the Synod of the Oak, 403, for the deposition of Chrysostom 5 ;
and, though a man of intellectual ability, never would he open the
books of Origen. There was a bitter contest for the Throne of the
Evangelist between Cyril and his uncle's archdeacon, Timotheus ;
but, in three days, the party of Cyril prevailed and he was conse
crated, 18 October 41 2.6 Cyril began ill for the man to whom the
Church is indebted for the defence of the Divine Person of our
Lord : for, says Socrates, ' he proved to be more masterful than
Theophilus ; and from his days the See of Alexandria, not content
with its ecclesiastical rank, began to play the tyrant in civil affairs.' 7
Theophilus was secular-minded ; but Cyril a thorough hierarch.8
1 Epp. i. ccclxx (Op. i. 96 sq. ; P. 67. lxxviii. 392 c) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxx.
2 Socr. H. E. vn. vii, § 1.
3 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 267-676 ; Fleury, xxn. xlvi, xxm. xxv ; Gibbon,
c. xlvii (v. 107 sqq.) ; Newman, Hist Sketches, ii. 341 sqq., 354 sqq. ; J. M.
Neale, Patriarchate of Alexandria, i. 225-77 ; W. Bright in D. C. B. i. 763-73 ;
Bardenhewer, 360 sqq.
4 Isidore, Epp. I. xxv (Op. 8 ; P. 67. lxxviii. 197) ; and see also Epp. I.
cccx, cccxxiii, cccxxiv, ccclxx (Op. 82, 87, 96 ; P. L. lxxviii. 362, 370, 392).
Neale calls these ' unjust rebukes ' (Patr. Al. i. 277) ; and it must be
remembered that Isidore was one of the Antiochene school and a disciple
of Chrysostom, Bardenhewer, 379 sq.
5 Cyril, Ep. xxxiii (Op. x. 99 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 159 c).
6 Socr. H. E. vn. vii, §§ 2-4.
7 Ibid., § 4. Socrates says the same of the Roman see under Caelestine,
and, for the same reason, that Caelestine like Cyril, bore hard upon the
Novatianists (H. E. vn. xi, § 4) ; further, that as the power of the bishop
went up, the authority of the governor of Alexandria went down (ibid. vn.
xi, § 9), with which »f. Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 269.
8 Ibid., § 5.

chap, x I. THE GREAT SEES 181
(1) Thus one of his first proceedings was that he persecuted the
Novatianists by closing their churches and depriving their bishop,
Theopemptus, of all his property. He strained Cassatis quae,1 of
30 June 412, a recent piece of legislation directed against the
Donatists, in order to be able to punish the Novatianists ; and in
view of his treatment of them, and his hostility to the name of
Chrysostom, we must probably allow some antipathy to Cyril on
the part of Socrates.
(2) He next attacked the Jews.2 The position of the Jews in the
Roman Empire was one of considerable influence. Since the days
of Julian and the audacious hopes of that time,3 they had been
exempted from interference by Christian rulers. Valentinian and
Valens respected their rites.4 Theodosius allowed their spiritual
jurisdiction, and ordered a bishop to restore at his own expense the
synagogue at Callinicum which his flock had destroyed. Arcadius
required that goods sold by Jews should be sold at prices to be
fixed by Jews and not by Christians 5 ; and forbade any insult to
be offered to their ' illustrious patriarchs ',6 whom Chrysostom
describes as ' hucksterers and traders full of all iniquity '.7 The
name ' patriarch ' did not come to be applied to the occupants of
the great sees of Christendom till the Council of Chalcedon,8 nor
had it as yet been adopted by the Christian Church. It belonged
to the Jewish pontiff at Tiberias and his apostles,9 who exacted
tribute for his support even so far afield as in Spain and Africa.
The patriarchate, however, was destroyed by a law of 399,12 and
the last patriarch deposed by another of 41 5.11 But Honorius
forbade insults to Jewish synagogues and all interference with the
sabbath in 41 2.12 So Judaism occupied a privileged position in
the Empire. In some places it was even socially important : as in
Antioch, where Chrysostom tells us that it was ' the thing ' for
Christians to go to the synagogue.13 And the language of the
leaders of the Church — his own, for instance, and that of Ambrose
over tbe affair of Callinicum — indicates the alarm that was felt
1 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 52.
2 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 270 sqq. ; Fleury, xxm. xxv.
3 H. H. Milman, Hist, ofthe Jews 6, iii. 17 sqq.
4 So says Arcadius in ludaei sint obstricti'oi 1 July 397, Cod. Theod. xvi.
viii. 13.
6 Cod. Theod. xvi. viii. 10. 6 Cod. Theod. xvi. viii. 11, 12.
7 Adv. ludaeos, vi, § 5 (Op. i. 656 e ; P. 67. xlviii. 911).
8 W. Bright, Canons 2, 104. 9 H. H. Milman, Hist. Jews6, ii. 461.
i° Cod. Theod. xvi. viii. 14. " Ibid. 22. i2 Ibid. 20.
X3 Adv. lud. iv, § 7 (Op. i. 626 a ; P. G. xlviii. 881).

182 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS. II part in
at the power of Judaism. Nowhere would it be more resented
than in Alexandria, where the Jews occupied a separate and
wealthy quarter of the city,1 where their ' ethnarch ', as Origen
calls him, had great authority,2 and where Jews had lent steady
support to Arianism.3 Signs of this resentment survive in the law
of Theodosius II, of 29 May 408, by which he forbids the gibbeting
of Haman on the Feast of Purim, because it was taken by
Christians as a burlesque of the Crucifixion,4 and in the story of the
murdered Ohristian boy which is given by Socrates 5 as the
occasion of the enactment, and is the precursor of the many
stories of ritual-murder by Jews, such as that of St. William of
Norwich,6 who was said to have been done to death by Jews on
25 March 1144, or the little St. Hugh of Lincoln7 on 27 August
1255. We must make some allowance, therefore, for the bitter
feelings of Christian against Jew in Alexandria, and take into
account the perpetual feuds between the two religions there, if we
are to be fair to Cyril for expelling the Jews from Alexandria.8
The pretext for the new feud arose out of the behaviour of some of
the laxer Jews who went to see a troop of dancers at the theatre
on the sabbath. Factions were formed, as usual, for and against
the performers, and Jews were found on one side and Christians
on the other. Orestes, the Augustal Prefect, who had only just
conformed to the Church, was transacting public busmess one day
in the theatre, when several of Cyril's supporters, among them
a schoolmaster, named Hierax, who arranged the applause at the
archbishop's sermons,9 were present to hear the Governor's
ordinances. The Jews noticed him in the crowd, and noisily
exclaimed that Hierax had come to excite a tumult. Thereupon
Orestes, who looked upon bishops, and upon Cyril in particular, as
dangerous rivals to the civil power, seized Hierax and had him
scourged on the spot. The archbishop retorted by sending for the.
chief Jewish residents and threatening them. His threats only
served to increase the bitterness ; and a plan was formed among
1 Milman, Hist. Jews 5, ii. 24.
2 Ep. ad Africanum, § 14 (Op. i. 28 ; P. 6?. xi. 84 a).
3 Milman, Hist. Jews °, iii. 15, 27 ; H. M. G wat kin, Studies in Arianism,
c. iii.
4 Cod. Theod. xvi. viii. 18. 6 Socr. H. E. vn. xvi.
6 R. Stanton, Menology, 132. 7 Ibid. 415.
8 Socr. H. E. vn. xiii ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 270 sq, ; Fleury, xxm. xxv.
9 For applause at sermons, see Bingham, Ant. xiv. iv, §§ 27, 28 ; Fleury,
ii. 265, note i.

chap, x I. THE GREAT SEES 183
the Jews to attack the Christians by night. The attack was
carried out, and several Christians perished. Then Cyril, instead
of applying to the magistrates, took the law into his own hands ;
and, at the head of a mob, took forcible possession of the syna
gogues, drove the Jews out of Alexandria, and handed over their
houses to pillage. Governor and archbishop both set their case
before the Emperor, when the people, alarmed at the loss to the
trade of Alexandria by the expulsion of the Jews, put pressure on
Cyril to make advances to Orestes for a reconciliation. Bu^ at
this point, another element of disorder made its appearance.1
News was carried to Nitria of the breach between Cyril and
Orestes, when the monks rushed into the city, five hundred strong,
and stoned the Prefect. One of them, Ammonius by name, hit
him on the head with a stone and drew blood. But the mob
rescued the Governor and, driving off the monks, laid hold on
Ammonius, who was tortured to death. Cyril so far forgot
himself as to give him the honours of a public funeral and to
panegyrize him in church. He was for dubbing him ' Martyr ' ;
but the saner sort among his people saved him from this folly. The
whole affair, however, was a high-handed proceeding. A worse
tragedy followed.
(3) Hypatia,2 daughter of Theon the philosopher, was the boast
of Alexandrian paganism. She was learned, eloquent, dignified in
bearing, irreproachable in character — the glory of the Neoplatonic
school. Pupils flocked to her lectures from all parts : among
them Synesius, afterwards bishop of Ptolemais, 409-fl3, and her
friend and correspondent. Magistrates also paid her deference,
and she was on terms of intimacy with the Prefect Orestes. This
gave the mob to beheve that she it was who influenced him against
Cyril ; and headed by one Peter, a Reader, with his fanatical
following of Parabolani,3 they watched he* movements, dragged her
from her carriage, stripped her, and tore her limb from limb in the
church of the Caesareum, and burnt her remains in public.
Gibbon calls it ' one of St. Cyril's exploits ' 4 ; but there is no proof
that Cyril was directly responsible for the deed, and Socrates, no
friend to Cyril, is content to say that ' it brought no small blame
on Cyril and the church of the Alexandrians '.5 The deed was
1 Socr. H. E. vn. xiv.
2 Ibid. vn. xv ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 274 sq. ; Fleury, xxm. xxv.
3 For Parabolani see Bingham, Ant. ill. ix, § 4 ; Fleury, ii. 268, note k.
4 Gibbon, xlvii, n. 27 (v. 110). B Socr. H. E. vn. xv, § 6.

184 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part hi
done by Peter and his Parabolani only ; but Cyril had used them
before, and, in his attack upon the Jews, he had let loose savage
passions which afterwards he could not rein in. He is not quite
clear, therefore, of the guilt of bloodshed ; and what was done
by his agents was ' an audacious crime ' which ' deservedly threw
a dark cloud over the reputation of Cyril ,.1 It was hi Lent, 415,
that the murder took place ; and it was the occasion of Quia inter
cetera of 29 September 416 by which Theodosius II required that
the*'clergy should take no part in public affairs, reduced the
numbers of the Parabolani, and deprived the archbishop of their
nomination.2 By Parabolani of 3 February 418, however, these
restrictions were removed, though their numbers were still limited,
by this edict, to six hundred.3 II
The support rendered to Cyril against Orestes by the monks of
Nitria is a reminder that the occupants of the great sees were con
fronted by a rival force, with which the episcopate would shortly
have to measure its strength. This force was Monasticism.
§ 4. It is recalled to our notice at this epoch by the death of
Jerome, 30 September 420. The priest Innocent, who had been
sent by the Council of Carthage in 419 to Cyril of Alexandria for
copies of the Nicene Canons, returned by way of Palestine, and
paid Jerome a visit at Bethlehem. Jerome took the opportunity
of sending to Alypius and Augustine the letter which proved to be
his last.4 A certain Anianus of Celeda [? Ceneda in Venetia], it
appears, who had acted as secretary to Pelagius at ' that wretched
synod of Diospolis ',5 December 415, had put out an answer to
Jerome's anti-Pelagian treatises of 415 — the letter to Ctesiphon
and the Dialogue. It would not have been difficult to reply to
' his silly tattle ', and Jerome would have liked to ' dress him down
a bit ', so he tells his African friends. But it is too late. His
growing infirmities and the recent death of Eustochium, 28 Sep
tember 419, have taken the heart out of him. Alypius and
Augustine would do it far better. Then follow greetings. They
show that Jerome was not left in solitude by the death of the
daughter of Paula. Her niece, the younger Paula, was with him.
So, too, were the worthy Pinian, his wife, Melania the younger, and
i J. M. Neale, Pair. Al. i. 228.
2 Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 42. 3 Ibid. 43.
4 Jerome, Ep. cxliii (Op. i. 1066-8; P. L. xxii. 1181 sq.), 6 Ibid., §2.

chap, x II. MONASTICISM 185
her mother, Albina. From Hippo they had arrived in Palestine,
414 ; and, as we have seen, had vainly endeavoured to assure
themselves, in correspondence with Augustine, that Pelagius was
coming back to the Catholic Faith. So the old quarrel between
Bethlehem and Olivet, between the adherents of Jerome and the
followers of Rufinus, was a memory of the past ; and the grand
daughter of Paula the elder x was keeping watch with the grand
children of the elder Melania 2 round the death-bed of Jerome. He
breathed his last on 30 September 420 : a saint, less for what he
was than for what, by his scholarship and his translations of the
Scriptures, he did as Doctor of the Church.
§ 5. The Messalians, as we have seen, were less of monks than
quietists ; but they continued to give trouble to the hierarchy,
much as did Priscillianists and Manichaeans to the Western
episcopate. They multiplied in Asia Minor ; and, before the death
of Atticus, 1425, had quite alarmed him and his colleagues. He
wrote to the bishops of Pamphylia to suppress them.3 On the death
of Atticus, a Council met at Constantinople, under the presidency
of Theodotus of Antioch, to consecrate Sisinnius to the vacant
throne. This done, the Synod wrote to the metropolitans of
Pamphylia I and II, Amphilochius of Side, 426-J58, and Bero-
nician of Perga, 426-+31, respectively, threatening deposition,
without any locus penitentiae, to any cleric convicted of association
with the' Messalians.4 John of Antioch, 428-+41, warned Nestorius

1

Agamemnon The Scipios and the Gracchi
i i

Rogatus =p Blaesilla
Paula, 347-+404=pToxotius, +380
1

Blaesilla
365-+84

Paulina Eustochium Ruiina Toxotius=pLaeta
= Pammachius +419 f386 |
+409 Paula

2 For Albina, Melania II, and Pinian, see Tillemont, Mim. xv. 232 sqq,

Melania I, 350-+410
1

Publicola, f 405=j=Albina, t 431-2
1

Publicola

Melania 11= Pinian, Vioarius Urbis

383-+439 385 and t 431-2

3 Photius, Cod. Iii (Op. iii. 13 a ; P. G. ciii. 89 a)
4 Ibid- (Op. iii. 13 a ; P. G. ciii. 89 b).

186 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part in
his friend and colleague at Constantinople, against them. Arche
laus, exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, f431, condemned twenty-
four propositions of theirs ; and his suffragan, Heraclidas of
Nyssa, c. 431, put out two letters against their tenets. Finally,
the Council of Ephesus condemned them,1 431. But they survived
it. One of them, Lampetius, got himself ordained priest by
Alypius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, c. 458. He
appears to have combined an unsavoury reputation, with a large
following : even so far afield as Egypt, where his followers were
known as Lampetians.2 Later on, there developed another sect of
Messalians by the name" of Marcianites.3 There were Messalians,
and collisions between them and the hierarchy, in Armenia. In the
seventh century they seem to have been absorbed into the
Paulicians. Monasticism proper, during the first quarter of the fifth century,
was represented in each of the three chief divisions of the Eastern
Empire. *
§ 6. In Egypt, there lived Isidore of Pelusium, f 440, and Nilus,
+430, both indefatigable letter-writers.
Nilus 4 had been Prefect of Constantinople, and very wealthy.
Leaving his younger son in the care of his wife, he parted from
her, and retired, with his elder son, Theodulus, to the deserts of
Sinai.5 There the monks lived at short distances from each other 6 ;
but they had a priest among them, and assembled every Lord's
Day for the Eucharist.7 Its consecration, we may note in passing,
Nilus ascribes to ' the dread-inspiring invocations, and the descent
of the adorable and life-giving Spirit ' : for then ' that which is on
the Holy Table is no longer simple bread and common wine, but the
precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our God '.8 Soon after
Alaric's capture of Rome, the peace of the community was sud
denly destroyed, 14 January 411, by Saracen raids.9 In one of
these Theodulus was carried off ; and, only after hair-breadth
1 Photius, Cod. Iii (Op. iii. 13 a ; P. G. ciii. 89 c).
2 Ibid. (Op. iii. 13 b ; P. 67. ciii. 89 sq.).
3 Timothy of C. P. [early seventh cent.], De receptione haereticorum (1\ 0.
lxxxvi. 45-52).
4 For his life, see Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 189-218; Fleury, xxi. xlviii,
xxn. xxii ; and for his works, P. 67. lxxix ; Bardenhewer, 381.
5 Narratio i (Op. 15 ; P. 67. lxxix. 601 c).
8 N.' iii (Op. 37 ; P. G. lxxix. 620 c).
7 N. iii (Op. 38 ; P. G. lxxix. 621 a).
8 Epp. i. xliv (Op. 21 ; P. 67. lxxix. 104), and Document No. 191.
9 N. iv (Op. 46 sq. ; P. G. lxxix. 628 sqq.).

chap, x II. MONASTICISM 187
escapes, restored to his father.1 Nilus resumed his literary
occupations. In letters, of which there are ascribed to him and
remain one thousand and sixty-one, though few of these in their
original form, he reproved even Arcadius, for the persecution of
John 2 ; for Nilus was an ardent supporter of his archbishop.3
In treatises he dealt sometimes with the principal virtues of the
Christian life and their contrary vices,4 but also with the life of the
monks.5 He criticizes, in particular, their growing secularity.6
Thus, by the testimony of its best representatives, Eastern
monasticism was already crying out for that subjection of the
monastic institute to the bishops 7 with which it was visited, for
its excesses, by the Council of Chalcedon.
A second letter-writer and partisan of Chrysostom was Isidore
of Pelusium.8 He stood for the exegetical principles of the
Antiochene school, though he does not scorn the use of allegory
for edification ; and his correspondence, consisting of some
two thousand letters, in five books, is mainly taken up with
questions of interpretation. Photius praises them as models of
epistolary style.9 But personal matters, even personalities,
occupy a good deal of Isidore's attention. Few escaped his
invective ; and probably the recipients of his favours were not so
charmed with his style as was Photius, who read them in a library.
Monks, priests, bishops, civil functionaries, great men at Court,
come in for their share of rebuke in turn. Not only Theophilus 10
and his nephew Cyril,11 for their antipathy to Chrysostom, and the
violence with which they displayed it ; but even the pious and
gentle Theodosius II.12 It speaks well for the men in high place at
that day, whether archbishops or emperors, that the abbot of
Pelusium was suffered to reprove unanswered and to die in peace.
i N. v, vii (Op. 61, 110, 117 ; P. G. 642, 682, 688).
2 Epp. n. cclxv, m. cclxxix (Op. 254, 435 ; P. 67. lxxix. 336, 522).
3 Epp. n. ccxciii, ccxciv (Op. 265 sq. ; P. G. lxxix. 345 sqq.).
4 e. g. De octo spiritibus malitiae (Op. 456-74 ; P. 67. lxxix. 1145-64).
5 e. g. De menastica exercitatione (Op. 1-83 ; P. 6?. 719-810).
6 Ibid., cc. vi-ix.
7 Chalc, cc. 3, 4, 7 ; W. Bright, Canons 2, xxxix-xli, 157 sqq.
8 For his life, see Tillemont, Mem. xv. 97 sqq. ; Fleury, xxi. xviii, Xxm.
xxvii, xxvi. v ; Bardenhewer, 379 ; and for his works, P. G. lxxviii.
9 Photius, Epp. n. xliv (Op. ii ; P. 67. cii. 861 d).
10 Isidore, Epp. I. ciii (Op. 47 ; P. G. lxxviii. 284 sq.).
11 e. g. Epp. i. cccx (Op. 82 ; P. 67. lxxviii. 361 c), which begins : ' Sym
pathy [such as Theodoret's with Nestorius] may not see clearly, but antipathy
[such as Cyril's against Nestorius] does not see at all ' ; and see Newman,
Hist. Sketches, ii. 356 sq.
12 Epp. I. xxxv, cccxi (Op. 11, 83 ; P. 67. lxxviii. 204, 361 sq.).

188 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II partiii
§ 7. To Syria belong Alexander, +430, and Simeon, +459, cele
brated each as the originator of a new variety of self-discipline.
Alexander1 was born in Asia Minor, and held office in the
Imperial household. But he withdrew to the deserts of Syria,
where he won a great reputation from Antioch to Edessa. His
disciples ran into hundreds ; and were pledged to rigid poverty,
to abstention from work, and to perpetual prayer. Some were
gathered into monasteries. Others traversed the deserts, as mis
sionaries, right up to the Persian frontier. At Edessa, Alexander
converted a magistrate, Rabbula,2 afterwards bishop of Edessa,
412-+35, who eventually became the champion of Cyrilline
orthodoxy in Mesopotamia, and is credited with the authorship
of the Peshitta version of the New Testament. Alexander had
previously visited Antioch, c. 404, to oppose the intrusion of
Porphyrius, 404-+13 ; and, on a second visit, 421, he had trouble
with the mild Theodotus, 421-+9, who took him for Messalian and
procured his banishment.3 Alexander then quitted Syria, and
went to Constantinople with twenty-four monks, where he founded
a monastery near the Church of St. Menas. The community
presently grew to as many as three hundred, for monks were
attracted from other convents. Divided into six companies, they
kept up a sleepless round of perpetual prayer 4 ; and hence their
name — -the Acoemetae.5 But to other ascetics this was perpetual
idleness ; and St. Nilus, from distant Sinai, denounced it as an
invention of ' Adelphius of Mesopotamia ' and of ' Alexander who
has given some trouble at Constantinople '.6 Alexander thus
found himself in bad company, for Adelphius was one of the
founders of the Messalians. But he was allowed to die in peace ;
and his monastery, transferred from Gomon 7 on the Asiatic side,
at the mouth of the Euxine,8 to Irenaeum,9 nearer Constantinople,
became a model for other communities, under his successor,
. Marcellus,10 440-f 86. Thus the observance of the Messalians found
1 For his Vita see Acta Sanctorum lanuarii [15th], i. 1018-29 ; Fleury,
xxv. xxvii ; and for the monastery of the Acoemetae at Constantinople,
Revue des questions historiques, lxv (January 1899), 133 sqq.
2 Vita, §§ 9-15. 3 Ibid., § 41.
4 Ibid., § 43. 5 Ibid., § 53.
6 Nilus, De voluntaria paupertate, xxi (Op. 260 ; P. G. lxxix. 997 a).
7 Vita, § 52.
8 Vita Marcelli, § 4, ap. Symeon Metaphrastes, iii (P. 6?. cxvi. 709 c).
9 Ibid., § 6 (P. 67. cxvi. 712 d).
i° For his life see Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita Sanctorum (P. G. cxvi. 705-
46) ; Fleury, xxvn. xxx.

chap, x II. MONASTICISM 189
a home in the Church ; and perpetual psalmody became the rule
not only for several religious houses of Constantinople, but of the
abbey of St. Maurice in the valley of the Rhone.
A different fashion in austerities was set by St. Simeon Stylites,1
388-+459 ; whose manner of life is described for us by his contem
porary Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus 423-+58, a small town of
Syria some two days' journey from Antioch. Simeon was, at first,
a shepherd 2 ; and, about 404, became a monk in a monastery.3
But his taste for austerities rendered him unfit for the life of
a community, and he withdrew to live alone.4 He passed Lent
without eating or drinking at all.5 He chained himself to a rock,
413-23. Then, giving up his chain,6 he took up his abode in an
enclosed cell and, finally, 423, on a column — though, at first, this
was to escape the importunity of his admirers.7 From time to
time he raised the height of his pillar, until, at last, when Theodoret
saw it, c. 430, the pillar was about sixty feet high.8 So Simeon
received his visitors. Other solitaries denounced his eccentricities 9 ;
but he was a man of such simplicity and goodness 10 that men
would excuse anything from him, and paid him the tribute of
a popularity without limit. Theodosius II consulted him,11 432 ;
and, when the saint fell ill. sent his own physician to attend him.12
Workmen at Rome put up his image over the door to protect their
workshops.13 St. Genevieve of Paris, 422-+512, exchanged compli
ments with him 14 ; and his fame was carried, on the caravan routes,
into far Turkestan. But it was in the immediate neighbourhood
of his column that he exerted the greatest influence. The tribes
men of the desert took him for a superhuman being,15 and
crowded to listen to the sermons which Simeon addressed to them
from that unusual pulpit. One day Theodoret stood in the
crowd, when the saint observed him and directed the people to
i For whom, see Thdt. Hist. Rei. c. xxvi (Op. iii. 1265-83 ; P. 67. lxxxii.
1464-84) ; Acta SS. Ian. i. 261-86 ; S. E. Assemani, Acta Mart. Orient.
i. 268-398 (Romae, 1748) ; TiUemont, Mim. xv. 347-91 ; C. Kingsley,
Hermits, 197 sqq. (1890).
2 Thdt. Hist Rei. xxvi (Op. iii. 1266 ; P. 67. lxxxii. 1465 b).
3 Ibid. (1468 a). 4 Ibid. (1468 d). 5 Ibid. (1469 sqq.).
8 Ibid. (1472). 7 Ibid. (1472 sq.). 8 Ibid. (1473).
9 So says Theodoras Lector [c. 500-+50], Eccl. Hist, ii, § 41 (P. 67. lxxxvi.
205 A). i° Thdt. Hist. Rd. xxvi (Op. iii. 1280 ; P. 6?. lxxxii. 1481 d).
n Labbe, Concilia, iii. 1086 (Paris, 1671) ; Fleury, xxvi. xvii.
12 S. E. Assemani, Act Mart. Orient, i. 306.
13 Thdt. Hist. Rei. xxvi (ut sup.).
14 Vita S. Genovefae Virg., § 22 (Acta SS. Ian. i. 145) ; Tillemont, Mim.
xv. 797. 15 Thdt. Hist Rei. xxvi (Op. iii. 1280 ; P. G. lxxxii. 1481 b).

190 THE EAST UNDER THEODOSIUS II part in
seek his blessing, as he was a bishop. They nearly stifled him as
they rushed to obtain it ; but Simeon, from his pillar, called
them off.1 Nor was it the common folk only who thus hung upon
his lips. In 458 his advice was taken about maintaining the
decisions of the Council of Chalcedon.2 The same question was
put to provincial synods of the East.3 So the authority of the
Stylite took rank with that of a synod. Next year he died,
2 September 459. For months past the news of his illness had
brought pilgrims in crowds to hear his last words ; and, on his
death, his body was carried in great pomp to Antioch, where it was
laid to rest in the principal church.4 The column also was pre
served, and surrounded by a spacious octagonal courtyard, with
four large basilicas abutting upon it.5 The remains of these, and
even of the identical column, may still be seen at Kalat-Sem'an,
or the Castle of Simeon, between Antioch and Aleppo,6 to testify
to the veneration in which the first of the Stylites was held.
§ 8. At Constantinople monachism begins with the epoch of
Theodosius I7 ; and Syria, Egypt, and Armenia contributed to its
acclimatization there.8 The first foundation took root near the
hermitage of a Syrian, named Isaac,9 and owed its origin to an
officer of the Imperial Guard, who afterwards succeeded Isaac as
the abbot Dalmatius, +e. 440.10 Isaac had prophesied the death of
Valens ; had taken an active part against Chrysostom n ; and was
no less active in fostering religious houses. On the Asiatic side
of the Bosporus lay the Villa of the Oak, where the Council of that
name was held, 403, to put Chrysostom on his trial. It belonged
to the minister Rufinus. He founded there a colony of monks
i Thdt. Hist Rei. (1476 c).
2 Evagrius, H. E. ii, § 10 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2532 sq.).
3 Ibid, ii, § 9 (2528). 4 Ibid, i, § 13 (2457). 5 Ibid, i, § 14 (2460 sqq.).
8 Once called Telamissus (Thdt. Hist. Rei. xxvi [Op. iii. 1269 ; P. G. lxxxii.
1470 a]), a name still preserved in Tell Neschin (the Women's Mountain),
now Deir Sem'an (the Convent of Simeon). For a modern description, see
M. de Vogue, Syrie Centrale, 141-54, with plates 139-50 ; for the guest
houses, ibid. 128 sqq. (pi. 114). One has an inscription of its date, 22 July
479 ; another, 15 October 479 ; cf . Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, &c,
partie vi, Syrie, section x, Antiochene, nn. 2691,2692 (tom. iii: Paris, 1870).
7 See ' Les debuts du monachisme a CP., par J. Pargoire ', ap. Revue
des questions hist, lxv (January 1899), 67-143, esp. p. 117.
8 Ibid. 119. 8 Ibid. 121.
i° Revue, lxv. 120 sqq. ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 321 sqq. ; Fleury, xxv. xliii,
xxvr. vi, vii. It was Dalmatius who, in a conversation with Theodosius II
(Mansi, iv. 1429), broke the spell, 431, by which the Nestorians had bound
the Emperor to their side, Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 418.
11 Palladius, Vita, §§ 6, 8 (Op. xiii. 20 B, 29 B ; P. L. xlvii. 21, 29) ; Fleury,
xxi. xvii.

chap, x II. MONASTICISM 191
from Egypt, and both Rufinus himself and Ammonius, one of the
Tall Brothers, came to be buried in its church. But the Egyptians
returned on the fall of their founder ; and their place was taken,
c. 403, by the community of a Phrygian named Hypatius,1 who
ruled it as abbot for forty years, 406-+46. He came originally
from Halmyrissus,2 a convent in Thrace which owed its foundation
to a soldier named Jonas, who was from Armenia, and so fellow-
countryman of Eustathius of Sebaste, 351— +78. Hypatius was
of a lively temper. He fell out with Eulalius, the bishop of
Chalcedon, 430-+51 ; once over Alexander the Acoemete, whom
he rescued from a beating by the bishop's servants 3 ; once again
over Nestorius, whose name he insisted on removing from the
diptychs, before he had been summoned to appear at the Council
of Ephesus, and in spite of the orders of Eulalius 4 ; and, finally,
over the attempt of Leontius, Prefect of Constantinople, to revive
the Olympic Games at Chalcedon. The bishop supported the
Prefect ; but Hypatius regarded the proposal as a return to
paganism, and baffled both its supporters.5 Not less troublesome
to authority were the monks of the capital itself. The archbishop
of New Rome was, of course, a potentate compared to the bishop
of an ordinary see, like Eulalius. But they made him feel their
power. They ranged themselves with effect against Chrysostom,
398-404 ; and, if they kept the peace with Atticus, 406-+25, it
was because he had taken their side at the Council of the Oak.
Nestorius, 428-31, Flavian, 446-+9, and Anatolius, 449-+58, were
each to experience their hostility. At last, the Council of Chalce
don, 451, had to bring them to heel.6
i Vita in Acta SS. [17th] Iunii, iii. 308-49. 2 Ibid., § 6.
3 Ibid., § 57. 4 Ibid., § 44 5 Ibid., § 45. 6 Chalc, cc. 3, 4, 7.

CHAPTER XI
NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31
It is now time to turn to the first of those great questions which
had been better handled without the interference of the monks,
viz. Nestorianism.1 Its story within the Empire covers 428-35.
§ 1 . Nestorius,2 as we have seen, was a priest of some reputation
as preacher and abbot at Antioch when, to get rid of the rivalries
for the throne vacated by Sisinnius, Theodosius II appointed him
archbishop of Constantinople. Leaving Antioch early in 428,
with Anastasius in attendance as his chaplain, Nestorius visited
Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, 392-+428, on the way, not long
before that great scholar's death.3 He had been brought up
under Theodore's influences ; and so too had his friend John who,
about this time, on the death of Theodotus, succeeded him as
bishop of Antioch, 428-+41. On the departure of Nestorius, after
a two days' visit, Theodore warned him not to be so hot against
the opinions of others ' I admire your zeal ; but I should be
sorry ', said he, ' if it brought you to a bad end.' 4 Nestorius
continued his journey, and was consecrated at Constantinople,
10 April 428. Preaching himself on the occasion, he forgot his
master's advice and cried, ' Give me, 0 Emperor, the earth purged
from heretics : and I will repay you with heaven. Help me to
harry the heretics ; and I will aid you to harry the Persians.' 5
Nor, so far as heretics were concerned, was this idle rhetoric.
The Arians had succeeded, despite the law, in retaining a chapel
within the walls of Constantine. Nestorius discovered it. Five
days after his consecration the police turned them out 6 ; and, by
Haereticorum ita est,7 of 30 May 428, the Emperor supported the
campaign against them. Nestorius immediately took advantage
i F. Loofs, Nestoriana ; Nestorius, Le lime a" Hiraclide, traduit en
francais par F. Nau (Paris, 1910) ; J. Tixeront, Hist. dogm. iii. 10-75 ;
J. B.-Baker, Nestorius and his teaching (1908) ; ' Nestorius the Nestorian'
in C. Q. R. Ixxiii. 296 sqq. (Jan. 1912), a criticism of B.-Baker.
2 Socr. H. E. vn. xxix, xxxi ; Fleury, xxiv. lv.
3 Thdt. H. E. v. xl. With this event Theodoret concludes his history.
4 P. Bedjan, Le livre d'H., p. iii ; F. Nau, Le livre d'H., p. vi, n. 1.
B Socr. H. E. vn. xxix, § 5. Perhaps S. embellishes a bit.
8 Ibid., §§ 8-10. 7 Cod. Theod. xvi. v. 65.

NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 193
of the enactment to deal with other dissidents. The Qiiarto-
decimans, still numerous in Lydia and Caria, were provoked into
resistance ; and riots in Sardis and Miletus were quelled in blood.1
The Macedonians of the province of the Hellespont were made to
feel the heavy hand of Nestorius through Antony, bishop of
Germa, who hunted them down for him. They murdered Antony ;
and this was the end of their sect, for an imperial order closed
their churches.2 The archbishop also set upon the Novatianists ;
but they were too much in favour at Court.3 ' In all this ', says
Socrates, no friend, perhaps, to Nestorius because of his attempt
upon the Novatianists, ' Nestorius was acting contrary to the
practice of the Church.'4 Certainly, the Church had tolerated
them. They were no heretics ; but this scourge of heretics came
quickly to be regarded as a heretic himself.
We have now to trace the beginnings of his heresy. It was the
natural outcome of the teaching traditional at Antioch, but
specially as developed by Diodore.
§ 2. Diodore 5 was for some time Head of the Catechetical
School at Antioch, and subsequently bishop of Tarsus, 378-f94.
He came qf a noble family in Antioch,6 and was distinguished
alike for character and ability. Sharing with one, Carterius, the
government of a Religious House in or near the city,7 he de
voted himself to the defence both of the Christian Faith against
heathenism, and of orthodoxy against heresy. In the character of
apologist he earned a certificate of merit from Julian who wrote
of him that he had equipped his malevolent tongue against the gods
of old with the wisdom of Athens herself ; and, in return, his
gaunt figure and pale face, together with his wretched health,
were so many tokens of the wrath of heaven.8 But before Julian
became acquainted with him, presumably when spending the
winter of 362-3 in Antioch, Diodore had distinguished himself as
the champion of Catholicism, as well as of Christianity, in company
with his friend Flavian, afterwards bishop of Antioch, 381-+404.
Both were ardent Nicenes ; and, as laymen, had resisted the
1 Socr. H. E. vn. xxix, § 12. 2 Ibid. xxxi. 3 Ibid, xxix, § 11.
4 Ibid, xxxi, § 1 ; for the protection of Novatianists by Theodosius I see
ibid. v. xx, § 6.
5 For Diodore, see Dissertatio, I, § 8, in Marius Mercator (P. L. xlviii.
1145 sqq.) ; J. Tixeront, Hist. Dogm. iii. 11 sqq. ; Bardenhewer, 315 sqq.
6 Thdt. H. E. v. xxv, § 4.
7 Socr. H. E. vt. iii, § 6 ; Soz. H. E. vm. ii, § 6.
8 Julian, Ep. lxxix (Op. ii. 605 sq. : Teubner, 1875).
2191 in O

194 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part iii
Arianizing Leontius, bishop of Antioch 344-f 57. They compelled
him to get rid of his deacon, Aetius, the founder of the Anomoeans ;
and they put heart into Catholics by the introduction into worship
of antiphonal singing. As priests, they once more rallied the
faithful x who, on the third exile of Meletius, 372, in the persecution
of Valens, refused to communicate with the Arian intruder,
Euzoius, 361-+78. But Diodore had to fly from Antioch. He
took refuge, for a while, in Armenia, as did Meletius ; and, while
there, came into contact with Basil.2 After the overthrow of
Arianism by the defeat and death of Valens, its last patron, at
the battle of Adrianople, 378, Meletius recovered his see and made
Diodore bishop of Tarsus. In this capacity Diodore took part
in the Second Oecumenical Council ; while in Episcopis tradi 3
of 30 July 381 — the decree confirmatory of its decisions — he is
named as one of the two bishops in ' the East ', communion with
whom is to be reckoned as a note of orthodoxy. Diodore was thus,
in his lifetime, never without consideration ; but after his death,
from the opening of the fifth century onwards, his reputation
declined. Catholic in intention, he was the opponent alike of Arian and
Apollinarian ; and it was in opposition to Apollinaris, his rival
at Laodicea in Syria, where he was bishop 361-77, and no less
Catholic in intention than Diodore, that Diodore gave to the
doctrine of Christ's Person at Antioch that direction in which
it was to move from his day forward. Jealous for the completeness
of the human nature in Christ which Apollinaris denied, Diodore
distinguished 4 in the Saviour the Son of God from the son of
David. The latter, according to him, was taken and is inhabited
by the Former ; or, as he puts it, ' Complete before the ages the
Son of God assumed complete the son of David '.5 As, then, the
son of David is simply the temple of the Word, one cannot speak
of him as the Word in the strict sense of the term.6 The Word
is not son of David ; He is David's lord.7 , Nor is He son of
Mary. Never let God the Word be thought of as Mary's son.
i Thdt. H. E. iv. xxv, § 3, v. iv, § 2 ; Chrysostom, In laudem Diodori, § 4
(Op. iii. 749 ; P. G. Iii. 764).
2 Basil, Ep. cxxxv (Op. iv. 226 sq. ; P. 67. xxxii. 572 sq.)
3 Cod. Theod. xvi. i. 3.
4 For these passages from Diodore see Dissertatio I, § 8 in Marius
Mercator (P. L. xlviii. 1146-8).
5 Diodore, Contra Synusiastas, I, Fr. 1 (P. 6?. xxxiii. 1560 a).
8 Ibid., Fr. ii (1560 b) 7 Ibid., Fr. iii (1560 c).

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 195
He has not two births : the first, eternal of the Father, the
second, in time, of his mother ; but, born of the Father, He made
for Himself a temple of him who was born of Mary.1 The man
thus bom of Mary is not son of God by nature, but by grace ;
only God the Word is Son by nature.2 But, said Diodore's
opponents, there are, on that showing, two Sons.3 Diodore
rephed with a quibble,4 and added that all he meant was that
God the eternal Word dwelt in him who was of the seed of David.5
Verbally, he maintained the unity of Person in our Lord. He
held that just as, at an audience with the Emperor, we ' adore '
the imperial mantle because of him who wears it, or the temple
because of the god who dwells therein, so the man Jesus simply
shares in the adoration due to God the Word.6 But this was merely
lip-service to the worship of Jesus customary with Christians ;
and Diodore, in his anxiety to insist on the completeness of our
Lord's human nature which Apolhnaris had denied, cannot be '
acquitted of language which separates the two natures in Christ
and treats them, each in isolation from the other, as if they were
two persons. The Council of Alexandria, 362, had accurately
diagnosed the tendency of his teaching when it characterized his
school as holding that ' in Christ, the Word, as in a prophet, was
simply associated with an holy man'.7 Equally discerning,
though not quite so fair, was the diagnosis of Julian and of
Apollinarian opponents. Julian congratulated Diodore, and the
Apolhnarians rallied him on reviving the teaching of Photinus,
and holding that ' the Divine Word ' merely ' dwelt in the seed
of David, as in the prophets '. True, with Photinus the Word
was impersonal ; whereas Diodore spoke of ' the Son of God '
in relation to ' the son of David '. But, in disowning the charge,
Diodore could only distinguish his view from that of Photinus
by saying that, whereas with the Prophets the divine indwelling
was temporary and partial, in Jesus it was eternal and entire.8
It was simply a difference of degree ; and our Lord, on this showing,
1 Diodore, Contra Synus. I, Fr. iii (1560 sq.). 2 Ibid., Fr. iii (1560 c).
3 Probably the Apolhnarians, but also the Catholics, e. g. Greg. Naz.
Carmen, xi, 11. 633 sq. (Op. ii. 707 ; P. G. xxxvii. 1073 a).
4 Fr. i (1560 a). 5 Fr. iii (1560 sq.).
8 ' Adoramus purpuram propter indutum et templum propter habitatorem,
formam servi propter formam Dei,' Marius M., Excerpta Theodori, v, § 10
(P. L. xlviii. 1062 b). The sentence is probably Diodore's, as it follows
language certainly his, §§ 7, 8, 9 (see ibid., 1146 c).
7 Ath. Tomus ad Ant, § 7 (Op. ii. 618 ; P. G. xxvi. 804 b).
8 Marius M., Excerpta Th. v, § 9 (P. L. xlviii. 1062 b).
O 2

196 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part iii
was no more than the supreme saint. Diodore, in effect, substi
tuted for the Incarnation a very exceptional degree of intercourse
between two persons ; between the Divine Son and one particular
man. Cyril of Alexandria was therefore quite right when he
observed that, if it be a question of the sources of Nestorianism,
they will be found in the teaching of Diodore.1
§ 3. But there was an intermediary between Diodore and
Nestorius. He was the greatest of Antiochene teachers, Theodore,2
bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, 392-f428.
(1) In early life3 Theodore, who was born at Antioch, c. 350,
studied under Libanius, and had Chrysostom for his slightly
older friend and fellow-pupil. He was ambitious for the Bar ;
but, before the age of twenty and by the advice and example of
Chrysostom, he was induced to enter the monastery of Diodore
and Carterius.4 Then he fell in love with a girl named Hermione,
and wished to marry. But Chrysostom dissuaded him, and he
returned to the monastery. In 383 he was ordained priest by
Flavian, bishop of Antioch ; and there lived, as a student, in the
stirring times when Antioch insulted the Imperial Statues, and
Flavian went to intercede for his people, while Chrysostom mounted
the pulpit to allay their fears. After ten years as presbyter
Theodore was appointed bishop of Mopsuestia. Here he took an
active part in the defence of Chrysostom, the friend of his youth 5 ;
befriended Julian, bishop of Eclanum, and other Pelagianizing
exiles from the West ; and after receiving Nestorius on his way to
possess himself of the throne of Constantinople, died at the end
of an episcopate of six and thirty years.
(2) As a writer 6 his labours extended over sixty years ; and,
as they were mainly in exposition of the Scriptures, he became
1 Cyril Al. Epp. xiv, lxvii, Ixix, lxxi (Op. x. 135, 195, 198, 199 ; P. 67.
lxxvii. 229, 336, 340, 344).
2 For Theodore, see Bardenhewer, 318-23 ; H. B. Swete in D. C. B. iv.
934-8 ; Tixeront, Hist. Dogmas, iii. 13-21 ; and for his works, P. 67. Ixvi,
esp. the ' fragmenta dogmatica ', 969-1020, reprinted in H. B. Swete,
Theodore of M. on the minor Epistles of St Paul, app. a (ii. 289-339). For
estimates of Theodore, see A. Neander, Ch. Hist iv. 107 sq., 409 sq., 430 sq. ;
J. A. Dorner, Person of Christ, n. i. 28-51, and nn. 380 sq. ; Swete, Th. on
St. Paul, i. lxxix sq. ; L. G. Mylne in C. Q. R. i, No. 1 (Jan. 1875), and
C. Gore in C. Q. R. xvi, No. 3 (July 1883) ; W. Bright, Sermons of St Leo2,
159 ; and Dissertatio I, § 9, in M. M. (P. L. xlviii. 1149-54)
3 Vita in P. 6?. Ixvi. 11-22.
4 Socr. H. E. vi. iii, §§ 4-6 ; Soz. H. E. vm. ii, § 7.
5 Chrysostom, Ep. cxii (Op. iii. 655 ; P. G. Iii. 668 sq.).
8 See ' De Th. scriptis ' in P. G. Ixvi. 21-78.

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 197
what he^ is still with the East Syrians and others, par excellence
' The Interpreter '. As such, he carried the principles of the
Antiochene School to their limit, and manifested ' an excessive
jealousy for the hteral truth ' of the text.1 It was not enough to
dispense with allegorism altogether. He even ' rejected much of
the prophetic and typical import of the Holy Scriptures.2 Thus,
in the commentary on the Psalms,3 composed when he was barely
twenty, he acknowledged only four Psalms as Messianic, viz.
ii, viii, xiv, ex. The Book of Job 4 was simply a drama ; the Song
of Songs 5 no more than an epithalamium. Interesting to us as
are these anticipations of modern criticism of the Old Testament,
they were too merely negative to last ; and led their author to
so limited a view of the Canon as that he not only excluded Job
and Song of Songs from the Old Testament but the Catholic
Epistles from the New Testament. His Commentary on the minor
Epistles of St. Paul6 has reached us entire, though in Latin;
his Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John1 in Syriac.
But more important, for our purpose, are the fragments of his
dogmatic writings.8 One of them, Adversus asserentem peccatum
in natura situm esse,9 was an attack on Jerome and Augustine,
with a very clever title. It places Theodore on the Pelagian side :
and this is unquestionably the explanation — though he may have
been all unconscious 10 of the connexion u — of his defective theory
of the Incarnation. ' His errors ', says Dr. Swete, ' are mainly
due to an imperfect realization of the nature and extent of human
sin. With Theodore sin is a weakness rather than a disease,
a negative rather than a positive evil. . . . With the true estimate
of the evil of sin, the necessity for an actual Incarnation of the
Eternal Word disappears ; a man indissolubly united to God
through the permanent indwelling of the Word suffices. ... It
is not that he does not attach due importance to the moral side
of human nature ; his constant assertion of the [power of the
will] abundantly proves the contrary.' Indeed, it was against
Apollinaris, and to reassert the reality of our Lord's human
example which Apollinarianism destroyed, that Theodore took
the field. ' But he fails to recognize the depth of the spiritual
1 Swete, Th. on St. Paul, I. lxxxvii. 2 Ibid. 3 P. 67. Ixvi. 647-96.
4 Ibid. 697 sq. 5 Ibid. 699 sq. 6 Ed. H. B. Swete, 2 vols. (1880).
7 P. 67. Ixvi. 727-86. 8 Ibid. 969-1020 ; Swete, ii. 289-339.
9 P. G. Ixvi. 1005-12 ; Swete, ii. 332-7. 10 Swete, I. lxxxvi sq.
11 F. R. Tennant, Sources, &c, 327 sq.

198 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part hi
disease [of our human nature], and this failure affects his entire
conception of the restorative system which is revealed throughout
the New Testament, and in no part of it more distinctly than in
the Epistles of St. Paul.'1 For these defective theories of the
Person of Christ, the evidence is to be found in his De Incarnatione 2
and his Adversus Apollinarem 3 ; treatises preserved, it is true, in
fragments only, but of quantity sufficient to make it certain
that, whether or no Nestorius himself was a Nestorian, Theodore,
at any rate, was a Nestorian before Nestorius.
§ 4. We now turn to the doctrine of Theodore.
It was the doctrine of Diodore developed, and sprang from
the same motives— distrust of Apollinarianism and zeal for the
reality of our Lord's human example which Apollinarianism
undermined. Theodore was afraid that to accentuate the divine
side of the Saviour's being would end in removing him far away
from any true sympathy with us as well as from our power to
imitate Him. And, apart from Apollinaris, there had already
been Catholic writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Hilary,
bishop of Poitiers 350-+68, who had represented the acts of our
Lord, in His manhood, as condescensions. ' He ate and drank ',
says Clement, ' only to forestall Docetism ' 4 — a view that is
itself semi-Docetic.5 ' His ignorance ', says Hilary, ' was an
economy.' 6 ' He took food and drink, not because His body
needed sustenance, but in conformity to custom.' 7 Theodore
was anxious for a Saviour with experiences really like our own.
He insisted that the manhood taken by the Word is a ' complete
manhood, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting '.8 So
completely man is the Saviour that He grew — so far as He was
man — like other boys, not only in body but in wisdom,9 in know
ledge of good and evil, in experiences of all sorts. He had his
temptations, nor were they merely from outside. Indeed, He
was troubled by passions both of the soul and of the body, and
knew what the struggle with concupiscence was 10 — an assertion
1 Swete, i. lxxxvii. 2 Ibid. ii. 290-312 ; P. G. Ixvi. 969-94.
3 P. G. Ixvi. 993-1004 ; Swete, ii. 312-22.
4 Clem. Al. Strom, vi. ix, § 71 (Op. ii. 276 ; P. 67. ix. 292 c).
5 C. Bigg, Chr. Platonists 2, 102.
6 Hilary, De Trin. ix, § 62 (Op. ii. 307 ; P. L. x. 331 b).
7 Ibid, x, § 24 (Op. ii. 339 ; P. L. x. 364 b).
8 Theodore, Exp. Symb. (Swete, ii. 328, 11. 23 sq.).
9 Theodore's comments on Luke ii. 52 in Swete, ii. 297 sq., 335, 11. 17 sq.
10 Theodore, De Inc. (Swete, 311).

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 199
in which Theodore's fundamental Pelagianism comes out ; for
Julian of Eclanum, who took refuge with him, was the only other
thinker to venture upon this daring affirmation.1 Theodore
would say that it was a condition of moral progress, as in us,
so in the Saviour. But ' He had an exceptional bent towards
virtue, owing to His union with God the Word '.2 He speedily
won the victory, therefore, and completely. From the Resurrection
onwards 3 He was ' exempt from the possibility of a moral fall ',4
and so indissolubly united to God.5
What then is this Union ? Theodore designated it by various
terms — Union 6 (eWms), Conjunction 7 (owd<peia), Relation 8
((Treats), Indwelling 9 (ZvoU-qcns). He exhibits a preference for
the last, because it is a figure found in Scripture 10 ; and, as such,
it was popular at Antioch and had been employed by Diodore.
It is in explanation of the Divine Indwelling in Jesus that Theodore
gives us the clearest view of the way in which he conceived the
union of God and man in Him. The intimacy of the Divine
Indwelling in our Lord was confessedly unique. Not, indeed,
that God dwelt in Jesus by His essence (ovo-iq) ; an essential
indwelling of God in a creature is excluded by the first principles
of Theism. Nor merely by His operation (hepyeiq) : for by His
operation God is everywhere present, and a presence of this sort
would constitute no peculiar privilege for the Saviour. No, the
Divine Indwelling in Him was unique : it was of God's good
pleasure (evboKiq) 1] — as indeed the accounts of the Baptism12
and the Transfiguration13 tell us. 'But in this sense,' it might
be objected, ' God dwells, according to Scripture, in His saints.'
' True,' replied Theodore, ' but in Jesus He dwells, according to
1 W. Bright, Later Treatises of St. Ath. 109, 128, and Tixeront, Hist.
Dogmas, ii. 437, iii. 14, n. 7. Only Julian and Theodore maintained the
peccability of our Lord. Many affirmed His sinlessness ; Catholics His
impeccability, e. g. ' Hanc cupiditatem Christus et sentire posset, si haberet ;
et habere, si vellet ; sed absit ut vellet', Aug. Op. imp. c. lui. iv, § 48 (Op. x.
1161 o ; P. L. xiv. 1366). If we say that, in order to be a sympathetic
Saviour, He must be capable of moral fall, then we deprive Him of a higher
office, viz. His power to restore. ' A peccable Christ could not bo a life-
giving Christ,' W. Bright, Age ofthe Fathers, ii. 262 ; and see also Sermons
of St. Leo 2, 142 sq.
2 Theodore, De Inc. vii (Swete, ii. 296 sq.). 3 Ibid. 297, 11. 2-8.
4 Ibid. 296 sq. 5 Theodore, Exp. Symb. (Swete, ii. 330, 1. 2).
8 Swete, ii. 296, 1. 5. 7 lb. ii. 306, 1. 18.
8 Ib. ii. 300, 1. 26, 308, 1. 16, 310, 1. 20.
9 Ibid. ii. 294, 1. 5. 10 e. g. Lev. xxvi. 12 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16.
11 Swete, ii. 294, 11. 27 sq., and i. 142, n. 10.
12 Matt. iii. 17. 13 Mark ix. 7 ; Matt. xvii. 5.

200 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part iii
Scripture, " as in a Son " : and this means that, while between
the human and the Divine nature in Jesus there is complete
distinctness, yet there is also such an unity of will and of operation
that the result is one Person.' 1 Theodore clearly intended to
assert one Person in Christ ; and, no doubt, thought that he had
provided for an unity of Person in Him that should be sufficient
for all purposes of redemption. . He even spoke of this union as
beginning with our Lord's conception,2 and as indissoluble.3 He
said there was ' one Person in possession of two natures. True,
when we are thinking of the natures apart, each is complete and
each is personal. But when we are thinking of their union, then
there is in Christ but one Person and one Son.' 4
Why then was a theory, which paid such deference to traditional
language, less than orthodox ? Because it really amounted to
no more than a moral union, after all : and this Theodore unwarily
admitted by comparing the union of divine and human in our
Lord to the conjugal union.5 Certainly man and wife are ' one
flesh ' 6 ; but after marriage they still remain two persons as
before. And Theodore repeatedly spoke not of the union between
God and man, but between God and a man, between ' Him who
assumed ' and ' him who was assumed '.7 He may have meant
to affirm but one Person ; but it looks as if, like other Antiochenes
before him, he unconsciously placed the personality of Jesus in
his manhood : for Jesus to him was a man who became God not,
as to Apollinaris, God who became man. He never really meant
that the very Self or Ego of the Divine Son entered this worldly
sphere.8 Mary therefore is Theotokos, or Mother of God, only
in so far as she was mother of the man who was assumed by God 9 ;
and Jesus himself could be called Son of God, as Diodore had put
it, not in the strict sense but simply as having acquired his Sonship
through association with the Word.10 Theodore must have every
credit for his desire to adhere to traditional language about the
unity of Christ and to provide for the Christian instinct of wor-
i Swete, ii. 295 sq. ; and Theodore, Letter to Domnus, ap. Swete, ii. 338 sq.
2 Ibid. 339. 3 Ib. ii. 330, 1. 2.
4 Ibid. ii. 299, 11. 18 sqq. 5 Ibid. ii. 299, 11. 1 sqq.
6 Mark x. 8. 7 Swete, ii. 295 sq.
8 As in his comments on John i. 14 (Swete, ii. 300, 11. 16 sq.) ; or on
John xx. 22 or on John xx. 28 (P. 67. Ixvi. 783), where he takes ' My Lord
and my God ' not as a confession of the Godhead of our Lord but as a glori
fication of the Father. 9 Swete, ii. 310 11. 10-21.
10 Swete, ii. 311 sq., 308, 11. 16 sq.

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 201
shipping Him x ; but so preoccupied was he in getting rid of
Apollinarianism that he came, first, to overlook the truth which
it shared with Catholicism in starting from the thought of God
made man ; and then, by way of correcting its doctrine of
a defective humanity, to affirm explicitly that there was in our
Lord's manhood more than human nature— a human person.
Thus there were two sons,2 one of whom, the son of Mary, was
by grace and not by nature,3 as Diodore had said, Son of God, so
that Mary was not, except titularly, the mother of God.
It was at this point that Theodore's teaching was taken over
and popularized by Nestorianism.
§ 5. Its occasion belongs to the winter of 428-9. Nestorius
brought with him from Antioch a number of clergy who were not
particularly appreciated by the clergy of the capital.4 One of
them, Anastasius, his syncellus5 or domestic chaplain, preached
on 22 November 428 ; and, in the course of his sermon denied
that Mary is Theotokos. ' Let no one ', he cried, ' call Mary the
mother of God. For Mary was but human : and it is impossible
for God to be born of human kind.' 6 Some of the congregation
protested, "and the scandal was great. For the term was current
coin, and of long standing in Christendom.7 But Nestorius
appears to have thought it of Apollinarian origin 8 ; and on
Christmas Day he began a course of sermons 9 in support of his
1 Swete, ii. 359, 11. 15-33 ; ii. 309, where he says that, since Christ is the
Image of God, we worship Him as we adore the Emperor's Images— a
simile borrowed from Diodore. 2 Swete, ii. 303, 11. 16 sq.
3 Ibid. ii. 306, 11. 1-8. 4 Mansi, iv. 1107 A.
5 Fleury, iii. 13, note i. 8 Socr. H. E. vu. xxxii, § 2.
7 As is observed by Socr. H. E. vu. xxxii, §§ 14-18. He ascribes its
earliest use to Origen, Comm. in Rom. i. 5 (Op. iv. 406, n. 32 ; P. G. xiv.
850 o), in a passage now lost at that point. It was common in the fourth
century, e. g. Alexander, bp. of AL, ap. Thdt. H. E. I. iv, § 54 ; Eus. V. C.
iii, § 43 ; Ath. Orat c. Ar. iii, §§ 14, 29, 33 (Op. ii. 446 ; P. G. xxvi. 349 c) ;
Cyril, Cat. x, § 19 (Op. 146 ; P. G. xxxiii. 685 a) ; Greg. Naz. Ep. ci (Op. ii.
85 b ; P. 67. xxxvii. 178 c) ; Greg. Nyss. Ep. iii (Op. iii. 660 ; P. 6?. xlvi.
1024 b). The Westerns used ' Mater Dei ', e. g. Tert. De patientia, c. iii,
and Ambrose, Hexaem. v, § 65 (Op. i. 195 ; P. L. xiv. 233 c). The sub
stance of the title was much older, e. g. Ignatius, Ad Eph. vii, § 2, xviii, § 2.
See J. Pearson, On the Creed 6, 319 (Oxford, 1878) ; Newman, Select Tr.7
ii. 212 (1897) ; W. Bright, St. Leo \ 126 sq.
8 Livre d'H. 154. He regarded it as a ' bogey ', Socr. H. E. vu. xxxii, § 9.
9 Scraps from Nestorius are preserved by Marius Mercator, in translation.
These are worked up into five sermons in Baluze's edition of M. M. Op.
52-90 (Parisiis, 1684) : Gamier adds other scraps and works them up into
thirteen (ed. 1673) = P. L. xlviii. 753-864 ; but for a critical edition, see
F. Loofs, Nesloriana (1905), and for a review of it, J. T. S. viii. 119 sqq.
(Oct. 1906).

202 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part in
chaplain. ' Hath God ', as Dr. Neale translates his first sermon,
' a mother ? Then we may excuse paganism for giving mothers
to its divinities. Then was Paul a liar when he testified concerning
Christ that He was " without father, without mother, without
descent ". No : Mary was not the mother of God. For "that
which is born of the flesh is flesh : and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit ". A creature brought not forth Him who is
uncreated ; the Father begat not of the Virgin an Infant God,
the Word ; for " in the beginning was the Word ", as John saith :
a creature bore not the Creator, but rather a man who was the
organ of Deity. For the Holy Ghost created not God the Son :
and " that which is conceived of her is of the Holy Ghost " ; but
He fabricated of the Virgin a Temple wherein God the Word should
dwell. God was incarnate, but never died ; yea, rather, elevated
him in whom He was incarnate ; He descended to raise that
which had fallen, but He fell not Himself. On account of the
Employer, then, I venerate the vestment which He employed ;
on account of that which is concealed, I a"dore that which appears.' J
A lawyer named Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum,
c. 448-51, stood up and protested that the Eternal Word was born
in flesh 2 : and he was afterwards the author of a placard put up
in Constantinople, proclaiming that the archbishop was a heretic
of the same sort as his fellow-countryman, Paul of Samosata.3
But this was unfair : Paul did not, and Nestorius did, hold that
the Eternal Word was a Person.4 The opposition of Eusebius,
nevertheless, illustrates the trend of opinion in the city. The
Court stood by Nestorius ; but clergy, monks, and people either
withdrew in silence or pronounced against him. An archimandrite,
Basil by name, with a deputation of monks, went to the episcopal
palace to remonstrate. Nestorius had them, relegated to the
prison that was attached to it.5 The bishop's prison reminds us
of the dungeon at Peel near St. German's ; and both recall the
consequences of that intimate union between Church and State
which gave direct coercive jurisdiction to the Spiritualty.
1 J. M. Neale, Patr. Al. i. 236 ; Latin and Greek in Loofs, Nest 252 sq.,
262, 11. 3, 4. 2 Cyril, Adv. Nest, i, § 4 (Op. ix. 20 ; P. 6?. lxxvi. 41 d).
3 Mansi, iv. 1008-12, and the Epistola of Marius Mercator (P. L. xlviii.
773 sq.).
4 N. himself treats the theory of the Paulinians as heretical, and describes
it much in the form in whioh it was attributed to himself, Livre d'H. 43.
5 See their petition to the Emperor, § 4 (Mansi, iv. 1105 A, b) ; Fleury,
xxv. v.

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 203
But the opposition continued, and on Lady Day, 429, Proclus,
the bishop intended for Cyzicus and afterwards patriarch of
Constantinople, was appointed to preach. In the presence of
Nestorius, he delivered a panegyric ' on the Virgin mother of
God'.1 'It is the feast of the Virgin', he said, § 1, 'in whose
womb the incircumscript God found an habitation.2 God, § 2,
was born of a woman, but not bare God ; man too was born of
her, but not mere man. Be not ashamed, 0 man, § 3, of that
birth : it was the means of our salvation. If God had not been
born, He could not have died ; if He had not died, He could not
have destroyed him that had the power of death, i.e. the devil.
If the Word had never dwelt in the Virgin's womb, then Flesh
had never ascended the Father's throne. Quite right, § 4, was
St. Paul in speaking of Him as " without father, and without
mother ". He is without a mother as the Creator, without a
father as the created '. Proclus then went on, § 5, to dwell on the
debt which human nature owed and its entire inability to pay ;
and he described how God took our manhood in order to pay it,
but in language too suggestive of the price being paid to the devil.3
Next, § 6, he passes from the incompatibility of the new doctrine
with the atonement to its effect upon our conception of the God
head. ' If Christ be one, § 8, and the Word another, then,' he
insists, ' we have no longer a Trinity but a Quaternity.' Returning
to the Incarnation, ' the Lord ', he says, § 9, ' came to save : but,
in so doing, to suffer. A mere man could not save : a mere God
could not suffer. So God became man. That which was, saved :
and that which was made, suffered.' And so the preacher con
cluded, in a magnificent peroration, with setting forth the antitheses
of the Incarnation. They are rhetoric of course, hut empty
rhetoric if Mary is not Theotokos. But if she be so, then ' the
i q.v. in P. 67. lxv. 679-92 ; Marius M. (P. L. xlviii. 775-81) ; Cone. Eph.
i, § 2 (Mansi, iv. 577-87), and, for a summary, Neale, Patr. Al. i. 239 sq. ;
Fleury, xxv. ii.
2 Here Proclus, perhaps, raises the dignity of Mary too high ; or, rather,
seems to dwell on it for its own sake, apart from his purpose, which was
to assert the personal divinity of our Lord. ' Absit ', indeed ' ut quisquam
S. Mariam Divinae gratiae privilegiis et speciali gloria fraudare conetur '
(J. Pearson, On the Creed, 321, n. 40) ; but in Q^otAkos, Beds is a predicate.
It means ' she whose Son was God ', and it was this that Proclus was con
cerned to assert. He did a httle flourishing for its own sake, first ; perhaps,
to satisfy the florid and grandiose taste of that day.
3 For other examples of the theory of the ransom being paid to the devil
see the note in Greg. Nyss. Oratio Catechelica, c. xxiii (89, n. 2, ed. J. H.
Srawley).

204 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part in
Self-same was in the Father's bosom and in the womb of His
mother. He lay in a mother's arms, while He walked upon the
wings of the wind. He was adored by angels, while He sat at
meat with publicans. The Cherubim durst not behold Him,
while Pilate condemned Him. The servant smote Him, and
creation shuddered. He hung upon the Cross, but He was not
absent from the throne of glory ; and, while he lay in the tomb,
He was spreading out the heavens like a curtain. Oh ! what
mystery ! § 10, I see the miracles, and I proclaim the Godhead :
I behold the sufferings, and I deny not the manhood. What
clearer proof could I want that Mary is mother of God indeed ? '
The oratory of Proclus was greeted with prolonged applause ;
and Nestorius was a bold man to claim his right, as bishop, to
sum up or, if need be, to correct the teaching given by his clergy
from the pulpit,1 and begin an extemporized answer. ' No wonder ',
he said, ' that these applauses are considered due to the praises
of Mary ; the Temple of the Lord's flesh exceeds all praise.' 2
But a little later he spoke of Jesus Himself as the Temple. ' To
say that God was born of Mary is to give a handle of unbelief to the
pagans 3 ; to say that God was joined to the Son of Mary is firm
and impregnable ground.4 Surely tbe people of Constantinople
were not inferior in theological knowledge to those of Antioch :
surely they would not endure to be told, as they had just been,
that " God was made an High Priest " 5 . . . If the Quickener
of all could die, where is He that shall give life to us ? 6 To confuse
the Persons of our Lord is to put arms in the hands of the Arians :
the Catholic Truth is far otherwise to be enunciated. He who
inhabited the Temple [here the Temple is not Mary, but Jesus]
is one thing ; the Temple which He inhabited is another. It is
the Lord's own declaration : " Destroy this Temple, and in three
days I will raise it again." 7 By nature, then, Christ is two : in
so far as He is the Son, one.'8 So Dr. Neale summarizes the
answer of Nestorius.9 Whether or no it was all delivered as and
when represented by the collectors of his utterances, the phrases
1 For this custom of several sermons, concluded by that of the bishop,
see the Liturgy of the Apost. Const.— good evidence for Antioch, 375— in
F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, i. 29, 11. 41-2.
2 Sermo, iv, § 1 ; M. M. (P. L. xlviii. 782 a).
3 Ibid., § 2 (782 b). 4 Ibid., § 3 (782 c).
5 Ibid., § 5 (783 a). 8 Ibid., § 7 (784 a).
7 Ibid., § 10 (784 sq.). 8 Ibid., § 12 (784 sq.). » Pair. Al. i. 241 sq.

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 205
they report are his 1 ; and his answer was not without its effect.
It was further elaborated in what are given as three sermons2
of this date, just after Easter, 429, dealing with three statements
of Proclus that ' Mary is mother of God ', that ' God was made
High Priest ', and that ' God was born and died '. ' God ', says
Nestorius in the first, 'passed through the Virgin mother of
Christ : that God was born of her is never asserted in Holy Scrip
ture. It always uses such expressions as that Christ, the Son,
the Lord was born of her. It says " the young child and His
mother ", not " God and His mother ".' 3 In the last 4 he taught
that it was not God but Jesus who died and rose again 5 ; and, like
Theodore, he took the confession of St. Thomas, " My Lord and
my God", as a doxology to the Father.6 There are places which
look as if Nestorius took his opponents to mean that the Godhead
was born 7 and died 8 ; but, let that misunderstanding be removed,
and there still remains the apparent difference between the adherents
of Proclus and the school of Nestorius that while they believed in
one Divine Person in Christ, he did not.
§ 6. An examination, at this point, of the theology of Nestorius,
specially as illustrated by his own Book of Heraclides,9 is imperative
if we are to decide whether this were so. The treatise, according
to the preface of the scholar who translated it into Syriac,10 consists
of two books. In Book I the author first combats the heresies
contrary to the Faith of Nicaea u ; then he proceeds to an attack
upon Cyril, in the course of which he examines his judges at the
Council of Ephesus and the charges of Cyril;32 then, with his
own defence and a review of their letters,13 he brings Book I to an
end. Book II opens with a refutation of the charges on which
he was excommunicated,14 and then gives the history from the
time of his deposition to the close of his life.15
1 They are assigned to him, as his, on this occasion against Proclus, by
Loofs, Nest. 337-41 ; q.v. for a better text.
2 Sermones, v-vii of M. M. (P. L. xlviii. 785-80) : they were answered
by Cyril, Adv. Nest (Op. x. 9-143 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 9-248).
3 Serm. v, § 9 (P.L. xlviii. 787 D ; Loofs, Nest. 278).
4 Loofs, Nest 2&5-17.
5 Sermo, vii, § 7 (P. L. xlviii. 792 a ; Loofs, Nest 267, 1. 14).
6 Ibid., § 8 (792 b ; Loofs, Nest. 267 sq.).
7 Sermo, v, § 2 (P. L. xlviii. 787 c ; Loofs, Nest. 277 sq.).
8 Sermo, vii, § 4 (P. L. xlviii. 791 A ; Loofs, Nest. 266).
9 Ed. P. Bedjan (Leipzig, 1910), and ' traduit en francais par F. Nau '
(Paris, 1910).
10 F. Nau, 4. 31 Ibid. 5-81. ,2 Ibid. 81-125.
13 Ibid. 126-63. I4 Ibid., 164-294. 16 Ibid. 294-332.

206 NESTORIUS. AND CYRIL, 428-31 part in
(1) On the whole, the treatise is more of an attack upon Cyril
than a defence of himself.1 Nestorius was alarmed at the tendencies
of the Cyrilline theology, the development of which we must, for
the moment, anticipate. He held that it involved two dangers.
There was the danger of a revival of Apollinarianism : for Cyril, in
referring to our Lord's manhood, never spoke of His human
' nature ' (<pvo-is).2 ' He made Him ', says Nestorius, ' a man
without person (ttpoo-antov) and without nature (cpvo-ts) ' 3 ; as if
His were an incomplete humanity. There was also the danger,
as with Arius, of a reversion to paganism : for Cyril seemed to
make ' the Godhead subject to change, and diminution and
suffering '.4 This is the key to the dislike which Nestorius felt
for the term Theotokos.5 He did not hold, as he was often charged
with holding because of his dislike of the term, that the Child born
of Mary was a human babe afterwards associated by the Divine
Word with Himself. Nay, he affirmed that from the first moment
of the human life, it was indissolubly associated with the Word.6
So he did not repudiate Theotokos. But he demurred to it 7 ;
and that, on the ground of its paganism.8 ' I have said many
a time that, if any simple soul among you or anywhere else finds
pleasure in the term, I have no objection to it. Only do not let
him make the Virgin a goddess.' 9 Here the caution is not against
Mariolatry but against paganism ; as if the Godhead of Mary's
Son were derived from her. It was a similar dread of constructive
paganism that prompted him to declare that he could never say
' God was three or four months old '. 10 Not that he could not own
] A. J. Mason, The Chalcedonian doctrine of the Incarnation, 23.
2 Thus he would write rr)v tov Aci-you (pvo-tv (De recta fide ad Reginas,
I, § 25 [Op. ix. 147 ; P. G. lxxvi. 1368 c]), or ro thai (picriv Beck (ibid., § 27
[Op. ix. 149 ; P. 6r. lxxvi. 1369]) ; and in the parallel passages, where we
should expect tt)v av8parrivr]v (piia-in, we never have it, but ro avOpamvoi/
(ibid., § 25), or t1)v avOpairorriTn (ibid., § 27), &c. ; and, for a collection of
further instances, see Nau, xiii, n. 2.
3 Mason, 24. 4 Ibid. 26 : see Nau, 131.
5 Tixeront, Hist Dogmas, iii. 32. 6 Nau, 173.
7 ' 6eo8ox<»» dico, non Q^ot6kov . . . unus est enim Pater Deus eeoi-oW,'
Loofs, 276.
8 He preferred the term Xpio-ToroKos, where the word ' Christ ' indicates
the two natures, as Scriptural (Matt. i. 1, 16) and as cutting short the
difficulties attaching to 0cotokos on the one hand, and to andproiroroKos
[which he sometimes urged, Loofs, 303, 309] on the other : see Loofs, 171,
181 sq. ; Nau, 91 sq.
9 Loofs, 272 ; for passages in which he thus accepts the term, but with
a preference for supplementing it by avdpamoTOKos, see Loofs, 167, 181,
184 sq., 191 sq., 301 sqq., 309, 312, 319.
10 Nau, 122; and, on his real meaning, 67. Q. R. vol xxiii 304 (Jan. 1912).

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 207
a child of three or four months to be God ] ; but that to predicate
time of God was to revert to paganism. There was, then, in the
view of Nestorius, something wrong with Cyril's way of conceiving
and stating the unity of Person in Christ, if it involved conse
quences such as these — an incomplete humanity and a passible
Godhead. (2) What then was his own way of providing for it ? and how
did he propose to secure, along with the unity of Person in Christ,
both the completeness of His humanity and the impassibility of
His Godhead ? By supposing ' a Divine agent and a human
agent ' in Him, ' absolutely yet freely united '. 2 After such union
there was no mixture 3 or confusion 4 ; no deifying therefore of
the manhood and no lowering of the Godhead. Christ is twofold
in nature : there is in Him a distinction of Godhead and manhood.5
These two elements are each to be thought of as a -npoo-unrov or living
whole. ' Even in the union, the natures remain without confusion.
The natures are not without their respective itaoo-aatta nor the
¦npoo-ama without their respective essences.'6 But, it would be
objected, this means two Christs and two Sons. Nestorius per
sistently repudiated the inference.7 ' Son,' ' Christ,' ' Lord,' he
replied, are titles given in Scripture, not to the one or the other
element in His being, but to Himself 8 — the Person Incarnate.
We must therefore suppose, he argues, a kind of ' give and take
between the two irpoo-u-na ' 9 ; and, as its consequence, a resultant
Trpoaconov10 i.e. ' but one -npoo-oo-nov for the two natures ',u if we
are to give the only reasonable explanation of the one Christ.
Nestorius could therefore say, ' I separate the natures, but I
unite the worship ' 12 ; and, when charged with setting up a merely
moral union in Christ, he could reply that it is a union of will
and not of essence, but at the same time maintain that ' so far
1 This, however, is the form in which the saying was quoted against him
in Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, § 5, where 6s 6» is a predicate, not a subject ; and
this makes all the difference ; cf. Mansi, iv. 1181 c ; Fleury, xxv. xl.
2 Mason, 28. 3 Kpirnis, Loofs, 273.
4 a-6yXio-is, Loofs, 224. 5 Loofs, 281 ; Nau, 286.
6 Nau, 273. 7 Loofs, 281 ; Nau, 286.
8 Loofs, 273 sq. 9 Nau, 233. 30 Ibid. 127 sq., 132, 146, 282.
11 Ibid. 194. Upoa-airov means, in this book, less than 'Person'. It =
a complete nature, e. g. 145. The difficulty of Nestorius was that he could
not conceive of a nature [sc. Christ's human nature] complete, but im
personal, and therefore capable of attaching to His Divine Person : see
Tixeront, Hist Dogmas, iii. 26, n. 58; and for the impersonality of our
Lord's Human Nature, see W. Bright, Sermons of St. Leo 2, 137 sq., 143, 150.
32 Loofs, 262.

208 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part in
from God the Word being one person and the man, in whom He is,
another, it is One and the Self-same in two natures and yet One
Christ, Son and Lord '.1
(3) It would appear then that, according to Nestorius, ' the
Incarnation has set up a new person, composed of the Word and
of the human person conjoined with Him. The new person is
called " Christ ", " Son " and " Lord " ; and it is this person,
not the Divine Word, who is the subject of all the experiences
which Cyril ascribed to the Word Himself.'2 Mary, therefore,
is not Theotokos but Christotokos, or mother of the resultant
person. The Nicene Creed, argued Nestorius, speaks of J Jesus
Christ ' and not of the Word as ' incarnate . . . crucified . . . raised
again '.3 But he forgot that between subject and predicate of
this sentence stood ' God of God ... of one substance with the
Father '. It was, then, ' the only-begotten Son of God, a Person
antecedent to and not resultant from the Incarnation, the same
both before and after that event, who took upon Him our nature
and so was the continuous subject of experiences, human in
succession to divine.' Nestorius therefore failed to establish the
unity of Christ by his theory of two irpoVcowa — the Word and tbe
human person — making use of each other in a composite Person ;
and he did not succeed in avoiding the assertion of two persons
in Christ, after all. ' The Word of God ', he says, ' is the God of
Christ ' 4 : where ' Christ ' must necessarily stand not for the
composite Person but for the human element in his double being.
On the point, then, that, according to Nestorius, for all his efforts
to escape the conclusion,5 there were in Christ two beings and not
one Divine Person, Cyril was in the right. He had far greater
1 Loofs, 224.
2 Ibid. 269 : see also 166, 171, 217, 259, 266, and Nau 131-3.
3 In his second letter to Cyril = Cyril, Ep. v (Op. x. 26 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 52 a) ;
and Loofs, 175 sq.
4 Loofs, 291 sq., 340 : see Tixeront, Hist Dogmas, iii. 31.
5 We may quite admit ' that Nestorius was clear in his own mind that
his doctrine of the Incarnation safeguarded absolutely the unity of the
subject. He did not think of two distinct persons joined together but of
a single Person who combined in himself the two distinct things (sub
stances) Godhead and manhood with their characteristics (natures) com
plete and intact though united in Him ' (B.-Baker, Nestorius and his
teaching, 87) ; but, with MM. Bedjan and Nau, ' we cannot forget that
" the two Natures " in the teaching of Nestorius involve two distinct
hypostases and two persons (prosopa) united in one by simple give and
exchange, so that it is certain that, even with the Book of Heraclides as his
defence, Nestorius would nevertheless have been condemned as a heretic ',
C. Q. R. lxxiii. 305 : see Bedjan, xiii ; Nau, xxviii.

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 209
gifts of theological penetration than Nestorius ; and he was now
convinced that teaching was being given which would render
redemption through the Incarnate impossible.
§ 7. So Cyril intervened, 429, to bring his rival to book. It was
not the first time that the see of Alexandria had seized its oppor
tunity to humble the see of Constantinople. Maximus the Cynic
had ousted Gregory ; Theophilus had hunted down Chrysostom.
Nor was it to be the last : Dioscorus trampled the life out of
Flavian. Racial hatred, political animosities, ecclesiastical rivalries
and personal jealousies all combined to exasperate theological
differences. They went on increasing in bitterness till the seventh
century, when the judgement came : and Eastern Christendom
was delivered over into the hands of the Moslems. But, for
all that, Cyril was led to intervene ' mainly by a warm interest
in religion,' as Dorner, who blames him for his ' partiality ',x
admits. Cyril, he says, had ' a far clearer perception of the
rehgious importance of the question than had the Antiochenes ',
and ' was anxious that God's marvellous love manifested in the
Incarnation should not suffer the least diminution of its glory '.2
§ 8. By Epiphany, 429, Cyril had written, as usual, his Paschal
Letter or Homily for the year.3 He would not have heard of the
sermons of Nestorius at Christmas ; but he might have heard
of the sermon of Anastasius delivered a month earlier. For he
discusses the Incarnation ; expresses the unity of the Divinity
with the humanity by the term ' commingled ' 4 — a term tradi
tional since Tertullian,5 but soon to be put away as dangerously
suggestive of fusion ; and explains that Theotokos, for which he
also uses,6 as Constantine had used at Nicaea,7 MnrTjp ®eov or
Mother of God, carries with it the birth of the Divine Person in
His manhood.8 Meanwhile, the sermons of Nestorius were collected,
and circulated far and wide both in East and West. They found
1 J. A. Dorner, Person of Christ, ii. i. 57. 2 Ibid. 60.
3 Cyril, Hom. Pasch. xvii (Op. x. 222-35 ; P. G. xvii. 767-800) ; Tille
mont, Mim. xiv. 330 ; Fleury, xxv. iii ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 237 sq.
4 avaKtpvas, Horn. Pasch. xvii, § 2 (Op. x. 228; P. G. lxxvii. 777 a). The
term is considerably safeguarded and qualified here ; as also it is both
illustrated and safeguarded by Cyril's use of the figures of the Burning Bush
(ibid., § 3 ; Op. x. 231 [P. G. lxxvii. 781 d]), and of the union of fire and
iron in a redhot mass (ibid., § 4 ; Op. x. 231 [P. 67. lxxvii. 785 d]).
5 ' Hominem Deo mixtum.'JTert. De carne Christi, § 15. On this see note
ad loc. in L. F. x. 48.
8 Hom. Pasch. xvii, §§ 2, 3 (Op. x. 227-8 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 776 c, 777 o).
7 Orat. ad sanct, § 11 ; Eus. Op. ii. 581 (P. 6?. xx. 1265 a).
8 Hom. Pasch. xvii, § 2 (Op. x. 227 ; P. G. lxxvii. 776 c).
2191 ni j>

210 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part in
their way to the cells of Egypt ; and, as Cyril was informed by
some of the ascetics on a visit to Alexandria, led some of the
brethren to think of our Lord no longer as God but as a mere
instrument of the Godhead or a God-bearing man.1
§ 9. This was the situation that evoked, about Easter, 429, the
encyclical letter of Cyril Ad monachos Aegypti.2 ' I have heard ',
he says, ' of discussions among you about Theotokos.3 I am
astonished that the question should ever have been raised as to
whether the Holy Virgin should be called Mother of God : for
it really amounts to asking, Is her Son God, or is He not ? 4 It
is true that the Apostles did not make use of this expression.
But the Fathers and, in particular, Athanasius employ it ; nor
was any one more loyal to Scripture than he.5 I shall be told,
of course, that it does not occur in the Creed of Nicaea.6 But, in
that Creed, it is not ' Jesus Christ ' simply but ' Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God ... of one substance with the Father '
who is spoken of as having ' come down from heaven ' and as
' Incarnate '.7 Then he proceeded to the further objection, Is
not Mary then the mother of the Godhead ? 8 and concludes with
a lengthy argument from Scripture,9 e. g. from Phil. ii. 6, that
it was the Son of God who humbled Himself to take upon Him
the form of a servant. The letter speedily reached Nestorius,10
through Cyril's ecclesiastical agents at Constantinople ; for Rome
and Alexandria were both in the habit of maintaining Apocrisiarii11
or Responsales or, as we might say, nuncios, at Court. Some of
the magistrates wrote and thanked him for it.12 But Nestorius
wasannoyed by it. He set one Photius to reply to it, in a pamphlet
that is now lost but which Cyril received through his agent,
a deacon resident in the city 13 ; and he suborned 14 certain Alex-
1 Cyril, Ep. ii (Op. x. 20 ; P. G. lxxvii. 40 sq.).
2 Ep. i (Op. x. 1-19 ; P. G. lxxvii. 9-39) ; Cone. Eph. i, c. iii (Mansi, iv.
587-618) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 328 ; Fleury, xxv. iii ; Neale, Patr. Al.
i. 244. 3 Ep. i, § 3. 4 Ep. i, § 4.
6 Ibid. ; he quotes Ath. Orat. c. Ar. iii, §§ 29, 33 (Op. ii. 459, 462 ; P. 67.
xxvi. 385 b, 393 a).
6 He quotes it in the original form : for Egypt, as yet, knew no other,
ibid., § 6.
7 Ibid., § 9. 8 Ibid., § 12. 9 Ibid., §§ 13-27.
i° Ep. ii (Op. x. 20 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 40 c).
31 J. C. Suicer, Thes. Eccl. i. 456; F. Cabrol, Diet, d'arch. chr. i. 2537 sqq.;
D. C. A. ii. 969.
32 Cyril, Ep. xi, § 4 (Op. x. 38 ; P. G. lxxvii. 81 c).
13 Ep. x (Op. x. 33 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 64 d).
14 Cyril, Apol. ad Theod. Imp. (Op. ix. 257 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 481 d).

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 211
andrian refugees3 in Constantinople to accuse their archbishop
before Theodosius. The question had now become one of general
public interest, as between Alexandria and Constantinople.
Pope Caelestine and a Roman Council had heard of it. They wrote
to Cyril ; informed him that they too had received copies of the
sermons of Nestorius ; would he kindly let them know if they
were really his ? 2 John of Antioch, however, took no action as
yet. Theologically, he was, on the whole, in agreement with
Cyril ; but he was a personal friend of Nestorius.
§ 10. It was to reclaim Nestorius that Cyril, urged by his
colleagues, now sent to Constantinople Advenerunt, his First letter
to Nestorius,3 June 429. 'I am told ', he says, 'that you are
leaving no stone unturned to injure me at Court. But it was not
my letter to the monks which caused the prevailing excitement :
it was some papers or other, whether proceeding from you or not,
that were circulated here, which did it. I must take some steps
to put matters right. Inquiries from Caelestine, bishop of Rome,
and complaints from the Eastern churches, make it incumbent
upon me. Your language has given deep offence. Yet if you
would but recognize the one word Theotokos, you would at once
recover your reputation for orthodoxy, and at the same time
restore peace to the Church.' The letter was dispatched to Con
stantinople by Lampon, a presbyter of Alexandria. It can scarcely
be called conciliatory. But Nestorius was not to be provoked.
' The importunity of Lampon ', he replied, ' has wrung from me
these few lines. There is a good deal, as I must confess, in your
letter which ill befits brotherly charity ; but I prefer, if possible,
to persist in our old friendly relations.' 4 Nestorius, it seems,
was not ready for a breach just then. And, indeed, he was well
advised : for, since his sermons at Christmas, he had lost ground
with his own flock and had also compromised himself by a certain
degree of understanding with refugee Pelagians. As to his flock,
Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis in Moesia, had scandalized
them by shouts in church, -where Nestorius was seated on his
1 Cyril, Epp. iv, x (Op. x. 22, 34 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 44 c, 68 a).
2 Cyril, Ep. ii (Op. x. 20 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 41 b).
3 Ep. ii (Op. x. 19-21 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 39-42) ; Cone. Eph. I. c. vi (Mansi,
iv. 883-6) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 332 ; Fleury, xxiv. iv ; Neale, Pair. Al.
i. 246. 4 Cyril, Ep. iii (Op. x. 21 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 43) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. vii (Mansi,
iv. 885) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 332 ; Fleury, xxv. iv ; Neale, Patr. Al.
i. 246.
P2

212 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 part m
throne, of ' Anathema to him who calls Mary mother of God ' 1 ;
and Nestorius had shown his approval by admitting him to
communion then and there.2 The people protested, and refused
to communicate. Some of the clergy withdrew from his allegiance.
Others preached against the teaching of their archbishop, and
were inhibited ; while their flocks were beaten for shouting,
' We have an Emperor, but not a bishop '.3 Basil and his monks
petitioned the Emperor against him ; and a priest named Philip
held conventicles, and celebrated the Eucharist in a private
house.4 Senators too, as we have seen, stood aloof. There were,
in fact, the beginnings of a schism in the city ; but, more than
this, Neptorius had been dallying with heretics. For Caelestius,
the zealous champion of Pelagianism, had been compelled by
Pope Caelestine to leave Italy, 424, and was now in Constantinople:
as also were the semi-Pelagian bishops, Julian and others. They
had originally taken refuge with Theodore, in Cilicia ; but, on
his death, had recently joined Caelestius in the capital. Marius
Mercator, a layman living there, was as zealous for the doctrine
of Grace as for the truth of the Incarnation. He greeted the
refugees with a Commonitorium super nomine Caelestii,5 429,
which he presented to the church of Constantinople and to
Theodosius II. He narrates the case against Caelestius opened
in Africa some twenty years before ; 6 summarizes what befel
him later, including his expulsion from Constantinople under
' Atticus of holy memory ',7 and his condemnation at Rome.8
Then he illustrates the opinions of Pelagius,9 the master of this
newly arrived heretic ; and challenges Julian, but just arrived
also, ' for the satisfaction of the church, to condemn both Pelagius
and Caelestius '.10 By the testimony of this pamphleteer Nestorius
was no Pelagian, yet he treated Julian with kindness and wrote
a letter of consolation to Caelestius.11 He preached against
1 Cyril, Ep. xi, § 3 (Op. x. 37 ; P. G. lxxvii. 81 b).
2 Ep. viii (Op. x. 30 ; P. G. lxxvii. 60 c).
3 Libellus Basilii Diaconi = Cone. Eph. i. xxx, § 2 (Mansi, iv. 1104 o).
4 Cyril, Commonitorium (Mansi, iv. 549 d) ; and Ep. xi (Op. x. 40 ; P. 67.
lxxvii. 85-9).
5 P. L. xlviii. 63-108. It was written in Greek, 429 ; and re-edited, in
a Latin translation, 431. It is extant only in the Latin. It procured the
banishment of the chiefs of the Pelagian party from Constantinople, and
contributed to their condemnation by the Council of Ephesus, 431.
6 sc. at the Co. of Carthage, 411-12, Comm. i, §§ 1, 2.
7 Ibid., § 3. 8 Ibid., §§ 4, 5. 9 Ibid, ii-iv. 10 Ibid, v, § 1.
11 Marius Mercator, Ad Nest, Praef., § 1 (P. L. xlviii. 183 sqq.). For the
letter of Nestorius to Caelestius, written probably after M. M.'s Comm. had

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 213
Pelagianism ; yet he regarded the Pelagian exiles as injured
men. And he even went so far as to hold a Council in which
Mercator and others were treated as Manichaeans, while Caelestius
was allowed to denounce the priest Philip for that error. Philip,
however, was put under the archbishop's ban not on the doctrinal
charge but ' for performing the Oblation ' in ' a private house —
a thing we all do in case of need ', said his fellow-clergy,1 thu3
indicating that the Communion of the Sick was then given not
only from the Reserved Sacrament but by a celebration at borne.
Nestorius, it is fairly clear, was temporizing. He professed in a
letter to Pope Caelestine — probably about Easter, 429 — that, as to
Julian and his fellow-bishops from the West, he was imperfectly
acquainted with the facts of their case.2 This could hardly be,
for he must have known of their condemnation, eight or ten years
earlier, by his predecessor Atticus. But Nestorius was anxious,
above all things, not to be faced with a second theological storm,
while Cyril was threatening mischief. Indeed, the rest of the
letter to the Pope makes his real purpose clear ; for he slides off
into the controversy about Theotokos and seeks to win Caelestine's
sympathy for his own point of view.3 The situation, then, of Nes
torius toward the end of 429 was precarious, but by no means
desperate. He was strong, as the petition of the archimandrite,
Basil, observes, ' in the support of powerful personages . . . and,
if we are to speak out boldly, of your Majesty \4 Nestorius, in
fact, had, for the present, the Imperial ear. He would be likely
therefore, as Tillemont sardonically remarks, tohavethe advantageof
numbers.5 But Basil and his monks, perhaps for this very reason,
included in their petition a demand for an Oecumenical Council.
§11. Before that request could be considered, Cyril made
a second effort to bring the archbishop to a better mind ; and,
early in 430, sent Obloquuntur,6 his Second Letter to Nestorius.7
procured his banishment, see M. M. transl. of Nestorius, Epp. tres (P. L,
xlviii. 181 sqq. ; Loofs, 172 sq.).
3 Cyril, Comm. ad Possidonium, § 5 (Op. x. 40 ; P. G. lxxvii. 88 sq. ;
Mansi, iv. 549 c, d).
2 Nest, ad Caelest. Ep. i = Caelestine, Ep. vi, § 1 (P. L. 1. 438 sq.) ; Cone.
Eph. i. c. xvi (Mansi, iv. 1021) ; Loofs, 165.
3 Caelestine, Ep. vi, §§ 2^ (P. L. 1. 439-41).
4 Libellus Basilii, § 4 (Mansi, iv. 1105).
5 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 323. 6 Mansi, vi. 659 c.
7 Cyril, Ep. iv (Op. x. 22-5 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 44-50) ; Cone. Eph, i, c. viii
(Mansi, iv. 887-92) ; Fleury, xxv. viii ; T. H. Bindley, Oec. Doc. 104-7,
notes 108-15, tr. 253-7, and Document No. 193.

214 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 partiii
' I am aware ', he says, ' of the charges which have been made
against me by refugees from Alexandria rightly condemned;
but I am unwilling to dwell upon them. Let me rather urge you
to reform your doctrine by bringing it into harmony with the
teaching of the Fathers, specially of Nicaea. That Council held
that " the only-begotten Son "' Himself, by nature " begotten
from God, even the Father . . . came down, was incarnate, and was
made man ". What is this but to affirm that ther 3 are, in the
same Christ, two generations ; first, the eternal, by which He
derives from the Father ; and, second, the temporal, by which
He was born of His mother ? When we say that He suffered and
rose again, we do not mean that the Word suffered in His own
nature, for Divinity is impassible ; but, because the body, which
He appropriated, suffered, we also say that He suffered. Similarly,
we say that He died. The Divine Word is immortal ; but, because
His own true body experienced death, we say that He himself
died for us, Once again, when His flesh was raised, the resurrection
is spoken of as His : not as if He fell into corruption — certainly
not : but it was His body that was again raised. Language of
this kind rests upon the Hypostatic Union,3 i. e. the union of
two natures in His one Divine Person. Reject this Personal
Union ; and the only alternative is " Two Sons ", one titularly
" Son ", and the other possessed of " Sonship ", name and thing.
And a further consequence of this Personal Union is that Mary
is Theotokos,2 where, of course, we do not mean that the nature of
the Word, or His Divinity, received its beginning of existence
from her ; but just this, that, inasmuch as His body to which
the Word was personally united was born of her, He was born
after the flesh. I beg you then to join us in so thinking and teach
ing ; for then the unity of the episcopate will remain unbroken.'
The letter was unanswerable in its main contention that the
Council of Nicaea was fatal by anticipation to Nestorianism, since
its creed takes for granted the continuous personality of the
Word who, ' in taking flesh remained ', as Cyril puts it, ' what
He was before '. And it had the added weight of being a conciliar
letter ; for it emanated from the Council which usually met at
Alexandria just before Lent.3 By the safne messenger Cyril
1 On this, see W. Bright, Sermons of Si Leo 2, 128 sqq. 2 Ibid. 126 sqq.
3 So Fleury infers from the statement that it was written ' in the month
of Mechir in the thirteenth indiction ', Cone. Chalc. u, Actio i (Mansi vi
660 c). ' '

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 215
wrote to his Apocrisiarii in Constantinople.1 He repudiates the
notion of a resultant Prosopon. He would have them inform
Nestorius that, ' if he imagines that I, Cyril, am to stand my trial in
a Council with him for my judge, he is much mistaken. The parts
will be reversed, as has happened before at Councils, and he will
find himself the accused.' The reference, of course, is to the affair
of Chrysostom. ' But Nestorius and I are at peace, so soon as he
abandons his doctrine in favour of the true faith.' Finally, he
observes that Theodochos or Christotokos are just as open to the
charge of not occurring in Scripture or Council as Theotokos.
In similar terms he wrote to a mutual friend of Nestorius and
himself,2 supposed to be Acacius, metropolitan of Melitene in
Armenia II. ' Let but the faith be guaranteed, and no one shall
prove a truer friend to Nestorius than I.' But there were tones
other than conciliatory in Cyril's communications ; and, when
Nestorius sat down, in Lent, 430, to compose his reply to ' Pope
Cyril',3 as the address runs, he wrote in a vein less courteous than
on the previous occasion. He praises Cyril for disclaiming the
notion that the Word, in His own Nature, was capable of suffering.
But was that disclaimer worth much ? Was it not cancelled, in
effect, by language which had all the appearance of predicating
suffering and death of the Divine Word Himself ? 4 Then he makes
capital out of texts on the Lord's Humanity, as showing that to it
belonged the nativity, and other human experiences.5 So closely
connected was it with the Godhead that the Godhead might be
said to appropriate its actions 6 ; and the connexion, he admits,
issued in ' One Person ' — prosopon — called Christ.7 Mary therefore
had better be entitled Christotokos ; for Theotokos is pagan, and
involves the notion that the Godhead was born of her.8 Finally,
he insinuates that Cyril has been misinformed by persons — he
means Marius Mercator and others — whom a Council of Constanti
nople had condemned for Manichaeans, and by his own clergy ;
and he ends with the significant hint that not only are the affairs
1 Ep. x (Op. x. 32-5 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 63-70) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xii (Mansi,
iv. 1003-8) ; and, in Latin, M. M. (P. L. xlviii. 808-17) ; Fleury, xxv. ix.
2 Ep. ix (Op. x. 31-2 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 61-4) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xi (Mansi,
iv. 899-1002) ; Fleury, xxv. ix.
3 Nest, oti Cyrillum,w, Loofs, 173 sqq. ;= Cyril, Ep. v (Op. x. 25-9;
P. 67. lxxvii. 49-58) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. ix (Mansi, iv. 892-1000) ; Fleury,
xxv. x ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 248 sq.
4 Ibid., § 2 (Mansi, iv. 896).
5 Ibid., § 3. 8 Ibid., § 3. 7 Ibid., § 1. 8 Ibid., § 3.

216 NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 partiii
of the Church going well in the capital but their Imperial Majesties
are quite satisfied that the pure doctrine is being taught.1
§ 12. The hint was not lost upon Cyril ; for it was the occasion
of a triad of treatises which he next addressed to Theodosius II
and the Imperial ladies in order to detach the Court, if possible,
from sympathy with Nestorius. They are all entitled De recta fide.2
In the first, which was addressed to the Emperor, Cyril, without
naming Nestorius, attacks his opinions ; and argues that as the
position of the Docetists, of Photinus, or the Apolhnarian con
ception of a mindless. Christ is unsound, so, on the other hand,
it is no less grave an error to separate ' by a coarse division ' 3
the one Christ into two. He must be recognized as a single Being
in two spheres of action.4 Else what will become of salvation —
he asks, in effect — if you divide the Christ ? What of the satis
faction wrought by His death ? And, just as Augustine had
argued from the received practice of the Baptism and Communion
of infants to the truth, which Pelagius denied, of Original Sin,5
so Cyril reasoned from the Eucharist to the Incarnate Person.
' Christ gives us life ', he says, ' as God, not only by imparting
to us the Holy Ghost, but by giving us His flesh to eat.' 6 How,
then, can it be life-giving, if it be not the flesh of the Incarnate
Word ? Cyril's zeal for orthodoxy may have been unrestrained ;
but he never lost sight of the interests of personal religion, i.e.
of the needs of the soul.
The second treatise he addressed to the Emperor's two younger
sisters, Arcadia and Marina. In this, he gives extracts 7 from
Athanasius and other Fathers to show that they made use of the
word Theotokos and acknowledged the unity of Christ. He then
proceeds, at great length, to show by extracts from Scripture 8
that Christ is God, Life-giver, and Propitiation.
i Nest, ad Cyrillum, ii, § 4.
2 Cyril, Op. ix. 1-180 (P. 67. lxxvi. 1133-1420) ; Cone. Eph. i, cc. iii-v,
(Mansi, iv. 618-884); Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 340-2; Fleury, xxv. xi ;
Bardenhewer, 363.
3 De rectafi.de ad Theod. Imp., § 6 (Op. ix. 4 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 1141 b). There
is a summary review of these types of error in this section. He then goes
on to deal with each in greater detail, coming to Apollinarianism in §§ 16 sqq.,
and to Nestorianism in §§ 25 sqq.
4 Ibid., § 36 (Op. ix. 32 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 1186 c, d), arguing from ' This
is my beloved Son ' (Matt. xvii. 5) — not ' In him is my beloved Son '.
5 Sermo, clxxiv, § 7 (Op. v. 834 ; P. L. xxxviii. 943 sq.).
6 De recta fide ad Theod. Imp., § 38 (Op. ix. 35 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 1189 b).
7 De recta fide ad reginas, i, §§ 9 sqq. (Op. ix. 47 sqq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 1209 sqq. ).
8 These are appended after § 13 (Op. ix. 55-127 ; P. 6?. lxxvi. 1221-1336).

chap, xi NESTORIUS AND CYRIL, 428-31 217
In a third memorial to Pulcheria and Eudocia, the elder sister
and the wife of Theodosius, he goes over much the same ground *¦ ;
but with the aim of explaining passages relied on by the Nestorian
party. The treatise is therefore of value as a museum of their
stock-texts 2 ; and Cyril does not forget to draw attention to
a point, often insisted on by modern theologians,3 that argument
based upon proof-texts is of less cogency than reasoning from the
indirect bearings of Scripture.
But in thus seeking to neutralize, in the minds of the Imperial
family, any impression that Nestorius may have created in his
favour, Cyril showed a want of tact. He forgot that, by addresses
to the Imperial ladies, he was stirring up the jealousies of the
August household. Pulcheria was strongly orthodox ; and
Theodosius was very conscious that she was ' the better man of
the two '.
1 As he says, De recta fide ad reginas, ii, § 4 (Op. ix. 131 ; P. 67. lxxvi.
1341). 2 From § 5 onwards.
3 e. g. H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord, 328, 354 ; B. W. Dale,
The Atonement, 20 sqq.

CHAPTER XII
THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431
Cyril would now feel that he had lost rather than gained by
addressing himself to the Imperial princesses.
§ 1 . He was therefore glad to welcome a fresh ally in Caelestine,1
bishop of Rome 422-t32, who at this stage intervened in the
dispute. Caelestine was of Roman birth — the son of Priscus.2
In early life he had visited Milan during the episcopate of St. Am
brose 3 ; had been deacon to Innocent I ; and, c. 417, a correspon
dent of Augustine.4 All this points to an experience of ecclesiastical
administration which made of Caelestine, as of other clergy born
and trained in the Church of Rome, Popes distinguished for
wisdom rather than for learning. Caelestine had been wise enough,
in 426, not to press the claims of his see upon reluctant Africa ;
though he exerted a little more pressure, 424, in behalf of his rights
in Eastern Illyricum,5 and dealt out a mixture of disdain and
common sense, in 428, to some bishops of Southern Gaul.6 But
he was discerning enough in doctrine too. He banished Caelestius
from Italy, 424. He had a hand in sending Germanus and Lupus, %
429, to clear Pelagianism out of Britain ; and he managed to give
the cold shoulder to the semi-Pelagians without committing him
self, as Prosper hoped, to Augustinianism 7 in 431.
§ 2. So skilful a ruler was not likely to lose his head when, early
in 429, the peace of the Roman church was disturbed by the
circulation in Rome of the sermons of Nestorius. The Pope wrote
at once to Cyril, informed him of their arrival, and asked him if
they really emanated from Nestorius. Cyril purposely delayed his
reply ; but, meanwhile, letters began to reach Caelestine from
Nestorius himself. They only served to confirm the impression
1 See s.v. ' Caelestine ', by W. Bright, in D. C. B. i. 584-8.
3 Liber Pont, ap. P. L. 1. 407.
3 Ep. x (P. L. 1. 457).
4 Aug. Epp. cxcii, ccix (Op. ii. 710, 777-80 ; P. L. xxxiii. 868-9, 953-7).
6 Caelestine, Ep. iii (P. L. 1. 427-9) ; Jaffo, No, 366.
6 Ep. iv (P. L. 1. 429-36) ; Jaffe, No. 369.
7 Ep. xxi (P. L. 1. 528-37) ; Jaffe, No. 381.

THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 219
made by the sermons. The first is a letter1 to which allusion has
already been made. It came about Easter, 429 ; and Nestorius,
§ 1, professing that he wanted information from Caelestine about
the Pelagian refugees now at Constantinople, went on, § 2, to
assure him that he too had his troubles with false teachers. My
opponents, he says, are Apolhnarians. ' They are not afraid,
§ 3, to call the Virgin Theotokos, though the Creed only says that
" our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary ", not to mention the Scriptures which everywhere
call her the mother of Christ and not of God the Word. The term
is only tolerable if it means that the Temple of the Word, which is
inseparable from Him, was taken from her.' The bearer of the
letter was a nobleman named Antiochus, who also took with him
some writings of Nestorius on the Incarnation subscribed with the
author's own hand.2 Caelestine received him ; but, before return
ing an answer, he would make sure of his ground. He caused all
the productions of Nestorius — sermons, letter, and treatise — that
had reached Rome to be translated into Latin ; and, through Leo
his archdeacon,3 he called in Cassian, 360-f435, who, through long
residence in Constantinople knew Greek as well as Latin, to restate
the doctrines in question. Cassian responded with seven books,
De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorianos,i 430-1. In the first,
he observes, as did his opponent Prosper,5 that Pelagianism
naturally issues in Nestorianism. ' Believing that man by his own
strength may be without sin, they judge the same of Jesus Christ,
saying that He was a mere man but that He made so good a use
of His free-will that He avoided all sin ; that He came into the
world only to set an example of good works ; that He became
Christ after His baptism, and God after His resurrection.' 6 But
Cassian here puts down to Nestorius what is true only of Leporius.7
The former expressly taught that the Divine Word was united to
man from the womb of Mary ; and it is only the mode of this union
that was in question between Nestorius and Catholics. He was not,
like Leporius, a Samosatene. In the second and third books,
1 Nest, ad Caelestinum, i = Conc. Eph. I, c. xvi (Mansi, iv. 1021-3);
Caelestine, Ep. vi (P. L. 1. 438h11) ; Loofs, 165 sqq. ; Fleury, xxv. vii.
, 2 Mansi, iv. 1024 D.
3 Cassian," De Inc., Praef. ad Leonem (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 9-12).
4 Cassian, Op. ii (P. L. 1. 9-272) ; tr. N. and P.-N. F. xi. 551 sqq. ; Fleury,
xxv. xiii ; Bardenhewer, 517.
5 Prosper, Epitaphium N. et P. haer. (Op. 197-9 ; P. L. li. 153 sq.).
8 Cassian, De Inc. i, § 3 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 20 sqq.) ; Fleury, iii. 24, note o.
7 Ibid, i, § 4 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 23 sq.).

220 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
Cassian shows that, as Christ is God and man, Mary must be called
the Mother of God and not only the Mother of Christ.1 The fourth
is taken up with proving from Scripture the unity of Christ 2 :
which, in the fifth, is shown to be not a moral, but a real union.
In the sixth he discusses the evidence of the Creed used at Antioch
into which Nestorius had been baptized 3 ; and, in the last, the
evidence of the Fathers,4 particularly of his master, St. Chrysostom,
the great light of the school of Antioch in which Nestorius had been
reared. The work was published before the Council of Ephesus
deposed Nestorius ; for he is treated throughout as bishop of
Constantinople. But if Caelestine was waiting to answer the
inquiries of Nestorius, till Cassian had thus, so to speak, reported
on his case, it is no matter for surprise that Nestorius grew im
patient. A second, and yet a third, letter he dispatched to the
Pope. The former 5 he sent by Valerius, an Imperial chamberlain.
' I have written several times ', he says, § 1, 'to your Holiness
about Julian and his fellow-exiles : but not a word in reply have
I received as yet. I keep putting them off, day after day, in the
hope, as I tell them, of hearing from you. They are a great bore.
But, § 2, so are the others I spoke of.' He means the Catholics.
He dubs them Apollinarians ; but, in describing their doctrine,
expressly admits, for his own part, that the natures of Godhead and
manhood are united together in one Person. The admission, how
ever, was delusive, as Vincent of Lerins points out.6 The third
letter,7 of November 430, did not reach the Pope till much had
happened in the interval.
§ 3. Meanwhile, news arrived from the other side ; for, about
April 430, Cyril replied to the inquiries of Caelestine.8 He says,
3 Cassian, De Inc. ii, § 2 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 51 sqq.).
2 Ibid, iv, § 6 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 81 sqq.).
3 Ibid, vi, § 3 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1. 140 sqq.). The Creed was the Creed of
Nicaea, as adopted at the synod of Antioch, Oct. 363 : see the synodal letter
to Jovian in Socr. H. E. in. xxv, §§ 10-18.
4 Hilary, vii, § 24, Ambrose, § 25, Jerome, § 26, Rufinus and Augustine,
§ 27, Greg. Naz., § 28, Ath., § 29, Chrysostom, §§ 30-1 (Op. ii ; P. L. 1.
250-70). 5 Nest, ad Caelest ii = Caelestine, Ep. vii (P. L. 1. 442-4) ; Cone. Eph. I,
c. xvii (Mansi, iv. 1023 sq.) ; Loofs, 169 sqq. ; Fleury, xxv. xiv.
6 Vincent, Comm., § 12 (P. L. 1. 655).
7 Nest, ad Caelest. Ep. iii = Caelestine, Ep. xv (P. L. 1. 499-501) ; Marius
M. (P. L. xlviii. 841 sq.) ; Mansi, v. 725 ; Loofs, 181 sq. ; Fleury, xxv.
xxviii. 8 Cyril, Ep. xi (Op. x. 36-40 ; P. L. lxxvii. 79-86) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xiv
(Mansi, iv. 1011-18) ; Tillemont, Mem. xiv. 345 ; Fleury, xxv. xii ; Neale,
Pair. Al. i. 250.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 221
§§1,2, he had kept silence on purpose 1 ; but, § 3, would now tell
the whole story, beginning with the support which Nestorius gave
to Dorotheus ; his own, § 4, letter to the monks and his two letters
to Nestorius — both to no purpose. The Eastern Empire, § 5, is
on our side, and particularly the bishops of Macedonia. But, § 6,
we have not been able to bring him to a better mind. We have
been unwilling, § 7, to break off communion with him, until we had
laid the whole story before you and taken your opinion. Be good
enough, therefore, to let me know whether we ought still to com
municate with him, or to tell him that, if he persists in his teaching,
he will be abandoned by everybody. It would be well, if I may
suggest it, to let your wishes be made known in writing to the
bishops of Macedonia as well as those of ' The East '. That your
Holiness, § 9, may be the better informed both as to the opinions
of Nestorius and as to those of the Fathers, I have the honour to
send you books — including apparently his Adv. Nestorii bias-
phemias Libri V,2 in answer to the sermons preached by Nestorius
against Proclus — with passages marked ; and I have had them
translated into Latin for your convenience — as well, I mean, as we
could do it in Alexandria. I also enclose my own letters ; and my
messenger, Posidonius, will bring you, besides all these documents,
a statement of the doctrine of Nestorius and an account of his
deposition of the priest Philip.3 With this dossier of the case in his
possession, Posidonius departed ; but also with instructions from
his master not to exhibit its contents to Caelestine, until he was
satisfied that the Pope had also been approached from the other side.4
Cyril, still anxious for adherents, wrote next to ' The East ' : and
sought the sympathies of Acacius,5 bishop of Beroea (now Aleppo)
379_-|-437. He had been fifty years a bishop, and had been
consecrated by Eusebius of Samosata, the contemporary of
St. Basil. He had taken part with Theophilus against Chrysostom ;
and Cyril may have counted on his uncle's supporter coming to his
1 He probably has in mind the tradition of Alexandria in favour of
reference to Rome, which is illustrated by the case of Dionysius of Alexandria
being brought to the notice of Dionysius of Rome, and of Athanasius to
Pope Julius. But over Chrysostom, Alexandria had been at variance with
Rome ; and the precedent had been conveniently forgotten, till it suited
Cyril to revive it.
2 Cyril, Op. x. 9-143 (P. 67. lxxvi. 9-248) ; tr. L. F. xlvii ; Bardenhewer, 363.
3 Commonitorium appended to Cyril, Ep. xi (Op. x. 40; P. 67. lxxvii.
85-90). 4 Cone. Eph. Actio I, ad init. (Mansi, iv. 1129 a, b).
6 Ep. xiv (Op. x. 43 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 97) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xxii (Mansi, iv.
1053-5) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 347 ; Fleury, xxv. xii.

222 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
aid almost as a matter of course. But Acacius disappointed him.
He had mellowed with age, or wished to stand well with John of
Antioch, 428-|41, the new patriarch of ' The East '. ' A phrase ',
wrote Acacius,1 ' ought not to set us by the ears.' Paulinus of
Antioch, for instance, would not have anything to do with the
' Three Hypostases ' of us Greeks ; but he did not really differ
from us in belief. Probably it is so with the phraseology of Nes
torius. At any rate, clerics and laymen, in considerable numbers,
have come from Constantinople to these parts, and have assured
us that he has said nothing inconsistent with the teaching of the
Apostles or with the Nicene Creed. I read your book to John, our
new patriarch. He quite agrees with us old men, and is already
much thought of everywhere in ' The East '. He begs you to
proceed with prudence.
It was the first sign of the rift, shortly to open between Cyril and
the Orientals : they wished to prevent the controversy going
further. But when Posidonius arrived in Rome, the time had gone
by for hushing it up. He found that Nestorius had already set out
his case to Caelestine, and therefore presented the documents he
carried from Cyril. The Pope was in possession, at last, of infor
mation from both sides ; and prompted, it may be, by his arch
deacon Leo, who could see the point of a theological question where
perhaps Caelestine did not, he determined not simply to declare
for Cyril but to make Cyril his agent in the recovery of Nestorius,
if it were still possible. No General Council was yet in view — still
less, a condemnation ; but the attempt to secure his submission
was made in the Councils of Rome and Alexandria, August-
November 430.
§ 4. The Council of Rome 2 met in August 430 ; and we still
possess a fragment of the speech in which Caelestine, after com
paring the documents which he had received from Constantinople
and Alexandria, gave his opinion. ' I remember ', said he, ' that
Ambrose of blessed memory taught all the people to sing in concert
on Christmas Day : Veni, Redemptor gentium,
Ostende partum Virginis,
Miretur omne saeculum,
Talis decet partus Deum.
1 Ep. xv (Op. x. 46-65 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 99-102) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xxiii
(Mansi, iv. 1055-8).
2 Mansi, iv. 545-52 ; Hefele, Conciles, u. i. 260-4 (E. Tr. iii. 25) ; Tille
mont, Mim. xiv. 350 sqq. ; Fleury, xxv. xiv ; Neale, Pair. Al. i. 250.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 223
How well does this agree with our brother Cyril's language, when
he calls Mary " Mother of God " ; and with our belief who say that
He, whom the Virgin, by the aid of Omnipotence brought forth,
was Very God.'1 The Pope then went on to cite Hilary2 and
Damasus 3 — he appeals to Latin Fathers only — with the result
that Nestorius was condemned, and Cyril entrusted with carrying
the sentence into execution. To this effect the Pope, in the name
of the Council, wrote in all, seven letters,4 under date 1 1 August
430— to Cyril, to Nestorius, to the Clergy and People of Con
stantinople and, in common terms, to the other chief prelates of
the Eastern Empire : John, of Antioch ; Juvenal, of Jerusalem,
428-f38 ; Rufus, of Thessalonica, 410-f31, the papal Vicar of
Eastern Illyricum, and one of his suffragans, Flavian of Philippi.
We must now look at their contents.
In Tristitiae nostrae,5 addressed to Cyril, Caelestine, § 1, com
mends his vigilance ; and, § 2, professes himself in entire agreement
with him. We ought to do what we can, § 3, to reclaim Nestorius ;
but, if he will not yield, then you, Cyril, § 4, ' the authority of our
See having been combined with yours, will act authoritatively in
our stead, and will carry out this sentence with due severity : that
is, that unless within ten days after receiving our admonition,
Nestorius anathematizes his heterodox doctrine in writing and
positively declares that he holds that faith with regard to the
Nativity of Christ our God, which both the Roman church and the
church of your Holiness and all Christians in general hold, your
Holiness is to provide for the church in Constantinople, and he is
to understand that he is in every way separate from our body.'
Cyril, in a word, is to act as his brother patriarch's proxy : they
hoped to settle the matter between them ; and the project of
a General Council was not yet afoot. So far then is it from being
the case that, in this letter, the Pope is appointing Cyril to preside,
as his legate, at the Council of Ephesus.6
3 Sermo, § 1, appended to Caelestine, Ep. ix (P. L. 1. 457 sq.).
2 Ibid., § 2 (457 b, c), citing from Hilary, Ad Const I (see Op. i. Praef.,
§ 190 ; P. L. x. 92).
3 Ibid., § 3, citing from Damasus, Ep. iv, § 6 (P. L. xiii. 359 a).
4 Caelestine, Epp. xi-xiv (P. L. 1. 459-500) ; Mansi, iv. 1017, 1026-50 ;
Jaffe, Nos. 372-5.
5 Ep. xi ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xv (Mansi, iv. 1017) ; Fleury, xxv. xiv.
8 Caelestine authorized Cyril to act as his proxy for a specific purpose,
viz. to give Nestorius notice to quit after ten days. But, by the time that
the Council met at Ephesus, that ' commission, so to call it, had been
exhausted ', W. Bright, Age of the Fathers, ii. 311, with which agree E.
Denny, Papalism, § 365 ; L. Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 349, n. 1.

224 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
Aliquantis diebus 1 Caelestine sent, by the same post, to Nes
torius. It is lengthy and verbose. He regrets, § 2, that he has
been deceived in the good opinion he had conceived of him ; but,
after reading the letters and the books he had sent by Antiochus,
he is bound to observe that they diverge from the Catholic Faith.
As to those Pelagians, § 8, about whom you ask my advice as if
you knew nothing of what had passed, they were justly condemned.
To judge by your sermons, you hold the doctrine of Original Sin.
How then can you tolerate near your person those who deny it ?
When opposite parties form a coalition, there is generally room for
suspicion : and it is absurd for you to make inquiries here, when
Atticus your predecessor sent us Acts made against them. Sisin
nius never inquired of us : he knew well enough : and so too, I am
sure, does your Holiness. It is a case, § 9, of ' Physician, heal
thyself '. I warn you, therefore, § 10, that, if you persist in your
stubbornness of perverse disputation and do not preach the things
which Cyril our brother preaches, the church of Constantinople
(to which I am writing in this sense) and all Christians are to
regard you as separate from the College of Bishops, with whom
you cannot hold communion. You are also, § 11, to understand
that if you do not preach concerning Christ our God the things
which the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the whole Catholic Church
holds — nay, which the church of Constantinople has hitherto held
— and if you do not condemn, publicly and in writing, your novel
doctrines within ten days from the receipt of this admonition, you
will be cast out from the communion of the Catholic Church. At
our request the deacon Posidonius will take this sentence to the
bishop of Alexandria, and he will act as our proxy.
In Ad eos quifaciunt 2 Caelestine next addressed the clergy and
people of the Capital. As St. Paul had care, he begins, § 1, of all
the churches, so have I a fatherly solicitude for you. Nestorius, in
denying God's birth of the Virgin, is endangering the Divinity of
her Son. What a pitiful contrast, § 2, to your great bishop, John —
to Atticus and to Sisinnius. You must endure, § 7, manfully : and
he bids them remember the example of Athanasius, in a summary
of his career which deserves to be noted, as proof of the impression
which Athanasius had made on Rome and the West. Cyril, § 8, to
whom this letter is to go, in the first instance by Posidonius, will
1 Ep. xiii ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xviii (Mansi, iv. 1025-36) ; Fleury, xxv. xiv.
2 Ep. xiv ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xix (Mansi, iv. 1035-46).

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 225
act in our stead ; and, § 9, he will carry out the sentence here
appended. The same sentence is communicated in Optaremus1
to John, and in copies of it to Juvenal, Rufus, and his suffragan,
Flavian of Philippi.
Posidonius returned to Alexandria with the papal letters in
which, of course, Caelestine uses the language then customary
about the dignity and pre-eminence of his see ; but, if he had
meant to act on the principles of Vaticanism, he would not have
taken the trouble to secure the assent of Alexandria and Antioch,
and to get them to act with him. Cyril, in forwarding Caelestine's
communications to John and to Juvenal, took the opportunity of
adding a word to each of them, as from himself. John was a friend
of Nestorius, and might need propitiating : for, though in doc
trinal sympathy with Cyril, he was suspicious of his affinities with
Apollinarianism. Accordingly Cyril sends him 2 the sentence of the
recent Roman synod : let John do what he can in the matter
[sc. with Nestorius] ; for his part, the writer has made up his mind
to act with Caelestine and the Western bishops : he would keep
to their communion. To Juvenal,3 he pointed out that the question
at stake touched the Christian's hope ; if Mary is not the Mother
of God, then no God is Emmanuel on whom our hope of salvation is
set. And he went on to say that recourse will have to be had to the
Emperor, to deliver the cause of religion from this false pastor.
How Juvenal took it we do not know ; but John, for all his friend
ship for Nestorius, rallied to the appeal of Caelestine and Cyril at
once. Enclosing both their letters, he wrote to Nestorius 4 and
begged him, § 2, to read them dispassionately and to take advice.
' Ten days ! ' he said, § 3, ' An hour or two is enough ! There is
ample precedent for the term Theotokos. I am told on all sides
that your sentiments are those of the Fathers and Doctors of the
Church. Then why scruple the term ? The West, Egypt, and, in
all probability, Macedonia too, have resolved to separate from that
union which terminated the schism at Antioch in the days of my
predecessor Alexander. I have only to add, § 4, that I am writing
with the approval of Theodoret and other mutual friends of ours.'
1 Ep. xii ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xx (Mansi, iv. 1047-50).
2 Cyril, Ep. xiii (Op. x. 42-4 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 93-8) ; Cone. Eph. l, c. xxi
(Mansi, iv. 1050 sq.) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 353 ; Fleury, xxv. xix.
3 Ep. xvi. (Op. x. 65-7 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 103-6) ; Cone. Eph. I, c. xxiv
(Mansi, iv. 1057-60) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 353 ; Fleury, xxv. xix.
4 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxv (Mansi, iv. 1061-8) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 354 ;
Fleury, xxv. xx.
2191 m q

226 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
Thus John placed himself unreservedly on the side of Cyril ; but
the only effect was to stiffen the resolution of Nestorius. H9
replied x courteously but evasively : said that he was no heretic,
and that, so far from dividing the Church, it was with the very
purpose of preserving its unity that he had expressed a distaste
both for ' Mother of God ' and ' Mother of man ', and a preference
for ' Mother of Christ ' who was both God and man. Do not there
fore disquiet yourself, my dear John. We shall meet shortly in
a Council that, I hope, is to be convened and will straighten things
out. The Egyptian then will find his level. It is evident that
Nestorius had not been dislodged from the Imperial favour : while
for the first time it is now clear that the General Council was being
asked for from his side.
§ 5. But Cyril, satisfied that he might now look to ' The East '
for support, stepped in first, and, at the Council of Alexandria,2
November 430, proceeded to put into execution the commission
of Caelestine. It was probably the synod usually held in the
autumn, and consisting of all the bishops of the 'Diocese ' of Egypt ;
and, in their Synodical Epistle, Cum Salvator,3 Cyril sent his third
and last admonition to Nestorius. ' All other considerations ', says
the Synod, § 1, ' must be put aside when Christ and his truth are
in question. We have therefore to transmit to you, § 2, the letter
of Caelestine and the Roman Council and to inform you that if,
within ten days from the receipt of this communication of ours, you
do not renounce your errors, we can have no further communion
with you, but only with those whom you have excommunicated.
It will not be sufficient for you to confess the Nicene Faith in words,
for you put a forced interpretation on it. You must declare in
writing and on oath that you anathematize your impious tenets,
and believe what we believe,' and by ' we ' is meant ' all bishops
and doctors of East and West '.4 The Synod, § 3, then quotes the
Creed of Nicaea, and proceeds to a statement of the doctrine of
the Incarnation as therein involved, viz. that the only-begotten
1 Synodicon, c. iii (Mansi, v. 753 sq., or Thdt. Op. v. 618 sq. ; P. 67.
lxxxiv. 576 sq.) ; Loofs, 183-6 ; Tillemont, Mim. 356 ; Fleury, xxv. xx.
2 Mansi, iv. 551-2 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. i. 264-8 (E. Tr. iii. 28-31) ;
Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 356 ; Fleury, xxv. xxi ; Neale, Pair. Al. i. 251.
3 Ep. xviii. (Op. x. 67-77 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 105-22) ; Cone. Eph. i, c. xxvi
(Mansi, iv. 1067-84) ; text, notes, and tr. in Bindley, Oec. Doc.
4 Note that 'all bishops and doctors', not 'all Christians', are the
authority : an interesting comment on what Vincent in ' ubique, semper
et ab omnibus ' means by ' omnibus ' : see above, iii. 155, and B. J. Kidd,
How can I be sure that I am a Catholic ? 15.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 227
Son of God, God of God, was made man, being really born of the
Virgin, for He assumed flesh from her. This condescension, or
icewoo-is, as Cyril habitually terms it, is not to be thought of as
involving any abandonment of His Godhead : for throughout He
remained after the Incarnation what He was before, i. e. very God ;
nor as involving any change of flesh into Godhead or of Godhead
into flesh — where Cyril disclaims the Apollinarianism so freely
attributed to him. He then goes on, § 4, to set aside terms and
conceptions inadequate to express the Unity of Person. The
Christ we worship is one, not man and God conjoined by a- union
of merit ; nor a mere man indwelt by God, as were the Saints ;
nor, § 5, a mere man connected with the Word by a so-called union
of dignity (which would be no real union), nor by juxtaposition,
nor by such a participation as is contingent only or non-essential.
Nay, we deprecate that term ' connexion ' (o-wdcpaa) altogether,
as inadequate to express the union (honris) whereby, § 6, the
Word Himself, being truly God, became for us truly man. We
have not, in short, two Christs but one Christ : impassible in His
own original or divine Nature ((pvo-is), but passible in that flesh
which He took for His own. And this is clear from, § 7, the Un
bloody Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Therein we partake of the
Flesh and Blood of Christ. But we look upon it not as ordinary
flesh nor as the flesh of a holy man conjoined with, or inhabited
by, the Word ; but as the Flesh which belongs to God the Word
and is therefore life-giving. It is life-giving just because He, being
life as God, in becoming one with the flesh He assumed, rendered it
life-giving ; and it would not be life-giving unless it were thus
really His.1 As to those sayings of His in the Gospels, § 8, which
are cited against this unity of Person, they do but prove His real
manhood ; and we who acknowledge it find no difficulty in His
having spoken as if it were real. He became, § 9, our High Priest
in His manhood, but this does not mean that He was a man who
i Document No. 194; and for other instances of the argument from the
Eucharist to the Incarnation, see Thdt. Dial, ii (Op. iv. 126 ; P. 67. lxxxiii.
168 B, c) ; Leo, Ep. Iix, § 2 (Op. i. 977 ; P. L. liv. 868 a, b) ; Sermo, xci, § 3
(Op. i. 356 sq. ; P. L. liv. 452 b) ; Gelasius, De duobus naturis, § 14, ap.
A. Thiel, Epist Rom. Pont. [a. d. 461-523] 541 sq., or M. J. Routh, Script.
eccl. opusc. ii. 139, and the notes in J. Pearson, On the Creed, 290, n. 21
(Oxford, 1877) ; W. Bright, Later Treatises of Si Ath. 208, note p ; Bindley,
Oec. Doc. 138 ; C. Gore, Dissertations, 274 sqq. In these oases the argu
ment is anti-Monophysite, as with Cyril, anti-Nestorian. In any case it
is invalid unless there be a Real Presence in the Sacrament, i. e. on any
Receptionist, Virtualist, or Zwinglian doctrine of the Presence — or absence.
Q2

228 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
needed propitiation ; for, § 10, He possessed, and used and sent
forth the Spirit as His own in virtue of His Godhead ; and, § 11,
united the manhood personally to Himself through a woman who
is rightly called Theotokos because, though she could not be parent
of the Word as the Word, she nevertheless gave birth to the flesh
which He took and therein to Him who had made it His own.
With this vindication of the test word in the controversy, the
Synodal Letter ends ; but, in order to give precision to the things
which Nestorius was to anathematize, its authors subjoined Twelve
Anathemas1 to which he was to assent as well. Their addition
was a blunder. If conciliation was still the purpose of the Council,
the anathemas were a mistake for the immediate purpose. Enough
if Nestorius were to accept the crucial word Theotokos, with which
the Synodal Letter concluded : why ask him to go further and
provocatively demand that he should repudiate every alleged phase
of his theory in detail ? But it was a blunder which long after
wards hampered the efforts of Cyril. Some of the anathematisms
were open to criticism as one-sided, e.g. the third 2 and the last 3 ;
one of them put the contested term Theotokos aggressively to the
front, viz. the first, whereas the Synod had led up to it in argument
and kept it to the last ; all of them, though each did but summarize
some portion of the letter,4 might be torn from their context, and
treated as if they covered the whole of Cyrilline theology. And
this, indeed, is what happened. For Nestorius used them to make
a breach between Cyril and John, who was shocked at their
Apollinarianism.5 So they served but to defeat the project they
were intended to promote.6
On Sunday, 7 December7 430, letter and anathematisms were
1 Cyril, Op. x. 76 sq. (P. 67. lxxvii. 119-22) ; Cone. Eph. i, c. xxvi (Mansi,
iv. 1081-4) ; Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 357 ; Fleury, xxv. xxii ; Hefele,
Conciles, u. i. 268-78 (E. Tr. iii. 31-3) ; W. Bright, Later Treatises, 158 sqq.
2 "Evioa-is cpva-iKr) is the crux. If rfcio-is — nature, then this phrase is
monophysite, and might be so taken, if left without further explanation.
But by (fiva-tKr) Cyril meant (a) ' personal ' — haa-is Kad' imoo-Tairiv was an
equivalent phrase of his — and (b) ' real ' as opposed to ' titular ', W.
Bright, Later Tr. 160.
3 Tbv tou 6eoii \6yov iraBovra (rapid might be taken to mean that the
Word was passible.
4 For the relation, in detail, see W. Bright, Later Tr. 157, note y.
6 See his letters to Theodosius II and to Cyril, Synodicon, xvii, Ixxx
(Mansi, v. 782 c, 857 b) ; W. Bright, Later Tr. 158, note a.
6 For the authority subsequently accorded to them, see Tillemont, Mim.
xiv. 358-61 ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 252, n. 1 ; W. Bright, Hist. Ch. A. d. 313-
451, 333 nn.
7 For this date, Neale, Patr. Al. i. 253, n. 2.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 229
delivered to Nestorius, after the celebration of the Liturgy. Four
Egyptian bishops had brought them. They also presented the
letter of Caelestine J ; and they carried letters from Cyril to the
clergy and people of Constantinople,2 and to its abbots and mona
steries.3 ' We havenot,' he writes, 'had recourse to excommunication
till the very last moment. But hope is now all but gone. Should
your bishop refuse to listen, then your duty will be to have no
intercourse with him. You are assured, in that case, of the com
munion of Rome and Alexandria ; as are all those who have already
been excommunicated by him.'
§ 6. The four bishops did not arrive at Constantinople till
Friday,4 5 December 430 ; and then they found that, by the
mandate of the Emperor, there had been summoned, a fortnight
previously, a General Council to meet at Ephesus 5 by Pentecost,
431 . Both parties had urged it : the Catholics, as is clear from the
petition of Basil and his monks who had been roughly handled
by Nestorius 6 ; and Nestorius himself, as we are told in his third
letter to Caelestine.7 He hoped to be able to influence it by the
support of the Court and his friends in ' The East ', and so obtain
from it a condemnation of Cyril on the charges made against him
by the Egyptian refugees.
§ 7. The citation 8 is dated 19 November 430. It ran in the
name of the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III, and was
addressed to Metropolitans. They were to repair to Ephesus by
Pentecost, and bring with them a sufficient number of their
suffragans : meanwhile, no innovations were to be introduced.
The letter is a dignified specimen of the point of view of Christian
Caesarism, ' the welfare of our Empire ', according to Theodosius,
' being bound up with the worship of God '. In tone, it may
remind us of ' His Majesty's Declaration '. But the hand of
Nestorius is traceable in it. To forbid innovations till the Council
i Cone. Eph. Actio I (Mansi, iv. 1180 b, c).
2 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxvii (Mansi, iv. 1093-6) ; Cyril Ep. xviii (Op. x.
78 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 123-6).
3 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxviii (Mansi, iv. 1097-8) ; Cyril, Ep. xix (Op. x. 80 sq. ;
P. 67. lxxvii. 125-8).
4 Noale Pcbtv Al i 253
5 Mansi', iv. 1123 sqq. ; Hefele, Conciles, ii. i. 287-377 (E. Tr. iii. 40-114) ;
Tillemont, xiv. 362 sqq. ; Fleury, xxv. xxiii-lix ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 254 sqq.
6 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxx, §§ 3, 4 (Mansi, iv. 1105).
7 Marius Merc. Op. ii. 80 (P. L. xlviii. 841) ; Loofs, 181 ; Fleury, xxv.
xxviii. Possibly this letter was enclosed along with the Imperial citation.
8 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxxii (Mansi, iv. 1111-16) ; Fleury, xxv. xxiii.

230 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
met was to Suspend the proceedings of Caelestine and Cyril : while
his hand is also traceable in the private letter of remonstrance
which the Emperor enclosed to Cyril1 along with the formal
citation. He charges Cyril with being, the author of all the
troubles ; and then proceeds to reprimand him for ' having written
in one sense to Us and our most Pious Consort, the Empress
Eudocia, and in quite another to our August Sister, Pulcheria —
as if a Princess disagreed with our Imperial Majesty, or could ' ! 2
It was a ' peevish ' 3 letter, but it illustrates the Emperor's
character. He was jealous of the ascendancy of his sister ; and
the policy of Nestorius had so far successfully played, in his own
interest and to the disadvantage of Cyril, on that jealousy. But
the Emperor concludes that Cyril has his forgiveness : only he
is to hasten to the Council, and strive with it to restore peace
to the Church.4 A special missive was also sent to invite the
presence of Augustine, in deference to his great reputation ; but
the courier arrived with it at Carthage, toward Easter, 431, only
to learn that, six months before, the great Doctor of the West had
passed away.5
Nestorius and Cyril next began to collect allies.
§ 8, Nestorius, after having received the ultimatum of Rome
and Alexandria, for some days kept to his palace. But on Saturday,
13 December 430, he preached.6 Beginning, § 1, with a commen
dation of charity, he dissociated himself , § 2, from Paul of Samosata,
and, § 3, confessed ' one Christ '. Cyril, he said, § 4, had resorted
to bribery ; and, § 5, was imitating former bishops of Alexandria
in their treatment of Flavian, Meletius, and John. Jealousy, he
thus hinted, § 7, was at the bottom of the dispute. But he would
make a concession : let Cyril condemn the heretical sense of
Theotokos, i.e. as involving a mixture of natures, and he would
accept it in its sound sense. But, § 10, better Christotokos. Enough,
§ 29, of Egyptian contentiousness : to balance both sides of the
truth, § 32, let them not stand out for Theotokos only, but let them
1 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxxi (Mansi, iv. 1109-12) ; Fleury, xxv. xxiii.
- Mansi, iv. 1109 d, b.
3 Newman's note to Fleury, iii. 42, note n. i Mansi, iv. 1112 o.
6 Capreolus, Abp. of Carthage 430-f 5, to the Synod, Cone. Eph. Actio I,
c. 2 (Mansi, iv. 1207 b) ; Fleury, xxv. xii.
0 Sermo, xii ; M. M. ii. 84 sqq. (P. L. xlviii. 848-62) ; Loofs, 298-313 ;
Fleury, xxv. xxix. Gamier says of this sermon, ' there is none of his dis
courses from which we can learn so much of the nature of N.'s views as
from this ', M. M. ii. 85 (P. L. xlviii. 847, note a).

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 231
call Mary Anthropotokos as well. Next day, Sunday, 14 December
430, in a shorter sermon,1 he preached again, by request and to
a crowded congregation. ' I am weary,' he said, § 2, ' and you are
uncomfortable, because you are standing there so tightly packed,
" Christ " is the word, § 4, that best represents both aspects of
the truth together. Theotokos and Anthropotokos, §§ 6-7, are each
required to balance the other.' Loud applause greeted the arch
bishop ; and his next step was to send the two sermons to John of
Antioch, with Cyril's anathemas and the reply already mentioned
to John's letter of advice, in order to detach him, if possible, from
Cyril and Caelestine. John received these documents with satis
faction ; and was as highly dissatisfied with the anathemas of
Cyril. He wrote to Firmus, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
431— f 8, saying that he doubted whether they could be Cyril's :
at any rate, they were Apollinarian, and Firmus would do well to
examine them and condemn them in synod.2 Nestorius, however,
was in no uncertainty as to their authorship, and flung at their
author twelve counter anathematisms.3 The first makes it clear
that his admission of the term Theotokos was illusory ; for it
condemns the statement that Emmanuel should be called true
God rather than God with us, and that Mary should be called
Mother of God the Word rather than Mother of Emmanuel.4
Others were confused 5 ; and others betrayed his incurable habit
of regarding the Word and the man assumed by him as separate
persons.6 They did no good to his cause, and were immediately
exposed by Marius Mercator, then at Constantinople, in his
Nestorii blasphemiarum capitula,7 early in 431. Nestorius, he says,
makes much of the silence of the Council of Nicaea in regard to the
word Theotokos ; but it is not silent as to the thing in question
under cover of the dispute about that word ; for its Creed unequi
vocally identifies Jesus with the consubstantial and only-begotten
Son of God — and this is the heart of the matter.8

1 Sermo, xiii ; M. M. ii. 93 sqq. (P. L. xlviii. 862^) ; Loofs, 314 sqq.
2 Synodicon, c. iv (Mansi, v. 756 sq. ; or Thdt. Op. v. 622 sqq. ; P. 67.
lxxxiv. 579-81).
3 Preserved in the version of M. M. Op. ii. 116 sqq. (P. L. xlviii. 909 sqq.) ;
Loofs, 211-17.
4 Loofs, 212. 5 e. g. No. 8 ; ib. 215.
6 e. g. No. 3 ; ib. 213.
7 M. M. Op. ii. 115-26 (P. L. xlviii. 909-32) ; Bardenhewer, 509.
8 M. M. Appendix ad contradictionem xii anath. Nest, §§ 5, 6 (Op. ii. 127 ;
P. L. xlviii. 925).

232 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
§ 9. But the credit which Nestorius thus lost at home he gained
further afield. For John, meanwhile, had procured the assistance
of two Syrian teachers, who, ' though they did not finally forfeit
the communion of the Church ',x found themselves, at this stage,
in sympathy with Nestorius.
The .one was Andrew, originally a monk of Constantinople, and
then bishop of Samosata, 431-4. He attacked the Cyrilline
anathematisms in the name of the Orientals.2
The other, and more famous, was Theodoret.3 Born at Antioch,
393, of a pious father and a wealthy and fashionable but religious
mother,4 he received his early training in the monastic schools of
that region. Chrysostom and Theodore were his masters ; Nes
torius and John his fellow-students ; and, in early life, after seven
years in the convent of Nicerte,5 near Apamea, some seventy-five
miles from Antioch, 416-23, he was made bishop of Cyrus, 423-J58.
It was a small town in Syria Euphratensis, subject to the metro
politan of Hierapolis, and some two days' journey from Antioch ;
but there were eight hundred parishes in the diocese,6 and ample
scope for the energies even of a Theodoret — ascetic, prelate, apolo
gist, missionary, preacher, theologian, exegete, letter-writer, and
historian in turn. On the death of his parents Theodoret had
distributed his patrimony 7 ; and, as bishop, possessed no more
than the clothes he wore.8 But, with the bounty of many a greater
prelate, he spent the revenues of his see in benefactions to his
Cathedral city, which he adorned with colonnades, and provided
with bridges, baths, and a public water supply. As missionary he
swept his diocese — the wild district known as the Cyrrhestica —
clear of heretics : ' eight villages of Marcionites, another full of
Eunomians, and another of Arians,' yielded to his persuasion :
' not a tare of heresy was left among us.' 9 And this, in spite of
the fact that Cyrus and its wilds were not much to his taste : for,
1 Neale, Patr. Al. i. 254.
2 Fragments extant in the reply of Cyril, Op. ix. 157-200 (P. 67. lxxvi.
315-86). 3 Works in P. 67. Ixxx-lxxxv ; tr. inJV. and P.-N. F. iii: see also Tillemont,
Mem. xv. 207-340 ; Fleury, xxv. xxx ; J. H. Newman, Hist Sketches, ii.
307-62 ; Bardenhewer, 370-5.
4 Thdt. Hist. Rei. ix (Op. iii. 1188 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxii. 1381) ; tr. Newman,
Hist. Sk. ii. 309 sqq.
6 Thdt. Ep. cxix (Op. iv. 1202 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1329 c).
8 Ep. cxiii (Op. iv. 1190; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1316 d). The word wapoiKia is
here used in the modern sense of ' parish '.
7 Ibid. (Op iv. 1192 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1317 c).
8 Ep. lxxxi (Op. iv. 1140 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1261). » Ibid.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 233
as preacher,1 he was in request, and thoroughly enjoyed his yearly
preaching-visit to Antioch. There he was welcomed by congenial
colleagues, and cheered to the echo by cultivated audiences whom
he could quote, in countless testimony, to the orthodoxy of his
teaching. For these visits went on for ' six years under bishop
Theodotus, 421-f8 ; thirteen in the time of bishop John, 428-f41,
of blessed memory, who was so delighted at my discourses that he
would start up [from his throne] and clap his hands again and
again ; and this, 447, is the seventh year I have been preaching
under his nephew, Domnus ',2 441-f9. The preaching of Theo
doret was sometimes in the character of apologist ; for the ten
discourses De Providentia3 were probably delivered in Antioch
about 432, and are a defence of Theism against Deism. Five years
previously he had set out in this role with his Graecarum affec-
tionum curatio,4- 427, i.e. ' Healing of heathen ailments ' or ' Gospel
truth by way of Greek philosophy '. Here he deals in Book I with
the objection that the Apostles were not men of, scientific culture ;
and, in Books II-XII, discusses the answers given by Christian and
pagan respectively to the ultimate questions of philosophy and
theology.5 As exegete, he wrote both treatises and commentaries.
The latter are models of what a commentary should be for their
brevity and clearness ; and, while Theodoret was no slave to
literalism,6 he was the ablest exponent -of the Antiochene
principles of interpretation. ' With him ', it has been said, ' the
golden age of the Antiochene school closes.' 7 Nor must his labours
in the region of the historian be overlooked. His history of the
monks, entitled Philoiheus sive religiosa Historia,8 c. 444, is an
account of the celebrated ascetics of the East : including St.
Simeon of the Pillar,9 Peter who had cured and converted the
author's mother, and who used to take him, as a child, on his
knees and feed him with bread and raisins,10 and Macedonius,11
i There was a disposition on the part of Theodoret and his party to exalt
preaching unduly, very much as with the Puritans in later days : see note
by J. H. Newman in his Fleury, iii. 137, note p.
2 Ep. lxxxiii. (Op. iv. 1146 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1268 c), and Document
No. 223. 3 Op. iv. 482-686 (P. 67. lxxxiii. 555-774).
4 Op. iv. 687-1040 (P. 67. lxxxiii. 783-1152).
8 For a summary, see his prologue (Op. iv. 687-93 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 783-80).
8 He thinks allegorism has its place (Praef. in Pss. ; Op. i. 603 [P. 67.
Ixxx. 860 c]) ; and defends the allegorical significance of the Song of Songs
(Praef. in Cant. ; Op. ii. 2 sq. [P. 67. lxxxi. 29 sq.]).
7 Bardenhewer, 373. 8 Op. iii. 1099-1319 (P. 67. lxxxii. 1283-1522).
9 Rei. Hist, c. xxvi. 30 Ibid., c. ix. 31 Ibid., c. xiii.

234 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
who would, no doubt, tell him the story of how he and his fellow-
hermits had saved Antioch from destruction when Theodosius
was wroth with the city for insulting the Imperial Statues.1 There
followed the better-known Historia Ecclesiastica,2 written about
450. : it takes up the story where Eusebius left off and continues
it, in five books, to the outbreak of Nestorianism, i.e. it covers
the years, 323-428, and is specially of value for events connected
with Antioch. Finally, in the Haereticarum Fabularum Com
pendium,3 written after 451, Theodoret develops the history of
heresies from the days of Simon Magus, in four books : the fifth
being a resume of the faith of the Church by way of reply. There
remain the contributions of the bishop of Cyrus to dogmatic
theology ; but they will best appear as we take up the story of his
place in the controversy raised by Nestorius. They began at the
invitation of John of Antioch, and in company with Andrew of
Samosata : for to this date, c. 430, belongs Theodoret's Refutation
or Reprehensio duodecim anathematismorum Cyrilli, preserved in the
answer of his antagonist.4 The two protagonists in the discussion
were at last well matched : for, if Cyril stood pre-eminent as
' a clear-headed constructive theologian ',5 Theodoret was 'facile
princeps among his brethren for . . . learning and . . . oratory '.6
Nestorius, in thus gaining over John and his dependents, had
delivered a good stroke for his cause by securing in John the
ecclesiastical, and in Theodoret the theological, leader of ' The
East '. A wedge had thus been driven in between the Orientals
and Alexandria.
§ 10. But Cyril, in the meanwhile, was active also. He replied
to his critics in turn,7 during the early months of 431, and wrote
again to Caelestine.
(1). In answer to Andrew of Samosata, Cyril composed his
i Thdt. H. E. v. xx, §§ 5-10.
2 Op. iii. 772-1089 (P. 67. lxxxii. 881-1280), and ed. T. Gaisford (Oxonii,
1854) ; tr. N. and P.-N. F.
3 Op. iv. 280-481 (P. 67. lxxxiii. 335-556).
4 Cyril, Apol. c. Theodoretum (Op. ix. 204^0 ; P. G. lxxvi. 391-452).
5 J. H. Newman, Hist Sketches, ii. 345.
0 W. Bright, Later Tr. 149 q.v., for a sketch of Cyril and Theodoret as
protagonists in the controversy.
7 From the criticisms upon Cyril's XII Articles made by Andrew and
Theodoret, and from Cyril's replies to them and to Nestorius, we can get
a good idea of the theological situation in 431 . see all these documents
taken together and discussed in reference to each Anathematism in ibid.
158-70.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 235
Apologia contra Orientales.1 Andrew had not named him, so Cyril
mentions no name in reply ; but his method is to set down first
his own anathematism, then the criticism of the Orientals, and
then his defence. Some of Andrew's objections were captious,2
and others misconceived what Cyril meant.3 They were more at
one than Andrew would allow.
(2) In the Apologia contra Theodoretum pro XII capitibus*
which Cyril sent, with a prefatory letter to Euoptius, a bishop who
had supphed him with the objections of Theodoret, he mentions
his critic's name, but sets down original, criticism, and defence as
before. Theodoret, to a considerable extent, in his criticisms mis
conceives Cyril ; though, for this, Cyril had himself to thank. But
neither is the language of Theodoret unexceptionable. He speaks
of ' a man ' as ' assumed ' 5 ; of that man as ' God-bearing ',6 and
as inseparably ' connected ' with the Word 7 ; and sometimes
argues as if a human nature in Christ involves a distinct human
person ality.8 Yet they were nearer to each other, as Hooker
points out,9 than either at the time would have admitted ; for each
was then ' looking mainly at his own side of the shield '.10 Even
then, it would seem, had only Apollinarianism been unequivocally
disclaimed and the distinction of the divine and the human nature
in Christ frankly acknowledged by Cyril, Theodoret would have
been satisfied. But there was also the personal element to keep
them apart : the polemical tone of Theodoret and the hauteur of
3 Op. ix. 157-200 (P. 67. lxxvi. 315-86); tr. in M. M. ii. 132 sqq. (P. L.
xlviii. 931-70) ; Mansi, v. 19-82 ; Fleury, xxv. xxxi.
2 e. g. His objection to "E>a><m (pvo-iKr), Cyril, Apol. c. Orient. Anath. iii
(Op. ix. 164 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 325 d).
3 e. g. He imagined that when Cyril spoke of God the Word as our High
Priest, he meant that He was so in His Godhead, ibid. Anath. x (Op. ix.
154 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 360 o). ' Both parties reject the Arian notion (found,
e.g. in Milton) "that our Lord's Priesthood preceded His Incarnation, and
belonged to His Divine Nature, and was in consequence the token of an
inferior divinity. . . . The Catholic Doctrine is that the Divine Word is
Priest in and according to His Manhood ", i. e. so far as relates to sacrificial
Priesthood, as distinct from that sort of mediation which belongs to Him
as Word,' W. Bright, Later Tr. 167, note o, quoting Newman, Select Tr.
Ath.7 ii. 245.
4 Cyril, Op. ix. 200^0 (P. 67. lxxvi. 385-452) ; Mansi, v. 81-140 ; tr.
M. M. Op. ii. 178 sqq. (P. L. xlviii. 969-1001) ; Fleury, xxv. xxxi.
5 Apol. c. Thdt. Anath. xii (Op. ix. 239 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 449 b).
6 Ibid., Anath. v (Op. ix. 220 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 420 a).
7 Ibid., Anath. iii (Op. ix. 210 ; P- 67. lxxvi. 401 d).
8 Ibid., Anath. viii (Op. ix. 225 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 428 sq.).
9 E. P. v. liii, § 4.
30 W. Bright, Later Tr. 149.

236 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
a Patriarch of Alexandria towards the bishop of ' the little town
which, they tell me, is called Cyrus '.1
(8) A similar asperity marks Cyril's reply to Nestorius, in five
books, entitled Adversus Nestorii blasphemias,2 i.e. to his sermons
against Proclus. The author's method is, as before, to make ex
tracts from his adversary, and then to comment : with the result
that much of the writings of Nestorius, which would otherwise
have been lost, is preserved, and that Cyril's work is prolix and
wearisome to a degree. He disclaims all notions of fusion 3 ; but
insists on the necessity of the term Theotokos which, in these
sermons, Nestorius had grudgingly admitted, and shows that it does
not mean ' parent of the Godhead '.* He criticizes the inadequate
sense that Nestorius had put upon the Nicene Creed,5 and on the
words of Scripture ; contends that he had reduced the Incarnation
to an ' association ' s of God with a man, or an ' indwelling ' 7 of
God in a man ; and asserts that, after the union, there was (in
a phrase that, later on, was to give endless trouble) but ' one in
carnate nature ',8 though the context explains it to mean Godhead
and manhood, ' essentially different ' from each other, yet united
in one Person. He exposes the merely verbal sense in which alone
Nestorius could apply the term ' God ' to the being whom he called
Christ ; and says that, on his theory, he cannot exclude the notion
of two Sons.9 Had then the Divine Son Himself become Incarnate,
or had He merely allied Himself to a man '? Was the Gospel one
of a human Saviour, or of the reunion of mankind with God
through a Saviour, Divine in his Person as well as human in the
nature which he vouchsafed to assume ? 10 This, according to
Cyril, is the issue at stake : no verbal dispute, but a question
between two versions of the Christian Creed, or rather between
two creeds — the Christian doctrine of salvation, and something
less. 1 Op. ix. 201 (P. 67. lxxvi. 388 a).
2 Op. ix. 1-143 (P. 67. lxxvi. 9-256) ; tr. L. F. xlvii ; Fleury, xxv. xxxi.
3 Adv. Nest, i, § 3 ,' Mixture ' (<paois), as Nestorius fears, does not involve
'Confusion' (avdxvo-is), Op. ix. 15 (P. 67. lxxvi. 33 b, d). On icpao-is,
see L. F. x. 48, note h.
4 Adv. Nest, i, § 1 (Op. ix. 7 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 20 c).
5 Ibid, i, §§ 7, 8 (Op. ix. 23 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 45 sq.).
6 o-vviicpeia, ibid, i, § 3 (Op. ix. 17 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 36 d).
7 hoUrjaii, ibid, i, §§ 6, 8 (Op. ix. 23, 26 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 45, 52 c).
8 Mm (pia-is tov Ao'you o-eo-apKapivr], ibid, ii (Op. ix. 31 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 60 sq.),
and note in L. F. xlvii. 41, note c.
9 Adv. Nest, ii, § 1 (Op. ix. 35 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 68 o).
10 Ibid., § 2 (Op. ix. 36 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 69 d), and passim.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 237
(4) The above three works were composed before the Council
met at Ephesus ; and, about the same time, i.e. early in 431, Cyril
wrote, as well, to Caelestine, to ask, What shall be done if Nestorius
recants ? Shall Cyril and his synod accept the recantation ? Or
shall they refuse it, as not coming within the limit of ten days ? 1
A strange question, not only as opposed to justice and Christian
charity ; but for the simple reason that the Imperial summons
to a General Council ipso facto suspended the proceedings of the
two Patriarchs. Cyril's letter has not come down to us, and we
only know of its contents from Caelestine's reply 2 of 7 May 431.
' God willeth not the death of a sinner,' he answers ; and Cyril
should do all in his power to win Nestorius back.
§ 11. The papal letter was still on the way to Alexandria when,
shortly after Easter3 [19 April], 431, the bishops set out on their
way to Ephesus for the Council.
(1) Caelestine, as it was the etiquette or the policy of popes to
avoid attending General Councils in person, sent legates instead.
They were two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, and the priest
Philip ; and their instructions,4 of 8 May 431, were to present the
papal letter 5 to the Synod, to consult Cyril and, saving the interests
of the Apostolic See, to do as he thinks good.
(2) Some three weeks before Caelestine sent off his legates,
Nestorius started from Constantinople.6 He was accompanied by
ten bishops ; by several friends, among whom was the Count
Irenaeus 7 ; and by Count Candidian, captain of the Imperial
Bodyguard, who was to represent the Emperor at the Council.
Candidian carried with him an elaborate letter of instructions,
forbidding him to take part in the discussion of doctrine, but com
manding him to keep order and maintain freedom of speech.8
The traditions of Roman justice and good government were still
powerful. (3) Cyril 9 took with him fifty bishops,10 about half the number
1 Caelestine, Ep. xvi, § 2 (P. L. 1. 501 sq.) ; Fleury, xxv. xlvii.
2 Ep. xvi. ' Intelligo sententiam,' Jaffe, No. 377.
3 Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, §§ 1, 2 ; Fleury, xxv. xxxiv.
4 Caelestine, Ep. xvii (P. L. 1. 503 a) ; Mansi, iv. 556 ; Jaffe, No. 378.
5 Caelestine, Ep. xviii (P. L. 1. 505-12) ; Cone. Eph., Act. n, c. i (Mansi, iv.
1283-8) ; Jaffe, No. 379. 8 Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, § 2.
7 ' Simply out of friendship,' says the Imperial Sacra, Cone. Eph. i. xxxv
(Mansi, iv. 1120 e).
8 Cone. Eph. i. xxxv (Mansi, iv. 1117-20) ; Fleury, xxv. xxxvi.
9 Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, § 3.
10 So says the letters of the rival Council at Ephesus, Mansi, iv. 1277 a.

238 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
of his suffragans. He had fair winds as far as Rhodes, whence he
sent back a letter to his clergy and people.1 But it was stormy
afterwards.2 He reached Ephesus, whence he wrote again to his
church,3 some four or five days before Whit-Sunday, 7 June 431.
(4) On 12 June arrived Juvenal of Jerusalem 4 with the bishops
of Palestine. Flavian of Philippi, as proxy for the papal Vicar of
Eastern Illyricum, viz. Rufus of Thessalonica, was there with the
Macedonian bishops : while the Exarch of ' Asia ', Memnon of
Ephesus, 431— f 40, itself, had got together some forty of his own
suffragans and twelve from Pamphylia. One solitary deacon repre
sented Africa : Besulas, who, after a long and dangerous journey,
came on behalf of the once glorious church of Carthage. Capreolus,
the Primate, 430-7, would have gladly acted on the letter of
invitation that arrived too late to be handed to Augustine. He
would have summoned a Council, and sent bishops to represent
Africa at Ephesus. But the miseries of Africa, now lying at the
mercy of the Vandal invaders, made it impossible. The roads
were stopped, and travelling was dangerous. Capreolus, therefore,
could do no more than send his deacon, Besulas, with a letter to the
Synod,5 in which, after describing his own circumstances, he urged
them to uphold the ancient faith and stand out against ' new
doctrines hitherto unknown to the ears of churchmen '.6
§ 12. A fortnight elapsed, 7-21 June, 431, before the Council
actually opened.
It was occupied by Cyril, as by other prelates, in strengthening
his cause. Juvenal would be on his side ; for he was contemplat
ing the erection for himself of a Patriarchate of Jerusalem at the
expense of Antioch, and would wish to conciliate the support of the
powerful Patriarch of Alexandria. Memnon also could be counted
on ; for the see of Constantinople, under Chrysostom, had tried to
extend its jurisdiction over the ' Dioceses ' of ' Asia ' and Pontus.
Nestorius and his allies would say that it was the situation of
thirty years previously over again : as Theophilus had come to
depose John, here was his nephew bent on the humiliation of the
Imperial See again. They accused Cyril and Memnon of terrorism,
i Ep. xx (Op. ix. 81 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 127 sqq.) ; Cone. Eph. i. xxxiii
(Mansi, iv. 1116).
3 Apol. ad Theod. Imp. (Op. ix. 256 sq. ; P. L. lxxvi. 480 d) ; Cone. Eph.
in. xiii (Mansi, v. 249 b).
3 Ep. xxi (Op. ix. 82 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvi. 129 sqq.) ; Cone. Eph. I. xxxiv
(Mansi, iv. 1117). 4 Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, § 3.
6 Cone. Eph. Actio I, c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1207-12). 8 Ibid. iv. 1210 o.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 239
probably not without cause. Memnon shut the churches of Ephesus
against the Nestorians, and Cyril was a violent man in whose
eyes Nestorius was already a heretic. This much is clear from the
vehemence of Cyril's language against him in sermons which he
preached during this fortnight's delay ; though we may well doubt
the genuineness of the Encomium in S. Mariam Deiparam,1 with
its string of ' Hail Mary's ' and its description of Caelestine as
' archbishop of the whole world '.2 Some of the friends of Nes
torius took advantage of the respite to try to win him over. Thus
Acacius, bishop of Melitene, 431-8, ' thought he had got him, at
least in words, to retract '. But Nestorius answered with a
dilemma : "* Either you deny that the Godhead of the Son was
incarnate, and, if so, you agree with me : or you must maintain
that the Godhead of the Father and of the Holy Ghost was incar
nate also.' 3 There was an undue straining here of the principle
of the Divine Coinherence 4 ; for it is the one Godhead as existing
in the Son to which the Incarnation is referred,5 and this came
out again during the interval of waiting. Theodotus, bishop of
Ancyra 431-8, said that he heard Nestorius affirm, during these
days of delay, ' For my own part, never would I call a child of two
or three months old God ' 6 ; though what Nestorius afterwards
claimed that he said or meant was simply that ' God was not two
or three months old '. Whatever the exact words used — and much
turns upon whether ' God ' is subject or predicate in the sentence —
the conversation of 19 June, in which they were used, was reported
to the Council ; and then it was that the Council perceived it was
not a question of words but of ideas. The sentence was enough, and
closed all attempts to win Nestorius over.
Meanwhile, the delay itself was due to the non-arrival of John
of Antioch. His bishops could not start till after Low Sunday,
26 April ; and it would then take them twelve days to reach
Antioch. From thence to Ephesus would be thirty more : so that,
allowing for a day in Antioch, John and his ' Orientals ' could not
arrive in Ephesus before 8 June, the day after Pentecost,7 when the
Council was to begin. But the bishops already at Ephesus were
i Horn, xi (Op. x. 379-85 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 1029-40).
2 Ibid. (Op. x. 384 ; P. 67. lxxxvii. 1040 b).
3 Cone. Eph. Actio I, c. i (Mansi, iv. 1181 e).
4 On which see Newman, Select. Tr. Ath.7 ii. 72 sqq. ; W, Bright, Sermons
of St Leo 2, 134, 190? 5 R. Hooker, E. P. v. li, §§ 2, 3.
8 Cone. Eph. Actio I, c. i (Mansi, iv. 1181 c) ; Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, § 5.
7 Evagrius, H. E. i, § 3. (P. 67. lxxxvi. 2428) ; Fleury, xxv. xxxiv.

240 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
getting impatient. It was expensive living there. The weather was
hot ; and some died.1 Cyril and his friends, who could not forget
that John disliked the Twelve Anathematisms, got more uneasy,
and began to persuade themselves that they might begin without
him. They suspected him of loitering on the way, and of pursuing
a Fabian policy that he might not have to join in the condemnation
of Nestorius ; but there is no sufficient evidence for it.2 John left
Antioch 18 May3; and about Sunday, 21 June, Cyril received
a letter from him to say that he was sorry to be late : he had been
travelling incessantly for a month ; but now hoped to arrive
within five or six days.4 Meantime, two of his neighbours, Alex
ander of Apamea, 431-4, in Syria II, and Alexander of Hierapolis,
431-4, in Augusta Euphratensis, came on in advance with a mes
sage to the bishops ; bidding them, in case he should still be
detained, not to wait but to proceed to business.5 Nestorius and
his friends, however, proposed to wait ; and they had the support
of the High Commissioner, Count Candidian. But in vain. Cyril
would not wait. He could not have expected defeat, for he had
a clear majority — some fifty suffragans of his own, about a hundred
votes commanded by Memnon, and fifteen Palestinian bishops
ranged behind Juvenal. He could not have anything to fear from
Imperial displeasure. But he did fear that the influence of John
would be in excess of the numbers he could muster — thirty in all
— and that it would be exerted to revise his Twelve Anathema
tisms. Besides, he wanted to get Nestorius condemned out of hand.
For this, he risked the appearance of having snatched a verdict ;
and his ' fault brought its own punishment ', as Dr. Neale points
out, ' in the confusions that ensued '.6 But, for the moment, the
opportunity was his, and he was not the man to let it slip. It was
a question, too, whether he or Nestorius was to be put on his trial ;
and, if John carried weight on his arrival, then Cyril might find
himself the accused. To avoid this fate he had better begin at
once, and so be judge. The term within which all prelates were to
be present, according to the Imperial Citation, had already gone
by, a fortnight ago 7 ; and on Sunday, 21 June, Nestorius received
i Cone. Eph. Actio v, c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1332 a).
2 Garnier, a thoroughgoing partisan, says John was to blame, Praef. in
sec. part. M. M. (P. L. xlviii. 719) : but see Neale, Patr. Al. i. 258 n.
3 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 388.
4 Cone. Eph. i, c. xxxvi (Mansi, iv. 1121); Cyril, Ep. xxii (Op. x. 83;
P. G. lxxvii. 132). 5 Cone. Eph. Act. v, c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1332 b).
8 Pair. Al. i. 258 n. 7 Cone. Eph. Act. v, c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1332 a).

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 241
a summons, at the hands of four bishops, to attend the next day.
' I'll see,' was his answer x ; and sixty-eight bishops of his party
entered a protest 2 in favour of waiting the arrival of John. Can
didian also strained every nerve in favour of delay.3 He dared not
enforce it, for the populace sided with Cyril and Memnon. But, as
the members of the Council were assembling ' in the church at
Ephesus called Mary ',4 he hastened thither and said that it was the
Emperor's will that none should assemble apart from the rest but
that all should be done in common.5 Pressed for his authority, he
at last produced his instructions,6 in the form of ' The Adorable
Divine Letter ' to the Council, which he read.7 They brushed it
aside : whereupon Candidian withdrew, after further protest by
his Contestatio 8 in favour of delay.
§ 13. The Gospels being placed upon the throne in token of the
presence of our Lord,9 the Council opened 10 on Monday, 22 June
431, with one hundred and fifty-eight bishops present, beside the
deacon representing the Church of Africa. Some forty more gave
in then- adhesion later, so that the whole number came to close
upon two hundred at the end.11 Cyril presided. His own see gave
him the right to the chair ; but he also claimed to be the represen
tative of Pope Caelestine, in virtue of the commission 12 of the
previous year. Whether this claim was well-founded is another
question. He had been entrusted with the task of summoning
Nestorius and deposing him, in the name of the Pope ; unless,
within ten days, he should recant. But another process had super
vened upon this, viz. the Imperial project of a General Council.
Cyril's commission had therefore lapsed13; and, at the Council,
1 Cone. Eph., Act. I, c. i (Mansi, iv. 1132).
2 Synodicon, c. vii (Mansi, v. 756-8) ; Fleury, xxv. xxxvi ; Neale, Patr.
Al. i. 259.
3 Synodicon, c. ix (Mansi, v. 770-2) ; Fleury, xxv. xxxvi.
4 Cone. Eph., Act. v, c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1332 c) ; and see note in L. Duchesne,
Hist. ane. iii. 349, n. 3.
5 See Candidian's account of what he did in Acta Conciliabuli Ephesini
(Mansi, iv. 1260 sq.) ; Fleury, xxv. xiv.
8 Cone. Eph. I. xxxv (Mansi, iv. 1117-20).
7 .Mansi, iv. 1129 e. 8 Synodicon, c. iv (ut sup.).
9 Cone. Eph. in. xiii (Mansi, v. 241 a) = Cyril, Op. ix. 251 (P. 67. lxxvi.
472 b) ; and the Gospels were appealed to in adjurations, Mansi, iv. 1181 a.
10 Mansi, iv. 1123 ; Fleury, xxv. xxxvii.
n For the names, Mansi, iv. 1123-8.
32 Given in Tristitiae nostrae of 11 Aug. 430 (Caelestine, Ep. xi ; Jaffe,
No. 372).
13 W. Bright, Age ofthe Fathers, ii. 311 ; E. Denny, Papalism ; Duchesne,
Hist. ane. de I'Sglise, iii. 349, n. 1. All agree on this point.
2191 ni B

242 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
though Cyril still claimed to have Caelestine's proxy, as Flavian,
for instance, held that. of Rufus of Thessalonica, the Pope was
actually represented by hie legates. Next to Cyril in dignity, at
the opening session, came Juvenal of Jerusalem and Memnon of
Ephesus ; after them, Flavian, as proxy for Rufus ; and then six
other metropolitans.1
§ 14. For the first month or so Cyril had it, on the whole, his own
way. At Session I, 22 June, after a second and a third citation 2
had been served upon Nestorius and repudiated by him, the debate
began.3 It was formally proposed by Juvenal that the Council
should proceed to the question of faith 4 ; and they read in suc
cession (1) the Creed of Nicaea 5 ; (2) the Second Letter of Cyril to
Nestorius6 which was declared by the bishops one by one 7 to be
consonant with the Creed, and then approved by acclamation ;
(3) the letter of Nestorius in reply,8 which the bishops rejected with
anathemas, and as incompatible with the Creed 9 ; (4) Caelestine's
letter to Nestorius, i.e. Aliquantis diebus10 of 11 August 430 ; and
(5) that by which Cyril had signified to Nestorius the terms of
submission demanded of him, i. e. Cum salvator of November 430,
with the now famous anathematisms.11 But this Third Letter of
Cyril to Nestorius was accepted in silence12 by the Council, not
formally and with comment by individual bishops as was the
second .or as was the Tome of St. Leo at Chalcedon13; nor were
there any acclamations. It is a moot point, therefore, how much of
oecumenical approval was then bestowed upon the Twelve Ana
thematisms.14 Next (6) the depositions of various bishops were
taken as to what Nestorius had said in their hearing — specially of
Theopemptus and Daniel,15 two of the four who took him Cum
Salvator to Constantinople, and of Theodotus of Ancyra,16 and of
Acacius of Melitene" to whom, in the conversation of three days
previously, he had made compromising statements. Then followed
the reading (7) of a series of passages from Doctors approved by the
3 Mansi, iv. 1124 b.
2 Ibid. 1130-2 for the first; 1132-3, for the second; 1133-7, for tho
third ; and Fleury, xxv. xxxviii.
3 Fleury, xxv. xxxix. 4 Mansi, iv. 1137 a, b.
5 Ibid. 1137 c. « Ibid. 1137 d, e. 7 Ibid. 1137 e-1169 b.
8 = Cyril, Ep. v ; for its reading, Mansi, iv. 1169 b, c.
9 For their comments see ibid. 1169 c-1177 d : thirty-four spoke.
30 Ep. xiii ; Jaffe, No. 374 ; for its reading, Mansi, iv. 1177 e.
n Ibid. 1179 a, b. 12 Mansi, iv. 1180 B. 13 Ibid. vii. 9 sqq.
14 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 358 sqq. ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 252, n. 2.
15 Mansi, v. 1180 d. " Ibid. 1181 c. " Ibid. 1181 d, e.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 248
Church, twelve in all,1 the most interesting being extracts from
Athanasius 2 and Gregory Nazianzen 3 ; (8) of extracts from the
writings of Nestorius 4 ; and, finally, (9) of the letter of Capreolus,
Primate of Africa.5 Its request for the rejection of novelties fell
in with the temper of the Council, and drew from them shouts of
' So say we all : that is what we all want '.6 At the end of a long
summer's day — for lights were now being brought in — the bishops
proceeded to sentence of deposition and excommunication against
Nestorius.7 The document was signed by an hundred and ninety-
eight bishops. They were escorted home with rapturous cries by
the multitude ; the ladies of Ephesus preceded them to their
lodgings with lights and incense ; and the city was illuminated.8
It was a great triumph. But 'more haste, less speed'. Next day,
it is true, the sentence was sent, 23 June, to ' Nestorius, the new
Judas ' 9 ; but all concerned — Cyril, as well as Nestorius and Candi
dian — wrote to the Emperor or to their friends in Constantinople
and Alexandria,10 while Cyril and his party were proclaiming their
triumph in sermons u at Ephesus. But their self-congratulation
proved a little premature ; for on Friday, 26 June,12 the caravan
of the Orientals arrived in Ephesus,13 and John, without even
waiting to change his travelling-dress,14 displayed his resentment
against Cyril by proceeding at once to hold a Council 15 in his
i Ibid. 1184-96 d.
2 Orat. c. Ar. iii, § 33 (Op. ii. 42 ; P. 67. xxvi. 393 sq.) ; and Ad Epictetum
§§ 2, 7 (Op. ii. 721, 4 ; P. 67. xxvi. 1053, 1061).
3 Ep. ci (Op. iii. 85 sq. ; P. 67. xxxvii. 177 b-184 a).
4 Mansi, iv. 1196-1208 c ; Fleury, xxv. xii.
5 Mansi, iv. 1208 d-1212 a ; Fleury, xxv. xii.
8 Mansi, iv. 1212 b. 7 Ibid. 1212-26.
8 Cyril, Ep. xxiv (Op. x. 87 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 137 c) ; Cone. Eph., Actio I,
c. ix (Mansi, iv. 1241 e). Note this for the origin of ecclesiastical ceremonies
in the social customs of the time.
9 Mansi, iv. 1228 a ; Fleury, xxv. xiii.
10 Cyril wrote to the Church of CP., to the Emperor, to the Clergy and
People of CP., to the Clergy and People of Alexandria, and to the monks
of Egypt, Cone. Eph., Actio I, cc. iv, vii-x (Mansi, iv. 1228, 1235-46) ; Cyril,
Epp. xxiv-xxvi (Op. x. 87-90 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 137-42) ; Fleury, xxv. xliii,
xliv. Nestorius wrote to the Emperor, Cone. Eph., Actio I, c. vi (Mansi, iv.
1231-6) ; Loofs, 186 sqq. ; Fleury, xxv. xliv. The report of Candidian to
the Emperor is not extant, but is mentioned in the Imperial Response to
the Synod (Mansi, iv. 1377 c).
11 Cone. Eph., Actio I, cc. xi-xiii (Mansi, iv. 1245-58); Fleury, xxv. xliv.
12 So Duchesne, Hist. ane. de VEglise, iii. 353.
13 Fleury, xxv. xiv ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 264.
14 Cone. Eph., Actio iv, c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1333 b).
15 Acta Conciliabuli Ephesini in Mansi, iv. 1259 sqq., 1371 sqq. ; Hefele,
Conciles, 11. i. 314-20 (E. Tr. iii. 56-8) ; Fleury, xxv. xiv.
R2

244 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 partiii
lodgings to deal with the situation. Forty-three bishops composed
it, and Candidian presented himself to describe what had passed.
They were of opinion that Cyril had simply hastened on the con
demnation of Nestorius to escape being put on his defence himself.
There was something in the charge ; but the Orientals went on to
put themselves no less in the wrong. For without waiting, without
sending a summons or inviting a discussion, they pronounced
sentence of deposition on Cyril and Memnon, and excommunicated
all their adherents unless and until they should repudiate the
Twelve Anathematisms. There was little to choose between this
party or that for moderation and fair-play ; but, when John
attempted to consecrate a successor to Memnon, in accordance
with the sentence of deposition, the churches were closed against
him. Candidian, meanwhile, sent report after report to the Em
peror ; and, 29 June, there arrived a Rescript reprimanding Cyril
for his hasty measures, ordering that no prelate should leave the
city, and announcing an Imperial Commissioner to be sent shortly.1
But within ten days or so, the arrival on Friday, 10 July, of the
Roman legates 2 altered the balance of parties at Ephesus, and
inclined it once more to the side of Cyril. They were three in
number : two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, of whose sees no
mention is made in the documents, and Philip, ' priest of the Church
of the Apostles ', whose acquaintance we have already made as one
of the legates of Zosimus in the affair of Apiarius. Their instruc
tions were to support Cyril 3 ; and they now placed themselves
wholly at his disposal. Nor was he slow to avail himself of their
aid ; for on 10 July was held Session JI4 of the Council, this time
in the house of Memnon, where Cyril again presided as in his own
right, but claimed to ' act also as proxy for Caelestine '.5 The
legates were then introduced, and read Spiritus Sancti 6 of 8 May,
431, in which Caelestine addressed the Synod. The charge to
teach, he would have them observe, has descended equally upon all
bishops. The command that we have received is a general order,
devolving equally upon all. We ought all alike to enter into the
labours of those whom we have succeeded in dignity : and so be
1 Mansi, iv. 1377-80 ; Fleury, xxv. xlvi.
2 Mansi, iv. 1281 a ; Fleury, xxv. xlvii.
3 Fleury, xxv. xlvii. 4 Mansi, iv. 1279 sqq.
6 Mansi, iv. 1280 E ; and Newman's note in Fleury, iii. 91, n. y.
8 Caelestine, Ep. xviii (P. L. 1. 505-12) ; Cone. Eph., Actio n, c. i (Mansi,
iv. 1283-8) ; Fleury, xxv. xlvii ; E. Denny, Papalism, § 373.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 245
true to that which has hitherto been retained by the Apostolic
Succession.1 The letter, it will be observed, is based not upon the
papal, but upon the conciliar, theory of the constitution of the
Church. Not that Caelestine underrates or overlooks the dignity
of his see ; for his legates ' are to be present at all the proceedings
and to carry out what has already been decided by us '.2 But the
episcopate, as a whole and acting in common, is served heir by
Caelestine to the Apostolate ; and he ranks himself with his
colleagues, treating the matter throughout as one to be settled by
the Council.3 They loudly expressed their approval. ' One Caeles
tine : one Cyril,' they shouted : ' one Faith of the Council.'4 The
legates were then formally acquainted with the minutes of what
had taken place before their arrival.5 Next day, at Session III 6
of Saturday, 11 July, they were formally read ; and Philip, after
magnifying the primacy of Peter,7 assented on the Pope's behalf
to the deposition of Nestorius 8 and the sentence pronounced
against him by the Council. Letters were sent to inform the Em
peror9 and the church of Constantinople10: and the third session
ended. Five days later, at Session IV of Thursday, 16 July, ' in
the church that is called Mary 'u, they twice summoned12 John of
Antioch and his supporters who refused to attend ; and there was
a deadlock till next day, 17 July, at Session V, on a third citation,13
John, through the archdeacon of Nestorius — ' We do not know his
name ' any more than Cyril's messenger who was shown the door
by the archdeacon, ' but he was a little pale man, with a few stray
hairs in his beard, and he had a paper in his hand ' 14 — declined
all further communication with the majority under Cyril. They
excommunicated John and his adherents to the number of thirty-
i Ep. xviii, § 2 (P. L. 1. 505 sq.).
2 Ep. xviii, § 5 (P. L. 1. 511 a).
3 Whence it is that the Gallicans were fond of quoting this letter, e. g.
J. B. Bossuet [1627-fl704], Defensio declarationis cleri Gallicani, tn. vii,
§ 14 (Op. xxxii. 456-8, ed. 1817) ; Tillemont, Mem. xiv. 364 ; Denny,
Papalism, §§ 375-6.
4 Mansi, iv. 1288 d. 5 Ibid. 1289 d, e. 8 Ibid. 1291-1306.
7 e. g. ' Nulli dubium . . . Petrus apostolorum princeps et caput . . . semper
in suis successoribus vivit,' ib. 1295 b, c. For this theory of the mystical
presence of Peter in his successors, see W. Bright, Sermons of St. Leo2,
178 sqq., and C. Gore, St Leo, 93. 8 Ibid. 1300 d, e.
9 Cone. Eph., Actio in, c. i (Mansi, iv. 1301-4).
i° Ibid., c. ii (iv. 1303-6). ff u Mansi, iv. 1305 b.
12 Ibid. iv. 1309 b and 1312 e ; Fleury, xxv. 1, li.
" Ibid. iv. 1320 c; for Cone. Eph., Actio 111, see ibid.iv. 1317-42 ; Fleury,
xxv. li ; Neale, Patr. Al. i. 266 sq.
14 Mansi, iv. 1321 b.

246 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
five x ; and, as before, sent reports of what they had done to the
Emperor 2 and to the Pope.3
§ 15. But it was the end of Cyril's triumph for the time being ;
and the centre of interest or, rather, of intrigue is now transferred
from the Council to the Court, where all turned on the question,
Which of the two parties at Ephesus could gain the Imperial ear ?
At first, the majority found it impossible to send messages to the
Emperor ; for Count Candidian at one end, the agents of Nes
torius at the other, blocked all communication between the Council
and the capital.4 At last, about July, a beggar carried in his cane
a letter from Cyril to the bishops and monks at Constantinople.5
The clergy petitioned the Emperor ; but, perhaps, their entreaties
would have carried but little weight, had not the old abbot Dalma
tius, |440, intervened to open the mind of Theodosius to the true
state of the case and to enlist his sympathies on the side of ortho
doxy. He had served in the Guards of Theodosius 1 6 ; and for
forty-eight years, since his profession, had never left his monastery.
Now he sallied forth, at the head of all the monks and archiman
drites of the city, to interview the Emperor. They went in proces
sion to the palace, chanting antiphonally as they went. Dalmatius
and the archimandrites were at once admitted ; and, in a brief
audience, the old man broke the spell by which Nestorius and his
friends had so long held Theodosius bound. He then went out to his
supporters, and told them, in the church of St. Mocius, of the
success of his visit. He had induced the Emperor to receive some
deputies of the Council, so that Cyril, at last, could obtain a hear
ing.7 The envoys presently arrived, in the persons of Theopemptus
and Daniel.8 But the minority had also put in representations by
letter 9 ; and now, on the heels of these two prelates, arrived Count
Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, to plead his cause. Irenaeus had
1 Ibid. iv. 1324 sq. ; Fleury, xxv. li. The number is understated : see
Mansi, iv. 1336 e ; Duchesne, iii. 357, n. 2.
2 Mansi, iv. 1325-30 ; Fleury, xxv. liii.
3 Mansi, iv. 1329-38 ; Fleury, xxv. liii. This Relaiio or ' Report ' gives
an account of all that had passed, and is therefore a valuable authority —
from the point of view of the Council. They also say that they have ' con
firmed ' Caelestine's ' decisions ' in the case of the Pelagians (Mansi, iv.
1337 b), a phrase hardly acceptable to papalists. 4 Mansi, iv. 1428 b.
5 The letter is now lost, but was given by Dalmatius to the Emperor,
ibid. 1429 o. 8 Fleury, xxv. xliii.
7 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, cc. ix, x (Mansi, iv. 1427-30) ; Fleury, xxvi. vi.
8 Gone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xviii (Mansi, iv. 1447 sq.) ; Cyril, Ep. xxviii.
(Op. x. 91 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 143-6) ; Fleury, xxvi. iii.
8 Relaiio Orientalium ad Imp. (Mansi, iv. 1371-4) ; Fleury, xxv. liv.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 247
succeeded in procuring an order for the deposition of Cyril, when
he too was checkmated by the arrival and superior resources x of
John, Cyril's chaplain and physician. The order was counter
manded ; and Theodosius was advised to take the extraordinarily
illogical step of treating Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius as alike
deposed, and to send a new Commissioner to Ephesus.2
§ 16. The Council, while its future was thus hanging in the
balance, held its final sessions.
At Session VI,3 of 22 July, Charisius, priest and church-steward
of Philadelphia, came forward and made a statement.4 Twenty-
one sectaries in Lydia, he said, Novatianists and Quartodecimans,
had been desirous of joining the Church. They had been induced
by James and Antony, two Nestorianizing clergy of Constanti
nople, to adopt, as the Catholic symbol, what was, in fact, a Nes
torian formulary,5 and is ascribed by Marius Mercator to Theodore.6
They were ignorant persons, and had been imposed upon : so the
Council passed their case over when their names 7 had been read.8
But it then enacted ' that no one should present, or compose, or
frame a Creed different from that of Nicaea ; and that, whosoever
should so compose, or propose, or offer one to persons wishing to
come over to the Church, should, if clerics, be deposed and, if lay
men, be anathematized '.9 In order to secure uniformity in this
matter of receiving converts, it would have been useless for the
Council to prohibit any creed differing in purport from the Creed
of Nicaea. They must therefore be understood to mean by a
' different creed ' any other form of words than that contained in
the Nicene Creed ; and this is the sense that Cyril himself put upon
the prohibition. But the prohibition does not exclude all use of
any creed or formulary beside the Nicene ; it only concerns itself
with creeds to be subscribed by converts and to take the rank of
a baptismal creed. It does not touch our use of the Athanasian
1 i. e. bribes, Synodicon, c. xii (Mansi, v. 819); Fleury, xxv. lv; Duchesne,
Hist. ane. iii. 361.
2 Ep. Comitis Irenaei ad Orientales (Mansi, iv. 1391-4) ; Fleury, xxv. lv.
3 Cone. Eph., Actio vi (Mansi, iv. 1341 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxv. lvi.
4 For this statement, as summarized by Peter, the chief notary of the
Council, see Mansi, iv. 1344 sq. ; and for the libellus of Charisius, Actio vi,
c. ii (Mansi, iv. 1345-8).
6 q.v. in Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. iii (Mansi, iv. 1347-52).
8 M. M. Op. ii. 251 sqq. (P. L. xlviii. 1043-6).
7 Cane. Eph., Actio vi, c. iv (Mansi, iv. 1351-62).
8 Cone. Eph., Actio vr, c. v (Mansi, iv. 1361).
9 Canon 7, W. Bright, Canons 2, xxviii. sq., 131-4.

248 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part in
Creed ; but it is incompatible with the Western use of the Apostles'
Creed. The Quicunque vult is never used as a catechetical or bap
tismal formulary ; the Apostles' Creed is.
At this point in the Acta occurs a sermon of Cyril's, important
in one connexion. It is one of the few places in his writings in
which he expressly says that our Lord's manhood was a human
• nature ' ((pvo-is)1 : ' nature ', with him, being usually applied only
to the Godhead.
At Session VII,2 of July 31, advantage was taken of the breach
with John of Antioch and his consequent absence from the synod
of the majority, to deal a blow at the claims of his see to juris
diction in Cyprus. The authority of Antioch over Cyprus had been
submitted by Alexander of Antioch, 413-f21, to the judgement of
Innocent I ; and the Pope, on the strength of Alexander's asser
tions,3 had ordered that the Patriarch of Antioch should not only
consecrate the metropolitan of Cyprus but should be consulted
before the appointment, in the island, even of a simple bishop. The
metropolitical see lay at Salamis [ConstantiaJ ; and, on the death
of its incumbent, Troilus, early in 431, John of Antioch had pro
cured letters 4 from Dionysius, Duke of ' The East ', to the governor
of Cyprus and the clergy of Constantia, forbidding them to proceed
to the appointment of a successor till the Council of Ephesus had
given its instructions. But no notice was taken of the prohibition.
Rheginus was elected ; came to Ephesus as a violently anti-
Nestorian partisan 5 ; and now seized the opportunity to state his
case,6 in revenge upon John. Nothing loath, the Council listened :
and, on one of its members asking, ' What was the object of him of
Antioch ' ? Evagrius, a Cypriot bishop, replied : ' To subjugate
our island : he wanted to secure the prerogative of ordaining our
bishops contrary to canon and custom.' 7 Here, then, was the
point. The Council inquired (1) whether any bishop of Antioch
had ever been known to ordain a bishop in Cyprus ; (2) whether
it was certain that no such right had existed when the sixth canon
of Nicaea reserved all its rights to the see of Antioch ; and (3)
whether the last three metropolitans — Troilus, Sabinus, and ' the
i Cone. Eph., Actio vt, c. vii (Mansi, iv. 1369 e).
2 Cone. Eph., Actio vn (Mansi, iv. 1465-82) ; Fleury, xxv. lvii.
3 ' Sane asseris,' Innocent, Ep. xxiv, § 3 (P. L. xx. 549 a), and Newman's
note in Fleury, iii. 114, n. 1. 4 Mansi, iv. 1467 sqq.
5 See his sermon preached there, Cone. Eph., Actio i, c. xi (Mansi, iv.
1245-8). 8 See his libellus in Mansi, iv. 1465-7. 7 Ibid. 1468 c.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 249
venerable Epiphanius ' — had been consecrated by the insular
bishops. To each of these queries an emphatic ' Yes ' was given
in reply by the Cypriot bishop, Zeno.1 It was a case of Zeno
versus Alexander ; of testimony taken for granted, and not cross-
examined, on either side. A modern tribunal would have refused
a decision. But not so a Pope or a Council. The Synod reversed the
Pope's decision, and gave a contingent judgement in favour of the
Cypriot claims.2 Had John been present he might, perhaps, have
made good the claims of his predecessor, Alexander ; though what
evidence he could have produced we do not know. As it fell out,
the ' autocephalous ' position enjoyed to this day by the church
of Cyprus was eventually established by the appropriate discovery,
c. 488, of the body of St. Barnabas in his native soil. The decision
then expands into a general principle : no prelate is ' to take
possession of any province which has not been from the first
subject ' to his own see ' lest the arrogance of secular power creep
in under cover of the episcopal office '. The phrase is singularly
like that in which the Africans had repudiated the claims of
Caelestine in the matter of Apiarius. Besulas may have revived
it, and put it into the mouth of the Council. But, phraseology
apart, they were emphatic about the independent rights of pro
vince and metropolitan, as against invasion on the part of more
powerful neighbours. But their canon was not equal to preventing
the gradual enlargement of the original Patriarchate of Rome at
its expense : while it was deliberately set aside by the Council of
Chalcedon. That Council, at one stroke, subjected three ' Dioceses ',
including twenty-eight provinces, to the see of Constantinople.3
§ 17. Here, properly speaking, save for the six canons enforcing
its decisions, the Council of Ephesus and its proceedings came to an
end. But its troubles were now to begin. In August, 431, Count
John, the new High Commissioner, arrived at Ephesus. He
brought with him a letter — Quanto pietatis 4 — in which Theodosius
exhibited his ignorance of the actual state of affairs there : for he
gravely informs Pope Caelestine, Rufus of Thessalonica, and others
who had never been at Ephesus that he had accepted the deposition
of all three prelates — Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon — ' as intimated
1 Mansi, iv. 1468 c-E.
2 Canon 8, ibid. 1469 ; W. Bright, Canons2, xxix sq., 135-9 ; E. Denny,
Papalism, §§ 382-5.
3 sc. Pontus, Asia, and Thrace : see Canon 28 : W. Bright, Canons 2, xlvii.
4 Mansi, iv. 1395-8 ; Fleury, xxvi. i.

250 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
to Us by Your Piety '. John placed the two former under arrest
at once ; before the day was out he had Memnon under guard
too, though he had been absent at first ; and, in the evening, he
sent a report x to the Emperor of the satisfactory issue of his first
day's proceedings. In it he not only suppressed the fact that the
adherents of Cyril were in the majority, but represented them as
in the wrong. Such was the situation — a deadlock, when each side
could do little but console itself by writing to its friends. Thus
the Orientals wrote to the Emperor 2 by Count John ; then, drop
ping all mention, for the time, of Nestorius, to Antioch ; 3 finally,
in much the same terms, to Acacius of Beroea,4 congratulating
themselves and their well-wishers at a distance on the arrest of Cyril
and Memnon. They, in their turn, wrote a professedly Synodical
Letter to the Emperor,5 remonstrating in the name of the Council,
and asking for the restoration of its ' heads '.6 The Council re
iterated the request, in a further letter to Theodosius 7 ; and, mean?
while, Count John endeavoured to persuade them to hold com
munion with the Orientals. The Cyrillines at this stage would
not, but the Orientals would, go so far as to draw up a formulary
which might serve as the basis of reconciliation. It was drawn up
for the Emperor, and contained a short doctrinal statement in
which Mary was owned as Theotokos ' inasmuch as God the Word
became incarnate ; and, from the moment of conception, united
to Himself the temple which He derived from her'.8 Unless
' temple ' here meant a human person, the statement was quite
orthodox. It was a great advance from the side of John ; and was
the work, or was issued with the approval, of Theodoret. The
document may rank as a moderate statement of anti-Cyrilline
orthodoxy ; and it became, when proposed by John,9 and accepted
by Cyril,10 the Formulary of Reunion and, as such, one of the most
momentous of credal or doctrinal formularies in the history of the
Church. But, for the present, it lay waiting its future ; and the
i Mansi, iv. 1397 sq. ; Fleury, xxvi.' i.
2 Synodicon, c. xvii (Mansi, v. 781-4). This letter contained the Oriental
Confession of Faith, which afterwards became the Formulary of Reunion
between Cyril and John. 3 Synodicon, c. xviii (Mansi, v. 784 sq.).
4 Ibid., c. xix (785 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. iv.
5 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xv (Mansi, iv. 1441-4) ; Fleury, xxvi. ii.
6 Mansi, iv. 1444 b.
7 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xii (Mansi, iv. 1433-6) ; Fleury, xxvi. ii.
8 Synodicon, c. xvii (Mansi, v. 783 o, d).
9 Cyril, Ep. xxxviii (Op. x. 103 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 172) ; Mansi, v. 292.
10 Cyril, Ep. xxix (Op. x. 105 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 176 sq.).

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 251
majority wrote to the clergy and people of Constantinople as from
a ' prison ' at Ephesus — ' Let us be admitted to lay our case before
the Emperor : or let us be allowed to go '-1 There was a note
appended, meant, it is thought, to secure once more the inter
cession of Dalmatius. ' The heat is intolerable ; there are funerals
every day ; pray let the Emperor know of our distressing state.' 2
Their description of their plight is borne out, by an incidental
allusion of Cyril's, in a letter to the clergy and people of Constanti
nople ; and he adds that the pecuniary difficulties of the bishops
were increasing their distress.3 In similar strain he wrote to three
of his suffragans — Theopemptus, Daniel, and Potammon — now in
the capital : ' Here are our lives : but communicate with the
Orientals we will not, until they disown Nestorius.'4 The clergy
of Constantinople were not deaf to these appeals. They addressed
a remonstrance to the Emperor,5 begging him to support the
decisions of Cyril and. the majority; and Dalmatius, it would
seem, interposed again, for there is a letter of his to the .Council in
which he tells them that he has acted upon their request.6, . Alypius
also, priest of the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople where
were the tombs of its Emperors and Bishops, wrote to Cyril a
laudatory epistle, assuring him of all that was being done there on
his behalf.7 He treats him with great respect as the successor of
Athanasius ; in marked contrast to the tone adopted towards him
by another of his correspondents at this time, the abbot Isidore
of Pelusium, |440. Letters written from Ephesus against Cyril
had left an unfavourable impression of him on the mind of Isidore ;
and he thought it his duty to warn his Patriarch. ' Sympathy',
he begins, ' may not see clearly : but antipathy does not see at all.
If you would avoid both these faults, pass no violent sentences,
but investigate matters equitably. Many of those at Ephesus
accuse you of pursuing a private quarrel ; instead of seeking, in
an orthodox spirit, the things that are Christ's. Cyril/they say, is
3 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xvi (Mansi, iv. 1443-8) ; Fleury, xxvi. iii.
J Ibid., c. xvii (1447 sq.).
3 Ibid., c. xiii (1435-8) = Cyril, Ep. xxvii (Op. x. 90 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii.
141 sq.).
4 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xviii (Mansi, iv. 1447 sq. ) = Cyril, Ep. xxvm.
(Op. x. 91 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 143 sq.) ; and for their answer, Actio vi, c. xix
(1449 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvi vii. 6 Ibid., c. xxi (1453-6) ; Fleury, xxvi. vi.
8 £. Baluze,- Cone, nova collectio, i. 653 sq. (Paris, 1683) ; M. M. (P. L.
xlviii. 731 sqa.) ; Fleury, xxvi. vii ; and for the Council's thanks, ibid, and
Fleury, xxvi. viii.
7 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xxiv (Mansi, iv. 1463 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. vn.

252 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 part iii
nephew to Theophilus. He wants to be taken for a man of conse
quence, like his uncle ; who wreaked his fury upon the blessed
John ; though, to be sure, there is a considerable difference between
him and Nestorius.' x And about the same time Isidore wrote even
to Theodosius, urging him, as if with Cyril's well-known temper
in view, not to leave things to be settled by ill-regulated passion,
but to go to Ephesus in person : the sentence of the Council would
then be superior to all censure.2 This it was neither wise nor
possible for Theodosius to do. But, at last, while Isidore's stric
tures drew from Cyril in prison his Explicatio duodecim capitum,3
the Emperor consented to give audience to eight delegates from
the Council 4 and eight from its rival assembly.5 Laudably anxious
not to rouse a tumult at Constantinople, he received them at
Chalcedon,6 11 September 431. They could not agree ; and the
Emperor, convinced that it would not be advisable to break with
the majority, dissolved the Council.7 He refrained from any con
demnation of the Orientals ; but de facto accepted its decisions
by sending Nestorius back to his monastery at Antioch,8 September
431, and causing the eight deputies of the majority to proceed to
the consecration, 25 October, of Maximian,9 an aged and pious
priest who had been a pupil of Chrysostom and was well known
at Rome,10 as archbishop of Constantinople, 431-f4, in place of
Nestorius. The rival parties then went home. The Oriental
deputies, before they departed, accused Cyril of having won his
case by bribery u ; and Theodoret, their leading theologian, de
livered a sermon in which he relieved his feelings by inveighing
against the victorious Cyrillines as 'hatchers of serpent's eggs'12:
men, too, who believed in a ' passible Godhead \13 Cyril, in the
1 Isidore, Epp. i. cccx (Op. 82 sq. ; P. 67. lxxviii. 361), and Document
No. 205.
2 Ibid, cccxi (Op. 83 ; P. G. lxxviii. 361-4) ; Fleury; xxvi. v.
3 Cyril, Op. ix. 145-57 (P. 67. lxxvi. 293-312) ; Coll. post Eph., c. i (Mansi,
v. 1-19).
4 See their commission in Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xxii (Mansi, iv. 1457-60) ;
Fleury, xxvi. viii, and the ' Relatio ' of the Synod in c. xxiii (1460 c, d).
5 Their commission in Mansi, iv. 1399-1402 ; Fleury, xxvi.
6 For a lively account of the intrigues and expectations of the moment,
see Thdt. Ep. clxix (Op. iv. 1345-7 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1475 sq.) ; Mansi, iv.
1407 sq. ; Fleury, xxvi. ix.
7 Cone. Eph., Actio vi, c. xxv (Mansi, iv. 1465 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. x.
8 Synodicon, cc. xxiv-xxvi (Mansi, v. 792-4).
9 Socr. H. E. vn. xxxv.
30 Sixtus III, Ep. vi, § 7 (P. L. 1. 609 c); Mansi, v. 380 b; Jaffe, No. 392.
ii Synodicon, c. xxxi (Mansi, v. 802 b).
12 Mansi, iv. 1409 b. 33 Ibid. 1410 b.

chap, xii THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, 431 253
meanwhile, took ' French leave ', and returned to Alexandria in
triumph,1 30 October 431. So ended, in dissension, the Council
of Ephesus. It is a painful story ; but the authority of a Council,
however unworthy its proceedings, depends upon the subsequent
acceptance of its decisions by the Church.
i Colleclio ad Eph., c. xiv (Mansi, v. 255 sq.).

CHAPTER XIII
REUNION : AND THE END OF NESTORIANISM
WITHIN THE EMPIRE, 432-5
After the Council of Ephesus there ensued eighteen months
of unsettlement. I
The question, at this period, was to find a modus vivendi for
Reunion between Cyril and John ; and this was done between
431-3. § 1. For the moment, things grew worse, both at Constantinople
and in Asia. At Constantinople there was a party of Nestorians
created by the deposition of Nestorius, as there had been of
Joannites upon the deprivation of Chrysostom ; notable among
them Dorotheus, bishop of Marcianopolis, 430-4, and metropolitan
of Moesia Inferior. Maximian, backed by the Government, deter
mined to make short work with them ; and in a Synod at
Constantinople, supported by Juvenal, the two papal legates and
others who were still ' in town ',J he deposed not only Dorotheus,
but three other metropolitans of similar sympathies : Himerius
of Nicomedia in Bithynia I, Eutherius of Tyana in Cappadocia II,
and the ascetic Helladius of Tarsus in Cilicia I. Maximian was
stretching a point to claim authority over prelates of Asia 2 :
he had none at all over Tarsus, which belonged to the Patriarchate
of Antioch. This invasion of the rights of John could never have
taken place but for the breach between Constantinople and the
Orientals. The latter, as they travelled from Ephesus eastwards,
were treated by the bishops of Ancyra and Caesarea as excom
municated. They retaliated by stopping at Tarsus3 to renew
their condemnation of Cyril, with five of his envoys at Chalcedon ;
and, once more at home in their dioceses, they treated Nestorius
as unjustly deposed and Cyril as a heretic and author of all the
1 For the bishops present, see their Synodal Letter in Cone. Eph. in,
c. xv (Mansi, v. 257) ; and, for the depositions, Synodicon, cc. xiv, xlviii.
xlix, Ixx, lxxi (Mansi, v. 822 sq.).
2 For the final inclusion of Pontus and Asia in the Patriarchate of CP.,
see Chalc. c. 28, W. Bright, Canons 2, xlvii. 222.
3 Synodicon, cc. Ixvi, cxxxvi, cxli, clxxiv (Mansi, v. 843, 917, 920, 953).

REUNION 255
mischief. But some of the Orientals were beginning to think
better of Cyril. John himself was never extreme, and his
inclination to relent was anticipated, early in 432, by the action
of one of the most influential of his colleagues, Rabbula,1 bishop
of Edessa 412-f35, and metropolitan of Osrhoene. Rabbula
was governor of Chalcis, in that province, when he was converted,2
owing, in part, to the preaching of Alexander, founder of the
Acoemetae. He was a man of fiery and imperious temper, a
monk, and a great missionary. He had now held, for nearly
twenty years, the see of the capital of Mesopotamia ; and was
by force of character as well as in virtue of that great position,
the leading prelate of the far East. Edessa had great prestige
in Christian history.3 The influence of any of its bishops would
have been great. But when Rabbula, who had voted at Ephesus
for the deposition of Cyril,4 anathematized Theodore ' as well as
what we [Antiochenes] have taught ', this was to declare war
upon his former friends and to detach a great name from their side.
Andrew, bishop of Samosata 431-4, in a letter to his metro
politan, Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis [Mabug] 431-4, in Augusta
Euphratensis, took up the controversy against him, about March
432, on behalf of himself and Theodoret.5 Cyril, meanwhile,
unaware perhaps as yet of the movements in his favour among
the Orientals, was nevertheless conscious of the need of making
good his reputation at Court. In reply to Maximian, who
had written to tell him of his accession,6 Cyril compared him
to Eliakim succeeding Shebna,7 and took occasion to disclaim
any notion of ' alteration ' or ' confusion ' in the Divine Word 8
which he had so often been accused of maintaining ; while he
addressed himself to the Emperor in his Apologeticus ad Theodo-
sium9 as if to counteract the effect of his imprudence in having,
1 Tillemont, Mem. xiv. 504 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xvi.
2 Fleury, xxv. xxvii.
3 F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, 6 sqq., for the founding of
Edessa ; and, for the theology of Rabbula, ibid. 110 sqq.
4 His name occurs among the signatories of the letters addressed by the
Orientals (1) to clergy and laity of Hierapolis, Synodicon, c. xiii (Mansi, v.
776 b), and (2) to their deputies at C. P., ibid., c. xxviii (Mansi, v. 797 b).
6 Synodicon, c. xliii (Mansi, v. 821). The Antiochenes thereupon warned
the suffragans of Rabbula against him, ibid., c. xliv (Mansi, v. 822 a, b).
6 Cyril, Ep. xxx (Op. x. 94 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 147-50) = Cone. Eph. in,
c. xvii (Mansi, v. 257-60). 7 Ep. xxxi. (Op. x. 98 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 155).
8 Ibid. (Op. x. 96; P. 67. lxxvii. 152 b); Ep. xxxi = Conc. Eph. in, c. xviii
(Mansi, v. 259-66).
9 Op. ix. 241-60 (P 67. lxxvi. 453-88) = Cone. Eph. in, c. xiii (Mansi, v.
225-56).

256 REUNION : AND THE END OF part iii
on an earlier occasion, solicited the attention of the Imperial
ladies. The Apology had the desired effect ; and the Court, after
inclining at first to summon John and Cyril to come and confer
in the Imperial presence at Nicomedia, fell back upon the plan
of trying to induce the Orientals to abandon Nestorius, and Cyril
to drop his Twelve. Articles.1 Letters to this effect were written
in April 432 by the Emperor to John,2 to Acacius, bishop of
Beroea3 who, as the oldest of his colleagues might be expected
to have the most weight with him, and to the celebrated St. Simeon
Stylites 4 whom nobody — Patriarch or Emperor — could ignore ; and
the business was entrusted to Aristolaus, a tribune and notary, by
whom the letters were sent.5
The mission of Aristolaus took him, first, to Antioch, and thence,
to Alexandria ; supported by Paul, bishop of Emesa (Horns), the
envoy of John.
§ 2. At Antioch, John was alarmed and suspected an intrigue. In
a letter to Alexander of Hierapolis, he summoned him, along with
his suffragan, Theodoret, and other friends, to come and advise
him.6 They answered the summons ; and John held a Synod at
Antioch consisting of Acacius, Alexander, and his two suffragans,
Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus. Tbey were urgent,
at once, as Aristolaus would find, for the dropping of the Twelve
Anathematisms. For they drew up six propositions, probably
framed by John's chief theological adviser, Theodoret, of which
the first is the most important, viz. that the Creed of Nicaea
be taken as the sole authority ; all explanations, such as were
given in the letters and the articles of Cyril being put away, and
only that explanation being accepted which Athanasius had written,
c. 370, to Epictetus of Corinth against the Apolhnarians.7 On this
condition they would receive any one into communion, and so
close the question of doctrine. They shelved the personal question,
whether or no Nestorius should be treated as deposed. We learn
from a letter of Alexander and his two suffragans to Helladius of
i Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 515 sq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xvii.
2 Cone. Eph. in, c. xxiv (Mansi, v. 277-82, 663-6).
3 Ibid., c. xxv (Mansi, v 283) = Synodicon, li (Mansi, v. 828).
4 Ibid., c. xxvi (M. v. 284)=%?!.. Iii (M. v. 828 sq.).
5 For this version see Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 372, n. 2.
G Synodicon, c. 1 (Mansi, v. 827) ; Fleury, xxvr. xvii.
7 Ibid., c. liii (Mansi, v. 829 c, d) ; Fleury, xxvi. xvii ; Hefele, Conciles,
ii. i. 387 (E. Tr. iii. 121). The first of the six propositions is the only one
now extant .- see it in Bindley, Oec. Doc. 162 n.

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 257
Tarsus that these terms were to be placed before Cyril x : they were
forwarded to him in a letter from Acacius of Beroea, which was
taken by Aristolaus,2 Cyril rephed that he could not withdraw
what he had written against Nestorius, but that it would be easy
to come to an understanding about the Twelve Articles, if only
the Orientals would accept the deposition of Nestorius. The
Articles are only directed against the tenets of Nestorius ; and,
for himself, he disavowed once more the opposite errors so freely
attributed to him.3 The letter, though firm, was conciliatory.
It opened the way to reconciliation between Cyril and John ;
and, for immediate effect, it revealed at once the differences then
coming to a head among the Antiochene party. There were now
four sections among them, representing four shades of anti-
Cyrilline feeling. Thus (1) John himself, who now declared that
his brother Patriarch had cleared his reputation. He was anxious
for further negotiations ; and had with him the venerable Acacius 4
and the majority. Then there was (2) John's theological expert,
Theodoret ; he now expressed himself as satisfied with Cyril's
later language on the ground that it cancelled his earlier 5 ; but
he would not consent to the deposition and indiscriminate con
demnation of Nestorius.6 These two sections of the party had
separated the doctrinal from the personal question : a great step
on the road to peace. Third, stood (3) Andrew of Samosata,
rather by himself. His tone was, ' We must go half way to meet
Cyril now : though we are sorry to have to do it.' He was trying
to separate the question of doctrine from the personal question,
and he so far agreed with his metropolitan Alexander that he
believed Cyril was still in error 7 ; but he also believed with his
comprovincial, Theodoret, that the time had come for leniency of
construction in the interests of peace.8 A fourth element, led
by (4) Alexander of Hierapolis, could not, or would not, keep the
doctrinal and the personal question apart at any price. He scouted
all terms with ' the Egyptian ' 9 ; and with him were three other
1 Synodicon, c. liv (Mansi, v. 830).
2 Ibid., cc. liii, lv (Mansi, v. 829 c, 830 d).
3 Ep. xxxiii (Op. x. 99 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 157-62) ; Synodicon, c. lvi (Mansi,
v. 831-6) ; Fleury, xxvi. xviii.
4 Synodicon, c. lv (Mansi, v. 830 sq.).
6 Ibid., c. lx (Mansi, v. 840 b).
6 Ibid., c. Ixi (Mansi, v. 840 sq.). 7 Ibid., c. lix (Mansi, v. 839 sq.).
8 ' Condescensione opus est,' ib., ce. lxii, lxiii (Mansi, v. 841 sq.).
9 Ibid., cc. lxiv, lxv (Mansi, v. 842 sq.).
2191 ni g

258 REUNION : AND THE END OF part in
metropolitans — Eutherius of Tyana,1 Helladius of Tarsus,2 and
Maximin of Anazarbus.3 The two last were of Cilicia ; and with
them the influence of Theodore would count heavily. These
were a tenacious minority ; but a minority only of four. John
and Acacius determined to ignore them ; after John had tried,4
though without success,5 to soften Alexander and get him to take
a kindlier view of Cyril. They selected as their envoy, Paul, bishop
of Emesa, who had served as proxy for the aged Acacius on the
commission sent by the Orientals at Ephesus to represent them at
Constantinople 6 ; and they sent him,7 in the autumn of 432, to
second the mission of Aristolaus, the Imperial Commissioner.
§ 3. At Alexandria Cyril had been doing all in his power to
counteract the influence which the Orientals exerted at Court.
Maximian, of course, was on his side so far as to secure his own
tenure by making a point of the deposition of Nestorius ; but he
had no feelings of fatherly affection, like Cyril, for the Twelve
Articles.8 Their author still held that it was vital to retain them ;
and he set in motion every influence he could command in their
favour.9 The holy monks Dalmatius and Eutyches, the priests
Philip and Claudian, the archbishop Maximian himself, all these
he levelled at Pulcheria, whom also he tried to move through her
maids of honour, the cubiculariae Marcella and Droseria. They
received handsome eulogiae 10 or bribes ; and so did important
eunuchs ; above all, the Grand Chamberlain, Chrysoretes. He
was devoted to the cause of the Orientals, but, ' that he may cease
to attack us ', Cyril directed that he should be bought with ' six
large Turkey-carpets and four of moderate size ; four large
carpets ; eight couches ; six table-cloths ; large curtains ; six
carpets ; six curtains of moderate size ; six bench-covers ;
twelve cushions ; four large tapestries ; four benches, in ivory ;
six, in leather ; four large pictures ; six ostriches ; and, if he
1 Synodicon, cc. lxxiii, lxxiv (Mansi, v. 850-3).
2 Ibid., c. Ixviii (Mansi, v. 845). 3 Ibid., c. lxvii (Mansi, v. 844).
4 Ibid., c. lxxvi (Mansi, v. 853-5).
5 Ibid., cc. lxxvii, cxxxvi (Mansi, v. 855, 916).
6 Ibid., c. lv (Mansi, v. 831 b : see also iv. 1400).
7 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 527 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xix.
8 Liberatus, Breviarium [written c. 560-6], § 8 (P. L. Ixviii. 983 A, b).
9 Synodicon, c. cciii (Mansi, v. 987-9). On this bribery, note the charac
teristic remarks of Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 541 ; Gibbon, c. xlvii (v. 118);
Newman, Hist. Sketches, ii. 342 (ed. 1899). ' It does not answer ', he says,
' to call whity-brown white,' i. e. all a Saint's actions saintly ; and W.
Bright, Waymarks, 161 sqq.
10 Cf. 4 Kings v. 15 [LXX] ; R.V. ' present ' [2 Kings v. 15].

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 259
does as instructed by the Most Magnificent Aristolaus and assists
us, through the good offices of Claudian, two hundred pounds in
gold '.1 Cyril was a masterful man and stuck at nothing ; he
ran the church of Alexandria into debt to the amount of £60,000 2
in order to support this corruption ; and it is probable that both
the goodwill of John and Acacius as well as the conciliatoriness
of their emissary Paul owed something to the success of the carnal
weapons with which Cyril had won over the Court. In any case,
Paul did his errand well. He was a man of years and experience ;
and arrived in Egypt about the winter of 432 armed with impor
tant documents. He brought with him (1) the six propositions
of the recent Synod at Antioch ; (2) the doctrinal formulary 3
drawn up by Theodoret and presented to the Emperor, through
Count John, on behalf of the Orientals. It now had its anti-
Cyrilline prelude4 and peroration5 cut out, and contained an
introduction6 and a creed 7 — afterwards the Formulary of Reunion
or The Reunion Creed of the Antiochenes. Finally, he carried
(3) a letter of introduction from John to Cyril,8 which may be
described as even cordial. John traces the troubles to the un
fortunate Twelve Articles,9 and says that Cyril had promised
further explanations.10 Will he make them ? Not a word, how
ever, about the deposition of Nestorius. Cyril was ill when Paul
presented himself ; and was not propitiated u by his letters of
introduction from John. He noticed at once that nothing was
said about the deposition of Nestorius. ' Would Paul assent to
it ? ' ' Yes, readily.' ' But would John ? ' Paul thought he
would ; and forthwith placed^ in the hands of Cyril a written
statement,12 which settled all differences both as to the doctrinal,
1 This list of bribes is given in a document preserved in Bibliotheca
Casinensis, I. ii. 47.
2 Newman's note in Fleury, iii. 161, note e ; Gibbon, xlvii (v. 118).
3 Synodicon, c. xvii (Mansi, v. 781-4).
4 ' Aegyptio mundum consuete turbante,' ib. (782 a).
6 ' Morbo qui illatus est Aegyptiacis capitulis,' ib. (783 d).
6 i. e. in a letter of John to Cyril : irepl Sc rr)s 0cotokov, ktX., Cyril, Ep.
xxxviii (Op. x. 103 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 172 b) = Cone. Eph. ni. xxix (Mansi, v. 291 a).
7 •Op.oXoyovp.ev, kt\., ibid. (Op. x. 103; P. 67. lxxvii. 172 c) = Conc. Eph.
in. xxix (Mansi, v. 291 b).
8 Synodicon, c. Ixxx (Mansi, v. 856 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. xix ; Hefele,
Conciles, n. i. 253 (E. Tr. iii. 128).
9 Ibid., c. Ixxx (Mansi, v. 857 b). 10 Ibid. (857 c).
11 Cyril, Epp. xl, xlviii (Op. x. Ill, 156 b; P. 67. lxxvii. 185 B, 252 A, b) ;
Cone. Eph. ni, cc. xxxv, xxxviii (Mansi, v. 312 e, 349 b).
12 Cyril, Ep. xxxvi (Op. x. 100 sq. ; P. G. lxxvii. 165 sqq.) = Cowc. Eph.
ni, c. xxviii (Mansi, v. 287 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. xix.
S2

260 REUNION : AND THE END OF part iii
and as to the personal, question. The statement was in a letter
from Paul to Cyril. In pursuance, he says, of the Emperor's
orders, John and Acacius had sent him to Alexandria ; he had
found Cyril disposed to peace, and had received from him a paper
in which the Catholic Faith was set down in its pristine purity.
The reference here is, no doubt, to the Formulary of Reunion as
accepted and made his own by Cyril ; and ' this ' , says Paul,
' was worth any trouble '. Thus the doctrinal difference was
settled ; and ' because it is necessary ', continues Paul, ' that the
personal matter about Nestorius should be settled too, I declare
that we receive the ordination of Maximian ; we look upon
Nestorius as deposed ; we embrace your communion, on the
basis of our joint-acceptance of the formulary just mentioned,
and appended to this letter ; the schism is at an end '. Paul, at
first, had wanted to insist on the restoration of the four Nestorian-
izing metropolitans deposed by Maximian ; but on this point
Cyril was inflexible,1 and Paul thought it well to acknowledge
Maximian without pressing the point. Peace was thus made ;
he was received into the communion of the church of Alexandria 2
18 December 432, and on Christmas Day admitted to preach,3
as a Catholic bishop. ' Mary, the mother of God ', he exclaimed,
'brought forth Emmanuel.' 'Ah! that's the Faith,' shouted
his audience : ' It is the gift of God ! 0 orthodox Cyril ! '
addressing themselves to their Patriarch as he sat listening from
his throne. ' This is what we wanted to hear ! Anathema to
him who speaks not thus ! ' 4 Paul proceeded to expound the
result of the Incarnation. ' The concurrence of the two complete
Natures (cpvcrei.-,) has formed for us the one only Son, the one only
Christ, the one only Lord.' Again he was cheered to the echo :
' Welcome, orthodox bishop ! Worthy of Cyril ! Gift of God ! ' 5
On New Year's Day, 433, Paul preached again 6 ; and whereas,
before, he had emphasized the truth for which Cyril had all along
contended — ' One only Person in Christ, and that Divine ' —
now he stood firm for the complementary truth so persistently
championed by Theodoret — ' two distinct Natures, divine and
1 Cyril, Ep. xlviii (Op. x. 157; P. 67. lxxvii. 252 D) = Conc. Eph. m,
c. xxxviii (Mansi, v. 349 d, e).
2 Cyril, Ep. xxxvii (Op. x. 101 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 169 a).
3 Homilia Pauli, ap. Cone. Eph. in. xxxi (Mansi, v. 293-6) ; Fleury,
xxvi. xix. 4 Ibid. (293 d). s Ibid. (293 e).
6 Eiusdem Pauli Homilia, ap. Cone. Eph. in. xxxii (Mansi, v. 295-302).

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 261
human '. ' Emmanuel,' he said, ' whom the Virgin Mother
brought forth for us, is, indeed, according to His Divine Nature
consubstantial with the Father ; but He is also, according to His
human nature, consubstantial with us.' x There was applause
again 2 ; and Cyril assented. Thus the first step in the Reunion
of Alexandria and Antioch was publicly taken ; its accomplish
ment now turned on the question whether John and his friends
would confirm the acts of their emissary Paul.
§ 4. Returning to Antioch, Aristolaus and Paul, accompanied
by two Alexandrian clergy, Cassius and Ammon, presented to
John a document for him to sign, in accordance with the agree
ment between Paul and Cyril. He yielded at once to the doctrinal
affirmation required of him ; and, under pressure from Aristolaus,
he consented to abandon Nestorius3 and accept Maximian in
his stead. The decision he announced in a circular letter to his
three brother Patriarchs,4 Sixtus III of Rome, 432-f 40, Maximian
of Constantinople, 431-f4, and Cyril of Alexandria, 412-f44 ;
and he added two cordial letters to Cyril alone.5 In a short
sermon6 of 23 April, Cyril made known the joyful news to his
people ; and, on the same day, replied to John with the celebrated
letter Laetentur coeli,7 a document of oecumenical authority
inasmuch as it was expressly and solemnly approved at the
Council of Chalcedon.8 After an introduction on the happiness
of peace and the visit of Paul of Emesa, Cyril observes it is now
clear that dissension was needless.9 ' Paul has brought me a paper
drawn up by your Holiness, which I am inserting in this letter
word for word ' — and then follows the Formulary of Reunion.10
which Cyril thus makes his own. The Creed of Nicaea is sufficient ;
yet, by way of giving full expression to our belief, we acknowledge
1 Eiusdem Pauli Homilia, ap. Cone. Eph. m. xxxii (297 a).
2 Ibid. (301 b). 3 Ep. xxxvii (Op. x. 401 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 169 b).
4 Cone. Eph. in. xxvii (Mansi, v. 285) ; Hefele, Conciles, u. i. 400 sq.
(E. Tr. iii. 135) : see also Cyril, Ep. xlviii (Op. x. 157 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 253 a).
5 Cyril, Ep. xxxviii (Op. x. 102-4 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 169-71) = Conc. Eph. in.
xxx (Mansi, v. 289-92) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxi ; and Cyril, Ep. xlvii (Op. x.
146-55 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 247-50). Both summarized in Hefele, Conciles, n. i.
401 sq. (E. Tr. iii. 136).
6 Cone. Eph. ui. xxix (Mansi, v. 289 sq.).
7 Cyril, Ep. xxxix (Op. x. 104-9 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 173-82) = Cone. Eph. in.
xxxiii (Mansi, v. 301-10) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxi ; Bindley, Oec. Doc, and
Document No. 195.
8 At Session 11, of 10 October 451 (Mansi, vi. 960 b, c).
9 Cyril, Ep. xxxix (Op. x. 105 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 176 b).
10 Ibid. (176 c-177 b).

262 REUNION : AND THE END OF part hi
Jesus Christ to be not complete God only but complete Man as
well, of a rational soul and a body.1 If He is consubstantial with
the Father as touching His Godhead, He is also consubstantial
with us as touching His manhood.2 There is an Unity of Person 3 ;
but also a distinction of Natures, as the Gospel sayings imply.4
So far the Formulary ; and, in making its language his own,
Cyril, point by point, lays a new stress on the reality of our Lord's
manhood, and so balances such language of his Twelve Anathema
tisms as had been thought to ignore or even to deny it. He then
disclaims, once more, the imputation of Apollinarianism. ' I am
accused of saying that the flesh of Christ came down from heaven 5 :
but this is excluded by my insistence upon Theotokos.' We say,
of course, with St. Paul, that ' the Second Man is from heaven ' 6 ;
or, with St. John, that ' the Son of Man came down from heaven ' 7 ;
but that is because He is one with His own flesh which was born
of the holy Virgin.8 If, again, I am accused of teaching a mixture,
confusion, or blending 9 of God with flesh, the charge is refuted,
as your Holiness, I am sure, will allow, by my repeated insistence
on the continuity of Christ's Person, coupled with the fact that,
while impassible in His Godhead, He took upon Him our sufferings
by economically, i. e. in accordance with the mystery of the
Incarnation, appropriating to Himself the sufferings " proper to
His own flesh.10 In so saying, I am but repeating the language
of my predecessor, Athanasius, in his Letter to Epictetus ; of which
I have the pleasure to enclose a correct copy. u One question
only this letter of Cyril to John shelved — the withdrawal of the
Twelve Articles. But John did not drag it out to light, and the
Reunion was thus happily accomplished. II
The effects 12 of the Reunion have next to be considered.
§ 5. And, first, upon the Orientals. John informed them of the
peace, first in a letter to Theodoret,13 and then in an encyclical.14
1 Cyril, Ep. xxxix (177 sq.). 2 Ibid. (177 a).
3 Ibid. (177 a). 4 Ibid. (177 b). 6 Ibid. (177 o).
6 Ibid. (180 a) ; 1 Cor. xv. 47 7 Ibid. (180 A) ; John iii. 13.
8 Ibid. (180 a) ; on this Communicatio Idiomatum see W. Bright, Sermons
of St Leo 2, 128 sqq.
9 Kpaais, o-vyxvo-ts, (pvppos (Mansi, v. 180 B).
10 Ibid. (180 b). n Ibid. (181 b). 12 Fleury, xxvi. xxii.
13 Synodicon, c. lxxxvi (Mansi, v. 867 sq.).
34 Ibid., c. ii (Mansi, v. 751 sq.).

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 263
(1) As to Theodoret, John had grounds for anxiety. Theodoret
was suspicious,1 and would say that the Twelve Articles ought
to have been withdrawn ; though he did not blame the union
in doctrine and so recognized implicitly the orthodoxy of Cyrii.
' He has retracted and has overthrown his Twelve Articles ' is
the burden of two of his letters about Cyril at this time.2 But he
would not consent to the deposition of Nestorius and his friends.3
The bishop of Cyrus thus stood midway between his Patriarch
John and extremists such as Alexander, his metropolitan, who
now refused either to condemn Nestorius or to communicate with
Cyril,4 and even renounced communion with John.5 Andrew of
Samosata was at one with Theodoret in accepting Cyril's later
language ; and went farther than he in thinking that it was
necessary to make peace,6 though he agreed that Nestorius must
not be deposed. Theodoret and his friends were thus approxi
mating to the majority of the Easterns in favour of peace. At
the Synod of Zeugma,7 in Syria Euphratensis, Theodoret,8 Andrew,9
and John of Germanicia,10 all suffragans of that province, acknow
ledged the orthodoxy of Cyril ; but not the deposition of Nestorius.
(2) Their metropohtan, Alexander of Hierapolis, was furious
with these quondam allies, and quite impracticable. He renounced
their communion,31 as well as that of John,12 in angry letters.
Deserted by his comprovincials in Syria, he threw himself upon
the support of his friends in Cilicia, where traditions of the theology
of Theodore would still be strong. Here he and his party proceeded
to hold a httle Synod of their own, under Maximin, at Anazarbus
in Cilicia II, in which they excommunicated Cyril and withdrew
both from his communion and from that of Antioch.13 And two
of them, Eutherius of Tyana and Helladius of Tarsus, went so
far as to write to Pope Sixtus III, asking for his co-operation
against the Reunion.14 They must have lost their heads !
1 Synodicon, c. lxxxvii (Mansi, v. 868 sq.) in reply to John.
2 Ibid., cc. lxxxviii, xcv (Mansi, v. 869 sq., 876-8).
3 Ibid., c. lxxxvii (Mansi, v. 868 e) and c. cxx (Mansi, v. 898 sq.).
4 Ibid., cc. xcvi, c, civ (Mansi, v. 878 sq., 881 sq., 884 sq.).
6 Ibid., cc. xciii, xciv (Mansi, v. 874 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxvi.
6 Ibid., cc. ci, ciii (Mansi, v. 882 sq., 884).
7 Ibid., cc. xcvii-xcxix (Mansi, v. 879 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxvi.
8 Ibid., c. cxxii (Mansi, v. 903 sq.). • Ibid., c. evi (885 sq.).
10 Ibid., cc. civ, cix (885, 888). Germanicia was the birthplace of Nestorius.
11 Ibid., c. civ (884 sq.). 12 Ibid., c. cxxxvi (v. 916 sq.).
13 Ibid., cc. cxi-cxiv (889-91) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxvi.
14 Ibid., c. cxvii (893-7).

264 REUNION: AND THE END OF partiii
About this time Maximian _of Constantinople died,1 on 12 April
434. He was succeeded by Proclus, 434-f46. There was no
election : for to avoid tumults, as on previous vacancies, Theodo
sius II simply commanded Proclus to be enthroned.2 John was
informed of the appointment by Taurus, the Praetorian Prefect.
' If only ', replied John, ' you would think of restoring tranquillity
to these parts too.' He was dissatisfied with both sides, and
particularly with ' the unruly spirits ' in his Patriarchate.3 At
last he obtained an Imperial Rescript to the effect that all the
bishops of ' The East ' must enter into communion with their
Patriarch or leave their sees.4 Andrew had quitted the middle
party before this, and had come into full communion with John,
through the influence of Rabbula.5 Theodoret at length came in,
after an interview with John in which the Patriarch had waived
the point of subscription to the deposition of Nestorius.6 So also
did Maximin and his fellows of Cilicia II ; Helladius of Tarsus
and his colleagues of Cilicia I. But a letter of Helladius7 to
Nestorius shows that his mind remained unchanged, and evinces
the folly of persecution in religion. Alexander of Hierapolis stood
out obdurately.8 Along with seventeen other irreconcilables he
was deposed April 435, and banished to the Egyptian mines.9
And thus the Reunion triumphed in ' The East ' ; but under
pressure. § 6. It rallied the Easterns ; but on the friends of Cyril its
effect was disintegrating. They began to ask themselves whether
his acceptance of Two Natures in Christ were not a deviation from
strict orthodoxy.
Thus, in Egypt, Isidore 10 of Pelusium, f440, who had formerly
taxed his Patriarch with pressing the Nestorianizers too hard,11
now blamed him for making terms too easily.12
We may mention here two other letters of Isidore, as of special
interest, referring to the doctrine of Baptism. It is not only for
forgiveness of sins, to purify men's souls from the stain contracted
i Socr. H. E. vii. xl, § 1.
2 Ibid., §§ 3, 4 ; on Proclus, see ib. xii ; Fleury, xxvi. xxvii.
3 Synodicon, c. cxxiii (Mansi, v. 904) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxviii.
4 Ibid., cc. cxl, cxlii, cxliii, cxlvi (920, 922 sq., 923, 925) ; Fleury, xxvi.
xxxi. 6 Ibid., cc. xcviii, evi (880, 885 sq.). « Ibid., cc. clx, clxii (938, 940).
7 Ibid., c. xciii (967 sq.). 8 Fleury, xxvi. xxxii-xxxiv.
9 Synodicon, cc. clxxiv-clxxxvii, cxc (951-66). 10 Fleury, xxvr, xxx.
31 Epp. i. ccclxx (Op. 96 sq. ; P. 67. lxxviii. 392 c).
12 Epp. i. cccxxiv (Op. 86 ; P. G. lxxviii. 369 o).

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 265
by Adam's sin,1 but for a new birth ; and both Baptism and
the Eucharist (Baptism being at that time never administered,
even to infants, without Communion 2) necessary to salvation.3
But to return to the suspicions of Cyril entertained by his
friends.4 At Constantinople they were asking, ' Why did Cyril
sanction the Two Natures ? The Nestorians are now saying, " He
has come over to us ", and, in consequence, are kidnapping all
who know no better '.5 So we are informed in Cyril's letter to
his envoy at the capital, the priest Eulogius ; and he also had to
assure Donatus, bishop of Nicopolis 425-32, and metropolitan
of Epirus Vetus, that he had not gone back upon his former
writings against Nestorius.6
On the upper waters of the Euphrates, Cyril's old friend,
Acacius, bishop of Melitene 431-8, and metropolitan of Armenia II,
signified that some uneasiness was felt at his part in the concordat.
This drew from Cyril a protest 7 that the exposition of the Faith
which he had received from the Orientals differed widely from
the doctrine of Nestorius. The latter, he explained, asserted two
Christs, the Formulary of Reunion but one ; and, by way of
emphasizing this doctrme of .one Christ, he made use of an expres
sion which afterwards had disastrous consequences, because of
its ambiguity. ' We believe,' he said, ' the nature (d>wm) of the
Son to be one, but of One who became man and was incarnate ' 8 :
or, as he expressed it to Eulogius, ' One incarnate nature of God ' —
Miav tt)v tov &eov <pv<riv o-eaapKOdp,evr]v. Cyril had already, in
the De recta fide, addressed to the princesses Arcadia and Marina,
adopted the phrase, ' One incarnate nature of God the Word ' 9 —
Miav <pvo-iv tov ®eov Aoyov o-to-apKooixivqv — citing it asif from Athana-
1 Epp. in. cxcv (Op. 333 ; P. 67. lxxviii. 880 b).
2 Ibid. (Op. 333 ; P. 67. lxxviii. 880 c).
8 He quotes the two ' Excepts ', &c, of John iii. 5, v. 53 ; Epp. u. Iii (Op.
144 sq. ; P. 67. lxxviii. 496). . 4 Fleury, xxvr. xxix.
5 Cyril, Ep. xliv (Op. x. 132 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 225 a)= Cone. Eph. m, c. xxxvii
(Mansi, v. 344 o, d).
6 Ep. xlviii (Op. x. 155-7 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 249-54)= Cone. Eph. hi, c. xxxviii
(Mansi, v. 347-51).
7 Ep. xl (Op. x. 109-20; P. 67. lxxvii. 181-202)= Cone. Eph. in, e. xxxv
(Mansi, v. 309-26).
8 Miav eivai mo-reioptv ttjv tov Ylov tpvo-iv, ass hos, rrXrjV ivav8pttmi)oavTos Kal
a-eo-apKafihov, Ep. xl (Op. x. 115 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 192 sq.) ; Mansi, v. 320 a.
9 De reel. fid. ad Reginas, i, § 9 (Op. ix. 48 ; P. G. lxxvi. 1212 a) : see also
Adv. Nest, ii, praef. (Op. ix. 31 ; P. 67. xxvi. 60 d), and the note ad loc. in
L. F. xlvii. 41, note c On the phrase, see J. H. Newman, Tracts theol. and
eccl. 329-82 (ed. 1899) ; and, on this episode, W. Bright, Later Tr. of St. Ath.
174 sq.

266 REUNION : AND THE END OF part hi
sius. But the short confession, De incarnatione Dei Verbi,1 from
which the citation is made, is not a genuine work of Athanasius.
Supposing, however, that his successor quoted it under the im
pression that it had such high authority, and was now twitted by
his old friends with having admitted the contrary, Cyril gave ex
planations enough in letters to Eulogius,2 Acacius,3 Succensus,4
bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, which show 5 that the one idea in
his mind was to guard the undivided union of two natures in One
Being. We are not to think of God and a man in Jesus Christ ; but
of the God-man. Yet, for all that, the phrase was unfortunate.
<&vo~is was ambiguous. As yet, it more often meant Nature than
Person. If quoted apart from Cyril's explanations, as it would
be and was by minds impatient of glosses, the phrase would lead
to ' confusion ' and to a denial of the Two Natures ((pvo-ets) in the
One Divine Person ('TiroVrao-is) : whereas its author meant by
it simply that in the Incarnate Son we must recognize not two
beings but One only. It is this line that the Armenians still
adopt when they speak of the ' One Nature '. ' They considered
Byzantium to mean by " Two Natures " what Nestorius meant,'
says Dr. Neale, ' by " Two Persons ".' 6 Tillemont thinks that
the criticisms of the Easterns and their delay in condemning
Nestorius had been overruled for good when they enabled Cyril
to ' smother Monophysitism in advance ' 7 by such explanations
as he now had occasion to offer of the phrase — ' One Nature of
the Word Incarnate ' — by which it won its victories. But the
phrase, despite all explanations, was potent for evil in that
direction ; and, while explanations did nothing to check the
advance of Monophysitism, it is probable that greater willingness,
could Cyril have shown it, to modify some of his Twelve Articles,
would have prevented Nestorianism from spreading over so wide
a field.
1 Ath. Op. iv. 1 sq. (P. 67. xxviii. 25-30) ; Bardenhewer, 255.
2 Ep. xliv (Op. x. 132-5 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 223-8) ; Cone. Eph. ni. xxxvii
(Mansi, v. 343-8).
3 Ep. xl (Op. x. 109-20 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 181-202) ; Cone. Eph. ni. xxxv
(Mansi, v. 309-26).
4 Epp. xiv, xlvi (Op. x. 135-46 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 227-46), esp. xlvi, § 3 (Op.
x. 143 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 244 a), and W. Bright, Later Tr. St. Ath. 175,
note f.
6 See also Ep. 1 (Op. x. 158-71 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 253-78) ; Cone. Eph. m. xl
(Mansi, v. 353-72).
6 Hist Eastern Ch. ii. 1080 : see also A. Fortescue, The lesser Eastern
Churches, 412 ; W. Bright, Sermons of St Leo 2, 165 ; W aymarks, 399, n. 2.
7 Mim. xiv. 545.

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 267
III
Its extension was consequent upon the end of Nestorius and of
Nestorianism within the Empire,1 c. 435.
§ 7. Nestorius, since the Council of Ephesus, had been relegated
to his former monastery at Antioch ; and there, for four years,
431-5, he had lived in peace. But, by edicts of 2-3 August 435,
Theodosius II decreed that his followers were to be called Simo-
nians for 'abandoning God', as did Simon Magnus; and forbidden
to retain the writings of their master or to meet for worship.2
In a rescript of 436 Nestorius was banished to Petra in Arabia 3 ;
but he was sent, instead, to the Great Oasis (now the Oasis of
Khargeh), on the borders of Upper Egypt ; where we find him
in 439 when Socrates finished his History.* Thence he was carried
captive by marauders to Panopolis (Akhmim) ; thence removed
to Elephantine opposite to Syene (Assuan) ; and thence again
he was to have been sent to a fourth place of exile. Coincidently
with his exile, there passed into exile his friend the Count Irenaeus,5
afterwards bishop of Tyre, c. 447-8, and metropolitan of Phoenicia.
Irenaeus occupied himself in compiling in Greek an account and
a dossier of the late troubles, called his Tragoedia. It survives
only in a series of extracts— very considerable, it is true — made
after the death of Justinian, 527-f65, by a Latin cleric who
defended the Three Chapters, and entitled the Synodicon.6 We
have often referred to it, as a source for the affair of Nestorius.
He also, during his wanderings, strove to re-establish his credit
by the apology published under the title of the Book of Heraclides ;
and he lived on till the eve of the Council of Chalcedon which,
though it did not decide in his favour, redressed the balance to
some degree in his direction. At last, about June 451, he died,
worn out by barbarities not unlike those which hastened the
death of his predecessor, St. Chrysostom. They are recorded
with a pitiful complacency by the Catholic historian, Evagrius 7 —
1 Fleury, xxvi. xxxiv; Gibbon, c. xlvii (v. 119 sqq.); A. Fortescue,
L. E. C. 65, 75 sqq.
2 Cod. Theod. xvr. v. 66 ; Cone. Eph. in. xiv (Mansi, v. 413 sq.).
3 Cone. Eph. in, c. xv (Mansi, v. 255 sq.).
4 Socr. H. E. vn. xxxiv, § 11 ; Fleury, xxvi. xxxiv (iii. 139, note x).
5 Synodicon, clxxxviii (Mansi, v. 964).
6 q.v. in Mansi, v. 731-1022, and Thdt. Op. v. 608-906 (P. 67. lxxxiv.
551-864) ; and, for its history, Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 605 sq. ; Duchesne,
Hist ane. iii. 338, n. 2.
7 Evagrius, H. E. i, § 7 (P. 67. lxxxvi. ii. 2433-44).

268 REUNION:- AND THE END OF partiii
' a hard and stupid fanatic S1 who wrote as the continuator of
Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and carried the history on from
431 to 594 — the end of his own time.2
§ 8. The followers of Nestorius, forbidden to be found in posses
sion of his writings, were not to be baffled. Like Cyril, they knew
where Nestorianism came from, viz. from Cilicia 3 ; and bettered
any profit to be derived from their distribution by circulating
instead the works of Diodore and Theodore.4 In so doing they
took a step which had important consequences on the doctrinal
system : first, of the Church in Persia ; and then, of the Church
of the Empire.
§ 9. The Church in Persia,5 for nearly a century, had lived in
fear of persecution or in safety, according as the Roman and the
Persian Empire were at war or at peace.
By the treaty which Jovian had made in 363 on the defeat of
Julian, the frontier was reconstituted ; and while Edessa, the
mother-city of the Christian religion in the far East, remained
Roman, Nisibis, some hundred and fifty miles to the East, was
given up to Persia. The Church in Persia thus gained a metro
politan see, and a theological school of no little importance. This
was under Sapor II, 309-t79. His brother, Ardashir II, 379-f83,
continued the persecution 6 ; but after his death there set in,
because both Empires were menaced by the White Huns, 395,
an interval of peace and reorganization which lasted on into the
reign of lazdgerd I, 399-j"420. The reorganization was effected
at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon,7 410, mainly by the efforts
of the doctor- 8 and diplomatist-prelate, Marutha of Maiferkat,9
near Amida (Diabekr), who came, c. 408-9, in attendance on an
ambassador from Theodosius II.10 About forty bishops were
3 Gibbon, c. xlvii, n. 58 (v. 121). 2 Bardenhewer, 554.
3 Meletius, successor to Theodore in the see of Mopsuestia, was the only
prelate of Cilicia II to stand out after the reconciliation to John of Antioch
of his metropolitan Maximin of Anazarbus and comprovincials : see
Synodicon, cc. clxxiii-clxxv (Mansi, v. 951-5) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxxii.
4 Liberatus, Breviarium, § 10 (P. L. Ixviii. 990 a).
6 J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans V empire perse (1904) ; W. A. Wigram,
The Assyrian Church (1910) ; A. Fortescue, L. E. C. (1913).
6 Labourt, 84.
7 Text of the decrees of the Synod in Synodicon Orientale, 253-75, ed. J. B.
Chabot, in Notices et extraits des MSS. de la Bibliotheque Nationale, t. xxxvii
(Paris, 1902) ; Labourt, 92-9 ; Wigram, 95-101.
8 Socr. H. E. vn. viii, § 6 ; Marutha had taken part in the Synod of the
Oak, ibid. vr. xv, § 10. 9 Martyropolis, a suffragan see of Edessa.
i° Socr. 27. E. vu. viii, § 3 ; Labourt, 89.

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 269
present ; and Marutha brought letters, from ' the Western Fathers ',
as a Christian of Persia would call them, i. e. from Porphyrius,
bishop of Antioch 404-f 13, the metropolitan of Edessa, and others.
The Synod accepted the Creed and the decisions of Nicaea ;
western rules such as that there should be but ' one bishop in
a Catholic church ' and that each bishop should have not less
than three consecrators ; the observance of the Epiphany (i.e.
Christmas and Epiphany, still one feast), Easter, Lent, and Good
Friday, as elsewhere. It also formally assigned the primacy of the
Persian Church to the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon x ; and this
prelate, as he had at Antioch a Patriarch over him and, in his
own country, metropolitans (five in all — Bait Lapat, Nisibis,
Prat d'Maishan, Karkar d'Bait Sluk, and Arbela) under him,
began to look about for a title corresponding to this exalted but,
as yet, ill-defined position. He found it in Catholicus. The title
was originally a civil one; and was proper to the Imperial ministers
of finance, whether for the ' Diocese ' or for the Empire. ' I have
ordered the Catholicus of Africa ', wrote Constantine to Caecilian
in 313, ' to count out three thousand pieces to your Holiness.' 2
It came to mean Procurator-General 3 ; a high official who was
really somebody else's deputy but, in practice, the authority on
the spot, hke the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
In this sense it had been assumed by the Armenian Primate,4
when relations with the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
whence Armenia had, in part, been converted, were becoming
uneasy. From Armenia the Christians in Persia borrowed it.
Catholicus thus stood, in effect, for the next thing to Patriarch
in days when it was assumed that Patriarchs were strictly limited
in number.5 It was, in fact, a convenient description for the
head of a Church so far removed, geographically or politically,
from its mother-Church as to be practically independent.6 Four-
1 Canons, i, vi, xviii.
2 Ap. Eus. H. E. x. vi, § 1 ; so iui6o\ikAtt>.s = the ministry of finance,
ibid. vm. xi, § 1 ; and Macrianus, as minister of finance to Valerian, is
said to have been iirl tS>v KadoXov \6ym; ibid. vii. x, § 5.
3 J. M. Neale, Eastern Church, i. 141.
4 A. Fortescue, L. E. F. 405.
5 The title only came to be finally and definitely applied to the five great
sees by the Council of Chalcedon, 451, W. Bright, Canons 2, 104.
6 Fortescue insists that it meant ' vicar of a greater bishop ' (L. E. F. 405).
He is biassed by the papal theory of every bishop but one having an ecclesias
tical superior, and superiors all running up ultimately to the Pope — ' the
central authority of Rome over the whole Church ' (ibid.). But this was

270 REUNION : AND THE END OF part iii
teen years later, at the Synod of Markabta of the Arabs,1 424,"
the Persian Church proclaimed its independence — a claim that
is best understood as a political move, taken not in a mere spirit
of schism but in self-defence.
Toward the end of the reign of lazdgerd, 399-f420, a Christian
enthusiast burnt a fire-temple 2 ; and persecution broke out
afresh.3 It raged, with appalling fierceness, under his successor,
Bahram V, 420-f38, and there were numberless martyrs as
under Sapor II. The persecution synchronized, as usual, with
a renewal of war, 421, between Rome and Persia4; and was
mitigated 5 by the peace of 422, in which Theodosius II granted
toleration to Mazdeans in the Empire in return for like favours
from Bahram V to Christians in Persia. Now, if it were once
made plain to the Persian Court that Christians in Persia had
nothing to do with their co-religionists west of the frontier, the
loyalty of Persian Christians might cease to be suspect, and peace
might be assured to a national Cburch. It is thus that we may
best explain6 the declaration of its independence by the Church
of Persia at the Synod of 424 ; and thus, too, was the ground
prepared in Persia for a welcome to Nestorianism precisely
because it was not the form of Christianity acknowledged by the
Roman Empire.
No sooner, then, were the writings of Nestorius put under the
ban, than those of his masters in theology, Diodore and Theodore
were circulated instead. They were translated 7 into Syriac by
Ibas 8 (Yihiba) a priest, and (on the death of Rabbula) bishop,
a theory that was then only making its way. Wigram thinks that Catholicus
meant Patriarch, i. e. that the Catholicus of Seleucia-Ctesiphon was the
equal of the Patriarch of Antioch (The Assyrian Church, 91-2).
1 Synodicon Orientale, 296 ; Labourt, 122 sqq. ; Wigram, 123 sqq. ;
Fortescue, 50 sq., and Dooument No. 155.
2 Thdt. H. E. v. xxxix, § 1.
3 Labourt, 104-18; Wigram, 113-20. Socrates (H. E. vu. xviii, § 1) says
that lazdgerd I was no persecutor ; but he must mean that he was not the
author of a general persecution (Labourt, 109, n. 1) such as Bahram in
augurated. For this, see Thdt. H. E. v. xxxix ; Tillemont, Mim. xii.
356-63. 4 Socr. H. E. vn. xviii-xxi ; Tillemont, Hist des Emp. vi. 40 sqq. ; and
Gibbon, c. xxxii (iii. 390 sq.).
6 Not brought to an end : see Thdt. H. E. v. xxxix, § 5.
6 So Wigram, 125 ; but Duchesne thinks that it grew out of the necessity
of strengthening the ecclesiastical organization on the spot, whioh would
have been weakened by appeals to Antioch. It was the same feeling which
impelled the Africans to forbid appeals from their jurisdiction to the Roman
See, Hist. Ane. iii. 563 sq. 7 Fleury, xxvi. xxxvi (iii. 194 a).
8 Proclus, Ep. iii, § 2 (P. 67. lxv. 875 a).

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 271
of Edessa, 435-f57 ; into Armenian by Eulalius, a bishop of
Persarmenia and friend of Theodoret to whom the latter wrote
a letter of encouragement in the persecution1; and into Persian
by a correspondent to whom Ibas, now leader of the Nestorian
party at Edessa, had recently written a letter,2 433, censuring
the Council of Ephesus 3 ; denouncing Cyril's Twelve Articles 4 ;
repudiating Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, as a turncoat and a
tyrant 5 ; and describing the Reunion as a retractation of his
errors by ' the Egyptian '.6 The recipient of the letters of Ibas
is commonly known as Maris, bishop of Ardashir.7 But ' " Mari "
means "My lord " : and Ardashir is the Persian name for Seleucia-
Ctesiphon.' The letter may therefore have been addressed to no
less a person than 'My lord bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon ',8 i.e.
to the Catholicus Dadyeshu, 421-f56. He may thus have had
a share in making Nestorianism known throughout the Church
of Persia. But Barsumas 9 (Barsauma, b. 420-f 92), Rector of
the Persian School at Edessa, and participator with Ibas, his
master, in the schism against their bishop Rabbula, was the real
propagator of Nestorianism in Persia. On the death of Ibas,
bishop 435-49, and again 451-f7, of Edessa, there followed a
strong Monophysite reaction under Nonnus, his successor, 457-f71 .
Barsumas and his comrades were ' either expelled, or voluntarily
quitted a sphere that had ceased to be congenial'.10 They crossed
the frontier, and most of them rose to high office in the Church
of Persia. Barsumas, in particular, became metropolitan of
Nisibis, the third see in the Church, and chief agent in making
the Church of Persia Nestorian.
Thus Nestorianism, like Arianism fifty years previously, on
its rejection from the Empire, took a fresh lease of life beyond
its frontiers. But, whereas Arianism found acceptance with
the barbarians because its Christ was as one of their demigods,
1 Thdt. Ep. lxxvii (Op. iv. 1126 sqq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1245 sqq.).
2 Mansi, vii. 241-50 ; Fleury, xxvn ; Hefele, iii. 366-8. The letter
afterwards became the third of the famous ' Three Chapters ', condemned
by Justinian, 527-f65, to please the Monophysites.
3 Mansi, vii. 244 c. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 245 B. 6 Ibid. 248 b.
7 Fleury, xxvn. xxi (iii. 270, note m). 8 Labourt, 133, n. 6.
9 Labourt, c. vi ; Wigram, c. viii. His name = ' son of fasting '.
in Wigram, 150. We must distinguish this expulsion (which Duchesne
prefers to date 449-50, Hist ane. iii. 568, n. 1) from the final closing of the
School of Edessa in 489 (Labourt, 138, n. 1). When it was closed, Barsumas
established its professors and pupils in the school of Nisibis, which then
became the well-spring of Nestorianism throughout the East, Labourt, 141 ;
Wigram, 166 sq.

272 REUNION: AND THE END OF part in
Nestorianism obtained a welcome on political grounds. It became
the form of Christianity tolerated by the kings of Persia because
it was the faith which had been rejected by their enemies the
Romans. When the Church of the Empire became by the
Henoticon1 of 482 officially Monophysite, Barsumas, who had
much influence with King Piroz, 457~t84, secured the royal
protection for the Church in Persia by an assurance that it was
separate from the Church of the Romans and by an official
confession that its faith was Dyophysite 2 ; and this assurance
was confirmed at the Council held in 486, under the Catholicus
Acacius, which defined the Creed 3 of the Church in Persia. Thus
both the independence and the Creed of the Church of Persia were
established together ; though its Liturgy 4 was older, and under
went no such change. It was now no part of the Church of the
Empire, but a national Church and, as such, free from persecution.
We may deplore these tendencies both to schism and to heresy,
but they were the price the Persian Church had to pay for keeping
Christian at all.5
§ 10. The Church in the Empire included part, of Armenia.6
Roman geographers divided Armenia into Lesser and Greater,
West and East respectively of the Euphrates. Greater Armenia,
after Theodosius I had surrendered four-fifths of it to the Persians,7
was practically coterminous with what was then known as
Persarmenia. It was a Christian country, under its Catholicus
who, c. 375, had separated from Caesarea in Cappadocia. He
became the autonomous ruler of a national Church ; and, as its
sympathies were with the Christian Empire, Armenians were
repeatedly persecuted by their overlords the Persians. Lesser
Armenia belonged to the Empire. It contained two provinces :
Armenia I, the metropolitan of which was the bishop of Sebaste ;
and Armenia II, whose metropolitan, at the time of the Council
of Ephesus, was Acacius, bishop of Melitene 431-f8. Finding
1 q. v. in Evagrius, H. E. iii, § 14 (P. 67. lxxxvi. ii. 2619-26), and Document
No. 235 ; summarized in Hefele, iii. 452 sqq. It was a document ostensibly
orthodox, but really monophysite, its object being to conciliate the Mono-
physites. 2 Labourt, 139 ; Wigram, 155.
3 q. v. in Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, 302 ; Wigram, 269 : see Duchesne,
Hist Ane. iii. 568 sq., and Document No. 236.
4 q.v. in F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, i. 247 sqq. B Wigram, 156.
6 J. M. Neale, Hist ofthe Eastern Church, v. 74 sqq. ; Duchesne, Hist ane,
iii. 522 sqq. ; A. Fortescue, L. E. C. 383 sqq.
7 Gibbon places the division in the fifth century, c. xxxii (iii. 392); but
see app. 25 (ed. Bury).

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 273
that the writings of Diodore and Theodore were being circulated,
apparently in Armenian translations,1 Acacius and Rabbula,
bishop of Edessa, warned the bishops of Armenia (so it would
seem), Persian as well as Roman, not to receive the books of
Theodore. He was the real author, they urged, of the Nestorian
heresy. The bishops of Cilicia assured their colleagues of Armenia
that the two prelates, in so informing them, were acting out of
personal spite.2 But the Armenians did not think so. They
held a synod, c. 435 ; condemned the writings in question;1 and,
so as not to be alone in their condemnation of them, dispatched
two clerics with a letter from ' the bishops, clergy and monks
of Great Armenia and Persia and other nations ',3 asking for the
support of Proclus, archbishop of Constantinople 434-f46. He
replied in The Tome of St. Proclus,* a celebrated doctrinal epistle
of 435, not sufficiently studied in view of its doctrinal importance.5
It exhibits an advance from Alexandrian language towards that
ultimately adopted at the fourth General Council ; an advance
from Cyril to Leo, from Ephesus to Chalcedon. Addressing himself
to ' the bishops, presbyters and archimandrites of all Armenia ',6
Proclus gives a clear exposition of the faith of the Incarnate,
asserting the unity of Person along with the distinction of Natures.
(1) As to ' Nature ' (<pvo-is), Cyril had not ordinarily spoken of the
Lord's assumed humanity as a ' Nature '.7 He had employed
the term <\>vo-is either of the Lord's Divine Person,8 or of the Divine
Nature in Christ. Proclus now used it of His human nature 9. ;
and so prepared the way for the Chalcedonian affirmation of one
Christ ' in two Natures '. Then (2) he declined ' One Nature
3 Hitherto Western Armenia had used Greek, and Eastern Armenia
Syriac, for literary purposes and for the liturgy ; but under the Catholicus
Sahag, 390-442, an Armenian alphabet was formed, so that the national
tongue became a written language, Gibbon, c. xxxii, n. 83 (iii. 392) ;
Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 544 ; Fortescue, L. E. C. 408 sq.
2 Liberatus, Breviarium, § 10 (P. L. Ixviii. 990) ; Fleury, xxvi. xxxvii.
3 Mansi, ix. 240 sqq.
4 Proclus, Ep. ii (P. G. lxv. 855-74) ; Mansi, v. 421-38 ; Fleury, xxvi.
xxxvii. 5 e. g. in its defence of ' the divine condescension ', § 9 (P. G. lxv. 864 sq.),
with which cf. Tert. De carne Christi, § 2, and H. P. Liddon, University
Sermons, i. 200.
« Ep. ii (P. 67. lxv. 856 b).
7 There is a case of it in his sermon at Ephesus, just before his arrest in
July 431 : see Cone. Eph., Actio vi, No. 7 (Mansi, iv. 1369 e) : see also
Tixeront, iii. 59. ,..„,,>
8 e. g. Ep. xlvi, § 2 (Op. x. 143 ; P. G. lxxvii. 241 b).
9 Ep. ii, §§ 5, 9 (P. 67. lxv. 860 d, 864 c).
2191 III T

274 REUNION: AND THE END OF part in
(tpvo-is)'1 for ' One Person (v-noo-rams) of God the Word incarnate.2
Looking back, we observe that this was to avail himself of the
later, and Alexandrian, use of the word inroo-Tao-ts for ' Person',
which goes back to the phraseology of Origen, who spoke of
' Three hypostases ' or ' Persons '.3 And, looking forward, we
note that Proclus thus prepared the way for its final employment
in that sense and for the consequent fixing, at last, of the word
(pvTis to the sense of ' Nature ', in the phrase of the Chalcedonian
Definition, ' One Person in two Natures '.4 Thirdly, (3) while
making it clear that the Godhead is impassible, so that God the
Word could not suffer in His Godhead, he claimed the right to
affirm that ' One of the Trinity became incarnate '.5 The Tome
of Proclus was accepted not only by Cyril, but by John of Antioch
in Synod,6 435 : for Proclus had wisely refrained from naming
Theodore 7 though he had appended to his letter some passages
which he deemed worthy of condemnation.8 But the Synod of
Antioch declined to condemn the memory of Theodore, even by
accepting the condemnation of passages from his writings,9 still
less by anathematizing his name : as the envoys of Proclus,
without their principal's approval, had desired John to do. John
wrote to Cyril that all the trouble was breaking out again ; and
Cyril and Proclus, after the latter had been informed by Cyril
of the dangers ahead,10 agreed to let the matter drop. They saw
that, in the face of the great veneration in which the name of
The Interpreter was held, the proposal to vilify it would do more
harm than good. Thus the question of the posthumous condemna-
1 Minn <f>io-U' tov deov h.6yov 0-eo-apKmp.evrjV, Cyril (ut sup.).
2 Miav 6p.o\oy(o Tr)v tov (rapKcodevros Qeoii Aoyov vnoo-TarrLV, Ep. ii, § 9
(P. 67. lxv. 864 d).
3 Tpeis vnoo-Tuo-ets, Origen, In loann. ii, § 6 (Op. iv. 61 ; P. 67. xiv. 128 h).
4 Miav Irroo-Tao-iv ev 8vo (jbio-eaiv, ap. Bindley, Oec. Doc. 233.
6 Tov eva rijs- TpiaSos creo-npKaio-Bat, Ep. ii, § 10 (P. G. lxv. 865 c) ;
Tixeront, iii. 126.
6 Mansi, v. 1181-6 ; Hefele, iii. 154 .sq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xxxviii. Our
informant is Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, in the Byzacene province of
Africa, who, c. 546-8, wrote his Defensio Trium Capitulorum (P. L. lxvii) in
defence of the Co. of Chalcedon for not condemning Theodore : see Barden
hewer, 638.
7 See the fragment of the letter of Proclus to John preserved by Facundus,
viii, § 2 (P. L. lxvii. 713 a) in Mansi, v. 1186 d, e.
8 Liberatus, Breviarium, § 10 (P. L. Ixviii. 990 o).
8 Facundus, Def. Tr. Cap. viii, § 4 (P. L. lxvii. 718 c) = Mansi, v. 1184 A
from the Synodal Letter addressed to Cyril. It = Cyril, Ep. Ixvi (Op. x.
192 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 329 sqq.) ; tr. Fleury, xxvi. xxxviii.
10 Cyril, Ep. lxxii (Op. x. 199-201; P. 67. lxxvii. 343-6); Fleury, xxvi.
xxxvii.

chap, xiii NESTORIANISM WITHIN THE EMPIRE 275
tion of Theodore was passed over till the Fifth Oecumenical Council,
at Constantinople in 553 x ; and the Emperor supported the letters
of Cyril 2 and Proclus 3 to the Synod of Antioch in which they
disclaimed any such intention, by urging John and his Council
to unity, and desiring that all would make it a rule never to assail
the memory of one who had died in the communion of the Church.4
§ 11. But there was, meanwhile, a general acquiescence in the
repudiation of Nestorianism. The edict against it was entrusted
to Aristolaus 5 ; who was now sent, on a second mission, to the
East with orders to see that it was accepted by all the bishops.
The firstfruits of his mission were that Helladius of Tarsus and four
other bishops of Cilicia I came in : and wrote to the Emperor,
in a synodal letter, affirming their agreement with Sixtus, Proclus,
Cyril, and John (where, it may be noted, that they rank the bishop
of Constantinople second among Patriarchs), and their repudiation
of Nestorius.6 Cyril, however, was informed that several bishops
in the East alleged that they were under no obligation to do more
than condemn Nestorius in word. He therefore wrote to Aristo
laus,7 and to John of Antioch,8 urging that if there was to be
a bona fide conformity, they must be asked not merely to repudiate
Nestorius and his doctrine but to pledge themselves to positive
statement of belief in a formula which he specified.9 It was
Theodoret, in particular, that Cyril thus had in mind.10 John
took no notice ; but, writing in 437 to Proclus, to inform him of
the results of the mission of Aristolaus, he reported that aU had
now consented to the deposition of Nestorius and to what was
1 Mansi, ix. 157 sqq. ; Hefele, iv. 307 sqq.
2 Cyril, Ep. lxvii (Op. x. 194-8 ; P 67. lxxvii. 331-8) = Cone. Eph. in,
c. xliv (Mansi, v. 407-14) ; tr. Fleury, xxvi. xxxviii.
3 Proclus, Ep. x (P. 67. lxv. 879) = Facundus, viii, § 2 (P. L. lxvii. 713 a) ;
Mansi, v. 1186 ; tr. Fleury, xxvi. xxxviii.
4 Turbam atque tumultum, ap. Facundus, viii, § 3 (P. L. lxvii. 717 c) =
Mansi, v. 1183 o, d, and in Synodicon, ccxix (Mansi, v. 1009 sq.). The two
versions differ slightly : see Fleury, xxvi. xxxviii.
5 Cyril, Ep. lix (Op. x. 191; P. 67. lxxvii. 323 sq.) = Synodicon, cxciv
(Mansi, v. 969) ; for this second mission of Aristolaus, see Fleury, xxvi.
xxxv. 6 Synodicon, exeii (Mansi, v. 967).
7 Epp. lix, lx (Op. x. 192 sq. ; P. G. lxxvii. 323-6) = Synodicon, cxciv,
ccix (Mansi, v. 969, 996 sq.).
8 Ep. Ixi (Op. x. 192** ; P. 67. lxxviii. 325 sqq.) = Synodicon, exev (Mansi,
v. 970).
9 Ep. lix (Op. x. 192; P.67. lxxvii. 323 sq.) = Synodicon, cxciv (Mansi, v.
969 c),
10 Ep. lxiii (Op. x. 192*; P. G. lxxvii. Wl nq.) = Synodicon, ccx (Mansi, v.
997). T 2

276 THE END OF NESTORIANISM
done for Reunion ' four years ago ' through Paul of Emesa.
' What we want is time to take breath after all this tumult : so
that we may be free to devote ourselves to the conversion of the
heathen in Phoenicia, the Jews in Laodicea, and the handful of
the insubordinate Nestorians in Cilicia.'1 Cyril found, we may
suppose, that he had gone too far, for no further action was taken.
Nor was it necessary. After the second mission of Aristolaus, he
would seem to have heard no more of Nestorianism within the
Empire. A reaction was at hand in Eutychianism.
1 Synodicon, cxcvii (Mansi, v. 972-5).

CHAPTER XIV
EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48
§ 1. A decade of peace, 436-46, rewarded the efforts of the
Government to silence extremists by Aristolaus. John, Cyril, and
Proclus once more entered upon relations entirely correct ; and,
at the capital, Proclus took advantage of this respite to rally
the Joannites to his communion by bringing back the relics of
St. Chrysostom.1 His name had been restored to the diptychs of
Constantinople in 428, but his body had remained at Comana,
where he died in 407. On the Feast of St. Chrysostom, 26 September
437, Proclus was preaching the usual eloge,2 when the people
demanded that John should be restored to them. The archbishop
procured an Imperial order to bring back his relics ; and, on
27 January 438, they were carried home. The Bosporus was
illuminated,3 as on his first return ; and, as the saint was borne
in procession through the streets, to his last resting-place in the
Church of the Apostles, Theodosius himself, accompanied by
Pulcheria,4 touched the reliquary with his forehead, and implored
the Divine Mercy for his guilty parents, Arcadius and Eudoxia,
since, in persecuting Chrysostom, they knew not what they did.5
Three weeks later, on 15 February 438, was published the Theodo
sian Code 6 ; and in the same year the Empress Eudocia, b. 394-
f 460, went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. She had made a vow 7
that, if she should hve to see her daughter Eudoxia married, she
would visit the Holy Places. The princess, who was born in 422,
was married 8 at Constantinople, 21 October 437, to her cousin
the Western Emperor, Valentinian III, 425-f55, who ceded
Western Illyricum to the Eastern Empire, as the price of the
3 Socr. H. E. vu. xiv ; Thdt. H. E. v. xxxvi ; Tillemont, Mim. xi.
350 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xl ; Gibbon, c. xxxii (iii. 381) ; W. R. W. Stephens,
Life of St. Chrysostom, 405 sq. 2 Orat. xx (P. 67. lxv. 827-34).
3 Thdt. H. E. v. xxxvi, § 1. 4 Ibid., § 3. 5 Ibid., § 2.
6 Codex Theodosianus, ed. J. Gothofredus, tomi iii (Lugduni, 1665), or
Libri Theodosiani, edd. T. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer (Berolini, 1905) : see
Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 76 sq. ; Fleury, xxvi. xl.
7 Soor. H. E. vn. xlvii.
8 Ibid, xliv ; Tillemont, Hist des Emp. vi. 75 ; Fleury, xxvi. xii.

278 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
marriage. Eastern Illyricum had belonged to it since 379. The
region now ceded was the province of Dalmatia, which was part
of the ' Diocese ' of Italy, and is now represented by Dalmatia,
Bosnia, and Herzegovina. Thus the Eastern shore of the Adriatic
in its entirety now belonged to the empire of Theodosius II.
The Empress Eudocia then set forth.1 She built monasteries
in Palestine,2 and restored the walls of Jerusalem.3 Then she
returned, 439, with relics of St. Stephen and others, as the reward
of her piety.4 To the year of her return belongs the completion
of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates.5
§ 2. Its completion is a landmark, for, within the next few
years, old leaders died off and younger men began to fill their sees,
Thus, John of Antioch died in 440, and was succeeded by his
nephew Domnus,6 440-f52.
In the same year died Pope Sixtus III, 432-f 40, whom Augustine
had won over from lending his patronage, while still a priest, to
Pelagianism. As Pope, he kept Julian of Eclanum, 439, at arm's
length when he sought readmission to communion 7 ; and left
a record of benefactions 8 to the Roman churches so magnificent
as to provoke Valentinian III to a like generosity. Sixtus was
succeeded by his archdeacon, Leo, who ruled, as Pope,9 from
440-t61. Leo was of Tuscan origin, though born in Rome. As
acolyte, he had been sent by his predecessor, then a priest, in 418,
to carry to Aurelius a letter of reassurance to the Africans.10 As
archdeacon he had obtained for Pope Caelestine the intervention
of Cassian in the Nestorian question ; while, under Sixtus, he
had twice intervened, with effect, in the issue between semi-
Pelagianism and Augustinianism — once to give a lead to central
opinion at Rome in 435, and again to shut the door upon Julian.
At the death of Sixtus, Leo was absent in Gaul, on a mission to
reconcile Aetius,11 the mainstay, 433-t54, of Valentinian III and
Galla Placidia his mother, with a smaller rival Albinus. He was
elected in absence ; and six weeks later arrived in Rome for his
' Evagrius, H. E. i. xx (Op. 275 ; P. 67. lxxxvi. ii. 2474 sq.).
2 Ibid, xxi (Op. 276 ; P. 67. lxxxvi. ii. 2477 a).
3 Ibid, xxii (Op. 279 ; P. 67. lxxxvi. ii. 2484 b). 4 Fleury, xxvi. xii.
5 Socr. H. E. vn. xlviii, § 8. 6 Fleury, xxvi. xlvi.
7 Prosper, Chron. [a. d. 439] (Op. 747 ; P. L. li. 598 b).
8 Liber Pontificalis, i. 232 sqq., ed. L. Duchesne ; Fleury, xxvi. xiv.
9 Lib. Pont. i. 238 sqq. ; Tillemont, Mim. xv. 414-832 ; Fleury, xxvi.
xiv ; C. Gore, Leo the Great (S.P.C.K. 1897).
10 Aug. Ep. cxci, § 1 (Op. ii. 709 b ; P. L. xxxiii. 867).
11 Gibbon, c. xxxv (iii. 447 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 874 sqq.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 279
consecration x on Michaelmas Day, 440. ' Leo ', says Milman,
' is the only great name in the Empire : it might seem also in
the Christian world.' 2 He was the man that the hour demanded ;
for the Western Empire lay at its last gasp, and the Church in
the East was torn by heresies. Leo, though the first of the Popes
to be a great preacher and the first — with the possible exception
of Pope Dionysius, 259-t68 — to take rank among theologians,3
was, before all things, a ruler. He was ready for his mission, as
is clear from the sermons with which he was wont to celebrate
the day of his 'nativity' or consecration.4 The first, on the day
itself, betrays his consciousness of power ; for he makes no pro
fession of unwillingness, but praises God for his appointment,
thanks the people, and asks their prayers.5 In Sermons II-V,
preached on anniversaries of his consecration, Leo dwells not
now on his capacity but on his right to rule.6 Hisis ' the church
which into the see of Peter has received Peter himself '.7 Peter,
according to Leo, is the founder and even the present administrator
of the Roman see. The Pope seems to suppose ' a continual, one
might almost say mystical, presence of St. Peter with and in his
successors ' 8 ; for ' Peter has never quitted that guidance of the
church which he received ; since, in his see, there lives on his
power and the excellence of his authority '.9 Moreover, * if the
other Apostles had anything in common with Peter, their powers
were only transmitted to them through him '.10 He is mediator
between Christ and the other Apostles ; and, as in his character
of ' head ' u of the body, the only immediate recipient, then the
'channel' too,12 of sacerdotal grace. Such plenitude of authority
Leo claimed for himself.13 It is the more noteworthy that he
1 Prosper, Chron. (a. d. 440) (Op. 748 ; P. L. li. 599 A).
2 H. H. Milman, Latin Chr.1 i. 228.
3 On Leo as theologian, see W. Bright, Sermons of St. Leo 2, x. sqq.
4 ' In natali ipsius,' i-v ; cf. ' Hunc servitutis nostrae natalitium diem,'
Sermo, iv, § 4 (Op. i. 19 ; P. L. liv. 152 b).
5 Sermo, i (Op. i. 7 sq. ; P. L. liv. 141 sq.).
6 For the Petrine claims of St. Leo see W. Bright, Sermons 2, &c, 178 sqq.;
C. Gore, St. Leo, 90 sqq. They were an expansion of the theories put for
ward by Damasus and Siricius : see E. Denny, Papalism, §§ 69 sq.
7 Leo, Sermo, ii, § 2 (Op. i. 9 sq. ; P. L. liv. 144 a), and Document No. 225.
8 Gore, Leo the Great, 91.
9 Sermo, iii, § 3 (Op. i. 12 ; P. L. liv. 146 c), and Document No. 225.
10 Gore, Leo the Great, 93.
11 Leo, Ep. x, § 1 (Op. i. 633 ; P. L. liv. 629).
12 Leo, Sermo, iv, § 2 (Op. i. 16 ; P. L. liv. 149 sq.).
On these two passages, see Denny, §§ 846 sqq.
13 ' The importance of such a claim as this cannot be exaggerated; if it be

280 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 partiii
freely recognized the sacerdotal character of the Christian laity.1
He should have an honourable place therefore among ' the most
earnest maintainers of an external or hierarchical priesthood ',
who ' have emphatically asserted the internal priesthood, or
consecrated character, of all the baptized '.2 And ' had he been
told ', as Luther was the first to tell the world,3 ' that the ideas
of a ministerial and of a general priesthood excluded each other,
he would have answered, in effect, that the former was the
appointed organ of the corporate exercise of the latter, and in
no way interfered with its individual exercise '.4
Not long after the archdeacon Leo was seated in the throne
of Sixtus, Cyril died,5 9 June 444 ; and was succeeded by his
archdeacon Dioscorus 6 who became Patriarch of Alexandria,
444-51. We need not attach any value to a coarse and ferocious
invective against the memory of Cyril,7 which was quoted as
Theodoret's at the Fifth General Council of 553.8 Newman is right
to ' scout the idea ' that it was his,9 particularly since it was
quoted there as having been addressed to John of Antioch who
died before Cyril. But it may reflect contemporary feelings of
relief in Syria ; and, perhaps, too, of Alexandrians, at being rid,
at last, of the domination of Theophilus and his nephew which
they had endured for sixty years. It was an expensive tyranny,10
and Cyril is not an attractive saint.11 But he has been very
admitted, the whole question is settled, and separation from Rome is
separation from grace, and therefore from Christ,' Gore, Leo the Great, 93.
1 ' Quid tam sacerdotale quam . . . immaculatas pietatis hostias de altari
cordis offerre ? ' Sermo, iv, § 1 (Op. i. 15 ; P. L. liv. 149 a).
2 W. Bright, Ancient Collects, 99, note h ; Letters, 111 : see St. Thos. Aq.
Summa, ni. lxxii ad I.
3 In his ' Address to the Nobility of the German Nation ' of 1520 : see
Luther's Primary Works 2, 164 (edd. H. Wace and C. A. Buchheim).
4 W. Bright, Sermons of St. Leo 2, 204, and p. ix, n. 1.
5 Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 654 ; Fleury, xxvn. i.
6 Fleury, xxvn. iii.
7 ' Sero tandem et vix malus homo defunctus est,' Thdt. Ep. clxxx (Op.
iv. 1362 sqq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1489 sqq.). It cannot have been Theodoret's;
for elsewhere he testifies to the pleasant relations between himself and
Cyril. Ep. lxxxiii (Op. iv. 1151 ; P. L. lxxxiii. 1273 b).
8 At Session V (Mansi, ix. 295).
9 Hist. Sketches, ii. 359 n.
10 One of the complaints against Dioscorus, at the third session of the Co.
of Chalcedon, was that he had made Cyril's nephews, Athanasius and Paul,
disgorge the wealth that their uncle had bestowed upon them, Mansi, vi.
1024 ; Fleury, xxviii. xiii.
31 On the character of Cyril, see Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 656 sq. ; Newman,
Hist. Sketches, ii. 353 ; W. Bright, Ch. Hist 370 ; D. C. B. i. 772 ; Way-
marks, 138 sqq. ; Age ofthe Fathers, ii. 424 sqq.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 281
hardly used by modern writers because they could not understand
his zeal for a doctrine1: while, as for the 'blameless' Nestorius —
so they call him2 — he began as a persecutor of heretics.3 The
cause which Cyril sustained was of supreme moment. The heresy
he opposed was a heresy fatal to the Incarnation, the Atonement,
and the Sacraments ; and it was identified with the name of
Nestorius, a man of great abilities, who not only held the then
most important see in Christendom but was backed by the whole
weight of Imperial influence. Cyril made mistakes in the conduct
of the controversy, but he never lost sight of the fact that the
issues were vital. His title to our veneration is that the contest
has been decided, long since, in Cyril's way ; and Cyril's judge
ment has been ratified by all subsequent Christendom.
Proclus, it will be remembered, was one of the first of theologians,
contemporary with Cyril, to adjust and yet, on the whole, to
ratify that judgement. He died on 24 October 446, and was
succeeded, as Patriarch of Constantinople, by Flavian, 446-f9.
And thus new leaders — Leo, Flavian, Dioscorus, and Domnus
occupied the chief sees of Christendom.
§ 3. In Antioch, however, and ' the East ', one of the original
protagonists, and other leaders of second rank, survived ; and,
with them, its strong tradition of an anti-Cyrilline orthodoxy.
Domnus, nephew to John and heir no less to his doctrinal position
than to his throne, still had the aid of his uncle's adviser, Theo
doret ; and Theodoret, since the death of Cyril, was facile princeps
among theologians of the Eastern Empire. Ibas who, on the
death of Rabbula, succeeded him as bishop of Edessa, 435-f57,
brought over that great Christian centre to the anti-Cyrilline
side. And such was the security of the Orientals that they ven
tured upon the promotion to the episcopate of Count Irenaeus.
As friend to Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, Irenaeus had
played the part of Imperial agent there though with no definite
commission 4 ; and afterwards, of emissary of the minority to
the Court.5 Condemned with Nestorius to banishment in August
435, he occupied his leisure in writing a history of the troubles
in which he had borne part, with violent invectives against all
who had questioned the orthodoxy of his friend. The work, once
known as the Tragoedia Irenaei, c. 440, is now lost, except in so
1 Neale, Patr. Al. i. 275. 2 W. Bright, Waymarks, 166.
3 Socr. H. E. vn. xxix, §§ 5-12 ; Gibbon, c. xlvii (v. 121).
4 Fleury, xxv. xxxiv. 5 Ibid, xlvi, lv.

282 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
far as it has been translated into Latin and preserved, with
additions of a similar character, in the Synodicon 1 of an African
controversialist who wrote after the death of Justinian, f565, and
was an admirer of Cyril, Theodoret, and Ibas, but an opponent of
Nestorius.2 He himself gave to his work the name Synodicon,3
and it is commonly known as the Synodicon adversus tragoediam
Irenaei. Twelve years of exile, 435-46, seem to have softened
the animosities of the author of the Tragoedia ; for Theodoret, in
letters written after the Count's elevation to the episcopate,
speaks of his readiness to adopt the test-word Theotokos* and
testifies to his reputation as a man of amiable and generous
disposition,5 with an interest in Biblical questions and in casuistry.6
It would also seem that Irenaeus got back into the good graces of
Theodosius ; for Domnus would never have dared to fetch him
to be made bishop from a place of exile. He was a digamist,
it is true ; but this disqualification was overruled by reference
to precedents, and he must also have given guarantees for his
heretical past. At any rate, consecrated he was to be bishop
of Tyre, 447-8 and metropolitan of Phoenicia : and the consecra
tion, recognized as it was not only throughout Syria but by the
bishops of Pontus and, in writing, by Proclus at Constantinople,7
is evidence of the strong position of the anti-Cyrilline orthodoxy
traditional at Antioch, just on the eve of new movements else
where in an ultra- Cyrilline direction. Antioch further strengthened
its position by an understanding with Constantinople allowing
Proclus to exercise jurisdiction in Asia 8 while, in accordance with
an Imperial Rescript,9 Proclus proceeded in a synod of 437 to
wrest Illyricum, notwithstanding the protests of Sixtus III,10
from its ecclesiastical connexion with the Roman See.11
1 Text in Mansi, v. 731-1022 ; Thdt. Op. v. 608-906 (P. 67. Ixxxiv. 551-
864) ; and for an account of it, Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 605 ; D. C. B. iii.
280 sqq. ; W. Bright, Waymarks, 161 ; Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 388, n. 2.
2 Synodicon, cxciii ; Thdt. Op. v. 847 (P. 67. Ixxxiv. 806 b).
3 Ibid, ccv ; Thdt. Op. v. 875 (P. 67. Ixxxiv. 833 a).
4 Thdt. Ep. xvi (Op. iv. 1077 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1193 A, b).
5 Ep. xxxv (Op. iv. 1095 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1212 d).
6 Ep. iii (Op. iv. 1061-4 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1175-80).
7 Thdt. Ep. ex (Op. iv. 1179 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1305).
8 Ep. lxxxvi (Op. iv. 1157 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1280 d).
0 Omni innovatione cessante of 14 July 421, Cod. Theod. xvi. ii. 45.
10 Sixtus, Epp. ix, x (P. L. 1. 612-18) ; Jaffe, Nos. 395-6.
11 Eastern Illyricum had been handed over to the Eastern Empire in 378,
and Western Illyricum in 437. The Eastern principle was that ecclesiastical
divisions must conform to civil. It was to prevent the loss of Eastern
Illyricum, ecclesiastically, to his rival at CP., that Damasus hit upon the

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 283
§ 4. But the security of the ' Orientals ' was presently menaced
by the ultra- Cyrilline party, bent on crushing Nestorianism, as
they would call it, to the roots. They clung to ' One incarnate
nature (cpvats) of God the Word ' — the formula which Cyril had
adopted on the supposed authority of Athanasius. Certainly,
The Reunion Creed of the Antiochenes had asserted ' two natures ' ;
and Cyril, in accepting it, had explained that by ' one nature'
(<f>i5<ns) he meant ' One Person ' (viroo-Tao-is). But there were two
Cyrils x : one who spoke in unguarded, and another in official,
language.2 And many — monks especially — sympathized with
his spontaneous language ; cherished the phrase ' One incarnate
Nature (cpvo-is) of God the Word ' ; and dropped the explanations.
' One Nature,' they said : ' any abatement of this ' — and the
Formulary of Reunion was itself, in their eyes, suspect because
it was dyophysite — ' will undo the work of the Council of
Ephesus.' They would not be likely to be theologians, but
mystics and devotees. They would, therefore, naturally minimize
the human side in the Incarnation, out of a misguided reverence
which, alike with them and with Nestorianism, was the parent
of heresy.3 So they clung to their formula — ' Two Natures before
the Union : One after '. Whether they attached an intelligent
meamng to it is anoTKer question. If so, they probably thought
of the Human nature as absorbed by the Divine. But, at any
device of exercising his patriarchal jurisdiction, hitherto unquestioned, over
Eastern Illyricum by making Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, his Vicar
for that purpose. His successors followed up the expedient, and it was
successful for a time. Then, all of a sudden, it collapsed ; when the whole
of Illyricum, east and west, was, by the law of 14 July 421, assigned to the
jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople. The question throughout is of
the patriarchal, not of the papal, authority of the Roman See ; cf. Denny,
Papalism, §§ 1209-12.
1 Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 405.
2 The unguarded and spontaneous language was that of his Twelve
Articles. They never received oecumenical sanction. The more considered
and diplomatic language was that of the Second Letter to Nestorius and
of the Letter to John. These two letters were read at the Synod of CP.,
November 448, to the exclusion of the Third Letter to Nestorius, i. e. the
letter with the Twelve Anathematisms.
3 For heresy of the mystical sort, prompted by misguided reverence, cf .
Docetism, as appearing in Clement of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers
(A. B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ2, 237 sqq.), or Marcionism (Tert.
De came Christi, c. ii), or Apollinarianism ; and for heresy of the rationalistic
sort, equally prompted by mistaken reverence, cf. Nestorianism (Socr. H. E.
vn. xxxiv, § 5). It is out of a similarly misguided reverence that popular
protestantism has unconsciously used arguments that are really rationalistic
against the principle of sacramental operation : see H. P. Liddon, Univ.
Sermons, i. 200, and W. Bright, St. Leo 2, 159.

284 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
rate, such was their theory — or rather, their creed ; and, as
a party, they were strongly entrenched both at Alexandria and
at Constantinople.
§ 5. At Alexandria they were led by the new patriarch, Dio
scorus,1 444-51 [f54]. He had been Cyril's archdeacon ; and, in
the end, he probably deteriorated in character, like Theophilus
and Cyril, under long enjoyment of absolute power. He was
unmarried, and at once gained the affections of his people by
lending money without interest to bakers and vintners so that
they might supply bread and wine to the Alexandrians at a low
price. But to do this he extorted large sums from the relatives
of his predecessor 2 — if we may believe Liberatus, the Carthaginian
deacon who, about 560, wrote an abridgement of the events of
428-553, called his Breviarium causae Nestorianae et Eutychianae,3
from the point of view of an admirer of Theodoret who thought
that Cyril had gone too far, and that the peril lay on the Mono
physite side. Similar accusations 4 had been made at the Council
of Chalcedon, 451, by the deacons Theodore5 and Ischyrion6;
by Cyril's nephews, the priest Athanasius 7 and Paul who put it
that Dioscorus had compelled them to surrender ; and by
Sophronius,8 a layman who bluntly affirmed that ' the country
seemed to belong to Dioscorus rather than to the Sovereigns '.
But against all this, it must be remembered that the name of
Dioscorus had been blackened by his support of Monophysitism ;
while Theodoret, whose testimony in his favour cannot lie open
to suspicion, speaks of his reputation for modesty, in a letter
addressed to him soon after his consecration.9 We ought, perhaps,
to make some allowance for the conventional courtesies of an
Oriental's letter of congratulation. But, let the exact truth be
what it may as to the character of the new Patriarch of Alexandria,
Theodoret's endeavour to concihate him shows that he looked
upon him as a very important personage. So also did Pope Leo.
Dioscorus had sent Posidonius to Rome — he had been there before
as the envoy of Cyril to Caelestine — to announce his consecration ;
and Leo replied with Quantum dilectioni tuae10 of 21 June 445.
1 Fleury, xxvn. iii ; W. Bright in D. C. B. i. 854 sqq.
2 Liberatus, Breviarium, c. x (P. L. Ixviii. 992 b, o).
3 Bardenhewer, 641. 4 Fleury, xxviii. xiii. 5 Mansi, vi. 1008 c.
6 Ibid. 1016 sq. 7 Ibid. 1024 c, d. 8 Ibid. 1032 c.
9 Ep. lx (Op. iv. 113 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1232 b).
30 Ep. ix (Op. i. 628-32; P. L. liv. 624-7); Jaffe, No. 406; Fleury,
xxvn. iii.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 285
Anxious, as it would seem, for the goodwill of Dioscorus, Leo
reminds him, § 1, of the relations desirable between the see of
St. Mark and the see of St. Peter : there ought to be uniformity
of discipline as between Alexandria and Rome. He therefore
desires that, at Alexandria, ordinations should be held on the
Lord's Day only, both bishop and ordinand fasting ; and, further,
§ 2, that, on the Great Feasts, when crowds are apt to be so great
that the church cannot hold them all at once, they should feel no
scruple in repeating ' the Offering of the Sacrifice ' as often as
the church is refilled. It is clear from this that, at Rome and
Alexandria, the Holy Sacrifice was at this time only offered in one
church, even on the greatest Feast Days. It is clear too that,
while Leo ' did not miss the opportunity of giving directions as
from the see of St. Peter to the new successor of St. Mark ,,1 the
latter, in the person of Dioscorus, was a power both to be courted
and reckoned with. He was the ecclesiastical chief of the ultra-
Cyrilline movement .-
§ 6. At Constantinople this movement also had its religious
leader in Eutyches ; and, through his godson,2 Chrysaphius, the
all-powerful minister of Theodosius, the support of the Court.
Eutyches, a monk and a priest, had been for thirty years
archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople of about three
hundred monks. He had been a zealous opponent of Nestorius :
and when, at the request of Cyril and his friends, Dalmatius had
headed a deputation to the Emperor on their behalf, Eutyches
had taken part.3 On the death of Dalmatius, f440, Eutyches
succeeded to his authority. Not that he was anything of a theolo
gian : Leo, indeed, speaks of him as ' rash and unskilled ' * in
such matters. But he was devout and tenacious, and clung
doggedly to the phrase adopted by his party — ' Two natures
before the Union ; but, after it, One '.5 As one of the celebrities
of contemporary asceticism, Eutyches carried the monastic
world with him, and he would have had a long arm, on that
score alone.
1 D. C. B. i. 855. 2 Liberatus, Breviarium, xi (P. L. Ixviii. 998 o).
3 Synodicon, cciii (Mansi, v. 989 b).
4 Ep. xxviii, § 1 (Op i. 801 ; P. L. liv. 757 a) : see also Epp. xxix, xxx,
§ 1 (Op. i. 839, 848 ; P. L. liv. 781 b, 787 a).
6 That this formula, from which Eutyches in 448 could not be moved.
was already a watchword of his party, is clear from the fact that Theodoret
deals with it, 446-7, Dial, ii (Op. iv. 99 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 137 a) ; W. Bright,
Later Treatises of St Ath. 196.

286 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
But he also enjoyed the ear of the Court. In 444, the Empress
Eudocia, after twenty-three years of married life, incurred the
suspicion of unfaithfulness to her husband, and was banished to
Jerusalem, where she died, 20 October 453.1 Pulcheria, it might
have been thought, would have resumed any influence over her
brother which she might have lost to her sister-in-law. But the
Emperor, perhaps, was tired of being governed by women. At
any rate, before the misunderstanding with Eudocia led to her
removal, Theodosius II placed himself, 441, in the hands of the
eunuch, Chrysaphius 2 — the last and worst of a succession of
favourites 3 who, in this reign, ruled the Emperor and the Empire.
The Court, hitherto, had been accustomed, as a matter of course,
to further both the ambition and the theology of the bishop of
Constantinople. But when Flavian succeeded Proclus, he made
the mistake of sending Chrysaphius no golden ' eulogies ', but
simply some white bread as a symbol of his blessing.4 It was
certain, therefore, that whenever the claims or the doctrine of
Flavian lay open to attack, the Court, instead of taking his side
as Theodosius had stood by Nestorius, would be ranged against
him — so long, at any rate, as Chrysaphius was supreme in the
palace. No sooner, then, had Flavian found himself embroiled
with the old abbot Eutyches, who was godfather to Chrysaphius,
than his doctrine, whatever its merits, was doomed : while
Dioscorus who, as Patriarch of Alexandria, would be ever on the
watch to humble once more the rival see of Constantinople, would
seize the opportunity to join in with Eutyches. Pulcheria, it is
true, never failed in her sympathies with Flavian ; but, during
the ascendancy of Chrysaphius, 441-50, she did not count. It
was this ascendancy that ensured the triumph of Eutyches and
his party till, on the death of Theodosius by a fall from his horse,5
28 July 450, Pulcheria mounted the throne.
§ 7. To oppose this party, who looked upon him as little better
than a Nestorianizing busybody, Theodoret took the field with
1 Tillemont, Hist des Emp. vi. 85 sq.
2 Ibid. 89 ; Mim. xv. 438 sq. ; Gibbon, cc. xxxiv, xlvii (Op. iii. 442, v.
121) ; Hodgkin, ii. 54.
3 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 117-19, for the succession.
4 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 446 ; Fleury, xxvn. xii.
5 Tillemont, Hist des Emp. vi. 115 ; Fleury, xxvn. xlvii ; Gibbon,
c. xxxiv (iii. 444) ; Hodgkin, ii. 97. For the fall from a horse as an
event in history, cf. William the Conqueror at Mantes, 15 August 1087,
and William III at Hampton Court, 8 March 1702.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 287
his Eranistes seu Polymorphus,1 446-7. ' Some clerics of Osrhoene,2
and some Eutychianizing monks, ambitious, as he says, of ruling
the Church,3 but without any claim to consideration on the ground
of learning or of services to her cause,4 were active in aspersing
him as a heretic' 5 He hastens, therefore, to clear himself in
The Beggar or the Polymorph : a title which, as he explains in
his preface, he adopted by way of indicating that the ' nascent ' °
Eutychianism was nothing more than a motley of ill-matched
rags collected beggar- wise7 from well-worn theories more or less
Gnostic in character. The work is divided into four books. In
the first three he sets forth, by way of a dialogue between a Beggar
and an Orthodox believer (1) the unchangeable [Immutabilis 8]
character of the Divinity of our Lord, where he shows how ' the
Word became flesh', viz. ' by assuming manhood' 9 ; (2) the non-
mixture [Inconfusus 10] of the Divinity and the humanity,11 in
this process, where he insists that Christ may really be called
man, even God and man, but God and man in one Person ; and
he illustrates his point by an argument from the Eucharist to the
Incarnation. In both, there is a real outward, and a real inward,
part, and a real union of the two12 ; (3) the impassibility [Impatiti-
1 Thdt. Op. iv. 1-263 (P. 67. lxxxiii. 27-318) ; tr. N. and P.-N. F. iii. 160-
244 and (abridged) with notes by W. Bright in Later Tr. of St. Ath. (L. F.
xlvi. 179-227). On it, see Tillemont, Mim. xv. 270 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvn.
xiv ; Bardenhewer, 372 ; and on its Christology, A. B. Bruce, The Humilia
tion of Christ 2, 59, Tixeront, Hist Dogm. iii. 94-8.
2 Thdt. Ep. lxxxvii (Op. iv. 1158 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1281 b).
3 Ep. lxxxi (Op. iv. 1140 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1261 a). ' Ces passages con-
viennent fort bien a Eutyche,' Tillemont, Mim. xv. 482.
4 Preface to Eranistes (Op. iv. 1 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 28 a). ' Ce qui convient
assez bien a Eutyche,' Tillemont, Mim. xv. 271.
5 W. Bright, Later Tr. 177. 6 Newman, Hist Sketches, ii. 359.
7 Eranistes, Praef. (Op. iv. 2 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 29 a). a "ArpewTos.
9 Dial, i (Op. iv. 10 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 37 a), cited by R. Hooker, E. P. v. liv,
§ 4. 10 ' Ao-iyxvTos.
11 In this connexion the position of Eranistes is 'Ek Sio cpva-eav X/ytu rbv
XpurrSv, dio 8e (pvaeis ov Xeyrn, Op. iv. 101 (P. 67. lxxxiii. 140 a);
a position afterwards reaffirmed by Dioscorus at the Council of Chalcedon —
ro eK dio 8e'Xopai- to Sio oi bexop-ai, Mansi, vi. 692 a; W. Bright, Later
Tr. 198, note e.
12 Dial, ii (Op. iv. 126; P. 67. lxxxiii. 168 B, c), and Document No. 222.
For other examples of the argument from the Eucharist to the Incarnation,
note the use which (1) Cyril makes of it against Nestorianism, Ep. [iii. ad
Nest.] xvii (Op. x. 72 ; P. 67. lxxvii. 113 o, d), and which (2) Pope Gelasius,
492-t6, makes of it against Eutychianism, Tract ni [De duabus naturis],
§ 14, ap. A. Thiel, Epist. Rom. Pont. i. 541 sq. For the bearing of these
passages on the Real Presence and on Transubstantiation, see W. Bright,
Later Tr. 208, note p ; and Tixeront, Hist. Dogm. iii. 239, 365-7, who holds
that Gelasius is quoting ' considerations urged by others ' — a convenient
way of getting rid of the testimony of a Pope against the Roman doctrine
of Transubstantiation.

288 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
bilis *] of the Divinity, where he contends that, the Godhead being
impassible, it was as man that our Lord suffered ; but at the same
time ' really grants all that Cyril had demanded : for he admits
that it was " He " who suffered as man, that selfsame " He " who
is " God the Word " ' 2 ; the difference between them, as Hooker
observes,3 being merely verbal. The fourth book is a syllogistic
summary of the preceding arguments. The work, as a whole,
though verbally at variance with Cyril at points, showed a sub
stantial agreement with him. But it also prepared the way for
the dyophysite decisions of the Tome of St. Leo and the Definition
of Chalcedon.
We need not, then, be surprised that, by way of a counterblast,
the Eutychian party resolved that Theodoret and his friends,
Ibas of Edessa and Irenaeus of Tyre, were to be put down. They
were attacked in turn, 447-8.
§ 8. The first blow fell on Irenaeus, bishop of Tyre.4 He was
specially obnoxious to the party in power, as the quondam friend
of Nestorius. Premonitions of his coming trouble reached Irenaeus ;
and he sought the advice of Theodoret who urged him, under
a parable, not to abandon his flock except perforce.5 So the
bishop of Tyre stood fast ; and, meanwhile, Theodoret endeavoured
to get Domnus to intervene at Constantinople.6 But in vain : for
16 February 448 there came for,th a Rescript7 proscribing the
works of Porphyry and of Nestorius ; and, ' in order that all
may learn by experience how our Divinity abhors those who
adopt the impious belief of Nestorius, we ordain that Irenaeus, who
formerly incurred our indignation on this account, and afterwards,
we know not how (although, as we learn, he had twice married), was
made bishop of Tyre contrary to the Apostolic rules, shall be ex
pelled from the church of Tyre, and live only in his own country,
wholly deprived of the garb and the title of a bishop.' The pro
ceeding was characteristically Byzantine : an intrusion of the civil
power into the realm of the spiritual authority 8 worthy of Con-
1 'Anndi'is.
2 Dial, iii (Op. iv. 187 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 233 c), and W. Bright, Later Tr.
214, note c. 3 E. P. v. liii, § 4. 4 Fleury, xxvn. xviii.
5 Thdt. Ep. iii (Op. iv. 1061-4 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1175-80).
6 Ep. ex (Op. iv. 1179-81 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1303-6).
7 Cone. Eph. in. xlvii (Mansi, v. 417-20), and Justinian, Codex, I. i. 3,
where the date is given. It was accompanied by an Edict, q.v. in Cone.
Eph. in. xlviii (Mansi, v. 419 sq.).
8 The more so as the Rescript not only ignores the rights of Domnus and

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 289
stantius. But there was no help for it : and on 9 September 448 1
Domnus had to consecrate Photius to be bishop of Tyre 448-51.
§ 9. In the same year Domnus found himself forced to take
cognizance of accusations stirred up against Ibas,2 bishop of
Edessa 435-f57. While still a presbyter, Ibas, in the letter to
Maris, or Mar Dadyeshu, already alluded to, had accepted the
union between John and Cyril as if it were a retractation on the
part of ' the Egyptian ', and had branded his bishop, Rabbula,
as a tyrant and a turncoat. The letter escaped censure at the
Council of Chalcedon, 451, being taken in connexion with other
and more satisfactory language of its author.3 But it was con
demned at the Fifth General Council, at its last session,4 2 June
553 ; no doubt because of the abuse which Ibas heaped upon
the XII Articles of Cyril. On the death of Rabbula, Cyril's ardent
supporter in Syria, a wave of reaction carried Ibas to the vacant
throne. But friends of Rabbula among the clergy of Edessa
resented the appointment : specially because the new bishop had
circulated, in Syriac, translations of the works of Theodore, the
very divine whom his predecessor had anathematized. They
complained to Proclus : and Proclus, in 437, wrote to John of
Antioch, urging him to try to persuade Ibas to clear himself.5
But no one in ' The East ', neither John nor Ibas, would consent
so to malign the memory of The Interpreter : and nothing was
done. Accordingly, the affair of Ibas dropped, until four pres
byters — Samuel, Maras, Cyrus, and Eulogius — prompted by one
of his suffragans, Uranius, bishop of Himeria 445-51, in corre
spondence with Eutyches,6 found opportunity to accuse him
before Domnus : first, at Hierapolis, 445, whither Domnus had
gone to consecrate Stephen bishop of that city,7 446-59 : and,
his bishops to fill up their sees, but also sets aside the Formulary of Reunion
as the doctrinal standard adopted since 433 ; and rules that the decrees of .
Nicaea and Ephesus, as interpreted by Cyril, are to take its place (Mansi, v.
417 d).
1 A date provided by the Syriac acta of the Latrocinium, Duchesne, Hist.
ane. de I'Eglise, iii. 402, n. 1.
2 Liberatus, Breviarium, § 12 (P. L. Ixviii. 992 sq.) ; Tillemont, xv. 465-
77 ; Fleury, xxvn. xix-xxii ; S. G. F. Perry, The second Synod of Ephesus,
28-145 ; P. Martin, Le brigandage d'Ephise, 92 sqq.
3 His case was gone into at sessions ix, x of 27-8 October 451 ; Fleury,
xxvni. xxv ; Hefele, iii. 358-70.
4 Canon xiv; Mansi, ix. 385-8 ; Hefele, iv. 340.
5 Proclus, Ep. iii, §§ 2, 3 (P. 67. lxv. 875 sq.).
6 Cone. Chalc., Actio ix (Mansi, vii. 196 b).
7 Ibid., Actio x (Mansi, vii. 236 d).
2191 iii rj

290 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
afterwards, in the Lent of 448, at Antioch. Domnus received their
memorial, and referred it to a Council to meet at Antioch after
Easter.1 But by the time it met, the plaintiffs had gone off to
Constantinople, where, aided by Eutyches, they procured an
Imperial mandate,2 of 26 October 448, appointing a commission
to hear and determine the case of Ibas. It was to consist of
Uranius himself, Photius, the new metropolitan of Tyre, 449-51,
and his suffragan, Eustathius, bishop of Berytus (Beyrout)
448-58. The dates and the course of events are somewhat
obscure 3 ; but the commissioners appear to have sat first at
Beyrout, 1 February 449.4 Here the proceedings were inconclusive.
They then adjourned to Tyre ; but were driven to acquit Ibas,
for sixty-one of his clergy intervened in his favour, asking for
his return before Easter,5 27 March ; and a superficial reconcilia
tion was patched up between him and his accusers,6 25 February
449. For the moment the attack had failed ; but no sooner had
the bishop returned to Edessa than it was renewed, under an
Imperial order, for a further trial to be carried out by the Count
Chaereas, president of the province of Osrhoene. Chaereas was
met, on- his arrival,7 12 April 449, by a crowd of monks who
shouted down Ibas as a Nestorianizer ; and the sentence, 18 April,
was a foregone conclusion. It only remained for Eutyches to
complete the ruin of Ibas by instigating Chrysaphius to procure
his banishment 8 ; and, on 27 June 449, by an Imperial order,
Ibas was deposed.9 His deposition was confirmed, 22 August,
1 Cone. Chalc, Actio x (Mansi, vii. 213 c) ; P. Martin, Le brigandage
d'Ephese, 101 sqq. 2 Ibid., Actio x (Mansi, vii. 209).
3 Discussed in Tillemont, Mim. xv. 897, n. 13 ; Fleury, xxvn. xix (iii. 265,
note k) ; Hefele, iii. 181.
4 ' Postconsulatum Flavii Zenonis et Postumiani . . . Kal. Sept,' Cone.
Chalc, Actio x (Mansi, vii. 211); (a) If po*t='post initum consulatum',
the date would be 1 Sept. 448 ; but (b) if ' post consulatum ' means what it
says, viz. the year after Z. and P. were consuls, then the year is 449, and we
must alter ' Kal. Sept.' to ' Kal. Feb.' : see S. G. F. Perry, The second
Synod of Ephesus, 33.
6 Ibas was accused of having said, ' I do not envy Christ's becoming God '
(Mansi, vii. 249 c). His clergy say that they never heard him say anything
of the kind : see their memorial in Cone Chalc, Actio x (Mansi, vii. 249-56),
with their signatures. They want him at Easter, they say, for catechizing
and baptizing (ib. 252 a). They consist of 13 priests, 30 deacons, 11 sub-
deacons, and 1 reader. They sign some in Greek, and some in Syriac. The
letter is therefore interesting and important as illustrative of the rites, the
organization, and the bilingual character of the ehurch of Edessa, c. 450,
Document No. 207. 6 Cone. Chalc, Actio ix (Mansi, vii. 201 c).
7 Perry, 44 sqq. 8 Liberatus, Breviarium, § 12 (P. L. Ixviii. 1004 a).
9 D. C. B. iii. 194.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 291
at the second session of the Robber-Council of Ephesus x ; and
the unfortunate prelate is said to have had experience of as many
as twenty successive places of imprisonment2 before he was
restored to his see by the Council of Chalcedon, on condition of
anathematizing both Nestorius and Eutyches and of accepting
the Tome of St. Leo.3 Ibas must have been glad to do it ; and
he died bishop of Edessa, 28 October 457.
§ 10. Meanwhile, in the year before his expulsion, the Eutychians
also succeeded in putting Theodoret on his defence,4 448. It was
probably in 447 that some Syrian monks came to Alexandria, and
accused Theodoret ' of dividing the one Lord Jesus Christ into
two sons, when preaching at Antioch '.5 They also made the same
charge against the bishops of Cilicia.6 Dioscorus needed no
exciting against the Easterns. He assumed at once the truth
of the indictment, and wrote about it ; both to Theodoret 7 and
to Domnus,8 complaining of Theodoret. The latter saw the
communication to his Patriarch, and, to clear himself, wrote at
once to Dioscorus a letter full of the lively detail which makes
Theodoret's correspondence, though one of the last, not the least
interesting, of the collections of patristic letters. With pardonable
complacency he assures Dioscorus that, for five and twenty years,
he had preached at Antioch ; six under Theodotus ; thirteen
under John, ' who was so pleased with my sermons that he would
rise from his throne and clap his hands,' 9 and now six under
Domnus. Crowds had listened to him ; and never had fault been
found with his teaching. He then proceeds to an elaborate state
ment of belief in the unity of our Lord's Person, in the course of
which he accepts the term Theotokos 10 ,* repudiates ' those who
divide our one Lord into two persons or two sons ' u ; turns his
1 Mansi, vii. 205 b ; Fleury, xxvn. xii ; Perry, 134-45.
2 Cone. Chalc, Actio x (Mansi, vii. 204 sq.).
3 Ibid. (Mansi, vii. 268 sq.).
4 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 268 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvn. xiii-xvii ; Martin,
103 sqq.
5 Thdt. Ep. lxxxiii (Op. iv. 1146 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1268 b). That the accusers
were monks or clerks from Osrhoene is probable from Ep. lxxxvii (Op. iv.
1158 ; P. G. lxxxiii. 1281 b).
6 Epp. Ixxxiv, lxxxv (Op. iv. 1152, 1154 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1276 a, 1277 a) ;
Fleury, xvni. xv.
7 Ep. lxxxvi (Op. iv. 1156 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1280 a).
8 Ep. lxxxiii (Op. iv. 1146 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1268 b), and Document No. 223.
9 Ibid. (Op. iv. 1146 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1268 c).
10 Ibid. (Op. iv. 1148 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1269 c).
13 Ibid. (Op. iv. 1148 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1269 d).
U 2

292 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part m
back on the interpretation given by Theodore to ' My Lord and my
God ' x (for Theodore had made it, not a confession of the Divinity
of the Son but a glorification of the Father) ; and recalls his happy
intercourse with ' Cyril, of blessed memory '.2 Theologically, the
letter is of great importance, as illustrating the Dialogues. But it
made no impression on Dioscorus. On the contrary, at Alexandria
he allowed the calumniators of Theodoret to anathematize him
in the Cathedral ; and himself ' stood up in his place and con-'
firmed their words '. Dioscorus thus openly declared himself the
patron of the party which was responsible for all these intrigues,
while he also took care to send envoys to carry the charge to
Court.3 Of this, Theodoret complained in an interesting letter to
Flavian. ' Judged ', he writes, ' by the canons of Nicaea and
Constantinople, the action of Dioscorus is ultra vires : he has no
authority beyond Egypt. Boast as he may, of the chair of
St. Mark, he knows very well that Antioch is heir to the throne
of St. Peter, who was not only teacher of Mark but " first and
coryphaeus of the company of the Apostles ".4 The real reason
for his annoyance is that we Easterns, in assenting to a letter of
Proclus, had in his view acknowledged the jurisdiction of Con
stantinople over Antioch, and so compromised the churches both
of Antioch and Alexandria.' 5 This was a clever bid for the
support of Flavian. But Theodoret was not only of doubtful
orthodoxy, ' he was an ecclesiastical busybody. He was for ever
getting up meetings of bishops, and disturbing the peace of the
Church.' 6 ' Never,' he replies, ' during an episcopate of twenty-
five years, have I attended a synod at Antioch, except in obedience
to a summons.' 7 Nevertheless, the charge was fatal ; and, by
an Imperial monition, addressed to Zeno, the commander of the
forces in Syria, Theodoret was confined to his diocese, early in
448. He wrote to his friends to obtain redress — to the Patrician
Anatolius, to the Prefect Eutrechius, to the Consular Nomus, and
to Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra.8 ' In obedience to the Imperial
3 Ep. lxxxiii (Op. iv. 1149 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1272 b).
2 Ibid. (Op. iv. 1150 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1273 a).
3 Ep. lxxxvi (Op. iv. 1156 ; P. G. lxxxiii. 1280 b).
4 Ibid. (Op. iv. 1157 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1280 c). On the meaning of ' Cory
phaeus ' and on Thdt.'s view of the authority of the Roman See see New
man's note in Fleury, xxvn. xvi (iii. 262, note h).
6 Ibid. (Op. iv. 1157 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1280 sq.).
8 Epp. lxxix, Ixxx (Op. iv. 1134 sq., 1137 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1256 A, b,
1257 o). 7 Ep. lxxxi (Op. iv. 1140 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1262 a).
8 Epp. lxxix-lxxxii (Op. iv. 1134-44 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1255-66).

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 293
order,' he protests to Anatolius, ' I am now at Cyrus. Not that
I take it ill to live here : it is the compulsion that I find so
irksome.' ' Though a high-priest of twenty-five years' standing,'
he reminds Eutrechius, ' I have been condemned unheard.' My
sympathies with Irenaeus on his deposition and with ' the
calamities of Phoenicia'1 are, no doubt, the real reason why they
are angry with me ; but the charge, it appears — so he informs
Nomus — is of assembling synods. As to that, ' neither under
Theodotus, John, nor Domnus, have I ever been to Antioch
uninvited ; and, whenever I did go, it was in obedience to the
canon which requires that one who is summoned to a synod and
refuses to attend, shall be held guilty'. Theodoret then continues
that any such behaviour as that imputed to him is incompatible
with his whole past, his dedication to God from his cradle, hiu
long episcopate — blameless, generous, full of missionary zeal.2
To Eusebius he repudiates the charge of ' preaching two sons
instead of One'. Indeed, he is of opinion that some of the Nicene
Fathers went too far in the distinction they drew between God
and man in Christ ; and he concludes with giving a list of his
works by way of defying his accusers to find in them anything
contrary to Holy Scripture.3 But Theodoret chose some of his
confidants badly. Nomus, for instance, paid no attention to his
appeal : he was entirely at the service of Dioscorus and Eutyches.
So it was all to no purpose ; nor did anything come of the efforts
of Domnus, seconded by Theodoret, to conciliate opinion at
Constantinople in favour of Easterns by sheaves of letters showered
upon persons about the Court.4
Eutyches and his party, therefore, were full of confidence. In
the cases of Irenaeus, Ibas, and Theodoret in turn, they had given
proof of enjoying the control of the Emperor and the support of
Alexandria. One thing was wanting — the goodwill of Rome ;
and, in May 448, Eutyches wrote to inform the Pope that ' Nes
torianism ' was on the increase. But these ' Nestorians ' were,
in fact, Catholics5; and Leo cautiously replied, in Ad notitiani
1 Epp. lxxix, Ixxx (Op. iv. 1135 sq., 1138 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1256, 1260 A).
2 Ep. lxxxi (Op. iv, 1140 sq. ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1261) ; Fleury, xxvn. xiii.
3 Ep. lxxxii (Op. iv. 1142^1 ; P. G. lxxxiii. 1263-6).
4 Fleury, xxvn. xvii.
5 As is clear from a statement of Domnus, in a synodal letter to Theo
dosius II, where he gives a Catholic proposition as that which Eutyches
denied, because he was renewing the tenets of Apollinarianism, Facundus,
viii, § 5 (P. L. lxvii. 723 sq.).

294 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
nostramlol 1 June 448, with a request for more particular informa
tion.1 Then, the situation changed ; and Eutyches found himself
not plaintiff, but defendant.
§11. For, at the synod of Constantinople,2 November 448, he
was accused before his archbishop, Flavian.
The accuser was Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum 448-51, in
Phrygia Salutaris. As a layman Eusebius had been the first to
detect the nascent Nestorianism of 428, and to protest with zeal
against it.3 He was ordained some three years later, and was
now a bishop. He was also a friend of Eutyches, and had tried,
as such, to reclaim him ; but in vain.4 At last, he proceeded to
draw up an indictment against him.
Taking advantage of the Home Synod 5 of about thirty bishops
which now happened to be assembled with Flavian in order to
deal with a difference between the metropolitan of Sardis and
two of his suffragans, Eusebius presented his accusations, at the
first session,6 on Monday, 8 November 448. The indictment7
contained no definite charge. But it was a surprise to Flavian,8
and the Synod agreed that Eutyches should be required to attend.9
At the second session,10 on Friday, 12 November, Eusebius
repeated his charge ; and, at his suggestion,11 the Synod caused
to be read the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius [Obloquuntur],12
with the approval given to it by the Council of Ephesus,13 and his
letter to John [Laetentur caeli],u passing over his third letter to
Nestorius [Cum Salvator] with its anathematisms. On the motion
of Eusebius,15 Flavian next required that all should assent to these
declarations of faith 16 ; and then proceeded to comment on them
in a statement in which he confesses Christ as ' Of two natures ',17
and adopts for the most part, though with slight alterations, the
language of the Formulary of Reunion. The rest of the bishops
1 Leo, Ep. xx (Op. i. 737 ; P. L. liv. 713) ; Jaffe, No. 418 ; Fleury, xxvn.
xxiii. 2 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 493-517 ; Fleury, xxvn. xxiv-xxix ; Hefele,
Conciles, u. i. 518-38 (E. Tr. iii. 189-204).
3 Mansi, vi. 673 c ; Cyril, adv. Nest i, § 4 (Op. ix. 20 ; P. 67. lxxvi. 41 d).
4 Mansi, vi. 656 a.
5 On which, see Fleury, xxvn. xxiv, xxvni. xxxiii (iii. 273, note p, 406,
note i) ; W. Bright, Canons 2, 182.
6 The minutes of this Synod are embedded in the acta of the Co. of
Chalcedon, Mansi, vi. 649 sqq.
7 Ibid. vi. 652 sq. 8 Ibid. 653 d. 9 Ibid. 656 d.
10 Ibid. 657 sqq. " Ibid. 660 a. )2 Ibid. 659-664.
33 Ibid. 665 sq. 34 Ibid. 665-74. 1B Ibid. 677 C, D.
16 Ibid. 677 r>. 17 'Ek Sio (frio-eav, ibid. 680 b.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 295
followed ; and two of them, Basil, bishop of Seleucia and metropo
litan of Isauria, with Seleucus, bishop of Amasea and metropolitan
of Helenopontus, confessed Him, rather, as ' In two natures ' 1 ;
and it was as the minute of their vote was read at Chalcedon that
Dioscorus professed himself ready to accept the, former expression
but not the latter.2
In the third session,3 of Monday, 15 November, the two clerics
sent to summon Eutyches to attend, gave an account of their
errand.4 He declined to come, and wished the Synod to under
stand that Eusebius was his enemy He was willing to reaffirm
the decisions of Nicaea and Ephesus : if the Fathers there were at
fault ' in any chance expression ', he could ignore that. For him
self, he preferred ' to search the Scriptures by themselves, as being
more certain than the exposition of the Fathers ' ; and, since the
Incarnation, he adores but ' one nature ' of God incarnate. To
say that He is ' of two natures united in [one] Person ' would be
to affirm what he had not found in the Fathers 5 ; and what, if
it were found, he would not receive ; for the Scriptures are of
more value than any Fathers. He admitted, however, that He
who was born of Mary was complete God and complete man ;
but not that His manhood is consubstantial with ours.6 The
Synod thereupon summoned him a second time, but he pretended
to be too old and weak to go 7 ; and a third citation 8 was sent, for
Wednesday, 17 November.
Meanwhile, a fourth session9 was held on Tuesday, 16 November,
at which envoys from Eutyches appeared to say that he was ill
and had had a sleepless night, and had sent them instead. Flavian
assured them that he was willing to wait ; but that, as soon as
Eutyches was well, he must appear, and would be sure of fatherly
treatment.10 Indeed, the archbishop's tone is the model of what
a bishop's behaviour as judge should be ; and he ended, as the
session rose, by a reproof to Eusebius. ' You know the zeal of
the promoter,' said he to his colleagues : ' fire itself is cold to
him.' n
The fifth session,12 of Wednesday, 17 November, to which
1 'Ev oio <pitreo-iv, ibid. 685 b, c. On the phrase see W. Bright,
St. Leo 2, 228.
2 Mansi, vi. 692 a. 3 Ibid. 697 sqq. 4 Ibid. 700.
5 This is true : see Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 104.
6 Mansi, vi. 700 b, d.
7 Ibid. 708 sq. 8 Ibid. 712 c, d. 9 Ibid. 712 sqq.
30 Ibid. 713. " Ibid. 716 a. 12 Ibid. 715 sqq.

296 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 part in
Eutyches was to have answered in person was occupied with
evidence of his stirring up the monks : and he did not come. But
Flavian gave him till the Monday following, under pain of deposi
tion if he did not put in an appearance then.3
There was a sixth session2 on Saturday, 20 November, when
Eusebius urged that four of the friends of Eutyches should be
summoned to appear on Monday as witnesses ; and went on to say
that he had learned something of importance which was said in
their hearing but did not find place in the minutes of what
Eutyches had said to Mamas and Theophilus, the bearers of the
second summons. So Theophilus was called and was asked what
it was. ' Eutyches asked us,' he replied, ' in the presence of these
witnesses, in what part of Scripture we found mention of "two
natures ". " Where can you find mention in Scripture ", we
retorted, " of the Homoousion ? " He admitted that our Lord is
both complete God and complete man. " Then, why not ", we
demanded, " admit the two natures ? " " God forbid ", was his
reply, " that I should affirm Christ to be of two natures, or that
I should speculate about the nature of my God." ' 3 And Mamas
confirmed the depositions of his colleague.4 Flavian was now in
full possession of the evidence, so far as it could be gathered from
the lips of witnesses.
At the seventh session,5 of Monday, 22 November, the accused
himself appeared. To add to the solemnity of the session, the
Book of ' the Holy and Awful Gospels was set forth ' 6 upon the
throne, to signify the presence of the Divine Master 7 ; and
Eutyches entered, escorted by soldiers, monks, and officers of the
Praetorian Prefect. Then followed Magnus,8 one of the thirty
silentiarii, in the department of the Provost of the Sacred Bed
chamber, whose office was to stand, in helmet and cuirass, outside
the veil and keep inviolate the person of the Augustus.9 He
represented his master, and brought with him an Imperial Letter 10
appointing the Patrician, Florentius, to take part in the Synod.
The letter was received with acclamations — ' To the High-priest
Emperor'11 — though neither its contents, nor the presence of
1 Mansi, vi. 724 b, c. 2 Ibid. 723 sqq.
3 Ibid. 725, 728.
4 Ibid. 728 sq. 6 Ibid. 729 sqq. 8 Ibid. 729 B.
7 This is the idea at the bottom of the ceremonies of the Little Entrance :
see F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, i. 367 ; A. Fortescue, The Mass, 283 sq.
8 Mansi, vi. 732 b. 9 Hodgkin, I. ii. 616. 10 Mansi, vi. 732 sq.
11 Ibid. 733 A.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 297
Florentius could, at first sight, seem acceptable to the Synod.
Florentius, however, was admitted and, as a ' lay theologian V
took an active part in the proceedings ; though, not being a
bishop, he was not a constituent member of the Synod, and had
no vote.2 The proceedings began with a command that Eusebius
and Eutyches should stand forth ; and the minutes of the Council,
to date, were read. When they came to the recital, from the
letter of Cyril to John of Antioch, of ' complete God and complete
man ',3 Eutyches made no objection. In answer to a question
put by Eusebius : ' Do you confess two natures after the Incarna
tion, my lord Archimandrite, and that Christ is consubstantial
with us according to the flesh, or not ? ' 4 Eutyches tried at first
to fence ; but finally admitted, with some reluctance, that, as
Mary was consubstantial with us, so her Son is consubstantial
with us too, ' though he had never said as much before '.5 ' Tell us,
then,' broke in the Patrician, Florentius, ' whether the Lord is of
two natures after the Incarnation, or not.' ' I confess ', replied
Eutyches in a final avowal, ' that He was of two natures before
the union ; but, after the union, I confess but one.' 6 It is difficult
to be quite sure of what Eutyches meant. To say that ' our Lord
was of two natures before the Incarnation ' was, if not meaningless,
nothing to the purpose ; for the question turned on what he meant
as to what our Lord is since the Incarnation. He could not have
meant what Cyril meant by his phrase, ' One nature incarnate of
God the Word ' : for Eutyches, in speaking of ' two natures before
the union ', clearly used <fuW in the sense of ' nature ', not of
' person '. It remains that he contradicted himself, and went
back upon his own admission of a Christ consubstantial with us,
when he persisted that, since the union, there is but one nature
after all. If this language meant anything, it meant that the
human nature in Christ was, after the Incarnation, absorbed by -.-.
the Divine. Not, of course, that at the Council Eutyches employed
the language of absorption. If he had, he could have quoted
similes from Catholic theologians in support.7 But it was a just
inference, on the part of the Council, from his admissions, his
1 Mansi, vi 733 a. 2 W. Bright, Letters, 319, 323.
3 Mansi, vi. 736 a. 4 Ibid. 737 c. 6 Ibid. 741 b.
6 Ibid. 744 b, and Document No. 208.
7 Greg. Nyss. Epist. adv. Apoll. ad Theophilum episc Al. (Op. iii. 265 ;
P. 67. xiv. 1276 c, d) ; Antirrheticus, § 42 (P. 67. xiv. 1224 a) ; Contra
' Eunomium, v (Op. ii. 591 a ; P. 67. xiv. 708 o).

298 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 pabt in
hesitations, and his partisan antecedents, that his tenets were in
consistent with any real belief in the Incarnation and incompatible
with the permanence of our Lord's true Manhood. Abandoning,
therefore, any further attempts to reason with him, the Synod
proceeded to his condemnation. He had gone back, said their
sentence, not only to Apollinarianism but to Valentinianism x —
an imputation unjust to the man himself but nevertheless one
which touched the vital point. For though Eutyches verbally
admitted our Lord to be consubstantial with us, he would not
draw the inference that, after the Union, there were two Natures
in Christ, the human as real and as permanent as the Divine,
It was therefore a just sentence, in the main ; but, as to ' Two
Natures ' — the phrase which the Council required of him — he might
feel himself aggrieved. Certainly it had authority ; the way had
been prepared for it by Athanasius 2 ; it had been used by Gregory
Nazianzen 3 ; and the substance of it was the basis of the Reunion
Creed. But the Council stretched its powers in enforcing it, under
penalty, without explicit and universal authority ; and this, as
yet, it had not. Eutyches therefore, as the Synod broke up, was
observed to fasten on that point. He would appeal, he said, to
the Councils of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica.4
He could already rely on the second.5 We note the omission of
Antioch : ranged, of course, on the other side. Domnus had
already been in collision with Dioscorus ; and had been the first
to point out the heretical nature of the teaching of Eutyches.6
§ 12. Eutyches built most, no doubt, on Rome ; and hence the
correspondence with Leo, in which Flavian was to blame for
giving Eutyches the start. Flavian, indeed, acquainted the
Patriarch, Domnus of Antioch, with the sentence 7 ; but did not
write to Rome till the winter of 448-9. Eutyches, on the other
hand, no sooner had received his sentence than, November 448,
he appealed to Leo. ' I fly to you,' he wrote, ' the defender of
religion, for assistance : conscious that I have never innovated
on the Faith ' ; and he appended to his letter the libellus of his
accuser and that which he himself had prepared in defence ;
1 Mansi, vi. 748 b.
" In the fragment on Phil. ii. 6, 7 (Op. ii. 1027 ; P. 67. xxvi. 1256 sq.) ;
and Orat. c Ar. iii, § 53 (Op. ii. 477 ; P. G. xxvi. 436 a).
3 Ep. ci (Op. iii. 85 ; P. 67. xxxvii. 180 a).
4 Mansi, vi. 817 c. 6 Ibid. 820 a.
0 Fleury, xxvn. xxix (iii. 285, note r). 7 Mansi, vi. 836 a.

chap, xiv EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48 299
his profession of faith, and a list of some passages from the Fathers
in support of it.1 ' Chrysaphius took care that the case of Eutyches
thus presented to Leo should be seconded by a letter to the Pope
from Theodosius himself 2 ; while Eutyches also took the precau
tion of soliciting the aid of Peter Chrysologus, archbishop of
Ravenna, 433-f49, the city of Valentinian III and the Western
Court.3 Early in 449 the Western prelates sent off their replies
to these entreaties. The archbishop of Ravenna advised Eutyches
obediently to await the letters of Leo ; for ' blessed Peter, who
lives and presides in his own see, guarantees the truth of the faith
to those who [thus] seek it '.4 The Petrine theory, as put into final
shape by Leo, was thus clearly accepted by some of the most
distinguished of his contemporaries. Then, on 18 February, were
dispatched letters of the Pope, to Flavian and to the Emperor.
In Cum Christianissimus 5 to his brother of Constantinople, he
expresses his surprise that Flavian had not been the first to let
him know of what had happened : so far as he could judge from
the statement of Eutyches, an injustice had been done : he would
therefore be glad of full information ; and in Quantum praesidii 6
he gave Theodosius to understand that he was displeased with
the silence of Flavian and expected a full report. The report
arrived, shortly after Leo had sent off these two epistles, in the
shape of Flavian's first letter7 to the Pope. He gave him an
account of the trial of Eutyches, accusing him, incorrectly, of
renewing the errors of Valentinus and Apollinaris 8 ; and he ended
by begging Leo to inform the bishops of the West that Eutyches
had been duly deprived and excommunicated. This letter Leo
merely acknowledged by Pervenisse ad nos 9 of 21 May, in which
he foreshadows the coming Tome. It was already in preparation,
and was sent off to Flavian, as Lectis dilectionis tuae10 of 13 June,
1 The letter of Eutyches ranks as Leo, Ep. xxi (Op. i. 739-43 ; P. L. liv.
713-18) ; Fleury, xxvn. xxxi.
2 So Leo, Ep. xxiv (Op. i. 767 sq. ; P. L. liv. 735 sq.) of 18 Feb. 449.
3 For a description of Ravenna, as the capital of Galla Placidia and her son
Valentinian III, see Hodgkin, I. ii. 850 sqq.
4 Leo, Ep. xxv, § 2 (Op. i. 779 ; P. L. liv. 743 a) ; Fleury, xxvn. xxxvii.
6 Ep. xxiii (Op. i. 762-6 ; P. L. liv. 731-6) ; Jaffe, No. 420 ; Fleury,
xxvii. xxxi.
6 Ep. xxiv (Op. i. 767 sq. ; P. L. liv. 735 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 421 ; Fleury,
xxvn xxxi
7 Leo, Ep. xxii (Op. i. 752-62 ; P. L. liv. 723-32).
8 Ibid., § 3 (Op. i. 756 ; P. L. liv. 725 a).
9 Ep. xxvii (Op. i. 792 ; P. L. liv. 751 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 422.
10 Ep. xxviii (Op. i. 801-38 ; P. L. liv. 755-82) ; Jaffe, No. 423 ; Fleury,
xxvn. xxxv, and Document No. 209.

300 EUTYCHIANISM, 435-48
containing the Pope's matured judgement. We will examine its
contents when we come to the reception that awaited it at the
Council of Chalcedon. Scarcely had the post which took it left,
than a second letter from Flavian x arrived in Rome, complaining
that Eutyches was placarding his wrongs all over Constantinople
and petitioning the Emperor ; let Leo therefore confirm in writing
the condemnation pronounced against him, and so, by letting the
Emperor see that West and East were at one, do his part to
prevent the Council. The rumour of it has already got abroad.
It is certain to disturb all the churches of the earth. The Pope
had already pronounced on the merits of the question by the
Tome ; and the appeal to declare a Council unnecessary came
home to willing ears. He replied, 20 June, that, in his view, there
was no need of a synod to handle the matter further.2 But it was
too late. Neither Flavian nor Leo could prevent it. For Eutyches
had made interest again at Court ; and, by Cunctis constitit 3 of
30 March, Theodosius had summoned a Council to meet at
Ephesus, 1 August 449, which has gone down to history as the
Latrocinium or Robber-Council of Ephesus.
1 Ep. xxvi (Op. i. 781-91 ; P. L. liv. 743-52) ; Fleury, xxvn. xxxvi.
2 Leo, Ep. xxxvi (Op. i. 885 ; P. L. liv. 809-11).
3 Mansi, vi. 587-90.
4 ' In illo Ephesino non iudicio sed latrocinio,' Leo, Ep. xcv, § 2 (Op. i.
1077 ; P. L. liv. 943 b).

CHAPTER XV
THE LATROCINIUM, 449
§ 1. Before the Council of Ephesus 1 assembled, there was much
manoeuvring to secure the advantage so soon as it met.
The petitions, of which Flavian complained to Leo, began with
one addressed by Eutyches to the Emperor, demanding a scrutiny
of the minutes of the Home Synod at Constantinople, on the ground
that they had been falsified.2 By order of Theodosius,3 they were
submitted to a Council at Constantinople, 8 April 449, for verifica
tion ; but no inaccuracy of importance was discovered.4 Another
petition procured from the Emperor an order of 27 April that
Flavian should produce a written statement of his faith. ' It was
strange enough ', says Tillemont, ' that this prince should thus
make himself a judge of the faith of his archbishop ; but Flavian
made no objection on that score.' 5 ' Nothing is so befitting
a bishop ', he replied, ' as to be ready to give to every one that
asketh a reason of the faith that is in us ' : and then follows
a doctrinal statement 6 which closely resembles his oral creed of
12 November 448. In this statement he declares his adhesion to
the faith of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, thus intimating
his belief that the second of these had something to do with
a recension of the Nicene Creed, and disclaiming all sympathy
with Nestorianism. He acknowledges Christ after the Incarnation
as ' in two natures ', but also as ' in one Person ' ; and he does not
refuse to speak of ' one nature of God the Word ' provided that
' incarnate and made man ' be added.7 It is a confession which
(a) is indebted to the Formulary of Reunion, and (b) is a contribu
tion to the Chalcedonian Definition. But whereas the former spoke
1 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 527-85 ; Fleury, xxxvn. xxxiv-xli ; Gibbon,
c. xlvii (v. 121 sqq.) ; Hefele, Conciles, u. i. 555-621 (E. Tr. iii. 221-62) ;
P. Martin, Le brigandage d'Ephese (Paris, 1875) ; S. G. F. Perry, The second
Synod of Ephesus (Dartford, 1881) ; and note in Duchesne, Hist, ane iii.
419, n. 2. 2 Mansi, vi. 763-6. ¦ 3 Ibid. 757 b.
4 Ibid. 757 D ; Liberatus, Brev. xi (P. L. Ixviii. 1000 sq.).
5 Mim. xv. 521 sq.
6 q.v. in Mansi, vi. 540-2 ; Liberatus, Brev. xi (P. L. Ixviii. 1001) ;
A. Hahn 3, Symbole, 320 ; T. H. Bindley, Oec. Doc. 238.
7 Mansi, vi. 541 b.

302 THE LATROCINIUM, 449 part in
of the Lord as ' consubstantial with us ', Flavian only confesses
Him as ' consubstantial with His Mother ' 1 ; and it is extremely
probable that, as at the Home Synod, what he acknowledged on
this occasion was ' of two natures ', and that the text has since
been altered to accord with the more precise and Chalcedonian
formula ' in two natures '. So Eutyches avenged himself by
petitions. But, meanwhile, Chrysaphius had done his part. He promised
his aid to Dioscorus, if he would undertake the defence of his
godfather, and attack Flavian. He also prevailed on the Empress
Eudocia to act on the same side, if only to spite her sister-in-law,
Pulcheria.2 Eutyches also entreated Dioscorus to take his part.
The archbishop of Alexandria, only too glad to have a handle
against his brother of Constantinople, responded at once to these
appeals. He admitted the excommunicated Eutyches to his
communion 3 ; he wrote to the Emperor that the only remedy lay
in a General Council ; and his admonition, supported, so soon as it
arrived, by the concerted approval of the Empress and Chrysaphius,
took speedy effect in the letter of summons already mentioned.
It was addressed to Dioscorus, under date 30 March 449. It bade
each patriarch or exarch to bring ten metropolitans and ten other
bishops with him, and to hasten to Ephesus by 1 August next ;
and it forbade Theodoret, already confined to his see, to enter the
Council 4 — no doubt, as the most formidable opponent of anything
monophysite in tendency. In April, Theodosius would hear, from
the Report of Count Chaereas, that Ibas had been no less con
veniently disposed of. His next step was, by a stretch of preroga
tive peculiarly Byzantine, to write, 14 May, to a very zealous anti-
Nestorian abbot Barsumas [Bar-Sauma], f458, and command
him to repair to Ephesus and take his seat — the first abbot to do
so — in a General Council as representative of the abbots of ' the
East': or rather — for this is the inner meaning of the order — as
representative of a body of opinion, monastic and lay, in revolt
against the ' Nestorianism ' of the ' Oriental ' bishops.5 Next,
1 Mansi, vi. 541 b.
2 Nieephorus Callistus [fi. 1320-30], Eccl. Hist xiv, § 47 (P. 67. cxlvi.
1225 a, b) ; Fleury, xxvn. xxxiv (N. C. was the last of the Greek ecclesias
tical historians. His history, in eighteen books, brings the record down to
a. d. 610. He is dependent on his predecessors for the first four centuries ;
for the fifth onward he becomes more valuable, because he used sources
now lost, Ene. Br.11 xi. 648).
3 Mansi, vi. 1045 o, 1099 a. 4 Ibid. 587-90. 6 Ibid. 593 c.

chap, xv THE LATROCINIUM, 449 303
15 May, Theodosius wrote to Dioscorus to inform him that the
archimandrite Barsumas was thus to sit and vote.1 A third
Imperial missive to Dioscorus bears no date, but reminds him of
the previous prohibition of Theodoret's attendance. ' We abhor
him,' says the Emperor, ' because of his opposition to Cyril of
blessed memory ' — as if Theodosius himself had not been as keen
an opponent of ' the Egyptian ' — ' and lest efforts should be
made to get him admitted to the Synod, we appoint you to
supreme control thereof : assured, as we are, that Juvenal and
Thalassius and ample support will be with you '.2 He also ap
pointed Elpidius, Count of the Sacred Consistory,3 i.e. as we
should say, Lord President of the Privy Council, and Eulogius,
Tribune and Notary, as Imperial Commissioners to maintain good
order.4 He directed Proclus, Proconsul of Asia, to aid them in
their task 5 ; and, finally, gave proof of his animus by writing to
the Synod and saying that Flavian had stirred up the business : he
had, therefore, summoned them to expel from the Church all adhe
rents of Nestorianism, and to maintain the faith.6 Byzantinism,
again : to dictate a foregone conclusion to a General Council !
The sympathies of the Emperor were thus abundantly clear
when, about 13 May 449, his summons to Pope Leo to attend the
Council reached Rome.7 The Pope, by this time, had received
Flavian's report on the situation, and was convinced that Eutyches
was in error. What, then, was the use of a General Council ?
But there was no help for it, as ' the commandment and will of
Princes ' insisted ; and, after a brief note, of 21 May, to Flavian
promising him support,8 Leo bowed to the Emperor's will and, in
Quantum rebus 9 of 13 June, informed him that ' as he had ap
pointed a synodical trial for Eutyches to take place at Ephesus ',
the Apostolic See would be represented by his legates, Julius,
bishop of Puteoli, Renatus, a presbyter, Hilary, a deacon (who
afterwards succeeded him as Pope, 461-f8), and the notary
Dulcitius. They left Rome before 23 June, and carried with them
the celebrated Tome to Flavian.10 It was a condemnation not only
1 Mansi, vi. 593 a, b. 2 Ibid. 600 b-d. 3 Hodgkin, I. ii. 617.
4 Mansi, vi. 595 sq. 5 Ibid. 597 sq. 6 Ibid. 597-600,
7 Leo, Ep. xxxi, § 4 (Op. i. 856 ; P. L. liv. 793 b).
8 Ep. xxvii (Op. i. 792 ; P L. liv. 751 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 422.
9 Ep. xxix (Op. i. 839 ; P. L. liv. 783) ; Jaffe, No. 424 ; Fleury, xxvn.
xxxvi. 10 Ep. xxviii (Op. i. 801-38 ; P. L. liv. 755-82) ; Jaffe, No. 423 ; Fleury,
xxvn. xxxv.

304 THE LATROCINIUM, 449 part iii
of Eutyches but of Alexandrian theory as then held ; for, dyophy-
site in basis, it followed the Christology expounded in the Formu
lary of Reunion and by Flavian. They also took their own creden
tials, and letters x for Pulcheria — Quantum sibi and Quantum
praesidii — assuring her that the point at issue is vital : for the
archimandrites of Constantinople — Cum propter causam 2 ; for the
Synod^ — Religiosa clementissimi 3 ; and two 4 — Litterae dilectionis
tuae and Licet per nostris — to the Pope's representative at Con
stantinople, Julian, bishop of Cos 448-58. It was important that
he should be carefully briefed, for, whereas the Pope's legates
understood Latin only, Julian knew both Greek and Latin equally
well. Such, then, were the contents of the legates' letter-bag ;
and, in each epistle, Leo referred his correspondent for greater
detail to the considered judgement of his Tome.
§ 2. The Council opened,5 about a week after the date for which
it had been summoned, in ' the church called Mary ' 6 at Ephesus,
where the Third Oecumenical Council had met eighteen years
before. Dioscorus presided, with about a hundred and thirty
bishops, for the most part devoted to his cause. Next to the
President sat the greater prelates in order of seniority and without
regard to the rank of their Sees — Julius, the papal legate, Juvenal
of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, Flavian of Constantinople 7 ;
then the bishops 8 ; then the abbot, Barsumas 9 ; and last of all
(for the legate Renatus had died on the way) the deacon Hilary
and the notary Dulcitius.10 One is surprised, perhaps, that the
papal legates accepted Dioscorus as president, when they them
selves were present. But they could not help themselves : it was
the Emperor's will. Further, they would have made but poor
presidents, as they neither spoke nor understood the language
of the Council ; and, also, there was precedent against them. At
1 Epp. xxx, xxxi (Op. i. 847-58 ; P. L. liv. 785-96) ; Jaffe, No. 425 ;
Fleury, xxvn. xxxvi.
2 Ep. xxxii (Op. i. 859-62 ; P. L. liv. 795-8) ; Jaffe, No. 426 ; Fleury,
xxvii. xxxvi.
3 Ep. xxxiii (Op. i. 863-8 ; P. L. liv. 797-800) ; Jaffe, No. 427 ; Fleury,
xxvii. xxxvi,
4 Epp. xxxiv, xxxv (Op. i. 869-83 ; P. L. liv. 801-10) ; Jaffe, Nos. 428-9 ;
Fleury, xxvn. xxxvi.
5 See its acta embedded in those of Chalcedon in Mansi, vi. 605 sqq. ;
Liberatus, Breviarium, c. xii (P. L. Ixviii. 1003 sqq.).
6 Mansi, vi. 605 d. 7 Ibid. 608 A. 8 Ibid. 608 0-612 b.
9 Ibid. 612 b.
30 Breviculus historiae Eutychianistarum, in Mansi, vii. 1061 c, or P. L. Iviii.

chap, xv THE LATROCINIUM, 449 305
the first Council of Ephesus Cyril had presided in his own right, and
had not even troubled himself to await the arrival of the pope's
legates. And, so far from presiding, the legates at the Latrocinium
played but a sorry part ; they raised honourable protests and did
their utmost, it is true. But, as they were seated at some distance
from each other, they could not act in concert. And, as they
understood with difficulty, notwithstanding the help of their
episcopal interpreter Florentius,1 what was being said, they
could not intervene with effect. So Dioscorus had it all his own
way. § 3. At the first session, 8 August,2 he proceeded at once to the
rehabilitation of Eutyches and the deposition of Flavian. He
began by reducing forty-two prelates — those who had taken part
in the condemnation of Eutyches — to the status of mere spectators
in the Council.3 The Imperial writ of convocation was then read 4
in due form ; and the papal legates, after affirming that Leo had
been duly summoned, explained that he would certainly have
obeyed the summons in person had there been precedent ; but
precedent was the other way. ' He therefore gave us, as his
representatives, letters which we desire to have read.' 5 But
Dioscorus had already contrived that the reading should not take
place, on the plea that there were other Imperial letters to hear,6
viz. the letter enjoining that the abbot Barsumas should sit and
vote ; and the Council passed, in obedience to the Emperor's
instructions, to the question of faith7 — Was Eutyches rightly
condemned by Flavian ? Eutyches was introduced,8 and handed
in his profession of Faith 9 : whereupon the Council proceeded to
the reading of the minutes of the Synod which had tried and
condemned him,10 disregarding both the demand of Flavian that
Eusebius, the promoter of the suit against Eutyches, should be
heard,11 and the reiterated request of the papal legates that Leo's
letters should be taken first.12 The reader came to the minutes of
12 November 448, where the two metropolitans, Basil and
Seleucus, had confessed ' One Lord in two natures '.u Blood
began to boil. But, when he reached the place in the final session,
3 Mansi, vi. 613 b.
2 It may all have happened on one and the same day, Duchesne, Hist
ane iii. 418, n. 1.
3 Mansi, vi. 605 a. 4 Ibid. 613 a. 5 Ibid. 613-16.
« Ibid. 616 a. 7 Ibid. 621 b. 8 Ibid. 628 c.
9 Ibid. 629 B-632 b, 639 A-644 A. 10 Ibid. 645 c.
11 Ibid. 644 B, 645 a, b. 32 Ibid. 649 a. 13 Ibid. 685 b,
2191 III X

306 THE LATROCINIUM, 449 part in
22 November, where Eusebius pressed Eutyches to acknowledge
the two natures after the Incarnation, the Council broke out into
fury : — ' Out with him ! burn Eusebius ! burn him alive ! let
him be torn in two ! as he has divided, let him be divided ! ' 1
The creed of Eutyches, ' Two natures before the union ; one only,
after it ', received loud assent. ' That is the belief of us all,'
pronounced Dioscorus 2 ; and, at his invitation,3 the bishops
present, beginning with Juvenal 4 and Domnus,5 gave sentence, in
turn, in favour of Eutyches. His orthodoxy was reaffirmed ; he
was restored to his rank of presbyter and archimandrite 6 ; and
his monks were absolved and re-established.7 Thus the first part
of the Council's project was accomplished ; it only remained to
carry through the second and dispose of Flavian. With this end
in view, Dioscorus next proposed8 the recital of the minutes of the
sixth session of the former Council at Ephesus,9 respecting the
Faith, 22 July 431 . They forbade, he explained, ' the putting
forth of any other faith than that of Nicaea as reaffirmed by that
Council of Ephesus. But this is exactly what Flavian and Euse
bius have done : they are therefore deposed.' 10 ' I disclaim your
authority,' cried Flavian. ' We oppose it,' exclaimed Hilary, the
papal legate.11 But, at the bidding of the president, the rest,
beginning with Juvenal of Jerusalem, confirmed his verdict, one
by one.12 Yet not without pressure. Dioscorus had scarcely ^begun
to give sentence, when a knot of prelates seized him and begged
him not to proceed. ' Where are the Counts ? ' 13 he shouted.
In rushed the soldiery ; and, while Dioscorus was shouting, ' Look
you : he that will not sign against Flavian, will have to reckon
with me ',14 signatures 15 were obtained under military compulsion
— even from the unhappy Domnus. It was a good day's work
from the point of view of Dioscorus ; and, the first session thus
over, he sent in his report to the Emperor.
§ 4. A fortnight elapsed before the Council met again on
22 August,16 in the absence of Flavian and Eusebius, of the Roman
legates and of Domnus. The two first had been thrown into prison ;
3 Mansi, vi. 737 c. 2 Ibid. 744 b. 3 Ibid. 833 d. 4 Ibid. 836 a.
6 Ibid. 836 a, b. No mention is made of the papal legates having given
any such sentence. Barsumas, who could only speak Syriac, gave his vote
by an interpreter, ibid. 861 b.
6 Ibid. 861 b. 7 Ibid. 861-70. 8 Ibid. 869 b.
9 Ibid. 871-902. 3° Ibid. 908 b, c. 31 Ibid. 908 d.
32 Ibid. 909 a-928 c- 13 Ibid. 832 b. 34 Ibid. 829 b.
36 Ibid. 927 c-936 a. 36 P. Martin, Le brigandage d'Ephese, 174.

chap, xv THE LATROCINIUM, 449 307
and Flavian actually died,1 at Hypepe in Lydia, of the kicks and
blows he had received from Barsumas and his monks.2 The
legates refused to attend again ; and Hilary, after great difficulty,
effected his escape and found his way back to Rome by devious
routes.3 Domnus was ill. The opposition thus crushed, or cowed,
it lay open to Dioscorus to round off his triumph ; and the remain
ing sessions were devoted to settling accounts with the Patriarchate
of Antioch. He began with Ibas, who was deposed, with his
nephew Daniel, bishop of Carrhae.4 Then he turned to Irenaeus,
metropolitan of Tyre, who had recovered his see since he was
turned out of it by the Rescript of 16 February 448, and whom
he deprived, together with his suffragan, Aquilinus, bishop of
Byblus.5 Last came the turn of Theodoret : he, too, was got rid
of.6 These sentences were notified to Domnus, and he weakly
gave his consent. But this did not save him. The Synod pro
nounced him contumacious, and deposed him.7 Then, to put
a finish on its proceedings, it solemnly ratified the Twelve Articles
of Cyril.8 A sorry triumph for Cyril, in such company.
§ 5. Scarcely was it achieved when the reaction began,9 which
led to the revision of the proceedings of the Latrocinium at Chalce
don. The reaction covered the years 449-51 ; and Pope Leo
placed himself at the head of it.
(1) He received an appeal, or petition for help,10 from Theo
doret,11 whose exclusion from the Council left him the more free
to seek aid of ' the powers that be '. After, § 1, acknowledging the
pre-eminence of the Roman See, and, § 2, thanking Leo both for
his zeal against the Manichees and his Tome to Flavian, Theodoret,
§ 3, complained of the injustice of Dioscorus, who had condemned
him in absence. ' Six and twenty years, § 4, have I been a bishop ;
and never have I incurred any censure from my superiors at
1 Prosper, Chron. (Op. 750 ; P. L. li. 602 a) ; on the authorities, see
L. Duchesne, Hist ane iii. 422, n. 2. 2 Mansi, vii. 68 b.
3 Leo, Ep. xlvi (Op. i. 928 ; P. L. liv. 837 b) ; and note the chapel in the
baptistery of the Lateran, with its inscription which Hilary, when Pope,
put up, in remembrance of his escape, to the honour of his ' liberator, St
John the Evangelist ' — still to be seen there, Duchesne, Hist ane iii.
420, n. 1.
4 P. Martin, Le brigandage, 174 sqq. 5 Ibid. 183 sqq.
6 Ibid. 186 sqq. 7 Ibid. 196 sqq. 8 Ibid. 206.
9 Fleury, xxvn. xii, xliii, xliv, xlvi-xlix, li.
10 That this, and no more, was the nature of the appeal, see E. Denny,
Papalism, § 733.
31 Fleury, xxvn. xliv; Thdt. Ep. cxiii (Op. iv. 1187-92; P. 67. lxxxiii.
1311-18), and Document No. 224. X 2

308 THE LATROCINIUM, 449 part in
Antioch. I have won back Marcionites by the hundred ; Arians
and Eunomians by the score. There is not one heretic in all the
eight hundred parishes of my diocese ; and much of my labour
has been at personal risk. My writings, § 5, testify, in no less
degree, to the soundness of my faith. Do not, therefore, reject my
petition ; but, § 6, tell me whether I am to acquiesce in my unjust
deposition ; for I await your decision. Messengers, § 7, are taking
this for me, though I would gladly come myself ; but that, by the
Emperor's orders, I am confined to my diocese. This letter to the
Pope was supported by others, in the same strain, to his entourage ;
one to Renatus (of whose death Theodoret was, as yet, unaware),
in which he acknowledges ' the hegemony of the holy throne of
Rome over the churches of the world ', not, indeed, on the ground
' that the office of Supreme Pastor belongs iure divino to the
Roman Bishop V but on account of the purity of its faith which
was ' never ', he says, ' sullied by heresy ' 2 ; a second, to Floren
tius,3 apparently as representative of the Western bishops assem
bled in synod at Rome with Leo ; a third,4 to the archdeacon,
Hilary, of whose function at Ephesus, however, Theodoret appears
to be ignorant ; and a fourth to Anatolius the Patrician,5 begging
him to use his influence with the Emperor and so gain permission
for the writer either ' to go to the West and there be judged by the
bishops of those parts ', or else to return to his monastery, one
hundred and twenty miles from Cyrus, seventy-five from Antioch,
and three from Apamea. Leave to retire to his convent was given
him ; and. meanwhile, his complaints were received in Rome.
They were supplemented by the firsthand accounts of Hilary, who
brought with him a written appeal from Flavian,6 while a similar
document reached the Pope from Eusebius of Dorylaeum, being
presented by two of his clergy. Flavian urges Leo ' to arise up
first in the cause of our right faith ' 7 by ' issuing a decree ' for the
1 Denny, Papalism, § 731. On ' hegemony ' as distinct from ' supremacy ',
remember that Milan as well as Rome had a hegemony at this epoch, ibid.,
§ 1178. 2 Thdt. Ep. cxvi (Op. iv. 1197 ; P. L. lxxxiii. 1325 a).
3 Ep. cxvii (Op. iv. 1198 sq. ; P. L. lxxxiii. 1325-8).
4 Ep. cxviii (Op. iv. 1199 sq. ; P. L. lxxxiii. 1327 sq.).
5 Ep. cxix (Op. iv. 1200-3) ; P. L. lxxxiii. 1327-30).
6 This Appellatio Flaviani is printed as No. lxx of the Church Historical
Society's pamphlets (S.P.C.K. 1903), ed. T. A. Lacey. ' It was addressed to
the Apostolic See and its synod (ib. 50), not to Leo as supreme judge of the
faithful, having iure divino supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole
Church ', Denny, Papalism, § 728. • 7 App. FI. 51.

chap, xv THE LATROCINIUM, 449 309
assembling of a new Council both of West and East, and for the
quashing of what had been done at Ephesus ' by a sort of gamester's
trick \1 Eusebius presses bim to take action in support of the
intervention of his legates at Ephesus who had demanded in vain
from Dioscorus that he, as well as Eutyches, plaintiff as well as
defendant, should be heard 2 ; and he begs to be ' restored to the
episcopal dignity and your communion '.3
(2) A Council in Rome 4 was celebrating the anniversary,
29 September 449, of the Pope's consecration when these appeals
arrived. They discussed the situation ; and, in their name or in
his own, 13-15 October, Leo dispatched seven letters5 in all to
protest against the recent proceedings of the Council of Ephesus.
The first two were addressed to the Sovereigns of the East : to
Theodosius, of whom he requests that all may remain in statu quo
ante, until its doings are revised by a General Council in Italy ;
and to Pulcheria, whom he begs to support this request to her
brother. In the third, he addresses himself to his Vicar, Anastasius,
bishop of Thessalonica 435-t51, whose proxy at Ephesus had
voted with the majority. ' It is a good thing ', says Leo, ' that you
were not there : but I trust you will clear yourself of any sympathy
with what was done.' Then followed the fourth, to Julian, bishop
of, Cos ; the fifth, to Flavian ; the sixth, to the clergy and people
of Constantinople ; and the seventh, to its monks. The purport
of all was the same : ' Stand fast.' But nothing came of these
endeavours that autumn. The creatures of Dioscorus were well
ensconced in the thrones of Flavian and Domnus ; for Anatolius 6
ruled at Constantinople, 449-f58, and Maximus at Antioch, 449-
t55 ; and, though the Pope wrote again to the Emperor 7 at
Christmas, the situation remained unchanged.
(3) Early in 450 the Western Court paid a visit to Rome,8 to
take part in the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, 22 February 9 ; and
Leo contrived to turn the incident to account. At his suggestion,
the Emperor Valentinian III, his mother Galla Placidia, and his
wife Eudoxia, each wrote 10 to their eastern kinsfolk. All in vain.
1 App. FI. 52. 2 Ibid. 56. 3 Ibid. 58. 4 Fleury, xxvn. xliii.
5 Leo, Epp. xliv, xiv, xlvii-li (Op. i. 910-40 ; P. L. liv. 827-46) ; Jaffe,
Nos. 438-44.
6 He wrote, announcing his election, to Leo, in Leo, Ep. hii (Op. i. 953-6 ;
P. L. liv. 853-5).
7 Leo, Ep. liv (Op. i. 956-8 ; P. L. liv. 855 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 445.
8 Fleury, xxvn. xlvi. 9 Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 421, n. 2.
10 Leo, Epp. lv-lviii (Op. i. 962-74 ; P. L. liv. 857-05).

310 THE LATROCINIUM, 449
Theodosius had but just issued a rescript,1 confirming everything
that was done at Ephesus. He sent frigid replies to the Pope 2 and
to the Emperor and the princesses of Ravenna 3 ; assuring them
that all had passed off well at the Council and that, since the
removal of Flavian, peace had reigned in the East without injury
to the Faith. There was nothing to be done : though Leo kept
open an avenue for further action, whenever possible, by corre
spondence, 17 March, with Pulcheria,4 and by offering, 16-17 July,
to recognize Anatolius 5 on condition of his accepting Cyril's
second letter to Nestorius [Obloquuntur] and his own Tome to
Flavian. There was no response ; and the prospect looked as
dark as could be for the Catholic Faith.
§ 6. Then, by accident or by special providence, Theodosius II
fell from his horse, and died,6 28 July 450. At once the whole
situation, political and ecclesiastical, was reversed, and the way
was open to correct the Council of Ephesus by the Council of
Chalcedon. 3 Chalc. iii. No. 10 (Mansi, vii. 495-8). 2 Not extant.
3 Leo, Epp. lxii-lxiv (Op. i. 987-92 ; P. L. liv. 875-9).
4 Ep. lx (Op. i. 982 sq. ; P. L. liv. 873-4).
5 Epp. lxix-lxxi (Op. i. 1005-14 ; P. L. liv. 890-6) ; Jaffe, Nos. 452-4 ;
Fleury, xxvn. xlvi.
6 Fleury, xxvn. xlvii ; Gibbon, u. xxxiv (iii. 444) ; Hodgkin, ii. 97.

CHAPTER XVI
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451
Theodosius II left no children, and was succeeded by his sister,
Pulcheria, 450-f 3 ; ' under whom ', says Gibbon, ' the Romans,
for the first time, submitted to a female reign.' 1
§ 1. Pulcheria inaugurated the reaction against the Latrocinium,
whereas Leo had been able to do no more than urge it.
(1) Her first act was to put to death the eunuch Chrysaphius ;
and so, while depriving the Eutychian party of all secular support,
to estabhsh herself in popular favour : for Chrysaphius had been
a venal and oppressive minister. Her next care was to provide for
the Empire.
As a woman, she hardly felt equal to sustaining alone the weight
of its responsibilities : moreover, she was in her fifty-second year,
and no longer young. So, reserving her virginity, she bestowed her
hand in marriage on the senator Marcian, a soldier of experience,
six years her senior, and in great esteem. She herself, as the
representative of the Theodosian tradition, invested him with the
Imperial insignia, 24 August 450. Marcian was as orthodox as
Pulcheria. Under the late regime she had kept her own counsel.
But she was known to have befriended Flavian, and to have kept
up correspondence with Leo.
(2) It was, perhaps, for this reason— because he knew that he
might now count on the Eastern Court — that Leo's zeal to redress
the wrongs done at Ephesus by another Council began to cool.
He would also reflect that, if there was to be a Council, as the two
Emperors, Valentinian and Marcian, desired,2 the prospect of
holding it, as he had proposed, in Italy, where he might control it,
would be fainter under an Emperor hke Marcian, who knew his
own mind,3 than under the weak rule of Theodosius II. Further,
things seemed to be going well without it ; for the fall of Chrysa-
1 Gibbon, c. xxxiv (iii. 444).
2 In the letter of September 450, in which Marcian announces his accession,
Cone Chalc. i. 33 (Mansi, vi. 93 sq.) = Leo, Ep. lxxiii (Op. i. 1018 sq. ; P. L.
liv. 899 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvn. xlvii.
3 Cone. Chalc. i. 34 (Mansi, vi. 99) = Leo, Ep. lxxvi (Op. i. 1025 sq. ; P. L.
liv. 903-6) ; and so, too, Pulcheria in Cone. Chalc. i. 35 (Mansi, vi. 102 1)) =
Leo, Ep. lxxvii (Op. i. 1031 ; P. L. liv. 907 a).

312 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
phius was a crushing blow to the party of Eutyches, and eastern
clerics were showing themselves sensitive to the way the wind was
now blowing at Court.1 Eutyches was put under restraint. The
body of Flavian was brought back home ; and laid to rest, with
great pomp, alongside of Emperors and Bishops in the Church of
the Apostles.2 The victims of Dioscorus and his Synod, including
Theodoret,3 were recalled from exile4; while its members pro
tested that they had acted under compulsion, and repudiated their
share in its proceedings. Anatolius also, at a Council of Constanti
nople, received with effusion Abundius of Como, 450-t69, and his
fellow-envoys from Leo ; and not only signed the Tome, but
busied himself to get other signatures.5 Maximus of Antioch
proved equally complaisant. Dioscorus alone stood out. Conscious
that his ascendancy had received a fatal check, he hired persons,
so it was said, to stop the proclamation in Alexandria of the
accession of Marcian. Such, then, was the situation, as Leo
gathered it from letters of Marcian and Pulcheria,6 written
22 November 450 and delivered to him by the envoys 7 of Anatolius
and his Council. Briefly acknowledging the Emperor's letter,8 he
wrote,9 13 April 451, to Pulcheria and to Anatolius, suggesting
that the latter should consult with his legates about the terms on
which the rank and file at Ephesus were to be restored to com
munion 10 : the real authors of the mischief are Dioscorus and his
abettors, Juvenal and Eustathius, bishop of Berytus (Beyrout).11
To Marcian he added, 23 April, that the only question for further
discussion was not the Faith but the terms on which those who
had compromised it should come in.12 These communications,
however, produced no reply from the potentates, civil and ecclesi
astical, of Constantinople. So, 9 June, the Pope addressed them _
again. To the Emperor 13 he observed that a Council, in face of the
1 e. g. Anatolius accepted the Tome ; so Pulcheria to Leo, in Leo, Ep.
lxxvii (Op. i. 1030 ; P. L. hv. 906 sq.).
2 Ibid. (Op. i. 1032 ; P. L. liv. 907 a).
3 Thdt. Epp. cxxxviii-cxl (Op. iv. 1229-35 ; P. 67. lxxxiii. 1359-64).
4 Ibid. (Op. i. 1032 ; P. L. liv. 907 b).
6 Fleury, xxvn. xlviii.
6 Cone Chalc. i. 34, 35 (Leo, Epp. lxxvi, lxxvii), ut sup.
7 Leo, Ep. Ixxx, § 1 (Op. i. 1039 ; P. L. liv. 913 b).
8 Ep. lxxviii (Op. i. 1033-5 ; P. L. hv. 907-9) ; Jaffe, No. 458.
9 Epp. lxxix, Ixxx (Op. i. 1035-41 ; P. L. hv. 909-15) ; Jaffe, Nos. 459,
460. 10 Ep. Ixxx, § 2 (Op. i. 1039 sq. ; P. L. liv. 914 a).
11 Ibid., § 3 (Op. i. 1040 ; P. L. hv. 914 c).
12 Ep. lxxxii, § 2 (Op. i. 1045 ; P. L. hv. 918 b) ; Jaffe, No. 462.
13 Ep. lxxxiii (Op. i. 1046 sq. ; P. L. liv. 919-21) ; Jaffe, No. 463.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 313
invasion of the Huns, was out of the question.1 To Pulcheria 2 he
announced his dispatch of a second legation to deal with the
lapsed ; and of Anatolius 3 he requested that he would co-operate
with his envoys in rehabilitating the offenders. After all, it was
the ' malice of Dioscorus and the ignorance of Juvenal ' 4 that led
to all the trouble ; they might be left to the judgement of the
Ap'ostolic See 5 ; the rest could be dealt with on the spot.6 It is
interesting to note that Leo carefully avoids putting down to
Theodosius the responsibility for what had gone~ amiss : for
Emperors could do no wrong. And it is of interest, too, that he
and his fellows of the West were far more concerned at that
moment with Attila than with Eutyches ; for the safety of their
churches than for a distant Council.7
§ 2. But quite other was the concern of the orthodox Sovereigns
of the East : they would settle the doctrine of the Incarnate
Person, Hun or no Hun ; and, at the same time, settle Dioscorus
once for all. They therefore determined, before this second
packet of letters from Leo arrived, that no signatures, only the
whole episcopate, would suffice ; and they issued a summons,8
17 May, to a Council to meet at Nicaea, 1 September 451. At once
Leo made the best of it, just as he had been obliged to do in the
case of Ephesus. The time was short. On 24 June he appointed
as his legates 9 Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum (now Marsala) in
Sicily,10 and Boniface, a priest, with whom he also associated his
envoys already in the East.11 He provided each of them with
a copy of his Tome, and with further instructions 12 ; while Boni
face, who set off direct from Rome, carried letters of 26 June to the
Emperor, to Anatolius, to Julian of Cos, and to the Council.13
Leo would have preferred, he writes to the Council, that its
assembling should have been deferred ; but he is ready to conform
to the Imperial commands. His legates he sends to represent him,
1 Ep. lxxxiii, § 2 ; for the invasion of the Huns see Hodgkin, ii. 1-181.
1 Ep. Ixxxiv (Op. i. 1048-50 ; P. L. liv. 921 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 464.
3 Ep. lxxxv (Op. i. 1050-2 ; P. L. liv. 922-4) ; Jaffe, No. 465.
4 Ibid., § 1. 6 Ibid., § 2. 6 Ibid., § 3.
7 Ep. lxxxiii, § 2 (Op. i. 1047 ; P. L. liv. 920).
8 Cone. Chalc. i. 36, 37 (Mansi, vi. 551 sq., 553 sq.) ; Hefele, iii. 277
(E. Tr.).
9 Ep. lxxxix (Op. i. 1060-2 ; P. L. liv. 930-1).
10 As from a ' securior provincia ', ibid. (Op. i. 1061 ; P. L. liv. 930 b).
11 Ibid., and Ep. xc, § 2 (Op. i. 1064 sq. ; P. L. liv. 934).
12 Ep. lxxxviii (Op. i. 1057-60 ; P. L. liv. 927-9).
13 Epp. xc-xciii (Op. i. 1063-74 ; P. L. liv. 932-42).

314 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
and Paschasinus is to preside in his name.1 There is no need to
discuss the Faith ; it has been sufficiently set out in his Tome to
Flavian.2 The only question is of the restoration of bishops
ejected from their sees for loyalty to the Catholic Faith : they
must be restored without prejudice to the decisions of the first
Council of Ephesus and the condemnation of Nestorius.3 Clearly,
the Pope expected that opponents of Eutyches would quickly be
denounced as Nestorians ; and this may explain his objection to
a Synod in the East, and to its being allowed to reopen debates on
the Faith.4 Nor were his expectations mistaken. As many as
five hundred and twenty 5 bishops arrived, before long, at Nicaea ;
all of them from the Eastern Empire, save the Roman legates and
two from Africa, who were there not so much as representatives of
their provinces as in the character of fugitives from the Vandals.6
Dioscorus was there, with seventeen Egyptians only, but strong
in the support of numbers from Palestine and Rlyricum. Relying
upon these, and giving out, in all likelihood, that every opponent
of his was simply a Nestorian, he excommunicated Leo during the
days of waiting at Nicaea. But the bolt fell flat : only ten of his
suffragans supported him.7 The papal legates, meanwhile, were
with Marcian at the capital. He could not quit the city 8 — for
fear of the Huns in Illyricum 9 — to go so far afield as Nicaea. But
• he could come to Chalcedon.10 The Council, however, stood in fear
of disturbances from monks of the party of Eutyches, if they
ventured so near to Constantinople. But their fears were removed
by an enactment of 13 July forbidding disturbances11; and this
was supplemented by a letter from Pulcheria to the Consular of
Bithynia expelling all clerks, monks, and laymen from the pre
cincts of the Council, save such as were present by Imperial orders
or in attendance upon their bishops.12
1 Ep. xciii, § 1 (Op. i. 1070 ; P. L. liv. 957 a, b) ; on this, see Denny,
Papalism, §§ 391-2. Leo was within his rights, as the first bishop of
Christendom, but ' the believing Emperors presided for the sake of order ',
Ep. xcviii, § 1 (Op. i. 1090 ; P. L. liv. 951).
2 Ibid., § 2. 3 Ibid., § 3. 4 Hefele, Councils, iii. 282.
5 Cone. Chalc. iii. 2 (Mansi, vi. 148 c) = Leo, Ep. xcviii, § 1 (Op. i. 1090 ;
P. L. liv. 951 o). « Tillemont, Mim. xv. 641.
7 Libellus Theodori, ap. Cone Chalc. Actio in, No. 3 (Mansi, vi. 1009 b) ;
Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 428, n. 1.
8 Cone Chalc. i. 38 (Mansi, vi. 553 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvn. li.
9 Cone Chalc. i. 42 (Mansi, vi. 560 o) ; Gibbon, c. xxxv (iii. 446) ; Hodgkin,
ii. 98, 100.
10 Cone Chalc. i. 41 (Mansi, vi. 557).
31 Justinian, Codex, i. xii. 5. 12 Cone Chalc i. 39 (Mansi, vi. 556).

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 315
Thus protected, the bishops were required,1 22 September, to
transport themselves to the Council of Chalcedon,2 8 October-
1 November 451,
§ 3. The first session,3 8 October, took place in the Church of
St. Euphemia.4 In the absence of ' the believing Emperors ' who,
however, ' presided for the sake of order ' 5 through their repre
sentatives, the conduct of the Council rested with Imperial
Commissioners. They consisted of nineteen dignitaries of State,6
headed by the Patrician Anatolius, who took their seats in front
of the chancel screen 7 ; while, on either side, down the nave, were
ranged the seats of the bishops. To the left of the Commissioners
(for it was the place of honour) sat first the Roman legates who
took the lead in the business of the Synod ; next, Anatolius of
Constantinople ; third, Maximus of Antioch ; then the exarchs,
Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Stephen of Ephesus ;
finally, the other bishops belonging to the ' dioceses ' of Oriens,
Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. Opposite to them, on the right of the
tribunal, sat Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and
the proxy of Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica ; and these were
supported by the bishops of Egypt, Palestine, and Rlyricum.
Thus seated, the members of the assembly found themselves
arranged in accordance with their opinions : the partisans of
Dioscorus behind him on the right ; the followers not so much
of Cyril as of Leo, behind the papal legates on the left. In
the midst were enthroned the Gospels 8 — symbols of the Unseen
Master, whom both sides were thus summoned to observe.
The session thus opened, the legates demanded that Dioscorus
should be excluded from the assembly ; for such, they said, were
their instructions.9 But the Commissioners insisted that, if this
were done, it must be after trial 10 ; and Dioscorus was ordered
to seat himself, as defendant, in the midst. He did so ; and was
immediately confronted by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. As plaintiff,
he also stepped out into the middle of the assembly,11 and de-
1 Cone Chalc. i. 42 (ib. vi. 559 sqq.).
2 Mansi, vi. 529 sqq., vii ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 649 sqq. (E. Tr. m.
285 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxvni. i-xxxi.
3 Mansi, vi. 563-938 ; Fleury, xxvni. i-ix.
4 For a description of it see Evagrius, H. E. ii, § 3 (Op. 284 sqq. ; P. 67.
lxxxvi. ii. 2491 sqq.).
6 Leo, Ep. xcviii, § 1 (Op. i. 1090 ; P. L. liv. 951) ; Mansi, vi. 148 c.
6 Mansi, vi. 563 sqq. 7 Ibid. 580 b. 8 Ibid. 580 d.
9 Ibid. 580 sq. 10 Ibid. 581 c. n Ibid. 581 d.

316 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 partiii
manded that the minutes of the late Council of Ephesus should
be read.1 It would then be clear that Dioscorus had violated the
Faith in order to set up the heresy of Eutyches,2 and had done no
less violence to justice in condemning Eusebius.3
The reading began with the Imperial letter of summons4;
when, at the mention therein of the name of Theodoret,5 the
Commissioners interposed to say that he ought to be present, for
the Pope had restored him to the Episcopate, and the Emperor
had commanded that he should take part in the Council.6
Theodoret was shown in — to be hailed with cheers from the
benches on the left, and with denunciations from the right.
Dioscorus, too, from the centre, shouted : ' To receive Theodoret
is to censure the memory of Cyril.' 7 ' Out with Dioscorus the
murderer,' 8 retorted the left ; and then cried, ' He is worthy,' 9
as Theodoret took his seat among the bishops, in the character
of second accuser alongside of Eusebius. ' Bishop ? He is no
bishop ! ' retaliated the Egyptians, ' Out with the enemy of
God '.10 And so it went on, until, at last, both sides were recalled
to order by the Commissioners.11"
, The Secretaries then came to the proceedings of the Council of
Ephesus 12 ; and the audience heard how Dioscorus had burked
the recitation of the Tome of St. Leo,13 rehabilitated Eutyches,14
and gone on to the condemnation first of Flavian 15 and then of
Eusebius.16 With cowardly apologies, the prelates sitting to the
left of the Commissioners began to excuse themselves for their
share in letting all this be done ; for most of them had sat in the
synod at Ephesus. ' Of course,' urged Thalassius, ' I had not
sufficient authority by myself to get the Pope's letter read.'17
' We subscribed a blank paper for fear of our lives,' 18 pleaded
Acacius, bishop of Ariarathia, by way of excusing himself for
signing against Flavian. ' We all erred, and'we all ask for pardon,'19
cried the rest.
Next came the minutes of Flavian's Council of Constantinople,20
which were embodied in those of Ephesus ; and the bishops
1 Mansi, vi. 585 c. 3 Ibid. 585 a. 3 Ibid. 585 B.
4 Cunctis constitit of 30 March 449 ; ibid. 587-90.
6 Ibid. 589 a. 8 Ibid. 589 b. 7 Ibid. 589 c.
8 Ibid. 589 d. 9 Ibid. 592 b. 10 Ibid. 592 b.
31 Ibid. 592 d. 12 Ibid. 605 sqq. 13 Ibid. 616 a.
14 Ibid. 861 b. 35 Ibid. 908 o. 16 Ibid. 908 o.
17 Ibid. 617 c. 38 Ibid. 625 b. 39 Ibid. 637 o, d.
20 Ibid. 649 sqq.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 317
heard how Flavian's declaration of Faith there made 1 was in
strict accord with the language officially used by Cyril. ' It
would be an advantage ', observed the Commissioners, ' to hear
the opinion of the bishops here present upon that point.' 2 So,
beginning with the legate Paschasinus, who said that Flavian's
exposition of the Faith was sound and in unison with the Tome
of Leo,3 the prelates declared, one after another, their satisfaction
with it. ' The martyr Flavian rightly explained the Faith,' was
the general verdict.4 Thereupon, seeing how the wind had per
manently changed, the weathercocks went with it. Juvenal, for
instance, rose from his seat, and crossed over to the opposite
benches, followed by all the bishops of Palestine.5 The bishops of
Rlyricum flitted across too 6 — all except one, viz. Atticus, bishop
of Nicopolis 446-f51, and metropolitan of Epirus Vetus, who
pretended to be indisposed and went out as they rose.7 Even
four Egyptians deserted Dioscorus before his very eyes.8
At last the interminable recitation of minutes was over, and
no doubt remained that the Synod disapproved of the rehabili
tation of Eutyches, of the condemnation of Flavian, and of the
tyranny by which these ends had been achieved. It remained to
bring its authors to justice ; but it was getting dark, and lights *•
were brought in.9 The Commissioners therefore announced that
the question of doctrine would be deferred, but taken next ;
they were of opinion, however, that Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius,
Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia
were the persons really responsible for the misdeeds of Ephesus ;
and, as such, should be deposed forthwith.10 ' A just sentence,'
exclaimed the assembly ; and, as it broke up, the bishops raised,
for the first occasion on which it is recorded to have been
used,11 the celebrated anthem known as the Trisagion : ' Holy
God, holy and strong, holy and immortal, have mercy upon

1 Mansi, vi. 677-80. 2 Ibid. 680 c. 3 Ibid. 680 c.
4 Ibid. 681 a. 5 Ibid. 681 b. 6 Ibid. 681 b-684 c.
7 Ibid. 684 c. 8 Ibid. 681 e, 684 a. 9 Ibid. 901 c.
10 Ibid. 936 A-c. n Duchesne, Chr. Worship 5, 83.
12 Mansi, vi. 936 c. ' Its normal place ' in the liturgy ' is before the
lections ' ; and it occurs ' in all the Greek Oriental hturgies ' (Duchesne,
Chr. W.s 83) ; in the Coptic, before the Gospel and after the other lections
(ibid., n. 3) ; in the Gallican also before the Gospel (i. e. at the ' Little
Entrance', ibid. 197, and after it ; and in the modern Roman rite in the
Reproaches of Good Friday, both iu Greek and Latin.

318 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
§ 4. The second session1 took place, 10 October, in the absence
of Dioscorus and the others deposed.2 It was opened by a de
claration from the Commissioners to the effect that, Flavian and
Eusebius being now rehabilitated, the bishops should address
themselves to ' the establishment of the true Faith, as this was
the task for which the Council was assembled 3 : only we would
have you know ', they said, ' that the Most Divine and Religious
the Lord of the World, and we ourselves follow the Creeds of
Nicaea and Constantinople, and the other Fathers \4 Nothing
loth, they found in Leo's treatment of the case of Eutyches
a ' model ' of doctrinal statement 5 ; and proceeded to read once
more the standing expositions of the Faith, with the addition of
his. Thus, they had recited in turn the Creed of Nicaea,6 the
Creed of Constantinople,7 Cyril's second letter to Nestorius8 [Oblo-
quuntur] and his letter to John 9 [Laetentur caeli] ; followed by the
Tome of St. Leo,10 together with some extracts11 from the Fathers
which the Pope had since collected, viz. from Hilary of Poitiers,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Cyril.
As to the Tome12 after a brief preface, § 1, on the obstinacy and
the incompetence of Eutyches, Leo observes, § 2, that, if only he
had kept close to the Creed of his baptism, he would have found
there clearly stated two complementary truths about our Lord :
(a) that He is the proper Son of God, and yet (b) that He sub
mitted to a real human birth. These two truths he would have
found amply borne out by St. Matthew and St. Paul and the
Old Testament prophecies, which all teach a real Incarnation ;
so that, § 3, Two Natures, without confusion, both meet and
'remain in One Person, and, § 4, each Nature, being permanent,
retains its own sphere of action ; for, § 5, the properties of each
Nature remain distinct, though they are referable to the one
IPerson of the Son of God. Eutyches has rejected this communi-
catio idiomatum13 and has ' dissolved Jesus ' by denying His
1 Mansi, vi. 937-76 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 685-90 (E. Tr. iii. 315-19) ;
Fleury, xxvni. x, xi.
2 Their names do not appear in the list given in Mansi, vi. 939-52, save
that the name of Eustathius of Berytus is there (941 e), but by mistake,
Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 434, n. 1. 3 Mansi, vi. 952 c.
4 Ibid. 953 A. 5 Ibid. 953 b. « Ibid. 956. 7 Ibid. 957.
8 Ibid. 960 a. 9 Ibid. 960 b. 10 Ibid. 960 d. 31 Ibid. 961-72.
12 Leo, Ep. xxviii (Op. i. 801-38; P. L. liv. 755-82); Jaffe, No. 423;
text, tr., and notes in T. H. Bindley, Oec. Doc. 195 sqq. ; tr. and notes in
W. Bright, Sermons of SL Leo 2, 109 sqq.
13 On which, see noteBn W. Bright, St. Leo 2, 130.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 319
Human Nature and recurring to docetic views of His body and
His passion. As for, § 6, his confession of ' Two Natures before
the Union ', it is, of course, meaningless ; but also as impious to
assert that ' after the Word was made flesh, but a single Nature
remained in Him '. ' Endeavour to reclaim him,' urges Leo,
' and, if possible, restore him : I am sending three legates to the
Council ' [sc. of Ephesus]. The drift of this letter was, in effect,
to reaffirm, concisely but emphatically, Cyril's official teaching
to the exclusion of his more spontaneous utterances ; while Leo's
selection of extracts, since added, from Cyril, manifested a similar
tendency. They did not preclude the Pope from repudiating
elsewhere *• the Cyrilline phrase, ' One nature incarnate '. They
were actually such as showed Cyril explicitly to have asserted
' the distinction of Natures ' in Christ.2 The Tome thus read,
it now appeared that whether Commissioners, Pope, or Council
referred to ' the Fathers ', all were at one in ignoring Cyril's third
letter to Nestorius [Cum Salvator], i. e. the letter with the Twelve
Anathematisms. A minority of the Synod, consisting of Palesti
nians and Illyrians,3 were quick to notice both the assertions of
Leo and the absence of all real reference to the Anathematisms.
Others, indeed, acclaimed the Tome, crying, ' Peter hath spoken
through Leo ',* ¦&&& meaning that Leo had brought out the true
import of Peter's confession ; but these found a difficulty with
three passages 5 of the Tome, in which it seemed to them to
approximate to Nestorianism ; and Atticus of Nicopolis, who had
recovered from his indisposition, so well timed when it was
a question of exonerating Flavian, now demanded a few days
wherein to compare the letter of Leo with the third letter of
Cyril to Nestorius, in which Cyril had requested the consent of
his opponent to the Twelve Anathematisms.6 The bishops pre
tended not to hear ; but the Commissioners granted a five days'
adjournment, during which a committee was to meet under the
chairmanship of Anatolius, and prepare a statement such as
would reassure doubters, like Atticus, concerning the Truth.7
1 Ep. lxxxviii, § 1 (Op. i. 1058 ; P. L. liv. 927 b).
2 Mansi, vi. 969 e, from Cyril's Scholia de Incarnatione, § 13 (Op. viii.
787 sq. ; P. 67. lxxv. 1385 c).
3 Mansi, vi. 972 sq. 4 Ibid. 972 a, b.
6 viz. (1) 'Et ad resolvendum ... ex altero,' § 3 (Op. i. 813 ; P. L. liv.
763 b) ; (2) 'Agit enim utraque forma . . . iniuriis,' § 4 (Op. i. 819 ; P. L. hv.
767 b) ; (3) ' Quamvis enim . . . divinitus,' § 4 (Op. i. 824 ; P. L. liv. 769).
c Mansi, vi. 973 b, c. 7 Ibid. 973 d.

320 THE COUNCIL OF, CHALCEDON, 451 part iii
§ 5. In the meanwhile, at a third session,1 13 October, the
Council took up, for ecclesiastical decision, the case of Dioscorus ;
for, at the end of the previous session, a few had requested con
sideration for him, though in vain.2 On this occasion, the Com
missioners were not present ; they had said their say, so far as
Dioscorus was concerned : his affair then was left for settlement
to the Council, with Paschasinus, as legate of Leo, presiding.3
They sent two deputations,4 in succession, to summon Dioscorus ;
but he refused to attend, on the plea that the Commissioners were
absent. Then four Alexandrians put in an appearance — two
deacons, Theodore and Ischyrion, much in the confidence of Cyril ;
his nephew, Athanasius, a priest ; and Sophronius, a layman.
They put in petitions 5 to ' Leo, oecumenical archbishop and
patriarch of Great Rome and to the oecumenical Council ' : in
which the denunciations indiscriminately heaped on Dioscorus
were as surprising as the novel title bestowed on the Pope. The
Council, however, took little notice of either ; and sent a third
summons to Dioscorus.6 Still, he declined to come 7 : so they
proceeded against him for contumacy, the legates first summing
up his misdeeds and pronouncing sentence. ' Dioscorus ', they
declared, ' has been guilty of many offences. He ignored the
sentence of Flavian against Eutyches. On his own authority he
received Eutyches into communion,8 before sitting with his
colleagues in synod at Ephesus. They have been excused : but
he glories in what ho did there — not suffering, for example, the
letter of Leo to be read. Even this might have been overlooked,
if he had not afterwards dared to excommunicate Leo, and to
ignore our repeated citations. Leo therefore by us and by the
present holy Synod, together with St. Peter, who is the rock of the
Church and the basis of right Faith, deprives him of his episcopal
dignity.' A sonorous preface, to a sentence which was not that
of the Pope alone : for the legate continues, ' Now therefore the
Synod will vote in accordance with the canons ' 9 ; and this the
bishops, in turn, proceeded to do. Anatolius of Constantinople
' agrees in all points with the Apostolic See '.10 Maximus of
1 Mansi, vi. 975-1102 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 690-9 (E. Tr. iii. 320-9) ;
Fleury, xxvm. xii-xiv. 2 Ibid. 975 A-o. 3 Ibid. 985 a.
4 Ibid. 989 b, 996 c. 5 Ibid. 1005 b, 1012 b, 1021 c, 1029 o, d.
6 Ibid. 1036 b. 7 Ibid. 1041 c.
3 For this offence against Catholic unity, see J. Bingham, Ant xvi. ii,
§ 10, and Fleury, xxvni. xiv (iii. 357, note g).
9 Mansi, vi. 1048 b. 30 Ibid. 1048 c.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 321
Antioch ' subjects Dioscorus to ecclesiastical sentence, even as
Leo and Anatolius have done '.* Others ' judge ', ' decide ',2 ' give
sentence '.3 The sentence was thus not Leo's simply, but that of
the Pope made its own by the Council ; and so it is described in
reports of the deposition of Dioscorus sent to the offender himself,4
to the clergy,5 to the laity6 of Constantinople and Chalcedon.
Similarly, in the Synodical Letters, informing Valentinian and
Marcian7 and Pulcheria8 of what had passed, the bishops declared
' Dioscorus to have been stripped of his episcopate by the Oecu
menical Council ',9 and say that ' we have with sorrow denied
him our communion and against our wishes declared him to be
alien from episcopal dignity \10
§ 6. Dioscorus thus got rid of, the Council at its fourth session,11
17 October, returned to the question of the Faith. The magistrates
presided once more ; and, after having the minutes of the first
two sessions read over,12 they requested the Council to express its
mind concerning the Faith. In answer, Paschasinus, on behalf
of the legates, referred to ' The Rule of Faith as contained in the
Creed of Nicaea, confirmed by the Council of Constantinople,
expounded at Ephesus under Cyril, and set forth in the letter of
Pope Leo when he condemned the heresy of Nestorius and
Eutyches. The present Synod,' he added, ' holds this Faith ;
and can neither add thereto, nor take therefrom \13 This state
ment the bishops received with shouts of assent. ' So we all
believe ! So we were baptized ! So we baptize ' 14 — words which
are a good example of the way in which Councils conceived them
selves to be simply the guardians and exponents of tradition.
Thereupon the Commissioners bade them one by one declare if they
considered the ' expositions ' of Nicaea and Constantinople ' to be
in accord with the letter of the most reverend archbishop Leo \15
The meaning to be put upon the phrase is clear from their replies.
' The letter of Leo ', began Anatolius, ' is in harmony with the
Creed as well as with what was done at Ephesus under Cyril. '16
' It is plain ', said the legates themselves, ' that the Faith of Leo
is in harmony with the Creed, and with the Ephesian definitions ;
1 Mansi, vi. 1047 sq. 2 Ibid. 1049 o. 3 Ibid. 1048 d.
4 Ibid. 1093-6. 5 Ibid. 1096 B, c. ° Ibid. 1097 a-o.
7 Ibid. 1097-1100. 8 Ibid. 1101 sq. 9 Ibid. 1099 c.
10 Ibid. 1101 sq.
11 Ibid. vii. 1-98 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 700-15 (E. Tr. iii. 329-42) ;
Fleury, xxvni. xv-xix. 12 Mansi, vii. 5 A-8 c.
13 Ibid. 9 a, b. 14 Ibid. 9 B. 15 Ibid. 9 c. le Ibid. 9 c, d.
2191 m Y

322 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part iii
and therefore his letter is of the same sense as the Creed '.1 It is
well to note this language of the papal representatives. So far
from attributing to the papal letter any infallibility or final and
independent authority of its own,2 they declare that the Tome is*
to be accepted as being in accordance with the Creed and- the
subsequent doctrinal decisions of the episcopate. And the bishops
accepted it, one by one, on this ground and no other. ' It agrees,'
said Maximus of Antioch, ' and I have signed it '.3 ' As far as
I understand, it agrees,' 4 said a second. And a third assented
because ' Leo is shown to have followed the Nicene Faith, as did
Cyril '.5 True, the bishops had, many of them, signed the Tome
at an earlier stage ; but the point is that they did not merely
accept it on the authority of the Pope, as if that were all. They
tested, approved, and so raised it to the level of an oecumenical
standard of the Faith, precisely as the letter of Cyril to Nestorius
had been examined, authenticated, and raised to that rank at
Ephesus, after it had received the approval of Pope Caelestine.6
On Vaticanist principles,7 it was de fide from the date of its
publication, 13 June 449 ; but the Council did not treat it so.
They examined it and made it defide on 17 October 451. To pass
on. They were unanimous in their acceptance of it ; for the
Illyrian and Palestinian contingents had been satisfied by the
committee of Anatolius, and now clearly understood that, in
accepting the Tome, they would not be opening the door again to
Nestorianism.8 The Commissioners then called for consent by
acclamation. It was given 9 ; and the remainder of the session
was devoted to the reinstatement of the five associates of Dios
corus in condemnation10 and to the case of thirteen Egyptians11
who, anticipating the line taken up by the Monophysites later on,12
were willing to make a sacrifice of Eutyches,13 but persisted that
to sign the Tome 14 or to repudiate Dioscorus 15 would expose them
to certain death on returning to their own country.16 They were
relegated, therefore, to temporary safe-keeping at Constantinople,
1 Mansi, vii. 12 A. 2 Denny, Papalism, §§ 451-63. 3 Mansi, vii. 12 B.
4 Ibid. 12 c. s Ibid. 13 a. 8 Denny, Papalism, §§ 368, 455.
7 ' Ea infallibilitate pollere qua Divinus Redemptor ecclesiam suam in
definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit ; ideoque
eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu
ecclesiae irreformabiles esse.' Cone Vat Sessio iv, § 4.
8 Mansi, vii. 29-34. 9 Ibid. 48 a.
10 Ibid. 48 sq. u Ibid. 49 sqq.
12 Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 48, n. 1 ; cf . Mansi, vii. 80 a. 13 Ibid. 56 a.
14 Ibid. 56 b. " Ibid. 60 b. 18 Ibid. 57 b.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 323
till their new Patriarch should be elected.1 There remained the
opposition of the monks of the party of Eutyches still to be dealt
with.2 Including Barsumas, the ' assassin ' of Flavian,3 as he was
hailed4 in appearing before the Council, they refused assent to
anything posterior to the Nicene Creed, save the deposition of
Nestorius.5 They were allowed time for reflection6; and the
session closed by the settlement of a dispute7 between Photius
of Tyre, metropolitan of Phoenicia I, and his suffragan Eustathius
of Beyrout. Eustathius had availed himself of the favour in
which he stood with the Emperor Theodosius II to get Beyrout
erected into a titular metropolis.8 He then turned upon Photius
and claimed against him the rights of a metropolitan 9 — much as
Anthimus of Tyana claimed similar recognition from St. Basil,
when Valens erected Cappadocia II into a province with Tyana
for its metropolis. Anthimus carried his point, on the principle
disowned in the West, but generally accepted in the East, that
ecclesiastical divisions should conform to civil.10 But there was
a flaw at some point in the case of Eustathius,11 and he failed of
the success of Anthimus. The petition of Photius being read,12 the
Commissioners, on behalf of the Emperor, announced that he
wished the affairs of bishops to be regulated not by ' the formal
decision given by the Emperor in Consistory 13 and known as the
Pragmatic Sanction ' 14 but by Canon. ' Is that the wish of the
Synod ? ' asked the Commissioners. ' Yes : by Canon.' 15 Eusta
thius adroitly pleaded in his favour a decision by the Home Synod
at Constantinople.16 But that informal assemblage was ignored,
and his case decided by reference to the fourth canon of Nicaea.17
Photius, accordingly, was to have the whole power of consecrating
bishops in all the cities of Phoenicia I ; and Eustathius, who had
endeavoured to annex six of them for his metropolitanate, was
1 Mansi, vii. 60 o, d ; Cone Chalc, c. 30 (W. Bright, Canons z, xlviii.
236 sqq.). 2 Mansi, vii. 61 sqq. 3 Ibid. 68 b. 4 Ibid. 68 c.
6 Ibid. 73 a, 76 b. « Ibid. 84. 7 Ibid. 85 sqq. ; Fleury, xxviii. xix.
8 Ibid. 38 b. 9 Ibid. 89 o.
10 Greg. Naz. Orat. xliii, § 58 (Op. ii. 814 ; P. G. xxxvi. 572 a).
11 Theodosius had ' only conferred the title of metropolis on the city,
and had not professed to divide the province for civil, much less for eccle
siastical purposes ', W. Bright, Canons '¦>, 188.
12 Mansi, vii. 85 sqq. 13 Fleury, xxviii. xix (iii. 368, note p).
14 Mansi, vii. 89 a ; on the later history of the phrase, see W. Bright,
Canons 2, 187 sq. It is ' pragmatic ' as dealing with some public ' affair '
(irpayp,a). 15 Mansi, vii. 89 b.
18 Ibid. 89 d ; Anatolius explains what it is, ibid. 92 c.
17 Ibid. 93 a. Y 2

324 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
not, in virtue of the Pragmatic Sanction, to have more than any
other bishop of the province.1
§ 7. At the fifth session,2 22 October, the Council reached the
crisis of its deliberations. Hitherto they had simply discussed
the fate of persons. Now they turned to the definition of the
Faith : the objective so ardently desired by the Government.
A committee, appointed at the second' session and presided over
by Anatolius, had already made an attempt in this direction by
drafting a doctrinal formulary. At the request of the magistrates
it was read ; but, as it was not entered on the minutes,3 it is no
longer extant. The greater number professed themselves satisfied
with this definition ; but a minority, consisting of ' Orientals '
supported by the Roman legates,4 were of opinion that, as it was
not in sufficiently close accord with the Tome of St. Leo, it would
fail to secure the end desired, viz. the exclusion of Eutychianism.
It did not, in fact, contain the phrase ' in two natures ', to which
the Pope attached so great importance.5 Fearing, then, that this
document would be accepted as it stood, the legates demanded
their passports and threatened to leave. ' We will go home,' they
announced, ' and a synod shall meet in the West.' 6 But this
would have been to blight all hopes of union ; and the Commis
sioners resorted to the expedient, familiar to modern governments
when their legislatures get out of hand, of relieving the tension
by proposing the appointment of a committee to report on the
situation.7 The Council, however, would not listen to the pro
posal. They insisted on the Definition, pure and simple. ' We
all approve it ! Let it be signed ! He who signs not is a heretic !
Mary is Theotokos ! Out with the Nestorians ! Christ is God ! ' 8
By ' Nestorians ' they meant the minority led by Rome and
recruited from ' the East ', whose language and sympathies they
suspected of opening the door again to Nestorianism. But this
was a misapprehension ; and the Commissioners pointed out to
the assembly that the Definition, as it stood, was deficient : it
could be readily accepted by Dioscorus. ' Dioscorus stated,' they
said, ' that he deposed Flavian for saying " there are two natures ";
1 Mansi, vii. 93 d.
2 Ibid. 97-118; Hefele, Conciles, u. ii. 716-31 (E. Tr. iii. 342-53);
Fleury, xxvni. xx, xxi. 3 Mansi, vii. 100 c. 4 Ibid. 101 A.
5 e. g. Ep. xxviii, §§ 3, 5 (Op. i. 813, 824 ; P. L. liv. 763 b, 771 a).
0 Mansi, vii. 101 c.
7 Ibid. 101 c. 8 Ibid. 104 a.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 325
and the Definition only says Christ is "of two natures".'1 This
was to touch Anatolius on the quick. He had a fatherly pride in
the document which his committee had framed. He rose to
observe that Dioscorus had been condemned not for his doctrine,
but for having excommunicated Leo, and for refusing to obey the
Council. Ignoring Anatolius, the Commissioners resumed : ' You
received and signed the archbishop Leo's letter ? ' ' Yes,' the
bishops answered, ' we received and subscribed it.' ' Well then,'
urged the Commissioners, ' the Council is bound to adopt in its
Definition the phrase which is characteristic of that letter.' They
referred, of course, to ' in both natures ' 2 ; but did not say so.
The majority had to be humoured. All they would say was : 'We
are for the Definition, neither more nor less. It is in no way
deficient. Leo believes as do we.' 3 There was nothing for it but
to fall back on the authority of the Emperor ; and the Commis
sioners, at this point, sent across to Constantinople for instruc
tions. In reply, they received an order that either (a) the com
mittee proposed must be set to work, or (b) the bishops, one by one,
must express their belief through their metropolitans, or (c) a synod
would have to be held in the West, in view of the refusal of the
Council to give adequate expression to the Faith.4 The order is an
excellent specimen of Byzantinism ; but, on this occasion, the
Court knew that it had the good-will of Leo. Pope and Emperor,
however, were alike resisted. ' We'll have the Definition ', shouted
some of the majority, ' or off we'll go.' 5 And the Illyrians, for all
their subjection to the papal Vicar at Thessalonica, added, ' Those
who object can be off to Rome.' 6 With exemplary patience, the
Commissioners explained again. ' Dioscorus,' they repeated,
' admits that Christ is of two natures : what he does not admit is
that " there are two natures " in Christ,7 i.e. that now they both
exist side by side in Him. But this is just what Leo asserts. Now
then : which are your lordships for ? For Leo ? or for Dioscorus ? '
The real choice, though the Commissioners did not say so, lay
between Leo and Cyril ; for by Cyril's spontaneous, as distinct
from his official, language 8 Dioscorus and the Monophysites could
1 Mansi, vii. 104 b.
2 ' In utraque natura,' Leo, Ep. xxviii, § 5 (Op. i. 824 ; P. L. liv. 771 A).
3 Mansi, vii. 104 c.
4 Ibid. 104 sq. 5 Ibid. 105 b. 6 Ibid. 105 o.
7 Atoo-Kopos e\eye' to eK bio (pva-eaiv 8ex°rir"-' T° &* ^° ov 8*X0P-al} ibid. 105 0.
s There were two Cyrils : the Cyril of the XII Articles (spontaneous),
and the (official) Cyril of Obloquuntur and Laetentur cadi.

326 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part m
have colourably justified themselves. But, put as the Com
missioners put it, the argument told. ' We believe with Leo,' cried
the assembly. ' Very well, then : insert in your Definition that
" there are two natures in Christ", i.e. that He exists not only
" of two natures " but " in two natures ".' x
Where the Roman legates had failed, the Imperial Commis
sioners succeeded. They spoke Greek. They were probably less
imperious in tone. They were laymen, and urged not theology,
but consistency. They spoke with the weight of the Imperial
authority behind their words. At any rate, the committee retired
once more 2 ; and, emerging again from the side-chapel where they
had amended their draft, they produced the Chalcedonian Defini
tion of the Faith.3 It was immediately read to the Council, and, in
its capital clause, runs : ' Following therefore the holy Fathers, we
all teach, with one accord, one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ . . . who for us men and for our salvation, according to the
manhood, was born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer,4 one and
the same Christ, Son, Lord — only-begotten, confessed in two
natures,5 without confusion,6 without change, without division7
or separation. The difference of the natures is in no way denied
by reason of their union ; on the other hand, the peculiarity of
each nature is preserved, and both concur in one Person and one
Hypostasis.' The Definition carries on the language of Cyril in his
official utterances ; but that language is balanced by still greater
obligations to the Reunion Creed of the Antiochenes, to the Tome
of St. Proclus, and to the Tome of St. Leo. It was thus the end of
a period of theological definition; for it struck no compromise,
but boldly comprehended in one exposition what either side
severally held dear. Greeted with acclamation 8 as soon as it was
read in the Council, it won its place forthwith among the Christian
standards of doctrine, but only after a hard-fought struggle.
§ 8. Nothing remained but to sign it, and to provide, at the
sixth session,9 25 October, for its formal promulgation. Marcian
and Pulcheria crossed the water and presented themselves in state
at the Council.10 The Emperor addressed the bishops, first in
1 Mansi, vii. 105 d. 2 Ibid. 105 d.
3 Ibid. 108-18 ; T. H. Bindley, Oec. Doc. 229 sqq., and Document No. 214.
4 QeoToKov. & 'Ev 8vo (piaeo-iv.
6 ao-vyxirois. 7 aSuiiperas. 8 Mansi, vii. 117 A.
9 Ibid. 117-78 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 732-5 (E. Tr. iii. 353-5); Fleury,
xxviii. xxii. io Mansi, vii. 127 sq.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 827
Latin1 (for Latin was still the official language of the Empire),
and then in Greek.2 Next, the Definition was read,3 with the
signatures — amounting in all, proxies included, to over six hun
dred.4 It was immediately accorded civil sanction by Marcian's
pronouncement, Si quis igitur.5 Contemporaries considered this
moment the climax of the Council. But, in truth, the Council had
capitulated to an alliance, already agreed upon, between Pope and
Emperor. For these two potentates directed the minority, and
produced a situation at the Council very like that which the far-
sighted handful, inspired by the deacon Athanasius, had procured
at Nicaea. As at Nicaea the majority made no scruple of sacri
ficing Arius, so now at Chalcedon they found no difficulty in
dropping Eutyches. As at Nicaea the majority did not wish for a
definition, so now they only provided an effective one under
pressure. As at Nicaea the synod of Chalcedon would have
preferred a comprehensive formulary ; whether because it wished
to leave room in the Church for the side actually condemned, or
because it did not precisely appreciate the issue at stake. ' One
Person, resulting from two Natures ' is all that the bishops really
wished to say. ' One Person in two Natures ' is what they were
induced to say. And again, as with the Homoousion at Nicaea,
it was a formula in its origin Western — in this case, papal — that
the Council had to adopt. For the moment and in the end it was
an advantage that the Roman legates and the Imperial Com
missioners should have insisted on precise terminology — viz. ' In
two natures ' — just as it was an immediate and an ultimate gain
that the minority at Nicaea should have carried their decisive
'Of one substance with the Father'. But, in each case, precise
definition was secured by the coercion of a majority leaning
towards inclusion ; and the price was reaction and long years of
disunion. The Arianizing parties after Nicaea "kept the Church in
dissension till unity was reimposed by the sword of the last
Sovereign of the united Empire, Theodosius the Great. Now, the
control even of the Eastern Empire was slipping away from the
Byzantine Court— specially in the outlying regions— Armenia,
Syria, and Egypt — where its Greek culture had never succeeded in
ousting the native tongues and traditions. Few, then, in these
provinces, would welcome the Definition of Chalcedon : only those
1 Mansi, vii. 129 sq. 2 Ibid. 132 sq. 3 Ibid. 136 B.
4 Ibid. 136 sqq. 5 Ibid. 174 b.

328 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
afterwards known as Melkites, or adherents of the Court, which
was really its author ; and the Nestorians, who hailed its affirma
tion of dyophysitism as a vindication of Nestorius. Otherwise,
Armenian, Syrian, and Copt became Monophysite : partly because
they were conscious that the majority at Chalcedon was, like
themselves, in sympathy with Cyril rather than with Leo, but also
because they were determined upon nationalism and native
culture to the exclusion of Greek and Imperial domination. The
unity of the Church was broken by the Council, and could not be
recovered, for the unity of the Empire, which had restored it once
before, was itself breaking up.
From the sixth to the sixteenth sessions,1 25 October-1 Novem
ber, business was taken of less moment than the Definition of the
Faith ; but, nevertheless, of lasting importance, save for the re
adjustment of two or three personal matters.
§ 9. On 25 October the Definition had just been read and the
Sovereigns saluted, Marcian as the new Constantine 2 and Pulcheria
as the new Helena,3 when the Emperor rose and gave legal protec
tion to the Catholic Faith by Si quis igitur,* afterwards embodied
in the edict Nemo clericus 5 of 7 February 452, of which more
presently. He next proposed three drafts 6 of canons for approba
tion by the Council. The first had in view the increase of lawless
ness on the part of monks in the Eastern Empire, such as they
never ventured in the West, where they were fewer and under
control. Monks, it will be remembered, had interfered with the
commissioners of Theodosius at Antioch, 24 March 387. Next
year, they provoked that Emperor to remark to Ambrose, apropos
of an exploit of theirs in Osrhoene, that monks commit many
crimes. They drew from his son, Arcadius, the enactment Addictos
supplicio 7 of 27 July 398, in which he forbade their habit of
forcibly rescuing criminals from justice. They exhibited their
fanaticism by demonstrating against Chrysostom in exile,8 by
seconding, or by returning with interest, the violence of Theophi
lus,9 and by mobbing Orestes 10 on behalf of Cyril. Cyril, in fact,
and those who, like Eutyches and Dioscorus, would claim to carry
on the Cyrilline tradition, had profited by their use of force.
1 Fleury, xxvni. xxii-xxx. 2 Mansi, vii. 169 c. 3 Ibid. 172 A.
4 Ibid. 173 b. 5 Ibid. 475-8 ; Fleury, xxvni. xxxiv.
6 Ibid. 173-6. 7 Cod. Theod. ix. xl. 16.
8 Ep. xiv, § 3 (Op. iii. 597 ; P. 67. li. 615).
9 Socr. H. E. vi. vii. 10 Ibid. vn. xiv.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 329
Barsumas, for instance, had actually led the murderous attack on
Flavian at the Latrocinium which resulted in his death. It was
time to check their fanaticism ; and Marcian now proposed that
monks should be subject to their bishops and should not meddle
unauthorized, in public affairs. A second proposal aimed at the
growing secularity of tone among clergy and Religious : it pro
hibited them from farming property or business, for gain, and as
stewards for others. A third forbade a cleric to desert the church
in which he was ordained and migrate to another : it probably
was directed against clerical rapacity. ' I think it right ', said the
Emperor in support of these three proposals, ' that they should
be enacted by canon in your Synod, and not by any law of mine.' J
They accordingly became the fourth, third, and fifth canons of
Chalcedon.2 Marcian then bestowed upon Chalcedon the titular
status of a metropolis, saving all rights to the bishop of Nicomedia
as metropolitan,3 and departed. The rest of the legislation of the
Council is attributed by Evagrius * to a session following imme
diately upon the Imperial visit, though he distinguishes it from
the seventh.
§ 10. The seventh session5 was held 26 October, and may best
be taken in company with the sixteenth 6 and last, 1 November ;
for on these dates respectively were consolidated the new Patri
archates of Jerusalem and Constantinople. Some questions
touching persons were taken in the interval ; at the eighth session,
of 26 October, the rehabilitation of Theodoret 7 ; at the ninth and
tenth, of 27-8 October, the restoration of Ibas 8 and the matter of
a pension for Domnus 9 ; an unedifying dispute, at the eleventh
1 Mansi, vii. 173 c. - W. Bright, Canons 2, xxxix-xli. 149-66.
3 Mansi, vii. 177 a, b.
4 H. E. ii, § 18 (P. 67. lxxxvi. 2588 a) ; Fleury, xxvin. xxii. For this
legislation, see W. Bright, Canons 2, xxxix sqq., 140 sqq ; it is printed with
the fifteenth session in Mansi, vii. 393-422 ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 767-828
(E. Tr. iii. 383-422) ; Fleury, xxvni. xxix.
5 Mansi, vii. 177-84 ; Fleury, xxvni. xxiii ; Hefele, Cone n. ii. 735-40
(E. Tr. iii. 355 sq.).
6 Mansi, 423-54 ( = Fleury, xxvni. xxx; Hefele, Cone. n. ii. 829-34
(E. Tr. iii. 422-8).
7 Mansi, vii. 185-94 ; Fleury, xxvni. xxiv ; Hefele, Cone u. ii. 740-1
(E. Tr. iii. 356-7). He had been deposed at the Latrocinium, and recalled
from exile by the Emperor. His restoration was the act not of the Pope
but of the Synod, Denny, Papalism, §§ 397-401.
8 Mansi, vii. 193-270 ; Fleury, xxvni. xxv ; Hefele, Cone n. ii. 742-53
(E. Tr. iii. 358-70).
9 Mansi, vii. 269-72 ; Fleury, xxviii. xxv ; Hefele, Cone n. n. 753-5
(E. Tr. iii. 370).

330 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part iii
and twelfth, of 29-30 October, between Bassian, ex-bishop, and
Stephen, bishop, 449-51 , of Ephesus a ; a case for decision between
the bishop of Nicaea and his metropolitan at the thirteenth
session 2 of 30 October ; and at the fourteenth, on 31 October, the
rival claims of Sabinian and Athanasius upon the see of Perrha in
Syria.3 We pass on to what, next to the Definition of the Faith, has been
the most abiding result of the Council of Chalcedon : its creation,
or recognition, of two Eastern Patriarchates, both at the expense
of Antioch, and one of them a rival — long ago defeated, but still
hated — to Rome itself.
§ 11. First, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Council of
Nicaea, in recognizing the ancient rights of the chief sees, had
assigned an honorary precedence to the bishop of Jerusalem,
without withdrawing him from the authority of his metropolitan,
the bishop of Caesarea.4 Precedence even over his metropolitan,
however, the bishop of Jerusalem enjoyed in councils held outside
Palestine, both before and after Nicaea. Thus, at the Council of
Antioch, c. 270, which condemned Paul of Samosata, Hymenaeus
of Jerusalem, 266-J98, ranks second on the list, and Theotecnus
of Caesarea, c. 260-f 303 ?, fourth 5 ; just as Juvenal headed the
Palestinian contingent on its arrival, 12 June 431, at Ephesus ;
ranked among the greater prelates there at the Latrocinium ; and
sat next to the Patriarch of Alexandria at Chalcedon. Such
honorific status, among the greater prelates, he seems to have long
enjoyed ; for Eusebius thinks it as desirable to give the episcopal
successions at Jerusalem6 as at Rome, Alexandria, or Antioch.
No doubt this was out of veneration for Jerusalem as the mother-
city of Christendom ; and such veneration was redoubled after the
discovery of the Holy Places and the reverence paid to Jerusalem
as a place of pilgrimage. Its bishop acquired an added dignity,
and his sense of it brought him into collision with his ecclesiastical
superiors. Thus, Cyril, who was bishop of Jerusalem, 348-f86,
when Etheria visited the Holy City, c. 370-80, fell foul of his
1 Mansi, vii. 271-300 ; Fleury, xxvni. xxvi ; Hefele, Cone n. ii. 755-60
(E. Tr. iii. 370-6).
2 Mansi, vii. 301-14 ; Fleury, xxvm. xxvii ; Hefele, Cone. n. ii. 761-3
(E. Tr. iii. 376-9).
3 Mansi, vii. 313-58 ; Fleury, xxvni. xxviii ; Hefele, Cone. n. ii. 763-7
(E. Tr. iii. 379-83). 4 Nic. 7 ; W. Bright, Canons 2, xi. 27 sqq.
5 Eu. H. E. vn. xxx, § 2. 8 Ibid. iv. v, § 3, v. xii.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 331
metropolitan, Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, 340-f65. No doubt
there were theological differences between Cyril the conservative
and Acacius the Homoean ; but Acacius deposed Cyril 1 over
a question of precedence.2 His successors were strong enough to
maintain their authority thus vindicated. The diocesan synod of
Jerusalem 415, for instance, was reviewed by the provincial synod
of Diospolis, 415 ; where Juvenal's predecessor, John, bishop of
Jerusalem, 386~t417, sat as a mere member of the assembly over
which Eulogius of Caesarea, 404^-fl7, presided as metropolitan of
Palestina I. Juvenal, when he succeeded Praylius, 417-fl8, as
bishop of Jerusalem, 418-t58, made up his mind to turn precedence
into jurisdiction, and to be content with nothing short of power
in proportion to the reputation of his see. He began by conse
crating bishops for the neighbouring provinces of ' Phoenicia ' and
' Arabia '.3 Then, at the first Council of Ephesus, he took advan
tage of the absence of his metropolitan to present documents in
support of his claim which stretched it so far as to assert that the
bishop of Antioch, with whom the Council was then at variance,
ought to be subject ' to the Apostolic See of Jerusalem '.* Cyril
of Alexandria said nothing for the moment. He wanted the
support of Juvenal against John. But after their Reunion, 433,
he wrote to Leo — whether as archdeacon of Rome or as Pope is
uncertain ; but, in any case — as to the most influential person
there, to urge that no countenance should be given to the preten
sions of Juvenal. Proclus, indeed, was disposed to admit them ;
for Constantinople, as another rival to Antioch, was not above the
temptation of willingness to see its powers reduced ; but Cyril
held his ground.5 On the death of Cyril, Juvenal's ambitions
revived ; and, as the bishop of Jerusalem could only get rid of his
subjection to Caesarea by establishing an equality with Antioch,
edicts, solicited by Antioch or Jerusalem, mark the last stages of
his campaign. Marcian, at length, referred the decision to the
Council of Chalcedon6; and, after long negotiations, Maximus of
Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem settled the matter by agree
ment.7 The Patriarchate of Antioch kept Phoenicia I and II and
Arabia, provinces of which the metropolitical sees were respec-
1 Socr. H. E. ii. xl. 2 Thdt. H. E. n. xxvi, § 6.
3 Mansi, iv. 1402 d : see also Leo, Ep. cxix, § 4 (Op. i. 125 sq. ; P. L. liv.
1044 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 495. 4 Mansi, iv. 1312 d, e.
6 Ep. lvi (Op. x. 191 sq. ; P. 67. lxxvii. 320). '
6 Mansi, vii. 180 b. 7 Ibid. 180 c, d.

332 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
tively Tyre, Damascus, and Bostra. Juvenal was henceforth to
support the dignity of a Patriarch with the three Palestines,
whose metropolitans had their sees respectively at Jerusalem,
Scythopolis and Petra. Afterwards, at the Fifth General Council,
553, ' Arabia ' was transferred from Antioch to Jerusalem 1 ;
and the newest and fifth Patriarchate of the Church then came to
include all the territory from Lebanon to Sinai.
§ 12. Next, as to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.2 It was
just seventy years since the Second Oecumenical Council, by its
third canon,3 had given to that See the second rank in Christendom,
on the ground that Constantinople was New Rome. But this
precedence carried no jurisdiction ; and, by the second canon of
the same Council, the bishops of the ' dioceses ' of ' Asia ' and
Pontus were to manage their own affairs, as hitherto.4 Nothing,
however, was said as to who were their ecclesiastical chiefs, nor
were any directions given as to how they were to proceed. In
' Asia ' authority had gravitated traditionally round Ephesus ;
but in Pontus — a ' diocese which stretched from the Bosporus to
Taurus and the Euphrates — there was no such natural centre.'
Ancyra, at the centre, was not the civil capital. Caesarea in
Cappadocia, where the Vicar of Pontus resided, was too far away ;
and the sees of Bithynia, though that province was "administra
tively part of the ' diocese ', had much more business with the
capital than with the former metropolis of St. Basil. Chalcedon,
for instance, a Bithynian city where the Council was sitting, had
been chosen for that honour because it was, in fact, a suburb
within reach of Constantinople. What more natural, therefore,
than that the bishoprics of Asia and Pontus, in view either of
proximity to the capital or of the want of a convenient local centre,
should be drawn into the orbit of Constantinople ? Equally
natural that the Imperial City, with only twenty or thirty sees in
its own ' diocese ' of Thrace, should seek for expansion across the
water. So we find Chrysostom intervening in Asia, and his
successors taking advice of a ' Home Synod ' at Constantinople
which could regularly be maintained out of the numbers of bishops
who happened, from time to time, to be there on business.
On the motion of Anatolius the Council simply gave legal
1 W. Bright, Canons 2, 29.
3 Mansi, vii. 423 sqq. ; Hefele, Cone n. ii. 829 sqq. (E. Tr. iii. 422 sqq.) ;
Fleury, xxvni. xxx. 3 W. Bright, Canons 2, xxii. 4 Ibid, xxi sq.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 333
recognition to this state of affairs ; but in a session, 31 October,
from which the Commissioners were absent and with which the
Roman legates refused to concern themselves on the plea that
their instructions contained no reference to the matter in hand.1
By the ninth canon it had already been decreed that suits, to
which metropolitans were party, might be referred either to the
' exarch ' of the ' diocese ' or to the see of Constantinople 2 ; and
an appellate jurisdiction had thus been conferred on its archbishop.
By the twenty-eighth canon,3 now subscribed by Anatolius and
a hundred and eighty-three bishops,4 not only was his honorary
precedence, bestowed in 381, confirmed, but a Patriarchate was
created for him by transferring to the archbishop of Constantinople
the right to consecrate metropolitans for Pontus, Asia, and Thrace,
hitherto enjoyed by the chiefs of the local hierarchy. ' The inde
pendent authority of three exarchs, in fact, was annulled to make
the archbishop of Constantinople a Patriarch.' 5
In practice, the canon made no innovation ; it kept the Nicene
rule about ' ancient customs ' in spirit,6 though it broke it in the
letter. But it was met with determined opposition by the Roman
legates. At the sixteenth session, 1 November, they called
attention to what had been done in the absence of the Commis
sioners and of themselves, and produced their instructions from
Pope Leo. He had enjoined them ' to guard the ordinances of the
Fathers and the dignity of his own person ' against possible
' usurpations on the part of those who might rely on the splendour
of their sees ' 7 ; and as the Synod had ignored ' the decisions of
the three hundred and eighteen at Nicaea ' in favour of ' the
hundred and fifty of Constantinople ',8 the legates sought per
mission of the Commissioners to refer to the Nicene authority.
Permission was given, and Paschasinus read out the version of the
sixth canon of Nicaea, then current in Italy and Sicily, beginning :
' The Roman church hath always had the primacy ; therefore let
Egypt also have it (sc. within the Egyptian limits), so that the
bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all, since this is
also customary for the Roman bishop : and similarly, let him who
1 Mansi, vii. 425 c^28 a. Their absence was deliberate, Denny, Papalism,
§420. 2 W. Bright, Canons 2, xii sq., and Dooument No. 215.
3 Ibid, xlvii, and Document No. 215.
4 Mansi, vii. 429-42. 5 W. Bright, Canons 2, 222.
6 Fleury, xxvin. xxxiii (iii. 406, note i) ; Denny, Papalism, § 414.
7 Mansi, vii. 444 a. 8 Ibid. 441 d, e.

334 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part hi
is appointed bishop in Antioch : and in the other provinces, let
the churches of the larger cities have the first place.' 1 ' Primacy '
here is clearly used of patriarchal jurisdiction ; for what Rome
had in her region, Alexandria was to have in hers. There could
be no question of papalism 2 ; but, for all that, the version of
Paschasinus was immediately put out of court. The Secretary of
the Council confronted it with the original Greek of the Nicene
Canon 3 ; where, of course, no mention of any Roman ' primacy '
occurs ; and he next read out the first three canons of ' the hundred
and fifty at Constantinople ',* which formed the basis of the legisla
tion now in hand. Another attempt was made by the Roman
legates to upset it : they raised doubts as to whether the signatures
.in its favour had been obtained freely.5 This objection the
Commissioners parried by calling upon the bishops of Asia and
Pontus to state in turn whether they had voted for the twenty-
eighth canon by constraint or willingly.6 Thirteen metropolitans
replied that they ' signed freely ' or to similar effect 7 ; though
Eusebius of Ancyra let it appear that he was not enthusiastic
about the new proposals. Not that he entertained any jealousy
of the rise of Constantinople ; but he had his misgivings. He
thought that the clergy of the capital might use the right of their
archbishop to consecrate metropolitans as machinery for making
money.8 ' The reputation ', he said, ' of my friend Anatolius is,
I am well aware, beyond reproach : but no man is immortal.' 9 Of
the other sees most concerned, Ephesus, at the moment, was
vacant; and Thalassius, of Caesarea, acquiesced.10 So the Council
— to some of whom the arrangement would be a convenience, while
others would find in the elevation of Constantinople a source of
legitimate pride — consented.11 The Commissioners then gave their
decision,12 in form of the twenty-eighth canon. In vain the legates
entered a final protest ; and said that they could not sit by and
see ' the Apostolic See humiliated in our presence \13 ' Our sen
tence ', replied the Commissioners, ' has been approved by the
whole Synod.' 14
So ended the Council of Chalcedon ; but it was desired to secure
1 Mansi, vii. 443 b ; on this, and other versions, see above, vol. n. c.
2 Denny, Papalism, §§ 315 sqq.
3 Mansi, vii. 444 d. 4 Ibid. 445. 5 Ibid. 441 d.
6 Ibid. 445 d. 7 Ibid. 447-50. 8 Ibid. 452 a.
9 Ibid. 452 b. 10 Ibid. 453 a. n Ibid. 453 a.
12 Ibid. 452 sq. 13 Ibid. 454 B. 14 Ibid. 453 o.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 335
the Papal assent and the Imperial confirmation. Before they
separated, the bishops sent an address to Marcian 1 in which, after
thanks to him and to Leo, they remark that, as in former Councils,
all that was done has been to meet new errors with new definitions,
and so to preserve the unchanging Faith.2 Theology changes, but
religion does not.
§ 13. To secure the Papal assent, they dispatched a Synodical
Letter 3 to Leo. Here, after the manner of Jacob in dealing with
Esau, they first appease him, not with presents but with honorific
titles, and then delicately approach the point. They acknowledge
him, § 1, as ' the interpreter of Peter ', as ' the head ' of their
Synod ; as having entertained them, by his Tome, at nothing less
than a spiritual banquet ; and, § 2, as ' the divinely-appointed
guardian of the Vine ' for excommunicating whom Dioscorus had
been deposed. They then proceed to inform him, § 4, that they
have lent their authority to a custom of long-standing, and have
ordained that the church of Constantinople should consecrate
metropolitans for the ' dioceses ' of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, not
so much with a view to the advantage of Constantinople as for the
peace of metropolitical cities in those regions, so often disturbed
at the elections of their bishops. They have also confirmed the
canon which gave rank to the bishop of Constantinople next after
Leo's own see ; and are confident of the Pope's goodwill in this
matter. His legates, it is true, ' opposed our project ; but,
doubtless, from a desire that your Holiness might have the honour
of making the suggestion yourself ! ' At any rate, it was the wish
of the Emperor, the Senate, and the entire City. It would have
been ungracious to do other than acquiesce.
A letter in this tone was too clever by half for a plain man hke
Leo ; and, as if anticipating the bad impression that it would
make, both Marcian and Anatolius thought well to supplement it.
Their cue was to presume that the legates of Leo did not really
know his mind, and so to try to detach him from their proceedings.
' They did their level best ', wrote the Emperor, 18 December 451,
' to prevent the Synod from enacting anything concerning this
venerable church ' * ; while Anatolius added that Leo's legates,
1 Cone Chalc iii, No. 1 (Mansi, vii. 455-74) ; Fleury, xxvni. xxxi.
2 Mansi, vii. 457 a, b.
3 Cone Chalc. iii, No. 2 (Mansi, vii. 473) ; Leo, Ep. xcviii (Op. i. 1088-
1100 ; P. L. liv. 951-60) ; Fleury, xxvm. xxxi.
4 Leo, Ep. c, § 3 (Op. i, 1114 ; P. L. liv. 972 a)

336 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 partiii
' not knowing his real mind, disturbed the Synod and grossly
insulted both me and the church of Constantinople '.1 But the
Pope knew well that his representatives had both understood his
wishes and had loyally carried them out. He was not to be
propitiated. He determined to get rid of the obnoxious legislation :
and had reasons against it — one powerful, but unworthy of him ;
the others, sound. Thus, in the elevation of Constantinople to the
second Patriarchate, he feared a rival to his own ; and this was
a weighty, though hardly a worthy, reason for opposition. Next,
he foresaw that this second Patriarch in Christendom would run
the risk of beconiing a Pope dependent upon the Court, and he
feared the subjection of the Church to the State. True, the State
was, for the moment, Pulcheria ; but, after that Orthodox
Empress, there might well ensue an epoch of Byzantinism un
alloyed. Further, the Pope may have had fears for the unity of
Christendom. It was now fairly safe under the ancient regime of
the whole episcopate with the Pope for its president ; but, with
the Greek episcopate looking to a chief of its own at Constantinople,
and that chief enjoying his pre-eminence and his jurisdiction not
as bishop of an Apostolic See but simply as bishop of the Imperial
City, there was only too clear a prospect of schism ahead. Once
again, if the civil pre-eminence of a city was to entitle its bishop
forthwith to supreme ecclesiastical authority, then Rome itself
and Leo would have to give place to the archbishop of Ravenna,2
the capital of Valentinian III. Solid reasons all, for resistance on
Leo's part ; but just the very reasons he could not publicly avow.
His legates, indeed, had intimated that he might ground his
refusal of assent either upon the injury done to his own see or
upon the Nicene canons. He was wise enough to decline the
former suggestion ; but to stake all, as he did, upon the perma
nence of the Nicene arrangements and the inviolability of Nicene
canons as such, was to adopt a position which, whatever it might
promise in dealing with Easterns, soon proved to be quite
untenable. Such, however, was the line that he chose when, in letters of
22 May 452, he replied to the Eastern Sovereigns and to Anatolius.3
1 Leo, Ep. ci, § 5 (Op. i. 1132-4 ; P. L. liv. 981-3).
2 Cf. Gelasius, Ep. xiii (P. L. lix. 71c); Jaffe, No. 664 of 1 Feb. 495.
This was the reduclio ad absurdum of the Eastern contention that civil
rank alone gave ecclesiastical pre-eminence : see Denny, Papalism, §§ 415-17.
3 Epp. oiv-cvi (Op. i. 1144-60; P. L. liv. 991-1010) ; Jaffe, Nos. 481-3.

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 337
With so much to say about ' the ambition ' and ' the intemperate
cupidity ' of the Patriarch of Constantinople that we are forcibly
reminded of the proverb about those who live in glass houses,
Leo goes back to the irregularities in the ecclesiastical career of
Anatolius. He had been consecrated by Dioscorus upon the
unjust deposition of Flavian ; and, while Domnus was still in
legal possession of Antioch, he had consecrated Maximus to that
dignity. Anatolius, therefore, as Leo reminds the Emperor,
' ought to reflect that I have treated him with lenity rather than
justice in admitting his irregular ordination,1 and in winking at his
uncanonical promotion of Maximus ' 2 ; and this advice the Pope
repeated to Anatolius himself. ' A little of his predecessor Flavian's
modesty', Leo tells Pulcheria, 'is what he most needs3: so let
him not presume on a concession wrung from his brethren. It can
avail nothing against the canons, specially those of Nicaea ; for
the decrees of that Council, he bids Anatolius remember, are both
inviolable * and eternal.' 5 So much for the personal element
behind the legislation. The Pope then turns to the political and
ecclesiastical. 'Of course', he observes to Marcian, 'Constanti
nople has its privileges : but they are purely secular. It is an
Imperial City. It cannot become an Apostolic See : and " he loses
his own who covets more than his due" 6- Neither the rights of
Alexandria and Antioch 7 nor the primacy of so many metropoli
tans 8 should be so lightly sacrificed.' With our eye upon the
ambition of Leo and his successors, pursued no less than that of
Anatolius at the expense of other sees, and upon the losses to the
papacy consequent upon it, we cannot but note an irony in reading
of Leo as champion of the rights of other prelates. But this was
the only line open to him : to get the obnoxious canon invalidated
by an appeal to the authority of Nicaea. ' Let me urge it upon
your holinesses,' he wrote, 21 March 453, to the bishops who had
been present at Chalcedon,9 ' that the rights of churches must
remain just as they were ordained by the three hundred and
eighteen divinely-inspired Fathers.'10 He does not, it will be
observed, appeal to the principles of papalism11 in order to get the
canon cancelled, as if it set up a second pope at Constantinople
1 Ep. civ. § 2. 2 Ibid., § 5. 3 Ep. cv, § 3.
4 Ep. evi, § 2. 6 Ibid., § 4. ° Ep. civ, § 3.
7 Ep. evi, § 5. 8 Ep. cv, § 2. 9 Ep. cxiv ; Jaffe, No. 490.
10 Ibid., § 2 (Op. i. 1197 ; P. L. liv. 1029 b).
11 Denny, Papalism, § 442.
2191 in %

338 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, 451 part in
and so sinned against the Divine Constitution of the Church. He
simply appeals to Eastern veneration for the Council of Nicaea,
and in such terms as to enlist upon his side the jealousy which
Alexandria and Antioch might be expected to feel against ' sixty
years ' x successful encroachment by an upstart rival. The appeal
fell on deaf ears. But the quarrel was embarrassing to the Govern
ment, and so had to be composed. On the one hand, the Tome of
Leo was widely resented, and the Government had to bring troops
into the field to get the doctrinal decisions of the Council obeyed.
On the other hand, its administrative rearrangements were
disallowed by the Pope. A rapprochement of some sort became
imperative. At last, in reply to an appeal of 15 February 453
from the Emperor,2 Leo, on his part, was induced to declare,
21 March, that, so far as the Faith was concerned, he expressly
approved of the Council of Chalcedon,3 without being required to
desist from his protest in favour of the canons of Nicaea.4 Anato
lius, in his turn, was encouraged to assert the rank and the juris
diction lately conferred upon him, while the need for Leo's assent
was ignored.5
§ 14. There remained the Imperial confirmation of the Council.6
At the sixth session, where the Emperor himself was present, he
had already given sanction to the Chalcedonian Definition, as
soon as it was read, by Si quis igitur, forbidding public disputation
against it. The Council met with resistance in Egypt and Pales
tine, and the prohibition was both reaffirmed and extended in
a series of confirmatory enactments. By Tandem aliquando 7 of
7 February 452, the operative clause of which began Nemo vel
clericus vel militaris, it was made illegal for ' cleric or soldier or
person of any condition to raise disputes ' in matter of religion.
' It is impious and sacrilegious,' says the Emperor, ' where so many
bishops have decided to reopen the question to private judge
ment.' Little attention, however, was paid to the edict by the
citizens of Constantinople for whom it was intended. It was,
therefore repeated in Venerabilem catholicae 8of 13 March to a wider
1 Ep. cv, § 2.
2 Beatitudinem tuam=~L&o, Ep. ex (Op. i. 1181 sqq. ; P. L. liv. 1017 sqq.).
3 Leo, Ep. cxiv, § 1 (Op. i. 1195 ; P. L. liv. 1029).
4 Ibid., § 2 (Op. i. 1197 sqq. ; P. L. hv. 1029 sqq.).
B Hefele, Conciles, u. ii. 856 (E. Tr. iii. 448) ; L. Duchesne, Eglises
siparies, 194 ; Denny, Papalism, § 446.
6 Fleury, xxvm. xxxiv ; Hefele, Conciles, n. ii. 844-6 (E. Tr. iii. 438-41).
7 Cone. Chalc. iii, No. 3 (Mansi, vii. 475-8).
8 Ibid., No. 4 (Mansi, vii. 477-80).

chap, xvi THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 451 339
audience. On 6 July, the rescript Gloria nunquam 1 reversed the
approbation by Theodosius II of Eutyches and the Latrocinium,2
and vindicated the memory of Flavian while acquitting the
persons of Theodoret and Eusebius of Dorylaeum : and the series
was completed by Amplae omnipotenti3 of 8 July, which finally
ordains, under severe penalties, that the Council of Chalcedon
shall be obeyed. The first of these four enactments alone has had
lasting importance. Embodied, as it was, by Justinian into his
Codex* and supplemented by him in his Novels,5 it set up the
First Four Councils as the civilian 6 standard of orthodoxy for
subsequent age.s. This standard was ousted for a time by the
standard of the canonists, with whom papal took the place of
conciliar orthodoxy. ' He is accounted a heretic ', they held, ' who
does not hold that which is taught and followed by the Holy
Roman Church.' 7 But, in the sixteenth century, when the Civil
Law once more came to its own,8 the ancient and conciliar standard
of Catholicism was pressed upon Charles V by the papal legate at
the Diet of Augsburg as reason sufficient for treating Luther as a
heretic 9 ; while in England it became, by the legislation of
Henry VIII10 and Elizabeth,11 what it is to this, day, the rule of
orthodoxy and the guarantee to the Church of England of her
doctrinal continuity and Catholicity.
1 Cone Chalc. iii, No. 11 (Mansi, vii. 497-500).
2 Ibid, iii, No. 10 (Mansi, vii. 495-8).
3 Ibid, iii, No. 12 (Mansi, vii. 501-6).
4 Nemo clericus, Just. Codex, I. i. 4 ; Corpus luris Civilis, ii. 6 (edd. Th.
Mommsen u. P. Kruger).
5 Just. Novellae, 131, § 1 (ii. 267 ; Teubner, 1881) ; a. d. 545.
6 These decisions were ' the one set of canons which all the Civilians
recognized as having the force of law ', A. J. Carlyle, Mediaeval Political
Theory in ihe West, ii. 79.
7 ' Omnino censetur haereticus qui non tenet id quod docet ac sequitur
Sancta Romana Ecclesia,' Lyndwood [a. d. 1443], Provinciate, v. v. 292
(Oxoniae, 1679).
8 The three R's — Renaissance, Reformation, Reception [sc. of the Civil
Law] went together in England under Henry VIII : see F. W. Maitland,
English Law and the Renaissance (1901) ; A. F. Pollard, Cranmer, 178, n. 1,
and Henry VIII, 362, n. 2.
9 B. J. Kidd, Documents ofthe Continental Reformation, No. 117.
10 25 Henry VIII, c. xii, § 7 (Statutes of the Realm, iii. 455), of 1534 ; The
Ten Articles of 1536 (C. Lloyd, Formularies of Faith under Henry VIII,
p. xviii ; The Bishops' Book of 1537 (ibid. 62) ; The King's Book of 1543
(ibid. 227).
11 The Act of Supremacy, 1 Eliz., e. i, § 36 [a. d. 1568], and the Canon,
De Concionatoribus of 1571 (H. Gee and W. J. Hardy, Documents illustrative
of English Church History, 455, 476 sq.).

Z2

CHAPTER XVII
THE CHURCH IN THE WEST UNDER VALENTINIAN III,
425-f55, AND HIS MOTHER, GALLA PLACIDIA,
425-t50: (i) THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS; (ii)
IRELAND
§ 1. The death of Honorius, 26 August 423, was followed by the
usurpation of John, a clerk in the Government offices, who set
himself up at Ravenna and ruled for eighteen months. Galla
Placidia, sister of Honorius, and Empress as widow of Constantius
his colleague in 421, took refuge with her children, Honoria,
b. 418, and Valentinian, b. 419, at Constantinople. She threw
herself for protection1 on her nephew, Theodosius II, 408— •f"50,
much as her grandmother, Justina, as widow of Valentinian I,
364-t75, had fled, 387, before the usurper Maximus, and given
Placidia's mother, the Empress Galla to be wife of Theodosius
the Great as the price of his intervening to restore her brother,2
Valentinian II, 375-f92, to the throne of the West. Placidia's
entreaties took effect ; and Theodosius II sent an expedition to
reinstate his little cousin. His generals deposed John 3 ; and
Galla Placidia, re-established at Ravenna, ruled the Western
Empire thence for a quarter of a century, 425-t50 * as regent for
her son, Valentinian III, 425-|55. He was ' idle and pleasure-
loving ', reproducing only the weaker features of the Theodosian
character. The power, therefore, that his mother wielded during
his minority she retained after he had grown to manhood and
until her own death.5 I
The Empire, under her rule, was repeatedly reduced by the
barbarian invasions.
§ 2. Placidia has been called ' the man of her family ' 6 ; for, so
long as she lived, the soil of Italy remained inviolate. Alaric
1 Hodgkin, Italy, &c, I. ii. 844 ; Dynasty of Theodosius, 176.
2 Hodgkin, Italy, &c, I. ii. 464. 3 Ibid. 847 sq. 4 Ibid. 851.
5 Hodgkin, Dynasty, 178. For the reign of Valentinian III, see Gibbon,
cc. xxxiii-xxxv (iii. 394 sqq.) ; and for the families of Valentinian I and
Theodosius I, the tables in Hodgkin, Dynasty, xiv sq.
6 Hodgkin, Italy, &o„ I. ii. 885.

THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS 341
had smitten it in his three sieges of Rome, 408-10 ; but for
forty years, from his disappearance to her death, no barbarian
set foot in Italy. Elsewhere, from that epoch and under the
patriciate first, 410-23, of her husband, Constantius, and then of
her general, Aetius,1 423-f54, the Imperial territories beyond
Italy fell a prey to a succession of invaders who parcelled them
out into barbarian kingdoms, sometimes in nominal dependence
upon Ravenna, but really independent.
§ 3. Thus in 407 the ' Diocese of Britain ' was lost to the Empire,
when the ' tyrant ' Constantine crossed with his troops into Gaul.2
Britain, overrun since 449 by Jutes, Saxons, and Angles, in time
became England ; but not before it had sent out St. Patrick as
apostle of the neighbouring Ireland which had never been included
in the Empire.
§ 4. About the same time, a host of Vandals, Sueves, and Alans
(the two first of Teutonic origin and the third of Turanian 3) made
their appearance. They crossed the Rhine, 81 December 406,4 and
swept over Gaul.5 They did not stay there ; but, bursting through
the passes of the Pyrenees on Michaelmas Eve,6 409, they surged
onwards into Spain, and so left the regions behind them free for
the settlements of the Visigoths in Aquitaine. Alaric's invasions
of Italy,7 like the Visigothic inroads into Greece, left no permanent
traces there, His brother-in-law and successor, Ataulf,8 410-tl5,
who, in one of the sieges of Rome, had carried off Galla Placidia,
drew off the Gothic hosts, 412, into Gaul. Here he married his
captive, 414, at Narbonne ; but was murdered the following
year : and his successor, Wallia, 415-J18 made a treaty of peace
with the Emperor by restoring to him his sister.9 The Visigoths
were at that time engaged, from Barcelona, the capital of the first
Visigothic kingdom, 413-19, in conflict with Vandals and Alans
in Spain. In return for their services they received from Honorius
large grants of territory in south-west Gaul, consisting of Aquitania
II, the northern part of Narbonensis, and a portion of Novem-
1 Hodgkin, Italy, &c, I. ii. 874 sqq. ; Dynasty, 178 sq.
2 Hodgkin, Italy, I. ii. 741. 3 Ibid. i. "• 739.
4 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 406 (Op. 739 ; P. L. li. 590 a).
5 Jerome, Ep. cxxiii, § 16 (Op. i. 913 sq. ; P. L. xxii. 1057 sq.), and
Document No. 148. . ,... „„_ .
B Hodgkin, Italy, &c, I. ii. 824. 7 Gibbon, c. xxxi (in. 285 sqq.).
8 For whom, and for his policy of restoring the Roman power, see Orosius,
Hist vii, § 43 (Op. 585 ; P. L. xxxi. 1172 b).
9 Ibid. (Op. 586 ; P. L. xxxi. 1173 b).

342 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III part hi
populana. Thus came into being the second Visigothic kingdom,
419-57, with its capital at Toulouse.1 It was a kingdom recognized
by the Court of Ravenna : so that Gaul remained, in theory,
imperial. For ten years, 419-29, Theodoric I, 419-f51, the son
of Alaric, and Rome continued at peace. Then followed a decade
of strife, 429-39 ; but for the rest of his ' prosperous reign ' 2 the
fear of invasion by the Huns drew Roman and Visigoth together,
till, in the battle of the Mauriac Plain,3 at Mery-sur-Seine4 —
commonly known as the battle of Chalons — July 451, Aetius, the
general of Valentinian III, in concert with Theodoric who perished
on the field, drove Attila 5 out of Gaul. It was the supreme effort
of the Romans. Valentinian, out of jealousy, murdered Ae"tius,
451, with his own hand.6 ' What think you of the deed ? ' he
asked one of his courtiers. ' Sire,' was the reply, ' you have used
your left hand to cut off your right.' 7 And so it proved : for,
now that Aetius was gone, the field lay open in the West to the
Visigoths. Under Theodoric II,8 453-J66, the Visigoths, in
league9 with the new Emperor Avitus, 455-f6, and with the
Burgundians, established since 437 in the valley of the Rhone,
conquered Spain,10 456 ; and, by the end of our period, their
realm extended from the Loire to the Straits of Gibraltar, except for
the enfeebled kingdom of the Sueves u to the north-west of Spain
in what was Gallaecia. Such was the third Visigoth kingdom,
460-510, with its capital at Toledo. But within half a century
after Euric,12 466-t85, by the acquisition of Auvergne,13 475,
and Provence, 480,14 from the Empire, had raised the power of the
Visigoths to its height, c. 490, they began to decline. All that
1 Gibbon, c. xxxi (iii. 350). 2 Ibid., c. xxxv (iii. 450).
3 Ibid., c. xxxv (iii. 464) ; Hodgkin, ii. 124 sqq.
4 For this identification, see Gibbon, c. xxxv (app. 28, iii. 507 sq.) ;
Hodgkin, ii. 143 sqq. Mery-sur-Seine is about 20 m. north-west of Troyes.
5 For Attila, see Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 133-77 ; Hodgkin, ii. 1-181,
and Dynasty of Theodosius, c. vi.
6 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 251 ; Fleury, xxvn. lv ; Gibbon, c. xxxv
(iii. 476 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii. 195 sq.
7 Procopius, De bello Vandalico, i, § 4 (Teubner, 1905), published 550-1.
3 For a description of him, see Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. i, § 2 (Op. 2 ;
P. L. Iviii. 445-50) ; tr. Hodgkin, ii. 352 sqq.
9 Hodgkin, ii. 381.
10 Gibbon, c. xxxvi (Hodgkin, ii. 388 sq.); in 451, four Germanic nations
were supreme in Western Europe : (1) Vandals, in Africa, capital, Carthage ;
(2) Visigoths in south-west France, capital, Toulouse ; (3) Burgundians, in
Rhone Valley, capital, Lyons ; and (4) Sueves, in south and west Spain,
capital, Astorga ; Hodgkin, ii. 381. 11 Hodgkin, ii. 389.
12 Ibid. 484 : for a sketch of him, see Sidonius, Ep. vii, § 6 (Op. 183 ;
P. L. Iviii. 571 A). 13 Ibid. 491 sq. 13 Ibid. 492.

chap, xvii THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS 343
was Visigothic north of the Pyrenees was conquered by Clovis,
481— "("511, in a rehgious war of Catholic Frank against Arian
Visigoth 1 ; and the Visigothic power was confined to, but con
solidated in, Spain. Towards the end of the sixth century they
abandoned their Arianism for an ardent Catholicism 2 ; in the
seventh, an elective monarchy, with power in'the hands of nobles
and ecclesiastics, reduced their cohesion ; and early in the eighth
they fell before the Mohammedan invader,3 711. To this Gaul,
part Roman, part Visigothic, belong three names of interest in
ecclesiastical history ; Hilary,4 bishop of Aries 429-f49 ; Ger
manus,5 bishop of Auxerre 418-f48 ; and Sidonius Apollinaris,6
430-f89, son-in-law of the Emperor Avitus,7 imperial functionary,
country gentleman, and bishop of Clermont-Ferrand 472-f89,
who was the centre of a literary circle in Auvergne ; and, as an
authority for the inner hfe of the Western Empire in the days of
its decline,8 is the best set-off to men like Orosius and Salvian.
§ 5. The mention of Orosius and Salvian carries us in thought
to Africa and its invasion by the Vandals 9 ; for Orosius fled
thither before their earlier irruption into Spain, and Salvian,
c. 400-f 80, a presbyter of Marseilles, is a chief authority for the.
vices of Carthage which delivered that city into their hands. For
twenty years, the Vandals, since their passage of the Pyrenees,
had maintained an unequal contest with the Visigoths for the
possession of Spain.10 They were, hke their rivals, a German
people ; and came originally from between the Vistula and the
Oder. Thence they penetrated into the region between the
1 Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc, ii, § 37 (Op. 92 ; P. L. lxxi. 233 b) ;
Gibbon, c. xxxviii (iv. 114 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, iii. 357.
3 H. Leclercq, V Espagne chritienne, c. v.
3 Cambr. Med. Hist. ii. 371 sq.
4 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 36-96 ; Fleury, xxvi. xliv, li, xxvn. iv-vi.
5 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 1-29 ; Fleury, xxv. xv-xviii, xxvn. vii, viii.
6 Hodgkin, ii. 297 sqq. 7 See table in ibid. 375.
8 S. Dill, Roman Society in the last century ofthe Western Empire, 187 sqq.,
323 sqq. ; C. Bigg, Wayside Sketches, 57 sqq.
9 Our authorities for the Vandal conquest are (1) Procopius, /. 500-60,
in his De bello Vandalico (Teubner, 1905). The war was that in which
Belisarius, the general of Justinian, overthrew the Vandal kingdom, 533-4.
Procopius was his military secretary, and in Bk. I, cc. i-vii, he gives an
account of the foundation of the Vandal kingdom by Gaiseric ; (2) Victor,
bishop of Vita in Byzacena, who wrote, c. 486, his Historia persecutionis
Africanae provinciae temporibus Gaiserici et Hunerici regum Vandalorum
(P. L. Iviii. 179-276 ; or C. 8. E. L. vii) ; Hodgkin, ii. 209-11.
10 For their doings in Spain, the authority is the Spaniard Idacius, bishop
of Aquae Flaviae (Chaves), 427, who continued the Chronicle of Jerome to
468 in his Chronicon (P. L. li. 873-90).

344 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
Theiss and the Danube. From Constantine they received settle
ments in Pannonia ; much as afterwards their then neighbours
the Visigoths were allowed to settle in Moesia under Valens,
364-f78. Here these kindred peoples became Christians and
Arians ; for Arian Christianity had long been influential on
the line of the Danube, and had devoted missionaries such as
Ulfilas. The Vandal settlements were ceded, before 448, by
Valentinian III to the Huns ; and, after the downfall of Attila's
successor in the battle of the Nedao,1 454, they passed to the
Ostrogoths. But they had long been deserted ; for when the lust
of wandering to Westward seized all the Germanic peoples, at
the opening of the fifth century, the Vandals, crossing first the
Rhine, 406, and then the Pyrenees, 409, spread over Spain,2
where they appear in two tribes, the Asdings and the Sibngs. The
Asdings settled with the Sueves in Gallaecia and part of Lusitania,
wliile the Silings passed further south and occupied Baetica,3
410-16. The Silings, however, were driven out by the Visigoths,
417-19, and Baetica was restored to the Empire. But Honorius
could not hold it ; for the Asdings, having quarrelled with the
Sueves, seized upon it,4 and for ten years dwelt there, 419-29,
till the quarrels of the Romans laid open to the Vandals a region
of the Empire where, with no rivals of their own kindred in the
field, the spoils would be all their own. The region was Africa,
a tempting prize.
Africa contained seven provinces 5 ; westernmost of which lay
(1) Mauretania Tingitana, now Tangier. It was a province
' separated by two hundred miles of roadless desert from its
neighbour of the East ' 6 ; and this explains not only why it was
reckoned with Spain, but also why it was not touched by the
Vandal conquest. They left it to the Moors ; and, to avoid the
desert route, took ship, not across the Straits of Gibraltar, as is
commonly supposed, but to some point near Caesarea, or the
modern Algiers. Next came the six provinces of the Diocese of
Africa ; and of these (2) Mauretania Caesariensis and (3) Maure
tania Sitifensis covered about two-thirds of the Algiers of to-day.
They were rich in cornlands ; but not here lay the wealth of
Africa, nor in (7) Tripolitana, now Tripoli, the easternmost
1 Gibbon, c. xxxv (iii. 475) ; Hodgkin, iii. 193.
2 Gibbon, c. xxxiii (iii. 400 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii. 209 sqq. ; Dynasty of
Theodosius, c. vii. 3 Hodgkin, ii. 222 sq.
1 Ibid. 224. 8 Ibid. 232 sqq. 8 Ibid. 233.

chap, xvii THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS 345
province of all. The three central provinces of (4) Numidia, (5)
Africa Proconsularis, or Zeugitana, and (6) Byzacena, or the region
roughly corresponding to what is now Tunis, formed the focus of
Roman civilization in Africa, with Carthage for its capital. To
Carthage, therefore, ' as to another Rome in the world of Africa ,,1
the Vandals, invited, as we have seen, by Boniface, Count of
Africa, 422-+32, shaped their course. Led by their young king,
Gaiseric, 428-t77, who was ' quicker in striking ', we are told,
' than any one else in making up his mind to strike ',2 they~set
sail, May 428. By the beginning of 430 three cities only remained
inviolate : Cirta (or Constantine), Hippo, and Carthage. We do
not know when Cirta fell ; but Hippo, where Augustine lay dying,
and Boniface his friend and the betrayer of his country was
shut up with him, stood fourteen months' blockade, May 430 to
July 431 till, pressed by famine, the Vandals raised the siege.
A treaty was concluded, 11 February 435, between Gaiseric and
Valentinian III, the net result of which was that, while Carthage
remained to the Empire, the authority of the Vandal was legiti
mated over the regions he had already conquered.3 Then suddenly
Gaiseric seized Carthage, 19 October 439, and the Vandals were
masters of an independent Africa. Politically, Gaiseric made of
Carthage what Carthage had been in the Punic Wars — the rival
of Rome. He made it also the scourge of the Roman Empire on
the northern shores of the Mediterranean. For, in spite of a second
treaty,4 442, Sicily passed over to the Vandal dominion ; and in
455 Gaiseric captured Rome. An elderly Senator, Petronius
Maximus, profited by the murder of Valentinian III, in March
455, for violating his wife, and became Emperor in his place.5
He forced the widowed Empress Eudoxia to marry him. She took
her revenge by calling in the Vandals,6 as Boniface had summoned
them, in self-protection, to Africa five and twenty years before.
So Gaiseric appeared at the gates of Rome, May to June 455.
Pope Leo went out to meet him, as three years earlier he had
confronted Attila south of the Lago di Garda. At the Pope's
1 Salvian, De gub. Dei, § 67 (C. 8. E. L. viii. 177).
2 Quoted in Hodgkin, ii. 229 ; q.v. for a description of Gaiseric.
3 Prosper, Chronicon [a. d. 435] (Op. 745 ; P. L. li. 596 b) ; Gibbon,
c. xxxiii, n. 36 (iii. 409).
4 Ibid. [A. D. 442] (Op. 748 ; P. L. li. 599 sq.).
5 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 252 sq. ; Fleury, xxvn. lv. The dynasty
of Theodosius came to an end with the death of Valentinian III.
6 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 260 ; Hodgkin, ii. 204, 282.

346 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
intercession, he consented to spare the hves of the citizens, to
protect the buildings from flames, and the captives from torture ;
but he would plunder the city. In the pillage, which lasted
a fortnight, the Vandals carried off the sacred vessels of the
Temple which Titus had brought from Jerusalem,1 as well as
statues and precious metals from the temples of pagan Rome.
They took with them the Empress Eudoxia, with her daughters
Placidia and Eudocia, and a multitude of captives : and returned
to Carthage.2 Eudocia was married to Huneric, successor to
Gaiseric in the Vandal kingdom, 477-f 84, a miserable union, for
the one was a devout Catholic and the other a bitter Arian. She
was thus the second princess of the house of Theodosius to be
given to a barbarian from Germany : her grandmother, Galla
Placidia, having similarly been carried off from Rome to become
the Queen of Ataulf the Visigoth. The other captives were left
to the charity of Deogratias, the archbishop of Carthage, 454-f8.
He sold the church-plate for their benefit,3 and lodged them in
the churches.4 Africa then became the scene of the Vandal
persecution, and of the overthrow of the Catholic Church there
by its Arian oppressors.5 II
We may now turn to the ecclesiastical history of the lands
invaded by the barbarians 6 ; and first to Britain where, shortly
before the Roman occupation came to an end, was born, c. 389,
St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland.7
§ 6. So entirely has the fame of Patrick with posterity eclipsed
that of all other missionaries to Ireland, that it is necessary to
1 They remained at Carthage till 534, when Belisarius carried them to
Constantinople. Justinian sent them back to Jerusalem, where they must
have been at its capture by Omar. Thus they survived the fall of three
great cities — Jerusalem, Rome, and Carthage, Hodgkin, iii. 625.
2 Prosper, Chronicon [a. d. 455] (Op. 754 ; P. L. li. 605 sq.), and Docu
ment No. 218.
3 Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Exuperius.
4 Victor Vitensis, De persecutione Vandalica, i, § 8 (Op. 7 ; P. L. Iviii.
191 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvn. lvii.
5 One effect of the oppression was the breakdown of synodical action in
the Church of Africa, for which see Fleury, xxvn. Iviii, lix ; H. Leclercq,
L'Afrique chritienne, ii. 156, 161 sq.
6 Cf . ' The Church and the Barbarian Invaders ' in W. Bright, The Roman
See, &c, 310-56.
7 Cf. ' The Celtic Churches in the British Isles,' ibid. 367 sqq. ; J. B.
Bury, The Ufe of St Patrick (1905) ; and, for the more important sources,
A AV. Haddan and VV. Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, u. ii.

chap, xvii IRELAND 347
observe that, so far from Patrick having been the first to bring
the Gospel thither, there was a period of Christianity in Ireland
before his day. How long it had been there, we cannot say ; but,
as to the source from which Irish Christianity came, there can be
little doubt. Prosper speaks of ' the Roman island ' and ' the
barbaric ' x in such a way as to suggest intercourse between
them — a suggestion borne out, for instance, by the fact that
legions were stationed on the estuaries of the Severn and the Dee
to hold in check the ' barbaric ' raiders. There are traces in
Ireland, before St. Patrick, of a few Christian communities
scattered up and down the country,2 and it is probable that
they owed their faith to Britain. Two generations before his day
we have traces of Irish, then called Scotic, Christians. Thus
Mansuetus, first bishop of Toul, 350, was an Irish Scot 3 ; and
possibly Caelestius,4 who is spoken of in 415 by Jerome5 as an
Irish Scot, may have been a Christian before he left Ireland.
At any rate, about the time of the visit of Germanus and Lupus
to put down Pelagianism in Britain, Pope Caelestine became aware
that there were in Ireland ' Scots who believed in Christ '.6 The
news may have reached him through Germanus and his deacon
(if, indeed, he was his, and not Caelestine's deacon7), Palladius.
It was Palladius who, according to Prosper, had prompted
Caelestine to send Germanus to Britain 8 ; though Prosper omits
to notice, what is told us by Constantius, the biographer of Ger
manus, that the mission was dispatched by a Gallic synod in
response to a request from British bishops.9 The two accounts are
not incompatible 10 ; the Britons may have made their appeal to
' Auxerre ' and ' Auxerre may well have enlisted the intervention
of Rome '.11 Anyhow, Palladius enlisted the interest of Caelestine
in keeping Britain orthodox ; and, if he accompanied Germanus,
as his deacon, on that errand, he may well have come across
1 Prosper, Contra Collatorem, xxi, § 2 (Op. 363 ; P. L. li. 271 o).
2 Bury, app. 10, and esp. Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 431 (Op. 744 ; P. L. li.
595 b) ;" and ' ad plebem nuper (not ' primum ') venientem ad credulitatem '
of Patrick, Confessio (H. and S. n. ii. 307).
3 H. and S. n. ii. 289.
4 If the reference is to him, and not to Pelagius ; so H. and S. n. ii. 290,
note a.
5 Jerome, Comm. in ler. hb. iii, praef. (Op. iv. 923-4 ; P. L. xxiv. 758).
6 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 431 (ut sup.).
7 Bury, 297.
8 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 429 (Op. 744 ; P. L. li. 594 sq.).
9 Vita, § 41 (Acta SS. [31 July], tom. vii, Iul. 211 b) ; written c. 480, Bury,
247 sq. 10 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 15. u Bury, 297.

348 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
deputies from the orthodox Christian communities of Ireland x
and have been the means of interesting the Pope in their case too.
Caelestine was concerned for their welfare and orthodoxy, not
primarily for the conversion of their heathen fellow-countrymen ;
and if, as we may suppose, they had asked for guidance, he would
have been acting in strict accordance with his well-known maxim,
that 'bishops were to be given to flocks willing to receive them',2
by sending the Irish a bishop. In 431 he consecrated Palladius,
and sent him to Ireland. The mission of Palladius is significant.3
It marks the first entry of Ireland into the family of Western
churches which looked up to Rome. But it was a mission with
limitations. Limited in purpose to the building up of existing
communities of Christians in Ireland, it was limited also in effect ;
for, after Palladius had landed at Wicklow and done a few months'
work in the country behind that port, his efforts were cut short
by death.
§ 7. The successor of Palladius was St. Patrick,4 whose episcopate
probably lasted 5 432-t461.
The primary authorities for his life are four, and all belong
to the fifth century. There is (1) his Confession 6 [sc. of the praises
of God, as shown in his life], a rude autobiography written towards
the end of his days ; (2) his. Letter to ihe Christian subjects of the
tyrant Corotic,7 a ' British king ' 8 ; (3) a hymn called The Breast
plate 9 which, if not his, at least is ' of importance for the spirit
of early Christianity in Ireland ' 10 ; and (4) the circular letter of
Patrick and two other bishops u to the clergy, embodying rules for
ecclesiastical discipline. To these contemporary documents may
1 Bury. 53. 2 Ep. iv, § 7 (P. L. 1. 434 b). 3 Bury, 54 sqq.
1 Works in P. L. liii. 801-40.
5 For the chronology of the hfe of St. Patrick, see Bury, app. C, excursus,
3, 5, 20.
6 Text in Whitley Stokes, Tri-partite life of St. Patrick, ii. 357-75 ; H. and
S. n. ii. 296-313, or Libri S. Patricii, ed. N. J. D. White (S.P.C.K. 1918) ;
tr. in The Latin writings of St Patrick, by N. J. D. White (S.P.C.K. 1918) ;
for its genuineness, Bury, 225 sqq. ; for the name, see §§ 61, 62. Its purpose
was not to hide ' the gift of God ' (ibid., § 62), but ' to declare the wonderful
dealings of God with himself, as a sort of repayment ' [retributio, ibid., § 3],
Bury, 198. Patrick uses it in the same sense as Augustine, Conf. v, § 1 (Op.
i. 107 E ; P. L. xxxi. 705), Document No. 229.
7 Text in Stokes, ii. 375-80 ; H. and S. n. ii. 314-19 ; Lib. S. Pat 26-32 ;
tr. in Latin writings of Si P. 26-32 ; for its genuineness, Bury, 227 sq.,
Document No. 230.
8 The seat of his government at Ail Cluade (the Rock of Clyde), near
Dumbarton (Dun na m-Bretan=the fort of the Britons), Bury, 190 sq.
9 Text [Irish and English] in H. and S. n. ii. 320-3. 10 Bury, 246.
11 Text in H. and S. n. ii. 328-30 ; ' authentic ', Bury, 245.

chap, xvii IRELAND 349
be added the Latin Hymn of St. Sechnall,1 in praise of his master
St. Patrick ; but ' as the author confines himself to generalities,
the hymn supplies no materials for Patrick's biography '.2 Men
tion should also be made of the Memoirs3 by Tirechan and of
the Life * by Muirchu. They are, it is true, of the seventh century,
and legendary ; but it is possible to derive from them much
that may rank as true history.
§ 8. Patrick, then, was born in Britain about 389, at Banna-
venta 5 : possibly to be identified with one or other of the three
places called Banwen,6 in Glamorganshire ; and, in any case,
close to the western sea.7 Bannaventa must also have been near
a town with a municipal council ; for Patrick's father, Calpurnius,
was a decurio or town-councillor as well as a deacon. His father
before him had been a priest, by name Politus.8 The family was
of some little consideration, and had been Christian for two
generations, before Patrick was born to Calpurnius and his wife,
Concessa.9 He was brought up in the Christian faith ; but also
in the belief that Rome, of which he was ' born a freeman ' and
'a citizen'10 was everything in the world. But the Empire was
breaking down as he grew to manhood ; and in 405, amid the
disorders which heralded the withdrawal of the Roman armies from
Britain, some Irish pirates made a raid up the Bristol Channel and
carried him off, at the age of sixteen, ' with thousands more ' to
' the outermost places of the earth ' u in Ireland. Here he spent
six years,12 405-11, in slavery, tending cattle13 for a master who
' hved near the wood of Fochlad, nigh to the western sea '.14
Probably the place lay near Croagh Patrick, a mountain by
Westport in north-west Connaught.15 At some time in these six
years came the crisis of his life. When barely fifteen, he says, he
had committed some sin.16 In exile and hardship it came home
to him, and he was converted. His ' love for God, together with
awe and faith ', he tells us, ' grew mightily17 '. But he became
1 Text in W. Stokes, ii. 386-9 ; H. and S. n. ii. 324-7.
2 Bury, 247.
3 Text in W. Stokes, ii. 302-33 ; discussion in Bury, 278 sqq.
4 Text in W. Stokes, ii. 269-301.
6 Conf., § 1 (the sections are quoted as given in Lib. 8. P., ed. N. J. D.
White). 0 Bury, Preface, p. x. 7 Bury, 322 sqq. 8 Conf., § 1.
9 Bury, 23, 292, 10 Ibid. 24. 31 Conf., § 1.
12 Ibid., § 16. 13 Ibid., § 17. 14 Ibid., § 23.
15 Bury, 27 sq., 130 sq. le Conf., § 27. 17 Ibid., § 16.

350 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
homesick, too x ; and, at last, contrived to escape. Making for
the sea, it may be conjectured, at the then important port of
Wicklow where Palladius had landed, Patrick found a ship manned
by heathen sailors and ready to sail.2 They had a cargo of dogs,3
perhaps of Irish wolf-hounds,4 for which there was a demand in
Gaul.5 There, after three days, they landed ; but finding the land
laid waste6 (for it was just after the Vandals and Sueves had
swept across the country into Spain) they pressed on into Italy 7
where, after two months' wandering with the ship's company,
Patrick succeeded again in making his escape. He- is next found
at Lerins,8 411-14 ; and thence, at last, he got home to Britain.
His kinsfolk welcomed him ' as a son ', and implored him not to
leave again.9 But he could not rest. A man named Victorious
appeared to him in a dream, with a letter in his hand beginning,
' The voice of the Irish '. Patrick was convinced that it was
' the voice of the folk who lived near to the wood of Fochlad,
nigh unto the western sea '. He determined that his life's work
lay in carrying the Gospel to them ; and, to fit himself for the
task (for he constantly bemoans his illiteracy10), returned to_Gaul
and placed himself under the direction of the bishop of Auxerre,
415. He was now six and twenty ; and here he spent seventeen
years, waiting upon the advice of his superiors without ever
abandoning his purpose, though, at times they were far from
encouraging.11 In the meanwhile he secured a liberal education.
Ordained deacon in 418 by the bishop Amator, he saw Germanus,
the next bishop, sent to Britain, 429, to put down Pelagianism ;
and, as a result of that mission, Palladius consecrated first bishop
for the Irish, 431. Then came the news to Auxerre of the death
of Palladius, and with it the opportunity for which Patrick had
waited so long.
§ 9. In 432 he was consecrated by Germanus to be bishop for
the Irish.12 In the course of his ' laborious episcopate ',13 as he
calls it, he laid the foundations of the Christian church in Dala-
radia,14 now Co. Down ; in Meath 15 ; in Connaught,16 where he
1 Conf., § 17. 2 Ibid., § 18. 3 Ibid., § 19.
4 Bury, 31. 5 Ibid., 34. « Conf, § 19.
7 ' Per Gallias atque Italiam,' Dicta Patricii, No. 1 ; W. Stokes, ii. 301 ;
probably genuine, see Bury, 35, 228, 341 sq.
8 ' In insohs quae sunt in mari terreno,' W. S. ii. 301.
9 Conf., § 23. 10 Ibid., §§ 1, 10, 12, 13. 31 Ibid., § 26.
12 Bury, 59, 347 sqq. 13 Conf., § 26. 31 Bury, c' v.
15 Ibid., c. vi. J6 Ibid., c. vn.

chap, xvn IRELAND - 351
visited as bishop the scene of his captivity in boyhood, and made
return for his own conversion there by winning to Christ the folk
that dwelt by the wood of Fochlad. At some point in these
labours he sought the sympathy and counsel of St. Leo, by
a visit to Rome,1 441 . At Rome, he was ' approved in the Catholic
Faith ' ; and thence he returned, laden with relics of St. Peter
and St. Paul, to found, for all the churches he had planted,
a centre of ecclesiastical organization at Armagh,2 444. Not was
the south of Ireland — though Christian, in part, before his day —
left beyond his influence.3 There are traces of Patrick's influence
in Leinster and Munster, while to Leinster he sent two coadjutors,
the bishops Auxilius and Iserninus.
§ 10. The conversion of Ireland was thus, in the full sense,
Patrick's work ; and it was conversion to a Christianity of the
type that then prevailed in the Western Empire. Patrick taught
the faith of the Nicene Council,4 though it is not certain that he
had seen its Creed. He introduced the Latin language, sure
bond of ecclesiastical union within the Western Empire 5 and its
civilization, though he spoke to the people in their mother
tongue.6 He observed and perpetuated the threefold ministry ;
and set up a diocesan episcopate,7 though there was a marked
tendency to multiply bishops 8 and treat them as supports of
a tribal or monastic authority 9 rather than as heads of a territorial
administration. But it is easy to account for this peculiarity :
there were no towns in Ireland.10 Disciplinary enactments also
issued from Patrick and his fellow-bishops u : they included pro
vision for an appeal to Rome, in the sense of a request for a
' decretal ' 12 such, e.g., as had been sent to Himerius, bishop of
Tarragona, or to Victricius and Exuperius, bishops in Gaul. Thus
Ireland was brought, by the mission of Patrick, into relations
1 Bury, 150 sqq., 367 sqq. 2 Ibid., 154 sqq. 3 Ibid. 162.
4 Conf, § 4.
5 ' He ' did not do for the Scots what Wulfilas did for the Goths, and the
Slavonic apostles [Cyril and Methodius] for the Slavs ; he did not translate
the sacred books of his religion into Irish, or found a national church
literature. ... He diffused acknowledge of Latin in Ireland. . . . The policy
was entirely consonant with the development of western, as contrasted
with eastern, Christianity,' whence the unitas ecclesiae in the West, Bury,
217-20. 6 Conf, § 9. '• Ibid. 180, 375 sqq.
8 Ibid. 181. 9 Ibid. 177-9. 10 Ibid. 180.
11 ' The Canons of St. Patrick ' are in H. and S. n. ij. 328 sqq. ; Bury,
166 sqq., 233 sqq.
12 Letters of advice which gradually became letters of command, ibid.
61 sqq.

352 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III
with the Apostolic See as close as were those of any church in the
Western Empire. As to missionary methods, he went straight
for the chiefs x ; for, if the chief was won, the whole clan followed
him to baptism. Monasteries,2 monastic schools,3 and a native
ministry 4 also had their place in his armoury. Nor did he forget
to seek support from Christian opinion in Britain : he would
have it put pressure on the tyrant Coroticus,5 himself a Christian
and a Roman, for allying with heathen ' Scots and renegade
Picts ' 6 and carrying off his neophytes into captivity.7 But the
letter in which he throws himself on the support of his fellow-
countrymen at home, is sad reading. It betrays his bitter sense
of the envy and uncharitableness with which they regarded his
successful work in Ireland.8 They even went so far as to charge
him with making personal profit out of it.9 ' Before God and His
holy Angels ', answers Patrick, ' I never had any motive, save the
Gospel and the promises of God, to return at any time to that
people from whom I had formerly escaped '.10 Let his mission,
however, have been never so much against the grain, such was
the ardour of his sensitive and affectionate nature, that it was
an unmixed success.11 ' Patrick ', says Dr. Bury, ' did three things.
He organized the Christianity which already existed. He con
verted kingdoms which were still pagan, especially in the West.
And he brought Ireland into connexion with the church of the
Empire and made it formally part of universal Christendom.' 12
He was, moreover, one of the most efficient of those who took
part in spreading the Christian Faith beyond the boundaries of
the Roman Empire. Like Augustine and Boniface, but unlike
Columba, Patrick was ' the bearer of the Roman idea '. But ' the
Roman idea ', in his day, ' meant not the idea of subjection to
the Roman See, but of Christianity as the religion of the Roman
Empire \13 Into this fraternity of Roman churches, Ireland,
alongside of Britain,14 found introduction by the labours of the
one British missionary, St. Patrick. He died in the year 461 ;
and was buried at Saul,15 on Strangford Lough, in Co. Down.
1 Bury, 173. " Ibid. 171, 174 sqq. 3 Ibid. 179.
4 Ibid. 173. 3 Ibid. 187 sqq. « Epistola, § 2.
7 Ep. §§ 3, 14, 15, 19. 8 Ep., §§ 1, 12.
9 Conf, §§ 48-50 ; Ep., § 10. 10 Conf, § 61.
11 Conf, § 41 ; Ep., § 12. 12 Bury, 212. " Ibid. 221.
14 Hence the point of his wrath with Coroticus and his Christian subjects,
Ep., § 16 ; Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 621. 15 Bury, 207.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE CHURCH IN THE WEST UNDER VALENTINIAN III,
425-f55, AND HIS MOTHER, GALLA PLACIDIA,
425-t50: (iii) GAUL; (iv) SPAIN; (v) AFRICA
We now pass to events contemporary with St. Patrick.
I
And, first, in Gaul.1 They illustrate (i) the organization of the
Church ; (ii) the state of intelligence and piety ; and (iii) the social
conditions of that country in the first half of the fifth century.
They are connected with the names of Hilary of Lerins and of
Sidonius Apollinaris.
(i) The organization of the Church in Gaul had hardly taken
definite shape before a.d. 400. There had, it is true, been Councils,
but no metropolitan ; the presiding prelate being chosen on per
sonal grounds.
§ 1. At Aries, in 314, the president was Marinus, bishop of Aries,
under instruction from Constantine. At Aries again in 353 and at
Beziers, 356, he was Saturninus, bishop of Aries, the Arian satellite
of Constantius. At Valentia (Valence) 2 in 374, Phoebadius, bishop
of Agennum (Agen) 3 presided,4 as the most influential prelate
present. Vienne and Aries, however, were already in strife for
precedence 5 ; and, as the former was the civil capital of the Seven
Provinces — Viennensis, Narbonensis I and II, Aquitania I and II,
Novempopulana and Alpes Maritimae — the bishop of Vienne was
accorded some deference. Now Valentia was in his province, while
Agennum lay in Aquitania II. The bishop of] Agen, therefore,
presided as Phoebadius : the opponent, no less distmguished than
Hilary of Poitiers had been, of that governmental Arianism which
the Court desired to impose upon Gaul ; and the era of metro
politans had not yet dawned. But a quarter of a century later, at
the Council of Turin, 400, Vienne and Aries are found at issue over
1 T. S. Holmes, The Church in Gaul (1911).
2 Valence is on the left bank of the Rhone, between Lyons and Marseilles.
3 Agen is in south-west France, on the right bank of the Garonne. Its
bishopric was founded c. 303, and is in the province of Bordeaux.
4 Mansi, iii. 491 sqq. 5 Fleury, xxi. Iii.
2191 m , A a

354 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
metropolitical rights in Viennensis.1 Aries had ancient claims as
the ecclesiastical metropolis2; but, about that time Aries had suc
ceeded to Treves (which had been overwhelmed by the barbarians) 3
as the capital of Gaul and the residence of the Praetorian Prefect,
while at Aries the assembly of the Seven Provinces came to be held.
Heros became bishop of Aries, 409-12, and the protege of the
British-born usurper Constantine,4 407-fll- No sooner was
Constantine disposed of by the patrician Constantius, who won
back Aries for the Empire in 411, 5 than the victor got rid of Heros.
He went off with Lazarus, bishop of Aix, to figure as accuser of
Pelagius, 415, in Palestine ; while Constantius intruded into the see
an adventurer named Patroclus, 412— f 26. In the winter of 416-17
Patroclus went to Rome — for bishops of Gaul already knew their
way thither — to make interest, under the auspices of his patron
Constantius, now brother-in-law of the Emperor,6 for the recog
nition of Aries as the seat of an archbishop. Its ecclesiastical
dignity, he would urge, should not lag behind its new civil rank.
Zosimus, at that moment, had just succeeded, 18 March, 417, to
Innocent I in the Roman see : a blunderer to a statesman. He
was flattered by the suit of Patroclus and his powerful patron ;
and, in Placuit apostolicae7 oi 22 March, the Pope not only subjected
Viennensis, Narbonensis I and II, and Alpes Maritimae to the arch
bishop of Aries,8 but made him Papal Vicar for the whole of Gaul.9
Actually, the decision based the ecclesiastical on the new civil
status of Aries. But this was a principle which Rome, even under
Zosimus, would not admit ; and the Pope based his award instead
on the pretext that the pioneer of Christianity at Aries had been
Trophimus a Roman missionary,10 and no other than Trophimus
the Ephesian and companion of St. Paul.11 Thus Aries was pro
vided with an ' apostolic ' connexion, and given an authority to the
injury of existing rights. For Vienne and Narbonne each ranked
as a civil metropolis, and their bishops had exercised authority
over the sees in Viennensis and Narbonensis I ; while Proculus of
1 Cone Taurin, c. 2 (Mansi, iii. 861).
2 Fleury, xxvn. vi. (iii. 245, note b), and xiv.
3 Gibbon, c. xxx (iii. 270).
4 Hodgkin, i. ii. 471 ; Bury, St Patrick, 329. 5 Hodgkin, i. ii. 827.
6 He married Galla Placidia, 1 Jan. 417, Hodgkin, I. ii. 840.
7 Zosimus, Ep. i (P. L. xx. 642-5) ; Jaffe, No. 328. 8 Ibid., § 2.
9 Ibid., § 1. On this Vicariate of Aries see Denny, Papalism, §§ 1173 sqq.
It was an attempt against Milan, just as the Vicariate of Thessalonica was
a barrier against Constantinople.
10 Zosimus, Ep. i, § 3 (P. L. xx. 644 sq.). " Acts xxi: 29.

chap, xviii GAUL 355
Marseilles, whose see was situate not indeed in a civil metropolis but
in a city of commercial importance, exercised an undefined super
vision over Narbonensis II. There was resentment and resistance,
backed up, moreover, by the Council of Milan,1 in the autumn of 417 ;
and upon the death first of Zosimus, 26 December 418, and then
of Constantius, 2 September 421, Patroclus began to find that his
newly acquired authority was but partially secured. The Papal
Vicariate collapsed, and the archiepiscopate was curtailed. Never
theless, the latter survived the death of Patroclus 2 ; and, under
his successors, Honoratus, 426-f9, and Hilary, 429-f49, the see of
Aries enjoyed an authority over Viennensis, Narbonensis II, and
Alpes Maritimae — the region assigned to Patroclus, but minus
Narbonensis I.
Such was its jurisdiction when, after the brief tenure of Hono
ratus the founder of Lerins3 and the second archbishop, the see
came to be filled by his disciple and kinsman Hilary, archbishop
of Aries, 429-|49.
§ 2. Hilary 4 was born, c. 401 , of a noble family 5 ; and, after
a liberal education, was on the high road to a distinguished career
when Honoratus led him to forsake the world 6 for a life of religious
retirement at Lerins.7 He followed his patron to Aries ; and,
being a man of mark as well as of saintly life, he came to be looked
upon as the natural successor to Honoratus.8 Together, they
caused the people to forget Patroclus and give themselves over to
a life of devotion. Under the regime of the saintly personages,
Aries came to be ' a place of great edification '.9 There Hilary
lived the ascetic life. There he preached : sermons that were
generally lengthy — the people sat from 12-4 p.m. on fast-days10 —
sometimes too lengthy for some of his hearers, for they would slip
out discreetly on seeing him get into the pulpit.11 From Aries, as
evangelist, he journeyed far and wide ; but always on foot. From
1 T. S. Holmes, 365 sq.
2 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 426 (Op. 743 ; P. L. li. 594 a).
3 A. C. Cooper-Marsdin, The history of the islands of Lerins, c. viii.
4 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 36-97 ; Fleury, xxrv. Iviii, xxvn. iv-vi ; Cooper-
Marsdin, c. x ; Holmes, 453 sqq. ; and the Vita (written by his disciple
Honoratus, who became bishop of Marseilles, 475-t92) in Acta SS. Maii,
ii. 25-34. This and the works of Hilary are in P. L. 1. 1213-72 : see Barden
hewer, 519 sq. 6 Vita,) 2. 6 Ibid., §§ 3-6.
7 Ibid., § 7. 8 Ibid., § 9. 9 Duchesne, Hist ane. iii. 591.
10 Vita, § 14. Mercifully, this was the custom in Gaul) see Aug. De cat.
rud., § 19 (Op. vi. 276 r ; P. L. xl. 325) ; they stood in Africa, Optatus,
De schism. Don. iv, § 5 (Op. 73 ; P. L. xi. 1032 sq.). u Vita, § 18.
a a 2

356 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III part in
Aries, too, as archbishop, he kept his suffragans in working order,
by assembling them frequently in synod.1 He was one of the many
prelates of those unhappy times who sold the sacred vessels to
ransom captives — a custom that should be noted as a step in the
redemption of war. Prisoners were once consigned to slavery ;
now, under the teaching of the Church, they were held to ransom.2
In point of doctrine, if Hilary is to be called a semi- Pelagian, this
only means that he was an admirer of Augustine who could not go
all lengths with him.3 It was not doctrine, however, but discipline
which interested Hilary. The extension of the episcopate and the
promotion of good men on a vacancy occupied all his energies.
But to him, as to Honoratus before him, the good man was the
ascetic ; specially the ascetic who had been trained at Lerins, or
took its ideals for his model. So it was apt to be the monk im
ported from a distance rather than the cleric trained in the diocese
who became its bishop, with the natural result that local feeling
rose against Honoratus and Hilary, and soon found its way to
Ro ie.
§ 3. Thus was procured the celebrated decretal of 26 July 428,
Cuperemus quidem* We have already referred to it as of interest
for the history of the vesture of the clergy in church ; and Caeles
tine, 422-"f32, sent it to the bishops of Vienne and Narbonne in
answer to complaints of the extravagances and the strictness of the
type of bishop who came from Lerins. Similar evidence of a growing
breach between bishops and inferior clergy is afforded by Apostolici
verba 5 of 15 May 431 ; which, at the instance of Prosper and
another Hilary (Augustinians both), Caelestine dispatched to
Venerius, bishop of Marseilles 428-f52, to say that in Provence
the clergy preached too much upon high- points of doctrine : where,
be it noted, they were not zealous enough for the system of Augus
tine to suit Prosper.
§ 4. Nothing much came of want of sympathy such as this, on
either side ; but over the case of Celidonius,6 Hilary came into
collision with the Roman See, 445.
Celidonius was bishop of Vcsontio (Besancon), in the province
1 Councils of Riez, 439 ; Orange, 441 ; Vaison, 442 : see Hefele, iii. 157-
67 (E. Tr.). 2 Vita, § 11.
3 See the letter of Prosper to Augustine = Aug. Ep. ccxxv, § 9 (Op. ii.
824 sq. ; P. L. xxxiii. 1007).
4 Caelestine, Ep. iv (P. L. 1. 430-6) ; Jaffe, No. 369 ; Fleury, xxiv. lvi.
8 Ibid. Ep. xxi (P. L. 1. 528-37); Jaffe, No. 381.
« Vita 8 21 ; Holmes, 369 sqq.

chap, xviii GAUL 357
of Maxima Sequanorum, which had nothing to do with Aries. While
a layman, he had married a widow ; and, as a magistrate, had given
judgement in capital cases. Hilary, in company with his friend,
Germanus of Auxerre, visited Besancon, and for these irregularities
assembled a Council 1 and deposed him. Celidonius, like the clergy
of southern Gaul just mentioned, sought redress at Rome ; for Gaul,
though outside the Roman patriarchate, was not outside the grow
ing influence of the papacy. If Hilary was inclined to exaggerate
the powers of his See, Leo was not less bent on subordinating
metropolitans to the pope : Celidonius therefore received cordial
welcome.2 Immediately, Hilary set off to cross the Alps on foot,
though it was the depth of winter, and go to Rome. Arrived there,
he entered his protest against the ease with which Celidonius had
been received into communion by Leo without examination of his
case. He even affirmed that the Holy See had no right to review
the decisions of Councils in Gaul (for ' he strictly adhered to the
Canons of Sardica ' 3), precisely as the Africans had contended for
the independence of their synodical judgements in the case of
Apiarius. Not that he had come to appeal : he was there simply
to let Leo know what he conceived to be the rights of the case.
This done, Hilary returned, as he had come, unperturbed and
afoot. Leo, of course, was considerably annoyed. He dismissed the
charges against Celidonius,4 and restored him to Besancon. Then
he turned to Hilary, and treated him with an extreme severity.
In Divinae cultum 5 of July 445, addressed to the bishops of the
province of Vienne, Leo condemns his hastiness, his high-handed
ways, his recourse to the secular arm, and his encroachment on
provinces with which he had nothing to do.6 ' What business has
he there ? Up to the days of Patroclus, none of his predecessors
exercised jurisdiction in those regions ; while Patroclus himself only
enjoyed it by temporary grant from the Holy See— a grant which
has since been revoked, on maturer judgement.7 The bishop of
Aries, therefore, could lay no claim to authority beyond the pro
vince of Vienne properly so called. As for Hilary, he was to cease
to be metropolitan of that province,8 and his rights were to be
1 Hefele, iii. 172 (E. Tr.). 2 Vita, § 22. 3 Holmes, 369.
4 Ep. x, § 3 (Op. i. 635 ; P. L. liv. 631 a).
5 Ep. x (Op. i. 633-41 ; P. L. liv. 628-36) ; Jaffe, No. 407 ; Fleury,
xxvn. v.
« Ibid., § 2. 7 Ibid.. § 4. 8 Ibid., § 7.

358 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
transferred to the bishop of Vienne x ; while, presumably, his claims
to ordain bishops in Narbonensis II and Alpes Maritimae were to
pass respectively to the bishops of Aix and of Embrun. Let him
thank the Pope that he has been allowed to retain his bishoprick ! '
Leo can hardly have avoided the consciousness that his was the
high-handedness now.
§ 5. But from the time of Damasus the popes had known well
how to exploit the Imperial Government to their own advantage ;
and Leo procured, in support of his judgement, the celebrated
Rescript of Valentinian III, dated 8 July, 445, beginning Certum
est.2 Reciting the behaviour of Hilary from the papal point of view,
it ran as follows : — ' We decree,' said the Emperor, ' by this per
petual edict, that it shall not be lawful for the bishops of Gaul or
of the other provinces, contrary to ancient custom, to do aught
without the authority of the venerable Pope of the Eternal City ;
and whatsoever the authority of the Apostolic See has enacted, or
may hereafter enact, shall be the law for all. So that, if any bishop
summoned to trial before the Pope of Rome shall neglect to attend,
he shall be compelled to appear by the Governor of the Province ;
in all respects regard being had to what privileges our deified
parents [sc. Gratian] conferred on the Roman church.3 Wherefore
your Illustrious and Eminent Magnificence is to cause what is
enacted above to be observed in virtue of this present edict and
law, and a fine of ten pounds is at once to be levied on any judge
who suffers Our Commands to be disobeyed.' The result of this
enactment was to go far beyond the grant of Gratian to which it
refers,4 and to rivet a papal autocracy on the Western Empire by
the whole force of the Civil Law. Not only was Leo's condemnation
of Hilary brought officially, by this rescript, to the cognisance of
the patrician Aetius ; but should any bishop, in Gaul or elsewhere,
be cited by the Pope to appear before him, he must at once obey
the summons or, in case of refusal, be constrained by the secular
arm to present himself at Rome. It is the crowning proof that
the papacy at Rome — as distinct from the primacy5 of the
1 Ep. x, § 9, and Ep. Ixvi, § 2 (Op. i. 999 ; P. L. liv. 885 a).
2 It=Leo, Ep. xi (Op. i. 642-4 ; P. L. liv. 636-40).
3 For Gratian's rescript [Ordinariorum sententiae, § 6], see Denny, Papalism,
§ 209. 4 For the additions made by Valentinian to the powers conferred by
Gratian on the Roman bishop, see ibid., §§ 210-11.
5 Valentinian says, in this edict, that ' the primacy of the Apostolic See,

chap, xviii GAUL 359
Apostolic See in Christendom — is the creation of the State.1 As
for Hilary, he took no further notice, but confined himself to the
charge of his diocese. He sent envoys to appease the wrath of
Leo 2 ; and Auxiliaris, a mutual friend of his and of Leo's, now
hving in retirement at Rome after having served as Praetorian
Prefect of Gaul, endeavoured to make peace for him, at the same
time bidding Hilary reflect that ' Roman ears are sensitive, but
open to deferential language ; if your Holiness would but unbend
a little in that way, you would lose little and gain much'.3 But
Hilary remained till his death, 5 May 449, as unmoved as Leo ; and
he is now, like Meletius of Antioch, a saint of the Roman Martyro
logy,4 though he died out of communion with the See of Rome.
§ 6. The situation improved with his successor, Ravennius,5
449-f55 ; for Leo, at that time, was seeking the as'sent of the West
to his Tome against Eutyches. He could not afford to forgo the
unanimous backing of the church of Gaul ; and, in Lectis dilectionis
vestrae 6 of 5 May 450, addressed to the comprovincials of Aries
(who had written to him to announce the consecration of Raven
nius and to protest agamst the claims of Vienne to ' primacy ' 7),
he settled the rivalry between Vienne and Aries by dividing the
province into two. Vienne received the northern sees of Valence,
Tarantaise, Geneva, and Grenoble as its suffragans ;' to Aries were
assigned the southern sees 8 ; while Aix and Embrun, which had
temporarily acquired a metropolitanate over Narbonensis II and
Alpes Maritimae respectively, were subjected once more to the
successors of Hilary.9 In return, Milan,10 Gaul11 and Spain12 gave
in their adherence to the Tome ; and the Pope, 27 January 452,
due to St. Peter, was confirmed by the authority of a sacred synod ', on
which see Denny, § 1172.
1 Denny, § 212 ; and the well-known words of Tillemont, Mim. xv. 83,
quoting Baronius [1538-tl607], Annates, ad ann 445, § 10, ad fin (vii 683).
2 Vita, § 22 3 Vita, § 22.
4 Acta SS. Maii, vol. ii, p. 24 ; Praef., § 3.
8 Leo, Ep. xl (Op. i. 890-1 ; P. L. hv. 814 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 434 ; Fleury,
xxvn. xiii.
6 Ep. Ixvi (Op. i. 998-1000 ; P. L. hv. 883-6) ; Jaffe, No. 450 ; Tillemont,
Mim. xv. 93 sq. ; Fleury, xxvn. xiv ; Holmes, 462.
7 Ep. lxv, § 2 (Op. i. 994 sq. ; P. L. liv. 880 sq.).
8 Ep'. Ixvi, § 2 (Op. i. 99 ; P. L. liv. 885 b).
9 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 86.
10 This document, of Sept. 451, = Leo, Ep. xcvii (Op. i. 1080-4 ; P. L. hv.
945-50) ; Tillemont, Mim. xv. 624 sqq. ; Fleury, xxvin. xxxii. The
signatures enable us to delimit the province of Milan at this date.
11 Ep. xcix (Op. i. 1107-12; P. L. hv. 966-70); Tillemont, Mim. xv. 628 ;
Fleury, xxvni. xxxii. la Ep. cii, § 5 (Op. i. 1140 ; P. L. liv. 988 a).

360 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III part iii
was in a position to inform Ravennius of Aries 1 and Rusticus of
Narbonne 2 that all had gone well with his intervention at the
Council of Chalcedon.
(ii) We have next to estimate the state of intelligence and piety
in Gaul of the fifth century. Enough, for this purpose, to recall the
part played by Marseilles and Lerins : they were the seats, not
only of an ascetic and reforming zeal, but of learning equal to the
task of protecting the Western Church from the excesses of her
greatest doctor, Augustine. Prosper, also, of Aquitaine, for all
his Augustinianism, should have his place in proof of the fertility,
intellectual as well as spiritual, of the church in Gaul ; and so, too,
Salvian, 400-f80, of Cologne and Treves. Both fled before the bar
baric invaders to Marseilles, Prosper about 416, and Salvian
perhaps ten years later ; and both wrote, in answer to the taunts 3
of a dying heathenism, to account for the calamities of a nominally 4
Christian world. Augustine himself essayed the task from the
standpoint of Christian philosophy,5 and encouraged Orosius to
take it up as a Christian historian.6
§ 7. Prosper entered upon it as the Christian poet. In his
Carmen de Providentia Divina,7 written shortly after his safe
arrival at Marseilles, he tells us what his experience of the bar
barian invasion had been. ' If all the waters of the ocean ', he says,
' had been spread over the fields of Aquitaine, they could not have
wrought such injury as that which the ten years' devastation by the
Vandals and Goths had effected. The farms were cleared of their
cattle and of the seed-corn stored in the barns, the farmsteads had
been burnt with fire, vineyards and oliveyards had everywhere been
destroyed, and behind the chariots and serried ranks of the warriors
he had himself been compelled to march, the captive of war,
1 Ep. cii (Op. i. 1136-40 ; P. L. liv. 983-6) ; Jaffe, No, 479 ; Fleury,
xxvin. xxxii.
2 Ep. ciii (Op. i. 1140-4 ; P. L. liv. 988-92) ; Jaffe, No. 480 ; Fleury,
xxvni. xxxii.
3 For these taunts, and the * apologies ' they provoked, see Tertullian,
Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Ambrose, in Bardenhewer, Patrology.
4 How ' nominal ' Christianity became in the fourth century and has
since remained, see C. Merivale, The conversion ofthe northern nations, 68-74,
174 sqq. (1866). He quotes Leo, Sermo xxvii, § 4 (Op. i. 94 sq. ; P.L. liv.
218 sq.).
5 In the De civitate Dei. 6 In his Historiae.
7 Op. 785-82 (P. L. li. 617-38) ; some think it dubious (e. g. Did, Roman
Society, 137, n. 6). But he assigns it, in any case, to a native of southern
Gaul who had seen the invasions of Vandal and Goth (see line 34), and wrote
c. 415 (ibid. 316, n. 1).

chap, xviii GAUL 361
covered with the dust of the road, driven out from the city which
the Goths had burnt. Virgins vowed to God had been defiled ;
and Christian priests, regardless of their sacred office, had to suffer
with the common people all the miseries of the invasion.1 Yet,'
writes Prosper, ' God exists and is good, and never fails to notice
all that occurs, and He sends His judgement on the sins of men.' 2
He then proceeds to illustrate his theme from the Old Testament ;
and, contending that the calamities of Gaul were in punishment for
its sins, recommends his fellow-countrymen to place themselves
unreservedly and gladly in the hands of God and to accept what
ever He shall be pleased to send. In his Poema coniugis ad uxorem 3
he bids his wife join with him in taking advantage of their destitu
tion to devote themselves with all the greater freedom to the service
of God.4 Prosper was thus the poet of Christian resignation.
§ 8. Salvian,5 equally convinced of the justice of God and no less
determined to proclaim it, wrote, a generation later, as the Christian
prophet. In the spirit of righteous indignation he lays the blame
upon the sins of Roman Christians. They had brought all these
evils on the Empire. Salvian himself was born c. 400, near Cologne,6
and brought up at Treves 7 — cities that were both sacked and
burnt in his youth by the Ripuarian Franks. About 430, when
Aetius had put down the Bagaudae,8 or peasant-insurgents mad
dened to revolution by the iniquities of Roman judges and the
exactions of Roman tax-gatherers, and had also checked the '
Frankish raids, Salvian took refuge at Marseilles. He had married ;
but, after the birth of his daughter, Auspiciola, he and his wife,
Palladia, resolved to live in continence : and Salvian was ordained'
to the priesthood, c. 424, spending some time in the monastery at
Lerins. The fourth of his nine extant letters is from himself and
his wife and daughter to justify their conduct to the parents of
Palladia, who were Christians themselves but unable to appre
ciate these flights of zeal.9 About 480 Salvian is spoken of by
1 Carmen, U. 23-58. 2 Ibid., 11. 151 sq.
3 Op. 773-9 (P. L. li. 611-16) ; but its ascription to Prosper is doubtful,
because it contains a taint of Pelagianism, S. Dill, 316, n. 2.
4 Op. 779 (P. L. 616 a).
5 Works in P. L. hii. 1-238 and C. 8. E. L. viii : see also Tillemont, Mim.
xvi. 181-94 ; Fleury, xxvi. xliii ; C. Kingsley, Roman and Teuton, 28 sqq.
(1875) ; Hodgkin, I. ii. 918-34 ; Dill, 137 sqq. ; Holmes, 386 sqq. ; Cooper-
Marsdin, Hist, of Lerins, c. xv. 6 Ep. i, § 5 (Op. 184 ; P. L. liii. 158 o).
7 De gub. Dei, vi. xiii, § 72 (Op. 132 ; P. L. liii. 123 b).
8 Ibid. v. vi, §§ 24 sqq. (Op. 100 ; P. L. liii. 99 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii. 104 sq.
9 Ep. iv (Op. 187 sqq. ; P. L. liii. 160 sqq.).

362 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
a contemporary cleric, Gennadius, as living at Marseilles, in hale
old age.1
Besides his letters, two works of his have come down to us. The
first, written 435-9, bears the title Adversus avaritiam, or, in the
MSS. Ad ecclesiam.2 In it he addresses the churchmen of his day,
under the pseudonym of Timothy 3 : which he explains, in the
ninth of his letters, to his friend Salonius,4 a bishop, and son of
Eucherius, bishop of Lyons c. 435-f50. Father and son were
trained at Lerins ; and thus may have become known to Salvian.
The writer then urges upon churchmen, by way of reparation for
the crying sin of greed 5 which refused His own to God, that is, to
His Church and His poor, the duty of bestowing alms and gifts
upon the Church, a duty that he holds to be particularly incumbent
upon clerics. He insists especially upon making the Church one's
heir by will 6 ; and, if in this doctrine we are to detect one of the
springs which fed clerical rapacity in later days,7 we must not forget
that it was sound enough counsel when given : for public care of
the poor was then confined to the Church, and never was there
a time when pauperism assumed such alarming proportions.8
Salvian's second treatise is entitled De praesenti iudicio, or, in
the MSS, De gubernatione Dei.9 It consists of eight books. Finished
between 439 and 451, it is a theodicy ; and, as such, invites com
parison with the De civitate Dei of Augustine and the Historiae of
Orosius. The problem of all three treatises is the same : they seek
to justify the ways of God. ' Why,' it is asked, ' if this world be
ordered by Divine Providence, is the framework of society, which
is now no longer anti- Christian but Christian, going to pieces under
the assaults of the barbarians ? ' So Dr. Hodgkin states the pro
blem.10 The answer of Augustine was mainly negative ; disaster,
according to him, was an experience common enough when the gods
of the heathen held sway. It cannot, therefore, be due to the
Empire having renounced them, and gone over to the God of the
1 De vir. illustr., c. lxvii (P. L. Iviii. 1099).
3 Op. 206-96 (P. L. liii. 173-238). 3 Adv. avaritiam, i. i, § 1.
4 Ep. ix (Op. 199-205 ; P. L. hii. 169-74).
5 Adv. avaritiam, I. i, § 1. He contrasts with this love of money among
Christians the ways of the primitive church (Acts iv. 32), § 5 ; and recalls
the warning of Matt. vi. 21 in § 6. 6 Ibid. n. ix, § 41.
7 e. g. Chaucer, The Somnour's Tale, 11. 436-41.
8 De gub. Dei, v. viii, §§ 37 sqq. (Op. 104 ; P. L. liii. 102 b) ; Dill, 320.
9 Op. 1-182 (P. L. hii. 25-158) ; C. S. E. L. viii. 1-200. The §§ are given
in the latter only.
10 Italy, &c, i. ii. 919 ; cf. Dill, 64 sqq., 312 sqq.

chap, xviii GAUL 363
Christians. Orosius carried the defence a stage further. Like his
contemporary, the pagan Prefect of the City Rutilius Namatianus,1
Orosius is hopeful ; and gives' ground for thinking that, in spite
of severe shocks, Roman and Christian society is holding its own.
But between the Histories, 417-19, of Orosius and the Divine
Government, 439-51, of Salvian, a generation had passed ; and
meanwhile the ' human deluge ', as Kingsley calls it,2 had over
whelmed the West. The Visigoth reigned from Toulouse over
Gaul and Spain ; the Vandal over Africa from Carthage ; while
in Gaul, Roman and Goth held together in terror of the Huns. The
'desperate optimism ' 3 of Orosius was therefore impossible to
Salvian ; the sum and substance of whose treatise is that ' the
vices of the Romans are the real cause of the downfall of their
Empire '.* ' Salvian ', says Gibbon, making characteristic use of an
opening to sneer, ' has attempted to explain the moral government
of the Deity ; a task which may readily be performed by supposing
that the calamities of the wicked are judgments, and those of the
righteous trials.' 5 In Book I, Salvian urges, in favour of God's
moral government, the opinion of philosophers who in old time held
fast to this conviction.6 In Book II he turns to Holy Scripture, in
order to estabhsh on a yet stronger foundation the doctrine of
a God who all along had cared for mankind, and in particular for
His chosen people.7 In the remaining books he abandons method,
and breaks loose into invective. The entire society of the Empire —
Roman, Christian, and Catholic as it is, can only be truthfully
described as ' a sewer of iniquity '.8 The barbarians, pagan or
heretic, are morally superior to the Romans ; and, if it be pleaded
that the sons of the Empire are Christians and Catholics,9 then this
is but an aggravation of their guilt.10 The author exalts the virtues
of the barbarians, by way of showing up the vices of the Gallo-
1 Dill, 310-12. Rutilius holds that Rome's services to mankind, in secur
ing law and equal justice for all, are her security :
Quod regnas minus est quam quod regnare mereris.
2 Roman and Teuton, 58. 3 Hodgkin, I. ii. 919.
4 De gub. Dei, vn. xxiii, § 108 (Op. 174 ; P. L. hii. 152 o). For the con
trast between Orosius and Salvian (rather hke that between Amos and
Hosea), see Dill, 313-20. 5 Gibbon, c. xxxv, n. 12 (iii. 451).
8 De gub. Dei, I. i, § 1. For pagan ridicule of the Christian doctrine of
a ' curiosus Deus ' see Minucius Fehx, Octavius, x, § 5 (P. L. iii. 276 a), and
W. Bright, Aspects of primitive church life, 170, n. 1.
7 De gub. Dei, il. iii, §§ 13, 14 (Op. 33 sq. ; P. L. liii. 52).
8 Ibid. m. ix, § 44 (Op. 54 ; P. L. hii. 66 a).
9 Ibid. v. iii, § 13 (Op. 96 ; P. L. hii. 97).
10 Ibid. in. xi, § 60 (Op. 59 ; P. L. liii. 70 b).

364 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
Romans, specially in Aquitaine.1 He admits that the invaders
have their vices 2 ; but they are either pagans (like the Saxons,
Franks, Gepids, Huns, Alamans, Alans) or heretics (like the Goths
and Vandals), whereas we are Christians : and again, they are not
wholly bad as are we Romans who ' have the Scriptures in our
hands, and uncorrupted Scriptures too — not like theirs '.3 Any
way, fierce as are Goths and Vandals towards us, ' they are just and
fair in their dealings one with another. Men of the same class, and
following the same king, love one another with a true affection.4
The impurities of the theatre, which we have renounced at our
baptism,5 are unknown among them.6 Many of their tribes are free
from the taint of drunkenness ; and among all, except the Alans
and the Huns, chastity is the rule.' 7
Here Salvian writes as a man of letters : and as Tacitus, in the
Germania, wrote up Teutonic freedom to render odious the tyranny
of Domitian ; or as Rousseau, f 1778, in order to vilify the artificial
society of the Ancien Regime, invested ' the noble savage ' with all
the virtues 8 ; so Salvian avails himself of the same literary device,
and exalts the Teuton to shame the Latin. He also writes as an
ascetic and as a prophet ; and, as such, is righteously indignant
with the sins of God's people. He may have pictured them as
worse than they were. As an historian, therefore, Salvian ' the
preacher ' 9 must not be taken quite at face value ; and fortunately
we are in a position to check his arraignment by the evidence of
Gallo-Romans who wrote two generations before him and a genera
tion after him. There is no evidence of widespread corruption 10
to be found in Ausonius,11 310-f88, nor in Sidonius Apollinaris,
431— f 84, both Gallo-Romans, Christians, and men of letters ; both,
too, Praetorian Prefects, the one the tutor, and the other the
father-in-law, of a Roman Emperor. We must, then, qualify the
1 It was ' medulla fere omnium Galliarum \ ibid. vn. ii, § 8 (Op. 143 ;
P. L. liii. 151 a), pre-eminent as in wealth so in wickedness, ibid. vn. ii, § 12,
iii, iv, §§ 13-20 (Op. i. 144-7 ; P. L. hii. 152 sq.).
2 Ibid. iv. xiv, § 67 (Op. 82 ; P. L. liii. 86 sq.).
3 Ibid. v. ii, §§ 5-11 (Op. 93 sqq. ; P. L. liii. 94 sqq.).
4 Ibid. v. iv, § 15 (Op. 97 ; P. L. hii. 97 b).
5 Ibid. vi. vi, § 31 (Op. 121 ; P. L. liii. 114 b), and Document No. 211.
8 Ibid., § 7 (Op. 122 ; P. L. liii. 115 b).
7 Hodgkin, i. ii. 920 sq., founded on ibid. iv. xiv, § 67, vn. xv, § 64 (Op. 82,
160 ; P. L. hii. 86 sq., 142 o).
8 On the upgrowth and the consequences of the theory that ' man is
naturally good ', see Sir T. Raleigh, Elementary Politics, 26 sq.
9 Dill, 142. w Ibid. 140-2.
11 T. R. Glover, Life and letters in the fourth century, c. v.

ohap. xviii GAUL 365
credit we attach to some of the assertions of Salvian ; but, for all
that, he remains ' one of our most valuable sources of information
as to the inner life of the dying Empire and the moral character
of its foes ,.1 On one point, at any rate, Salvian spoke from experi
ence : the abuses and unjust exactions practised by Gallic officials 2
would certainly come within his knowledge. With nothing is he so
indignant as with the taxation of the poor and the exemption of
the rich 3 ; an evil which made the fiscal system of the Empire so
oppressive, and contributed so much, centuries afterwards, to the
French Revolution. ' Where,' he exclaims, ' or among whom is
such an evil to be found but among the Romans in Gaul ? The
Franks know not such. The Huns are innocent of such evil. You
cannot find such among the Vandals and the Goths.' * And on
other points Salvian may be taken without misgiving : on the
passion for amusement, so crazy that, while the churches stood
empty, the circus was crowded with sightseers 5 ; on the love of
pleasure — ' not to be found in Mayence, for it is in ruins ; nor in
Cologne for it is chokeful of barbarians ; nor in that most excellent
city of Treves, for it has been laid low four times over.' 6 Yet the
few nobles that survive there are actually demanding of the Em
peror the restoration of the games of the amphitheatre, as if that
were the best remedy for a ruined town 7 ; on the habit of profane
swearing,8 so common with the Gallic provincials — a habit for
wliich Chrysostom, it will be remembered, had to reprove the
frivolous Antiochenes ; on the cruel treatment of slaves 9 ; on the
miseries of the poor ; and on the all-pervading spirit of injustice.10
From the Praetorian Prefect downwards, every class was out for
plunder.11 But Salvian's picture of Treves 12 and Carthage 13 at
their fall is the climax of his indictment. They were the capitals,
respectively, of Gaul and Africa ; and of both cities he appears to
have had personal knowledge. Both alike were devoted to heart-
1 Hodgkin, i. ii. 918. 2 Dill, 320.
3 Deaub. Dei, iv. vi, § 30, v. iv, § 17 (Op. 69, 98 ; P. L. liii. 77 b, 98).
4 Ibid. v. viii, § 36 (Op. 103 sq. ; P. L. liii. 102 a).
5 Ibid. vi. vii, §§ 35-8 (Op. 122 sq. ; P. L. liii. 115 sq.), and Document
No. 212. 8 Ibid. vi. viii, § 39 (Op. 123 ; P. L. liii. 116 sq.).
7 Ibid. vt. xv, § 85 (Op. 135 ; P. L. liii. 125 o, d).
8 Ibid. iv. xv, §§ 71-3 (Op. 83 sq. ; P. L. hii. 87 sq.).
9 Ibid. v. iii, §§ 13-19 (Op. 63-6 ; P. L. liii. 73-5).
10 Ibid. v. iv-viii, §§ 15-44 (Op. 97 sqq. ; P. L. liii. 97 sqq.).
11 Ibid. m. x, § 50, iv. iv, § 21 (Op. 56, 66 ; P. L. liii. 67 c, 75 b).
12 Ibid. vi. xiii-xv, §§ 72-9 (Op. 132 sqq. ; P. L. liii. 123 sqq.).
13 Ibid. vn. xvi-xx, §§ 65-88 (Op. 160 sqq. ; P. L. liii. 142 sqq.).

366 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
lessness and immorality, to the amphitheatre and the theatre1;
while as for Carthage, every other house was a house of ill-fame 2
and sins against nature were of no account.3 We know that Salvian
is speaking the truth here, for not only has Augustine left, in his
Confessions, the same record against Carthage * ; but, immediately
upon its capture, Gaiseric and his Vandals set themselves at once
to purify the city. They banished the men who made a trade of
ministering to vice,5 and put down prostitution with a firm, but
not a cruel, hand.6 So the vices of the Romans and, in particular,
unclean living are the explanation of the ruin of the Empire 7 ; and
this ruin is proof beyond question, according to Salvian, that God
still governs the world.
(iii) Quite a contrast meets us in the surroundings and the per
sonality of his fellow-countryman and younger contemporary,
Sidonius Apollinaris, 481— f 480 ?, another authority for these times
and, in particular, for the social conditions of Gaul.
§ 9. Caius Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius,8 to give him his full
name,9 was born at Lyons, November 431, of one of the noblest
families of Gaul.10 It was in the year of the Council of Ephesus,
and at a time when the Goths were firmly established at Toulouse
and the Vandals were devastating Africa. He lived to see his
native country given over entirely to the barbarians ; and the
place of Romulus Augustulus,11 475-6, the last of the Western
Emperors, taken by Odovacar as king of Italy. Beginning as
1 For the degradation of the Roman stage the best evidence is to be
found in the legislation on actors and actresses, Cod. Theod. xv. vii, sum
marized in Dill, 57 sq. There was a Tribunus Voluptatum at Carthage, as
at Rome and Milan ; and in 413 he was ordered to recall to their trade the
actresses who had by ' imperial kindness ' been previously released (Cod.
Theod. xv. vii. 13, and Document No. 123). Their trade was hereditary,
like many other trades, so there was no escape for them from a life of
condemnation to vice.
2 De gub. Dei, vu. xvii, § 72 (Op. 163 ; P. L. hii. 144 b). He goes on to
say that chastity was to be found only among the clergy, ibid., §§ 74-5
(Op. 163 ; P. L. liii. 144 sq.), and Document No. 213.
3 Ibid. vn. xviii, § 79 (Op. 165 ; P. L. liii. 146 a).
4 Aug. Conf. iii, § 1 (Op. i. 87 D ; P. L. xxxii. 683).
5 De gub. Dei, vn. xxi, § 89 (Op. 168 ; P. L. hii. 148 o).
6 Ibid. vn. xxii, § 97 (Op. 170 ; P. L. liii. 149 sq.).
7 Ibid. vn. xiii, § 56 (Op. 157 ; P. L. liii. 140 c).
8 Works in P. L. Iviii. 443-748 ; Mon. Germ. Hist viii (Berolini, 1887) ;
letters, tr. O. M. Dalton (Clar. Press, 1915) : see also Tillemont, Mim. xvi.
195-284 ; F. Guizot, Hist. Civ. in France, c. iii ( Works, i. 331 sqq. : ed.
Bohn) ; Hodgkin, ii. 297 sqq. ; Dill, 187 sqq. ; Holmes, 409 sqq. ; Barden
hewer, 606 sq. ; Duchesne, Hist ane iii. 603 sqq. ; C. Bigg, Wayside
Sketches, 57 sqq. 9 Carmen, ix. ad init (Op. 351 ; P. L. Iviii. 694 c).
10 Ep. i. iii (Op. 7; P.L. Iviii. 450 b). " Hodgkin, ii. 497.

chap, xviii GAUL 367
scholar and magistrate, he ended as bishop. Thus he unites the
old world that was passing away with the new world then rising to
take its place.
His great-grandfather had stood high in the Imperial service.
His grandfather, the first Christian of the family,1 became Prae
torian Prefect of Gaul under the British usurper Constantine,2
while his father held the same office,3 448-9, under Valentinian III.4
He was educated at Lyons 5 where, as in the other Universities of
Gaul, the classic and pagan tradition still held the field6 to the
exclusion of Christian culture ; and here he formed friendships
with other young men of distinction who afterwards figure among
his correspondents.7 Poetry, letter- writing, and a literary immor
tality was their common aim. At the age of twenty he married
Papianilla, the only daughter of Avitus, 395— f 456 ; and thus
became possessed of Avitacum, an estate and mansion in Auvergne,
which she brought with her as her dowry.8 Sidonius speaks of her
with affection, as ' a good wife ' 9 ; and they had a son, Apollinaris,
and two daughters, Severiana and Roscia. Her father was a brave,
capable, and honest man.10 He too was Prefect of Gaul, 489-45 ;
and by his persuasion it was that Theodoric I, king of the Visigoths,
joined forces with the Roman General, Aetius, in the battle of
Chalons, 451, when Attila was driven out of Gaul. Attila died two
years later,11 and the break up of his kingdom 12 led to a tem
porary revival of Roman hfe in Gaul. There were Councils at
Angers,13 455, Tours,14 461, and Vannes,15 461-5 ; and at Angers
the Church took courage to enact penalties against the betrayers
of cities 16— perhaps to the Huns. A transference of the Empire,
and no mere recovery, followed upon the murder of Aetius, 454, and
its sequel the assassination of Valentinian III, in 455. For the
Emperor's death brought to an end the dynasty of Theodosius17;
1 Ep. m. xii (Op. 78 ; P. L. Iviii. 504 b).
2 Ep. v. ix (Op. 138 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 540 sq.).
3 Ep. vm. vi (Op. 219 ; P. L. Iviii. 594 o),
4 Ep. v. ix (Op. 139 ; P. L. Iviii. 541 a).
5 In rhetoric and poetry (Carmen, ix. 313 [Op. 361 ; P. L. Iviii. 703 b]),
and in philosophy (Ep. iv. i, § 3 [Op. 85 ; P. L. Iviii. 508 b]).
8 Holmes, 410.
7 e. g. Avitus the younger, Ep. m. i, § 1 (Op. 61 ; P. L. Iviii. 493 o).
8 For a description of it, see Ep. n. ii (Op. 34 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 473 sqq.) ;
and Carmen, xviii (Op. 386 ; P. L. Iviii. 723 sq.).
9 Ep. v. xvi, § 3 (Op. 147 ; P. L. Iviii. 546 b).
10 Hodgkin, ii. 375 sqq. u Hodgkin, ii. 171. 12 Ibid. ii. 190 sqq.
13 Mansi, vii. 899 sqq. 14 Ibid. vii. 943 sqq. l5 Ibid. vii. 951 sqq.
16 Canon iv ; Mansi, vii. 901 b. 17 Hodgkin, ii. 190 sqq.

368 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
while Gaiseric's capture of the city, by which his death was avenged,
might seem to put the claims of Rome, for the time, under eclipse.
Her authority passed over into Gaul ; for Theodoric put forward
Avitus as Emperor,1 455— f 6. With a genuine desire to heal the
sorrows of his country, Avitus made the journey to Rome, for
recognition. He was accompanied by his son-in-law, Sidonius ;
who thus found introduction, at an early age, to the society of the
capital. Thrice he delivered a panegyric on an Emperor : at Rome,
455, on his father-in-law, Avitus 2 ; at Lyons, 458, on Majorian,8
457-t61, his rival set up by the Suevic adventurer, Ricimer, who
was now master of Italy and, for sixteen years, 456-172, after the
death of Avitus, virtually supreme ; and again at Rome, 467, on
Anthemius,4 467-J72, the client of the Byzantine Court. Such
functions betokened the reputation of Sidonius as poet and man of
letters. For the first, he was awarded a statue in the Forum of
Trajan.5 For the second, he was pardoned his connexion with the
defeated party of Avitus and restored to the favour 6 of Majorian
and his patron. For the third, he was promoted Prefect of the
City,7 468. In the intervals of these oratorical triumphs, Sidonius
returned to enjoy, at Avitacum, the dignified ease of a country
gentleman. Then, all of a sudden, he was wanted to be a bishop.
At this time, bishops in Gaul were apt to be either monks, or men
of good birth and handsome fortune.8 If the first advanced the
Christian ideal, the second were in a position to protect the interests
of Christians. No sooner then had Sidonius attained the highest
civil honours,9 than his neighbours demanded him for their spiritual
father ; and in 469-70 he was elected 10 bishop of the Urbs Arverna,
now Clermont-Ferrand. His literary career is divided by this
event. Hitherto, he had devoted himself to poetry ; and, as the
hexameter and the elegiac still remained pagan, while other metres,
and prose as a whole, had become entirely Christian,11 Sidonius wrote,
1 Hodgkin, ii. 374 sqq.
2 Carmen, vii (Op. 330 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 678 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii. 386 sqq.
3 Carmen, v (Op. 3Q8 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 659 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii. 396 sqq.
4 Carmen, ii (Op. 288 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 640 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii. 458 sqq.
Of his journey to Rome, Sidonius has left an account, including a descrip
tion of Ravenna, in Ep. i. v (Op. 9 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 452 sqq.), quoted in
Hodgkin, i. 859, Document No. 231.
6 Ep. ix. xvi, § 3 (Op. 284 ; P. L. Iviii. 638 a). 6 Hodgkin, ii. 414.
7 Ep. i. ix, § 6 (Op. 23 ; P. L. Iviii. 484 b). 8 Holmes, 409 ; Dill, 215.
9 He was, as Prefect of the City, the third personage in the Empire, only
the Emperor and the Patrician, Ricimer, ranking before him, Hodgkin, ii. 460.
10 Ep. vn. ix, § 14 (Op. 193 ; P. L. Iviii. 578 a) ; Holmes, 426.
11 C. Bigg, Wayside Sketches, 60.

chap, xviii GAUL 369
in the versification of Virgil and Ovid, poems still pagan in form
and secular in subject. Such versifying, however, he thought in
compatible with the new character of bishop. Henceforward, he
turned to the composition of letters ; to make a name for himself
with posterity 1 and not simply to be read by his correspondents ;
and in the style of Symmachus and Pliny.2 The vanity of author
ship, however, did not prevent him from taking seriously the duties
of the episcopate. On taking up the burden, he asks neighbouring
bishops for their prayers.3 He urged his brother-in-law, Ecdicius,
to come and protect Clermont, 474, from the Visigoths.4 He sum
moned his friend Constantius, a priest of Lyons, to preach a mission
to its citizens.5 In the spring of 475 he wrote to Mamertus, arch
bishop of Vienne 46S-+75, to tell him that he was introducing at
Clermont the Rogation Processions 6 which the archbishop had
established in his own city.7 He tried, but in vain, to save Au-
vergne from being ceded, 475, to the Gothic king, Euric, 466— f 85,
in order to secure the retention for the Empire of Aries and Pro
vence.8 He sustained a brief exile,9 at the hand of Euric, as
punishment for his loyalty to the Gallo-Roman cause. He may
have lived to see the cession of" Provence, 480, as well, into Visi
gothic hands. At any rate, he discharged his office zealously, for
he enjoyed the friendship of Patiens, archbishop of Lyons 10
451-f 91, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes u 433-f 79 ; and he earned
a place, with Martin, the two Hilaries, and his friend St. Remi
gius,12 437-f533, who baptized Clovis the first Christian king of
France, among the saints of Gaul.13
§ 10. Sidonius is almost our only authority for the political
history of his time. He was kinsman or panegyrist of one puppet-
emperor after another, as well as an high official. So he had
political information at command. But of more permanent in
terest is the evidence he supplies for the social conditions of his
1 Ep. vni. ii, § 3 (Op. 214 ; P. L. Iviii. 590 c).
' Ep. ix. i, § 1 (Op. 249 ; P. L. Iviii. 615 a) ; Dill, 188, n. 6.
3 Holmes, 426. 4 Ep. in. iii (Op. 65 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 497).
5 Ep. in. ii (Op. 63 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 495 sqq.).
6 Ep. vn. i, § 2 (Op. 172 ; P. L. Iviii. 563 b).
7 Ep. v. xiv, § 2 (Op. 144 ; P. L. Iviii. 544 c).
8 Ep. vn. vi, vii (Op. 181 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 569 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, n. 491 sq.
9 Ep. vni. iii, § 1 (Op. 214 ; P. L. Iviii. 591 a) ; Hodgkin, ii. 316 ; Holmes,
430. 10 Tillemont, Mem. xvi. 97 sqq.
11 Ibid. 126 sqq. For the episcopal friends of Sidonius see Holmes, 432,
n. 1. These two may have been his consecrators.
12 Ep. ix. vii (Op. 258 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 621 sq.) ; Holmes, 445.
13 Hodgkin, ii. 319.
2191 UI g b

370 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
day. Sidonius was a great aristocrat. He belonged to the class
from which Patricians, like his brother-in-law, Ecdicius^and many
bishops, such as his friend Patiens, were drawn. They appear to
have remained as well off 2 under Goths or Burgundians as under
Roman rule. That rule had been oppressive to the classes below
them, as we know from Salvian, supported by the Theodosian Code ;
but of this Sidonius says nothing. He is only interested in his own
class : held aloof and bound together, as it was, by distinction of
birth, by companionship at the University, and by traditions of
Imperial service. Sidonius describes with affection his country-seat
at Avitacum 3 ; and tells us of others where he was a welcome
visitor — the Voroangus of his cousin, Apollinaris, and the adjoining
Prusianum 4 of his friend, Tonantius Ferreolus. When he arrived
in the morning some of the guests were playing tennis ; the less
active, dice ; others again were in the library, reading the classics
or discussing the theology of Origen. Dejeuner followed at 11 a.m.,
a short, but plentiful meal 5 ; and they sat over their wine, for a bit,
afterwards. Then some went for a ride ; others, to bathe, for
every mansion had its baths ; and there was a stately dinner 6 in
the evening. A literary atmosphere pervaded the homes of these
Gallo-Roman grandees. You could not find admission to their
society unless you were able to improvise a few verses, say, in
praise of your bath-towel ! 7 The ladies had a share in this dilet
tante routine, though a limited one. Papianilla was busier with her
household than her husband with his estate ; but she and her
friends were expected to encourage the literary ambition of their
men-folk 8 ; and if they were not all accomplished enough to share
it, like Eulalia, the cousin of Sidonius, who read the classics,9 then
there were shelves in the library, as at Prusianum, stocked with
religious books for their especial benefit.10 In all this there is much
1 He was made Patrician by the Emperor Nepos, 474-f5, Ep. v. xvi, § 1
(Op. 146 ; P. L. Iviii. 546 a). * .
2 Ecdicius fed 4,000 people in a famine : see Gregory of Tours, Hist.
Franc ii. 24 (Script, rerum Merovingicarum, i. i. 86 sqq.) ; Gibbon, c. xxxvi
(iv. 39). Patiens did the like : Sidonius, Ep. vi. xii, § 5 (Op. 168 ; P. L. Iviii.
561 a). 3 Ep. ii. ii (ut sup.) ; and its baths, Carmen, xviii (ut sup.).
4 Ep. n. ix, §§ 1, 7 (Op. 47, 49 ; P. L. Iviii. 483 a, 485 a) ; tr. Hodgkin, ii.
324 sqq., and Document No. 232.
6 Ibid., § 6 (Op. 49 ; P. L. Iviii. 485 a) ; at ' quinta hora ', i. e. 11 a.m.
6 Ibid., § 10 (Op. 50 ; P. L. Iviii. 485 c).
7 Ep. v. xvii, § 10 (Op. 151 ; P. L. Iviii. 549 a).
8 Ep. n. x, §§ 5, 6 (Op. 54 ; P. L. Iviii. 488 A, b).
9 Carmen, xxiv, 11. 95-8 (Op. 418 ; P. L. Iviii. 748 b)
10 Ep. n. ix, § 4 (Op. 48 ; P. L. Iviii. 484 b).

chap, xviii GAUL 371
elegant trifling ; but no trace of that looseness of morals, with
which Salvian charges the whole social structure of the time. In
one letter x we have an unpleasant incident. Sidonius mentions the
irregular connexion of a young noble with a slave-girl. He has
nothing but loathing and contempt for the girl ; but the young
man he treats with indulgence. His ' slip ' is entirely condoned,
in the eyes of Sidonius (writing, by the way, as a bishop), by
his having thrown her over in order to marry a lady of wealth
and rank. He had, in fact, consulted the name and fortune of his
family ; what more was wanted ? On the whole, the world of
Sidonius was ' about as Christian in sentiment and conduct as our
own ' 2 ; and not vice but pride of class 3 and cultivated ease was
its contribution to the decline of the Roman Empire.
§ 11. Sidonius, as bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, 470-f 80?, belongs
to another world. The bishop, it is true, had sometimes to give
good dinners to barbarian princes * ; though the picture of Theo
dore II, as drawn by Sidonius,5 represents the royal table as refined
enough. He had also to manage the estates of his church. But,
if prelate, he was pastor as well. He lived in the chief town of his
diocese, where he received all comers ; composed their differences ;
maintained intimate relations with the municipal authorities ;
and, apart from his leadership in worship, was the chief personage
in the city.6 Yet this was to be in close touch with the people — not
aloof from them, like the great noble living on his country estate.
For such a post of influence there was not unnaturally, as at
Chalons 7 or Bourges,8 a good deal of intrigue at a vacancy. Patiens
presided at the election of a bishop, in the one case ; Sidonius
himself, in the other. Each took the only remedy, by brushing
aside all the rival candidates and appointing his own — in the one
case, the archdeacon, a modest man of blameless character ; and in
the other, a soldier of rank and wealth. But more pleasing im-
1 Ep. ix. vi (Op. 257 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 620 sq.). 2 Dill, 210.
3 But there were good men among this class, e. g. Vectius, Ep. iv. ix
(Op. 98 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 513 sq.) ; tr. Hodgkin, ii. 340 sqq. ' His character ',
says Dill (p. 213), ' might have been drawn by the author of the Serious
Call.' 4 As Patiens, archbishop of Lyons, to his neighbour the king of the
Burgundians, Ep. vi. xii, § 3 (Op. 168 ; P. L. Iviii. 560 c).
5 Ep. i. ii (Op. 2 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 445 sqq.) ; tr. Hodgkin, ii. 352 sqq.
8 For the duties imposed upon bishops in his day see Sidonius, Epp. vi.
ii, iv, ix, x (Op. 158 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 552 sqq.).
7 Ep. v. xxv (Op. 125 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 531 sqq.).
8 Ep. vn. ix (Op. 188 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 575 sqq.).
B b 2

372 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
pressions of the church-life of the day are to be found in Sidonius.
There is the feast of St. Just at Lyons, which he attended as a lay
man. It began with a Procession and Vigil before daylight ; the
psalms being sung antiphonally by two choirs, one of monks and
one- of clergy. The church was crowded, for the whole population
was there, each order in its proper place ; and it felt very stuffy.
So Sidonius was glad to get out into the open air, with his friends,
where they occupied themselves some with tennis (when one of
them got so hot as to call for a bath-towel, whence the epigram),
others with backgammon, till it was 9 a.m., and so time for Terce
and the celebration of the Eucharist. All were still fasting ; and,
after Mass, they went home for prandium at 11 a.m., and took
their siesta at noon,1 or the sixth hour, from wliich that daily
episode derives its name. Other impressions of the pages of Sido
nius recall the princely charity of archbishop Patiens 2 ; the oratory
of St. Remigius,3 the apostle of the Franks ; the scholarly tastes 4
and the sanctity of Lupus, bishop of Troyes ; the liturgical innova
tions of Mamertus, archbishop of Vienne ; above all, the ascetic
fervour to be seen at Lerins,5 or in the Jura,6 or in Auvergne itself,
where Abraham, a solitary from the East, had settled.7 It was
natural enough that Sidonius, as bishop, should have bishops
among his friends ; not so likely, perhaps, that he should have been
on equally intimate terms with the ' religious ' of Gaul. But he had
a genius for friendship ; for which we may pardon his harmless
vanity. He thought himself the last representative of the old
Roman culture.8 He found himself just as much at home with
those who were making the far grander traditions of the Catholic
Church. II
§ 12. From Gaul we pass into Spain, where, since they crossed
the Pyrenees on Michaelmas Eve, 409,9 the Sueves held the greater
1 Ep. v. xvii (Op. 148 ; P. L. Iviii. 547 sqq.) ; tr. Hodgkin, ii. 321 sqq.,
and Document No. 233.
2 In church-building, Ep. n. x (Op. 51 ; P. L. Iviii. 486 sqq.), vi. xii, § 4
(Op. 168 ; P. L. Iviii. 560 o) as well as in the relief of distress, Ep. vi. xii,
5 5 (Op. 168 ; P. L. Iviii. 561 a).
3 Ep. ix. vii (Op. 258 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 621 sq.).
4 Ep. viu. xi, § 2 (Op. 232 ; P. L. Iviii. 604 a).
6 Carmen, xvi. 104 sqq. (Op. 384 ; P. L. Iviii. 720 sq.).
8 Ep. iv. xxv, § 5 (Op. 126 ; P. L. Iviii. 332 b). For the monasteries in
the Jura, e. g. St. Claud, see Chaix, Apoll. Sid. ii. 218.
7 Ep. vu. xvii (Op. 207 ; P. L. Iviii. 586 sq.).
8 Ep. n. x, § 5 (Op. 51 ; P. L. Iviii. 486 b). 9 Hodgkin, I. ii. 824.

chap, xviii SPAIN" 373
part of Southern and Western Spain, and ruled it from their
capital, Astorga,1 till their kingdom was shattered by the Visigoths,
5 October 456, under Theodoric II.2 The Suevic kings, Her-
manric,3 409-41, and Rechila, 441— f 8, were pagans ; but Rechiar,
448— j 57, became a Christian and a Catholic. So long, then as the
dynasty continued heathen, the Priscillianists, of whose origin and
progress an account has already been given, had nothing to fear
from the orthodox episcopate. Its disciplinary powers, indeed,
had been increased by Imperial edicts of 409-10 ; but, with the
invasion of the Sueves, these edicts ceased to operate. Symposius,
bishop of Astorga c. 380-400, and metropolitan of Gallaecia, had
rallied to the orthodox, though a minority of his suffragans held
out. The minority proved tenacious ; and a successor of his,
Turibius, c. 444, became alarmed. Some Priscillianists were cited
to his court * ; and Turibius addressed to Idacius and Ceponius, two
of his suffragans, an account 5 of their tenets and specially of their
use of apocryphal books.6 Turibius and Idacius together invoked
the aid of Antony, bishop of Merida 445-8, and metropolitan of
Lusitania ; for at Merida the Suevic Court, at present, resided ;
and Antony, it was hoped, might exert some influence with the
Catholic king, Rechiar. Turibius also invoked the aid of Pope Leo.
He reported to him in a letter the sad state of the churches in
Gallaecia ; and sent a minute of Priscillianism, in sixteen pro
positions, with a libellus of his own in refutation.7 The Pope rephed
in Quam laudabiliter 8 of 21 July 447. ' Time was ', he said, with
reference to the execution of Priscillian sixty years before, ' when
the Church was assisted by the laws of Christian princes. The fear
of corporal punishment makes men betake themselves to the
spiritual remedy. But, now-a-days, the invasions of our enemies
have prevented the laws from being executed ; and the difficulty
of travelling has rendered Councils rare.9 This is the chance for
heresy.' The Pope then replies to the sixteen articles seriatim.
He prohibits the Priscillianist apocrypha,10 as well as the writings
of their champion Dictinius.11 He notices the similarity between
1 Hodgkin, il. 380. 2 Ibid. n. 389. 3 Ibid. n. 224.
4 Idatius, Chron. ad ann. xxi, Val. in (P. L. li. 882 a).
5 Printed in Leo, Op. 711 sqq. (P. L. liv. 693 sqq.) ; andtr. Fleury, xxvn. ix.
6 Turibii, Ep., § 5 (Op. 713 sq. ; P. L. liv. 694 o).
7 Leo, Ep. xv, § 1 (Op. 695 ; P. L. liv. 678 sq.).
8 Ep. xv (Op. 694-711 ; P. L. liv. 678-92) ; Jaffe, No. 412 ; Fleury,
xxvn. x, and Document No. 228.
9 Ibid. (Op. 696 ; P. L. liv. 679 sq.). 10 Ibid., § 15.
» Ibid., § 16.

374 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
the tenets of Priscillianists and those of the Manichees xwhom he
had just condemned at Rome, as Turibius will see by the minutes
of his synod enclosed. The best remedy for the troubles of Spain
would be a synod too, if possible, of the four provinces of Tarragona,
Cartagena, Lusitania, and Gallaecia ; failing this ' general Council ',
of Gallaecia at least.2 But even this turned out to be impossible ;
and all that could be done was to collect signatures. Turibius pro
cured the preparation by a Gallaecian bishop, named Pastor, of an
orthodox formulary entitled Regulae fidei . . . contra Priscillianos 3
or Libellus in modum symboli *; and circulated it, together with
a letter from the Pope, to all the bishops of Spain. They appended
their signatures — a few from Gallaecia with reservations.5 It was
a blow for the revival of Priscillianism ; and, if the Pope had to be
called in to deliver it, that- was, in part, because synodical action
of the local church was disorganized by the barbarian conquests.
A parallel case is Prosper's request for the intervention of the Pope,
to deal with the semi-Pelagians ; for, owing to the Vandal con
quest of Africa, the synods of that country which had sufficed to
cope with Pelagianism could render him no assistance. The papacy
therefore profited by the barbarian invasions. If it rose by the fall
of the Western Empire, it rose, too, by the collapse of Concihar
Government in Africa and in Spain. In Spain, Priscillianism
disappeared ; but a subtler heresy took its place. In spite of the
Catholicism of Rechiar, his subjects became infected with the
Arianism of their neighbours and rivals the Visigoths : till at last,
after Leovigild, king of the Visigoths 572-t86, had absorbed the
Suevic kingdom, 584,6 Spain as a whole became Catholic under his
successor, Reccared, 588-f601, at the Third Council of Toledo,7
589. In repudiating Arianism it added the Filioque to the
Oecumenical Creed. Ill
From Spain we pass over into Africa, where the Vandal invasion,
429, and capture of Carthage, 439, already described, call for
a brief estimate of the Vandal persecution and its effects.8
1 Leo, Ep. xv, § 16. 2 Ibid., § 17 (Op. 710 sq. ; P. L. liv. 692 A, b).
3 Mansi, iii. 1002 c-1004 c.
4 Gennadius, De script eccl. lxxvi (P. L. Iviii. 1103 a).
5 Idatius, Chron. ad ann. xxiii, Val. in (P. L. li. 882 b).
6 Hodgkin, ii. 389, n. 1.
7 Mansi, ix. 977 sqq. ; Hefele, iv. 416 sqq. ; Gibbon, xxxvii (iii. 93 sq.) ;
J. Tixeront, Hist. Dogmas, iii. 502.
8 Fleury, xxvni. lvii-lix ; Gibbon, c. xxxvii (iii. 81 sqq.) ; Hodgkin, ii.

chap, xviii AFRICA 375
§ 13. Our knowledge of it comes from Augustine and his bio
grapher, but specially from an all-but-contemporary authority,
Victor, bishop of Vita, in the province of Byzacena, who wrote his
Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae *¦ about 486. The work
is divided into five books. In the first of these Victor tells of the
persecution under Gaiseric from the invasion of Africa, 429, to his
death in 477. The second, fourth, and fifth deal with the perse
cution under his son and successor, Huneric, 477-f84 ; while the
third contains the confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius, arch
bishop of Carthage 479-f505, and presented to Huneric at the
Conference of Carthage,2 1 February 484. We are therefore
concerned only with the contents of Book I.
In the year of the invasion, 429, Augustine was plied with
questions by Honoratus, bishop of Thiava, as to the duty of
bishops at such a time. Augustine 3 urged them to remain with
their flocks, and share their miseries : except where one particular
pastor is marked out for attack, in which case he may take to flight.
Possidius, his biographer; has left us a description of the sorrows
Augustine Hved to see : cities reduced to ruin, churches bereft of
clergy, Rehgious dispersed, worship driven into hiding. Fruitful
as Africa was in churches, not above three — those of Cirta (Con
stantine), Hippo, and Carthage—survived the common ruin.4 We
do not know when Cirta fell ; but Hippo was ceded, with the rest
of Numidia, most of Proconsular Africa, and all of Byzacena, by the
treaty of 11 February 435.5 Between this session and the fall of
Carthage,6 19 October 439, Gaiseric, feeling himself strong enough
for the task, set a"bout the reduction of his Cathofic subjects to the
creed of Arius. It might have been expected that the Donatists,
so long the victims of a Catholic government, would have seized
the opportunity to take a hand with the conqueror against their
former oppressors. They appear to have found sufficient satis-
265 sqq. ; Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 625 sqq. ; H. Leclercq, L'Afrique
chrdtienne, ii. 143 sqq.
1 P. L. Iviii. 179-260 ; C. S. E. L. vii ; Bardenhewer, 614 sqq.
2 Note the hst of the Catholic episcopate summoned to this Conference,
with marginal notes, written in 486, as to what became of them in the
persecution, e. g. ' peribat ', &c. They were 466 in all. See it in C. S. E. L.
vii. 117-34, and cf. Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 645, n. 1.
3 Ep. ccxxviii (Op. ii. 830-5 ; P. L. xxxiii. 1013 sqq.) ; translated in
Newman, Ch. F., c. xi, and Document No. 190.
4 Possidius, Vita, xxviii (Op. x, app. 277-8 ; P. L. xxxii. 57 sqq.) ;
Fleury, xxv. xxv.
5 Hodgkin, ii. 248 sq. 6 Ibid. 250.

376 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
faction in looking on, while the Vandals avenged them. Gaiseric,
in 437, began by striking at bishops ; for Possidius and others were
sent into exile.1 Arcadius, a Spaniard in the royal household, con
fessed himself a Catholic and perished with his companions. They
were encouraged to stand firm by a letter, still extant, from
Antonius Honoratus,2 bishop of Cirta, which is worthy to rank
with the exhortations to martyrdom of Tertullian3 and Origen.4
On the capture of Carthage, Gaiseric banished the archbishop,
Quovultdeus, 437-f54, and many of the clergy of the city (of
whom there were as many as five hundred 5 in the following reign).
They were compelled to embark on unseaworthy ships, but reached
Naples in safety.6 As of clergy, so of churches, there was a con
siderable number in Carthage 7 ; among them the Basilica Maio-
rum 8 where reposed the relics of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas,
martyred 7 March 203 ; and, outside the walls, the two Basilicas of
St. Cyprian ; marking, the one the site of his martyrdom,9
14 September 258, and the other the place of his burial. All the
churches within the walls, and some beyond, were taken from the
Catholics and handed over to the Arians 10 ; but this was only to
treat the Catholics as they themselves had treated the Arian
minority at Milan in the time of St. Ambrose or at Constantinople
under St. Chrysostom. Catholic funerals were to be conducted in
silence ; and, in answer to a petition of Catholics to be left in peace,
Gaiseric replied, ' I have resolved to let none of your race and name
escape '.n But he does not seem to have carried out his threat.
He left matters to the Arian prelates of his court ; and, once more,
the result of persecution, according to Victor, was a revival of
religion among the Catholics of Carthage.12 It is possible that the
revival may have owed something to the purging of the city from
vice which the Vandals themselves effected. But a revival there
was ; and it was assisted by one of the last acts of Valentinian III.
1 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. (Op. 746 ; P. L. li. 597 b).
2 P. L. 1. 567-70.
3 Ad martyras [a. d. 197] (Op. i. 3-14 : ed. F. Oehler).
4 Exhortatio ad martyrium [a. d. 235-8] (Op. ii. 274-310 ; P. L. xi. 564-
637). 5 Victor Vit. v, c. 9 (Op. 41 ; P. L. Iviii. 246 c) ; Leclercq, ii. 156, n. 3.
6 Victor Vit. i, c. 5 (Op. 5 ; P. L. Iviii. 187 b).
7 On the churches of Carthage, see Leclercq, ii. 157, n. 2 ; and s.v.
' Carthage ', in F. Cabrol, Diet, d' Arch. chr. ii. 2190-2330.
8 Ibid., § 13. » Ibid., § 15.
10 Victor Vit. i, c. 5 (Op. 5 ; P. L. Iviii. 187 c).
31 Ibid. 12 Ibid, i, c. 7 (Op. 7 ; P.L. Iviii. 191 a).

chap, xviii AFRICA 377
At his intervention Gaiseric permitted the election, once more, of
an archbishop of Carthage. Deogratias succeeded, 454-t77. He
signahzed the new religious life of his church by his charity to the
captives who had been carried off from Rome by Gaiseric on his
capture of the City, 455 ; for he sold the sacred vessels, ransomed
the prisoners, and took care of the sick and destitute in the Basi
lica Fausti and the Basilica Novarum.1 Thomas, his successor,
c. 458, was massacred by Arians 2 about the time when Majorian,
457— f 61, was threatening an invasion of Africa 3 ; and the perse
cution broke out afresh. It always had an arriere-pensee of a
political character. The Catholic religion was that of the Roman
Empire, and with the Empire the Vandals were at war. Gaiseric
forbade the appointment of bishops to sees that fell vacant in
Proconsular Africa * ; and, as his territory now included the coast
from Tripoli to the straits of Gibraltar,5 there was a wider field
for oppression than, in 435-442, between the first and the second
treaty with Valentinian III. In Mauretania, for instance, which
had been more or less exempt from 442-55, and administered by
Pope Leo 6 in default of synodical action on the spot, there were
exiled confessors ; they had commenced missionary work, and sent
to Rome for a bishop to continue it.7 In 'Africa ' proper there was
an attack on Catholic worship ; sacred vessels and books had to
be surrendered, while altar-cloths were cut up to make shirts and
breeches ; a bishop, Valerian of Abbenza, who was eighty years of
age and had resisted, was chased from his city and left to perish
without food or shelter.8 At Easter, an Arian priest, named Auduit,
led an assault on a Catholic congregation at Regia, in which the
Reader was shot in the throat by an arrow, as he stood in the
pulpit to chant the Alleluia.9 In 475 the king ' closed the Church
of Carthage ' ; but, next year, with a view to peace with the
Emperor Zeno, 474-f91, then being negotiated by his envoy, the
1 Victor Vit. i, c. 8 (Op. 7 ; P.L. Iviii. 191 sq.) ; Gibbon, c. xxxvi (iii. 7),
and Document No. 237.
2 Ibid, c. 9 (Op. 7 ; P.L. Iviii. 192 sq.).
3 Procopius, De bello Vandalico, i, § 7 (Op. i. 340 sq. ; Teubner, 1905) ;
Hodgkin, ii. 425-9.
4 Victor Vit. i, c. 9 (Op. 7 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 192 a).
8 Ibid, i, e. 4 (Op. 5 ; P.L. Iviii. 186 b).
8 See Cum de ordinationibus of 10 Aug. 446 ; Leo, Ep. xii (Op. i. 657 sqq. ;
P.L. hv. 645 sqq.); Jaffe, No. 410.
7 Victor Vit. i, c. 11 (Op. 9 ; P. L. Iviii. 195 sq.).
8 Ibid., c. 12 (Op. 9 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 196 sq.).
9 Ibid., c. 13 (Op. 10 ; P. L. Iviii. 107 b).

378 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III part in
Patrician Severus, Gaiseric restored to the Church her liberty, and
recalled the clergy from exile.1 It was the year of the disappearance
of the Western Empire, with Romulus Augustulus,2 475-6 ; and
the barbarian lived to see it and rejoice. But he died the following
year 3 ; and the persecution, though it slept for a period during
which Eugenius became archbishop of Carthage, 481-t505,4 was
renewed under pressure of the Arian episcopate by the edict,5
25 February 484, of Huneric, 477-f84, his son. Huneric was
a bitter Arian ; he persecuted for religious ends ; and died of the
dreadful disease6 which carried off other persecutors — Antiochus
Epiphanes,7 Herod Agrippa I,8 Galerius,9 and Philip II of Spain.
But Gaiseric's persecution was political.
On the whole, the indictment of Victor of Vita against the
Vandals under Gaiseric comes to this : — (1) Catholic churches, as
a rule, were handed over to Arian worship, or else destroyed ; and
it is the desecration or destruction of sacred buildings that, more
than anything else, has branded the name of Vandalism to all
time as a synonym for senseless destructiveness. (2) The springs
of the life of the Church were dried up when, as under Diocletian,
her sacred books were seized, and, as under Valerian, her worship
put down. (3) Her corporate efficiency, whether for domestic
discipline or for dealing, on equal terms, with the rival claims of
other churches or with the opposition of the world, was destroyed
by hindrances to the election and consecration of bishops and by
the prevention of synodical action— a pohcy that has always been
the expedient of the most intelligent tyrants from Licinius 10 to
Gaiseric, from Gaiseric to the mediaeval Popes,11 and from the days
of papal to the days of Tudor absolutism.12 (4) Individual Catholics
1 Victor Vit. i, c. 17 (Op. 12 ; P. L. Iviii. 202 a, b) ; Hodgkin, ii. 498 sq.
The peace between the Vandal kingdom and the Eastern Empire lasted
476-533 ; then followed the period of Byzantine rule in Africa, 533-698 ;
and then the Mohammedan conquest.
3 Hodgkin, ii. 497 sqq. 3 Ibid. 524.
4 Victor Vit. ii, cc. 1, 2 (Op. 12 sq. ; P. L. Iviii. 201-3).
5 Ibid, iv, c. 2 (Op. 33 sqq. ; P. L. Iviii. 235 sqq.). The edict suppresses
Catholicism, and substitutes for it the rehgion of the Council of Ariminurn;
note this testimony to the influence of that Council.
6 Ibid, v, c. 21 (Op. 49 ; P. L. Iviii. 258 o).
7 2 Mace. ix. 9. 8 Acts xii. 23.
9 Eus. H. E. vni. xvi, § 4. 30 Eus. V. C. i, § 51.
31 There was no Western Council from the fourth century, but government
by Decretal and Vicars Apostolic : see Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 674. On the
value of the African synods, ibid. 675.
12 e. g. the Submission of Clergy, 1532, and the Act of Submission,

chap, xviii • AFRICA 379
were not, as a rule, molested : the end was attained if they were
simply disqualified for employment in Government offices.1 With
Gaiseric, as with Henry VIII, it was the organized life of the
Church,2 and not the religion of the individual, of which the
Government sought to make itself master. And this policy stood
part of the general scheme of conquest. The hand of Gaiseric, like
the hand of Henry VIII, lay as heavy upon the nobles as upon the
higher clergy. Deprived of their actual leaders, the Catholic clergy
and the aristocracy, the people would be reduced to the condition
of rayahs. Not that the Latins of Africa could be turned into
Vandals ; that would be too much to expect. But they might be
made good subjects of the Vandals.3
24 H. VHI, c. 19 (H. Gee and W. J. Hardy, Documents, Nos. xliii, li) ;
and the remarks of R. W. Dixon, Hist. C. of E. i. 102, iii. 382.
3 Victor Vit. i, c. 14 (Op. 10 ; P. L. Iviii. 198 a).
2 Dixon, i. 59, 108. 3 Duchesne, Hist. ane. iii. 634.

CHAPTER XIX
THE CHURCH IN THE WEST UNDER VALENTINIAN III,
425-f55, AND HIS MOTHER, GALLA PLACIDIA,
425-J50: (vi) ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT,
440-f61
Never subject to Vandals, nor to any other barbarians, was
Italy, so long as Galla Placidia, f 450, and her son Valentinian III,
f455, ruled, and Pope Leo the Great, 440-J61, sat in the Roman
See. I
The fortunes of Italy, during these years,1 are bound up with
the doings of Attila and Ricimer ; barbarians both, but the one
the foe, and the other the protector, of the Empire.
§ 1 . Attila had planted himself, like Alaric, between East and
West, in a position from which he could harry both the Byzantine
and the Western Empire. Till the death of Placidia there were
about ten or twelve years of peace for Italy. For Attila occupied
the period with sending embassies. Of the East, he demanded
that the Court should surrender Hunnish princes and Roman
merchants, fugitives alike from Attila's dominions.2 On the West,
he pressed his claims for the altar-plate of the Cathedral of
Sirmium and for the dowry of the Princess Honoria. When
Sirmium was besieged by the Huns, the bishop of that city had
entrusted the sacred vessels of his church to Attila's secretary,
Constantius, in order to provide for the ransom of himself and his
flock. Constantius took them off to Rome, and raised money
on them from Silvanus, a goldsmith. Sirmium was taken ; and
Attila, after crucifying Constantius, insisted that the vessels
were now his by right of conquest, and that Silvanus also should
be surrendered to him for having stolen his property.3 As to
Honoria, she was the sister of Valentinian III, and had carried
on a flirtation, 434, with an Imperial chamberlain. Galla Placidia,
her mother, on discovering this, sent her off to a sort of honourable
confinement at the court of Constantinople. But the society of
1 Hodgkin, Italy, &c, vol. ii ; Dynasty of Theodosius, c. vi.
2 Hodgkin, Italy, &c, ii. 58. 3 Ibid. 54.

ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 381
her middle-aged and almost cloistered *¦ cousins, Pulcheria and
her sisters, proved uncongenial ; and, in order to escape, she sent
her ring to Attila, begging him to deliver her. Glad of the pretext
' he claimed as her betrothed husband one half of the Western
Empire which had been bequeathed ', as he alleged, ' to Honoria
by her father, but out of which she was kept by her brother's
covetousness '.2 The dowry, of course, was never paid ; and,
after his defeat in Gaul, 451, and retirement north of Pannonia
into the plains of Hungary,3 Attila, in 452, entered Italy,4 as if to
claim it. He came by the well-known route through the Pass of
the Pear-tree, and laid siege to Aquileia. A first result of his
invasion was the founding of Venice ; for fugitives from the cities
of northern Italy which he destroyed took refuge in the lagoons,
and built a new settlement there. And a second result was the
increased prestige of the see of Rome ; for, while Italy lay at the
mercy of the conqueror, Pope Leo, at the head of an embassy
sent by Valentinian III, then in the City, went out and met him.
Attila received the Pope on the banks of the Mincio,5 not far
from Mantua. Strange to say, he consented to depart from Italy,
though with this one threat upon his lips that he would lay yet
heavier calamities on the country unless the Emperor sent him
Honoria and the dowry that was due with her. It was the air of
sanctity and majesty about Leo that overawed the Hun ,«¦ and
he died on his return to his country, and his dynasty perished
with him. Three years later, the missive of the Empress Eudoxia
and sister-in-law of Honoria, summoned Attila's ally, the Vandal
Gaiseric, to the siege of Rome 455 ; and again the Pope went out
to meet him. He saved the City from bloodshed, and its sanc
tuaries from defilement 6 ; and he enhanced still further the
authority of the Roman See.
§ 2. The following year saw the beginning of the supremacy of
Ricimer in Italy, 456-f72. A Sueve by birth,7 as the son of
a Visigothic princess he was an Arian ; and he was also the third
of those leaders who, in the office of Patrician— a dignity held
1 So»rates, H. E. ix. iv.
2 Hodgkin, Italy, &c, ii. 113 ; Dynasty, 185.
3 Hodgkin, ii. 110 sqq.
4 Ibid. 163 sqq. ; Jornandes [a. d. 550], Getica, c. xiii (P. L. Ixix. 1281 sq.).
5 Jornandes, Getica, c. xiii (P. L. Ixix. 1282 b) ; perhaps, at Peschiera,
where the Mincio issues from the Lago di Garda, or at Governolo, a village
at its junction with the Po, Hodgkin, ii. 178.
6 Hodgkin, ii. 283 sq. 7 Ibid. 402.

382 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
for life,1 and so of more consideration than any, save the Con
sulate, in the administrative hierarchy — had governed the West
from Honorius to Valentinian. Constantius, f423, Aetius, f 454,
and now Ricimer, was the succession. After defeating the Vandals
off the coast of Corsica,2 456, and Avitus, the client of the Visi
goths, at Piacenza,3 Ricimer elevated Majorian, 457-f61, to the
throne ; but he proved too active for his patron, and so was
deposed.4 Then followed a succession of puppet-Emperors:
Severus,5 461-J5, set up by Ricimer ; Anthemius, 467-J72, the
client of Constantinople; and Olybrius,6 f472, the nominee of
the Vandal Gaiseric. After the death of Ricimer, f472, followed
Glycerins,7 472-J3, the client of his nephew and successor, Gundo-
bad the Burgundian ; Nepos, 473-t5, of Constantinople, and,
last of all, Romulus Augustulus, 475-f6, the son of Orestes, the
representative of ' barbarian ' Italy. Thus fell the Western
Empire, to the joy, no doubt, of its last enemy, Gaiseric, but
almost unnoticed by the rest of the generation that survived
its fall.8 Then Italy fell under the rule of Arian and barbarian
kings — Odovacar,9 476-f93, the soldier of fortune ; and Theodoric
the Ostrogoth,10 493-f526, who reigned as Vicegerent of the
Eastern Empire. II
But Rome itself remained Catholic, and the centre of Western
Catholicism under the episcopate of Leo, 440-J61.
§ 3. We have already had occasion to note the first appearance
of Leo, as acolyte, 418 ; and his activities as archdeacon when he
intervened with effect first against Nestorianism, 430-1 , and then
against both Augustinianism, 435, and Pelagianism. We have had
much to say of Leo as Pope ; of his election ; of his theory of
the papal authority ; and of the way in which he acted upon it
in repudiating the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon
and in dealing with Hilary, archbishop of Aries. We have devoted
no little space to his success, as theologian, in impressing upon
the Fourth Oecumenical Council the doctrine of our Lord's one
Person in two Natures as expounded in his Tome, and in finally
exposing the errors ¦ of Priscillianism. Further, we have not
forgotten Leo as one of the few Popes who was a great preacher.
1 Hodgkin, ii. 405 sq. 2 Ibid. 392. 3 Ibid. 394.
4 Ibid. 399 sqq. 5 Ibid. 437 sqq. 6 Ibid. 486 sqq.
7 Ibid. 489 sqq. 8 Ibid. 540 sqq. 9 Ibid. 517 sqq.
30 Ibid., vol. iii.

chap, xix ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 383
III
We have now to consider Leo as bishop of Rome.
§ 4. He found the City entirely Christian : he made and left it
Cathofic. True, some survivals of paganism remained. In the year after
Leo figures in the order of acolyte, the Prefect of the City, 419-20,
was Aurelius Anicius Symmachus,1 the nephew of the opponent
of St. Ambrose and champion of paganism. Volusianus 2 also
carried on this tradition of the old Roman aristocracy. He was
Comes rerum privatarum 3 in 408 ; had propounded to Augustine,
412, some difficulties about the Incarnation,4 the abrogation of
the Old Testament, and the incompatibility of the Sermon on
the Mount with pubhc order 5 ; and, though uncle to the saintly
Melania the younger, 383-f439, maintained his old allegiance
when sent to Constantinople, 436, to negotiate the marriage of
Valentinian III with Eudoxia the daughter of Theodosius II.
Here, however, Volusianus was converted by his niece, and
baptized by archbishop Proclus : then, shortly after his baptism,
he died.6 The Lupercalia, celebrated on 15 February, continued 7
till it was suppressed by Pope Gelasius I, 492-f6, with scoffs and
witticisms at its expense 8 ; but it was the only relic of popular
festivities surviving from paganism. The Temples survived, in
the sense that they were not destroyed. But they were closed.
Meanwhile, the outer aspect of the City had long been identified
with the profession of Christianity.
Churches 9 increased as Temples decayed. Constantine had
built the Basilica of the Lateran (then the Basilica Constan-
tiniana and now S. Giovanni in Laterano), and the Empress
Helena built the Basilica Hierusalem (or Heleniana) now
1 See the ' Stemma Symmachorum ' in Symmachus, Opera, xl, ed.
0. Seeck (Mon. Germ. Hist. vi. i).
2 See the ' Stemma Albinorum et Volusianorum ' in ibid, clxxv.
3 Cod. Theod. v. xiv. 7.
4 Aug. Ep. cxxxv (Op. ii. 399^00 ; P. L. xxxiii. 512-14).
6 Ibid, cxxxvi (Op. ii. 400-1 ; P. L. xxxiii. 514-15) ; and for Augustine's
answer, Epp. cxxxvii, cxxxviii (Op. ii. 401-19 ; P. L. xxxiii. 515-35).
8 Photius, Bibl. Cod. hii (Op. iii. 14 a ; P. G. ciii. 93 a, b) ; Fleury, xxvi.
xxvii. There is, however, some doubt about this : see D. C. B. iv. 1168.
7 Gibbon, c. xxxvi (iv. 32).
8 Gelasius, Tract, vi, ap. A. Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont. 598-607.
9 H. Grisar, History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, i. 188 sqq.,
with map, or 'Forma urbis Bomanae, saec. iv-vii ' (1911); M. A. R.
Tuker and H. Malleson, Handbook to Christian and Ecclesiastical Rome, i.
162 sqq.

384 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
S. Croce in Gerusalemme. Both of these are situated to the
south-east of the City. Constantine also built the extra-mural
churches of St. Peter, over the tomb of the Apostle, on the Vatican,
to the north-west of the City ; of St. Paul, over his tomb, on the
Ostian Way, to the south, now S. Paolo fuori-le-mura, which had
the honour of being restored, 386, by the three Emperors, Valen
tinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius ; of St. Laurence (now
S. Lorenzo fuori) on the Via Tiburtina to the east, restored,
under Sixtus III, 432-f40, by Galla Placidia ; and, finally, of
St. Agnes (now S. Agnese fuori) on the Via Nomentana to the
north-east. From the days of the first Christian Emperor on
wards, nearly every pope is connected with some church either
built or restored in his episcopate. Such are the Titulus Silvestri
(now S. Martino ai Monti) on the Esquiline, one of the twenty-five
Tituli,1 or parish churches, of the City which give their titles to
the Cardinals and of which S. Clemente, on the Via papahs 2 or
highway from the Lateran to the Vatican and known to have
existed in situ under Damasus, is, perhaps, the most famous ; the
Titulus Marci (now S. Marco) founded in 336 by the Pope of that
name ; the Titulus Iulii built by Pope Julius, 337— f 52, and now
S. Maria in Trastevere ; the Basilica Iulia which once commemo
rated its founder by name but is now the Church of the Twelve
Apostles ; the Basilica Liberii [352-|66] on the Esquiline which
Sixtus III restored and dedicated to St. Mary. It is the first
church, with the possible exception of the church at Ephesus in
which the two Ephesine Councils met, to be dedicated to the
mother of our Lord, and is now known as S. Maria Maggiore.
The climax of church-building is reached with the pontificate of
Damasus, 366- j 84, as famous for his inscriptions as for his
churches, among which are to be reckoned the Titulus Pudentis,
now S. Pudenziana, with a mosaic of the time of Siricius and
Innocent I ; S. Lorenzo in Lucina 3 where Damasus was elected,
and S. Lorenzo in Damaso which he built ; together with the
Titulus Anastasiae, now S. Anastasia. Pope Siricius, 384— 198,
had the honour of seeing the complete transformation of St. Paul
without the walls. Under Innocent I, 402-f 17, a noble Roman
lady founded the Titulus Vestinae, which once bore her name, but
is now S. Vitale. To the episcopate of Caelestine, 422-f 32, belongs
1 Grisar, i. 189 sqq. 2 Ibid. i. 207 sqq.
3 Sometimes ' in prasina ', because the ' factio prasina ' or ' Green Club '
(of the ' green ' jockeys) stood there, ibid. i. 201.

chap.xix ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 385
the Titulus Sabinae, now S. Sabina, on the Aventine. Its doors,
of the fifth century, contain two panels.1 The one represents the
Church, where Peter and Paul, its founders at Rome, appear on
each side of Mary, who stands for the faithful as an orante, and
all supplicate the glorified figure of our Saviour above. The other
commemorates the Christian Empire, symbolized by the Emperor
in a chlamys ; who is saluted by a Winged Victory with a
church in the background, and accepts the acclamations of the
faithful in the foreground. They are made up of two groups : of
nobles in the toga and of the people in chasubles — so significant
is it to-day of the Catholicity of the Church that the priest at the
altar wears the then garb of the average man.2 One of Caelestine's
legates at the Council of Ephesus, 431, was ' Philip the presbyter
of the Church of the Apostle', otherwise the Titulus Apostolorum
or Eudoxiae, on the Esquiline, now S. Pietro in Vincoli. The
church was restored, under Sixtus III, 432-f 40, at the expense of
the Imperial family of the East, particularly of Eudoxia, the wife
of Valentinian III. Eudoxia's aim was to provide a sanctuary
for the chains with which St. Peter had been bound at Jerusalem,
brought back by her mother from a pilgrimage to the East. She
gave them to Pope Leo ; and, with the chains that bound St. Peter
at Rome when in prison under Nero, they are accepted and
venerated there to this day. This was in the third year of Leo's
episcopate, 442 ; to its last year belongs S. Ag'ata dei Goti, c. 460,
on the Quirinal, founded and decorated by Ricimer for Arian
worship till reconciled and consecrated, 593, to Catholic use by
St. Gregory the Great.
The greafer part of these churches were served by their presbyters
and readers, as permanently attached thereto as were the later
parochial clergy. Outside the City, the Basilicas of St. Peter and
St. Paul were the principal centres of attraction, for they con
tained the Tombs of the Apostles. But scarcely less popular
1 For photograph of the door, see Bury's Gibbon, ii. 300 (Methuen, 1909) ;
and of the panels Grisar, i. 328 sqq., and Illustrations 77, 78; and
Jo. Wiegand, Das altchristliche Hauptportal Sabina (Trier, 1900), Tafel xii,
No. 9.
2 On this connexion of the ' paenula ' with the ordinary man, see A.
Fortescue, The vestments of the Roman Rite, 6 ([Roman] Catholic Truth
Society, 1912). Note also that the N. T. was written in the KoiW) or
common tongue, not in literary Greek ; and that the Sermon is not, like
a Rhetorician's Oration, for display, but a Homily or ' talk ' in the common
tongue. 2191m cc

386 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
centres were the tombs of the Martyrs in the Cemeteries and
Catacombs surrounding the City 1 ; and a pilgrimage to these
ranked as an exercise of piety second only to a pilgrimage to the
Holy Land.
The centre of government, however, was the Lateran. There
stood the episcopium,2 or bishop's house, and the principal
baptistery with its two chapels, the one for men and the other for
women, when they put off their clothing in the rite of baptism.3
This building was restored under Sixtus III. From the Lateran
the local Roman church was administered, i.e. the entire popula
tion of the City, save for the schismatical and heretical remnants
now fast disappearing.
§ 5. The Novatianists, hitherto, had maintained their ground.
They were a sect native to Rome, of unquestioned orthodoxy ; and
this majr account for the indulgence with which, for more than
a hundred and fifty years, they had been regarded. In Rome they
had a bishop and several churches ; till, at last, their churches
were closed by Pope Caelestine and their bishop, Rusticulus,
reduced to ministering in private houses. No such severities
were dealt out to the Novatianists by the Patriarchs of Constanti
nople ; but Cyril put them down at Alexandria. ' The bishops of
Rome and Alexandria ', says Socrates, the friend of Novatianists,
' enjoyed an authority more than spiritual.' * We do not know
how Alexandria acquired it ; but in Italy, Gaul, Africa, and Spain,
the popes, as we have seen, constantly intervened with the
coercive powers of the State at their disposal — such powers as
were granted to them by the legislation of Valentinian I, Gratian,
and, to Leo himself, by Valentinian III.
§ 6. These powers Leo next proceeded to invoke against the
Manichaeans, 443. They had been under the Imperial ban since'
the days of Diocletian. Driven underground by his edict,5 296,
Manichaeism became the more attractive : while in Africa, where
the Imperial legislation against sectaries as often as not failed of
enforcement, Manichaeans multiplied greatly. Augustine himself
spent nine years among them ; not, indeed, as one of their Elect,
but as a Hearer. He had never come across anything amiss in
the prayer-meetings of Hearers 6 ; but of the morals of the Elect
1 Grisar, i. 198 sqq. ; T. and M. i. 367 sqq.
2 Duchesne, Chr. Worship 5, 150, n. 4. 3 Ibid. 312, n. 2.
4 Socr. H. E. vu. xi. 8 Text in J. C. L. Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. 228.
6 Contra Fortunatum, § 3 (Op. viii. 94 b ; P. L. xiii. 113).

chap, xix ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 387
he had formed but a poor opinion.1 This opinion was confirmed
by abominations that came out, after judicial inquiry, 415, in
Paphlagonia and Gaul2 ; and some years later, 421, at Carthage,
where. Augustine was one of the Imperial Commissioners.3 At
Rome, when, as one of their adherents, he went regularly to
Manichaean worship, their congregations were, as yet, undisturbed.
But the disclosures just mentioned, coupled with Augustine's long
series of anti-Manichaean writings, raised suspicions against the
sect ; and, after his death, its numbers were swelled, and its
reputation not improved at Rome by co-religionists from Africa
who had taken refuge in the capital from the invading Vandals.4
Rumours of evil-doing reaehed the ears of Pope Leo,5 and he set
the police to work. They arrested the Manichaean bishop, and
all the Elect in Rome. A mixed tribunal, presided over by the
Pope,6 and consisting of magnates and clergy, conducted an
inquiry : and several, including a youth and a little girl of ten,
were found to have been guilty of ceremonial abominations under
the direction of the bishop. Some who confessed their fault were
put to penance and admitted to the Church ; but the rest were
sentenced to perpetual banishment.7 These were severe measures ;
and Leo thought it advisable to secure the countenance of the
faithful by telling them, in a sermon of December 443, frankly
but not too precisely, of the foul deeds done in Manichaean
worship.8 He also sent the minutes of the Court, by In consortium
vos 9 of 30 January 444, to the bishops of Italy, and bade them be
on their guard against the recrudescence of the evil in their own
dioceses. Finally, at his suggestion, by a rescript 10 of 19 June 445,
Valentinian III renewed, in view of recent disclosures, all the
1 De moribus Manichaeorum, ii, §§ 67-75 (Op. i. 740-4 ; P. L. xxxii.
1373-8). 2 De natura boni, § 47 (Op. viii. 517 r ; P. L. xiii. 570).
3 Possidius, Vita, § 16 (Op. x, app. 268 a ; P.L. xxxii. 46) ; De haeresibus,
§ 46 (Op. viii. 15 b ; P. L. xiii. 36).
4 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 443 (Op. 749 ; P. L. li. 600 a, b) ; for the pro
ceedings of Pope Leo against them, see Tillemont, Mim. xv. 424 sqq. ;
Fleury, xxvi. liv.
5 Leo tells the people to let their parish priests know where Manichaeans
are lodging (Sermo, ix, § 4 [Op. 33 ; P. L. hv. 163 a]) ; and says that they
may be detected by two marks (1) by their keeping Sunday and Monday
as fasts, and (2) by Communion in one kind, for they avoid wine as evil
(Sermo, xhi, § 5 [Op. 160 sq. ; P. L. liv. 279 sq.]). On Communion in one
kind see Fleury, iii. 232, note q.
6 Leo, Ep. viii (Op. 626 ; P. L. liv. 622 b).
7 Ep. vii, § 1 (Op. 624 ; P. L. Hv. 620 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 405.
8 Sermo, xvi, § 4 (Op. 50 ; P. L. liv. 178 c), and Document No. 226.
9 Ep. vii (ut sup.). 10 =Leo, Ep. viii (Op. 626 ; P. L. liv. 622 sq.).
C C 2

388 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
penal legislation against Manichaeans since pagan times. He
forbade their sect under penalty of incapacitation and exile ;
though not, as Diocletian, of burning alive. But, from time to
time, Manichaeans were still discovered ; and a Commonitormm,1
attributed to St. Augustine, supplied rules for dealing with them.
It made sharp distinction between Hearers and Elect. The former
were required to sign an explicit repudiation of Manes and his
errors, and could then be admitted to the status of catechumens,
or of penitents, in the Church, according as they were or were not
baptized ; for, in spite of the false teaching of Manichaeism, the
Church admitted the validity of Manichaean baptism. The
Elect, for all that they were required to anathematize their past
in similar terms, had to submit to long seclusion, under the eye
of clerics or Religious, until they were considered ripe for baptism,
or penance, as the case might be.
§ 7. The Pelagians were the next to attract the notice of St. Leo.
As archdeacon of Rome he had intervened to quiet the contro
versy between semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism by his
Canons, so-called, of 435 ; and to Leo have been attributed,
though on insufficient grounds, two works of the middle of the
fifth century written with the same purpose of conciliation, and
from the point of view of a restrained Augustinianism. They are
the De vocatione omnium gentium,2 c. 440, in which the writer says
that his aim is to effect a reconciliation between the semi-Pelagians
and the orthodox 3 ; and the Hypomnesticon contra Pelagianos,*
which offered a subtle solution of the problem of predestination.
But only a narrow public could have been interested in prolonging
the discussion which had gone on incessantly for half a century ;
and in Rome, at any rate, Pelagians made no figure. They gave
some trouble, however, in Venetia ; of which Septimus, bishop
of Altinum c. 444 (later Altino-Torcello), sent information to
Pope Leo. He told him that, in his neighbourhood, clerics who
had been involved in the heresy of Pelagius had been admitted
to Catholic communion without any repudiation of their errors
being required of them ; and that they were even allowed to
wander from place to place and exercise their ministry at will.
1 Aug. Op. viii, app. 37 sq. (P. L. xhi. 1153-6).
2 Prosper, Op. 847-924 (P. L. li. 647-722) ; Bardenhewer, 515.
3 De voc omn. gent, i, § 1 (Prosper, Op. 847 ; P. L. li. 649 a).
4 Aug. Op. x, app. 1-50 (P. L. xiv. 1611-64) ; written by Marius Mercator,
so Bardenhewer, 488, 509.

chap, xix ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 889
Leo thereupon wrote1 to the metropolitan2 of Aquileia and, § 1,
called attention to the neghgence which had permitted such
abuses ; let him, § 2, summon his provincial synod and require
an explicit recantation from all who have come over to Catholic
communion from this ' proud error ' 3 ; ' proud ' it is, § 3, for
grace, they say, is given according to the merits of the recipient,
whereas, in Scripture, it is a gift. Prompt action, § 4, is essential ;
and the discipline of the Church against wandering clerics * must
be put into force at once. At the end of the century the successors
of Leo are still found on the watch against Pelagianism, towards
the shores of the Adriatic. Gelasius was informed 5 of its prevalence
in Dalmatia, and wrote, 492, to Honorius, bishop of Salona, not
to suffer it.6 He also wrote, 493, to the bishops of Picenum that,
grieved as he felt over the devastation of towns near Rome at the
hands of barbarians, their neglect to deal effectively with Pelagians
in their dioceses grieved him still more.7
§ 8. Pelagianism was a controversy that originated in Rome :
it might well linger on there. Less likely that Eastern heresies
should find a footing in the capital ; but the Eutychians had
estabhshed themselves there, in the persons of merchants from
Egypt who carried on a propaganda near the church of St, Ana-
stasia in the merchant's quarter. Leo went to the church one
Christmas morning, and in a sermon warned the people against
them 8 ; while, in a sermon which appears to belong to a similar
occasion, he makes use of the argument from the Eucharist to the
Incarnation 9 so forcibly employed by Cyril against the Nestorian
view of our Lord's Person, and against the Eutychian view of it
by Theodoret and Pope Galasius.10 It was also against the Euty
chians that, towards the end of Leo's pontificate, the Conflictus
Arnobii cum Serapione u was written to show that Rome was in
1 Leo, Ep. i (Op. 589-93 ; P. L. liv. 593-7)= Jaffe, No. 398.
2 Ep. ii, § 1 (Op. 594 ; P. L. liv. 597) = Jaffe, No. 399.
3 ' Superbi erroris,' Ep. i, § 2 (Op. 591 ; P. L. liv. 594 b). A deliberate
and well-chosen epithet ; for the doctrines of original sin and the need of
grace are offensive to human pride.
4 J. Bingham, Ant. vj. iv, §§ 4, 5.
5 Tract, v in Epp. Rom. Pont. i. 571 sqq., ed. A. Thiel.
6 Ep. iv (P. L. lix. 30-2 ; Epp. Rom. Pont. i. 321 sqq.) ; Jaffe, No. 625.
' Ep. v (P. L. lix. 34 sqq. ; Epp. Rom. Pont. i. 325 sqq.) ; Jaffe, No. 626.
The barbarians were Odovacar and Theodoric the Ostrogoth, then con
tending for supremacy in Italy, Gibbon, c. xxxix (iv. 178 sq.).
8 Sermo, xcvi, § 1 (Op. 372 sq. ; P. L. liv. 466 b, c).
9 Sermo, xci, § 3 (Op. 356 sq. ; P. L. liv. 452 b) : see also Ep. lix, § 2 (Op.
977; P.L. liv. 868 b).
10 Tract, in (Epp. Rom. Pont. i. 541 sqq.). u P. L. lin. 239-322.

390 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
agreement with the great doctors of Alexandria. The vigilance
of that pontificate swept almost every heresy out of Rome ; for
Leo's successor, Pope Hilary, 461-f8, was able to induce the
Emperor Anthemius, 467-f72, when on a visit to the Vatican
Basilica, to respect the unity of the Roman church.1
§ 9. But Arianism found footing enough to impair it ; for
Ricimer, while master of Italy, 456-72, built S. Agata dei Goti,
right in the middle of the City, for his co-religionists who adhered
to the Creed of Ariminum. He maintained an Arian bishop
there ; and it was because the Pope had a dissenting rival and
not because he laid claim to universal jurisdiction that he now
began to sign himself ' bishop of the Catholic church in Rome ',2
or, more curtly, ' bishop of the Catholic church '. Augustine had
been accustomed so to describe himself,3 for he too had a rival
in the Donatist bishop of Hippo ; and Polycarp was ' bishop of
the Catholic church in Smyrna '.4

IV
But let the title belong to the bishop of Rome in ' no other sense
than it could be used by any other bishop, nevertheless Leo
exercised an authority, vaguer indeed but not less real than that
of a bishop in his diocese, over the Catholic Church as a whole.
§ 10. In Rome itself the claim to such authority rested upon the
local tradition of the presence, once of Peter and Paul, and now of
their bodies, or, at least, their tombs, in the Roman, church ; on
precedent ; on the sentiment of unity ; on ' the words of the
Gospel ',5 i.e. on the Petrine texts, and the part played by Peter
in the records of the New Testament. It was an authority, in fact,
which had accumulated by being long taken for granted. Any
suggestion therefore that the powers of the Roman See were other
than inherent was quickly resented ; and, though the Popes did,
in fact, owe much to the grants both of Councils and of Emperors,
Roman sensitiveness was swift to contrast its own ancient inheri
tance of authority with the new powers specifically bestowed,
1 Gelasius, Ep. xxvi, § II (Epp. Rom. Pont. i. 408) ; Jaffe, No. 664.
2 e. g. Pope Hilary, 465, signs himself ' Hilarus episcopus ecclesiae
catholicae urbis Romae ', Mansi, vii. 960 a. On this title see E. Bishop in
J. T. S. (Apr. 1911), xii. 408 sq., and Denny, Papalism, § 1234.
3 Acta Coll. Carth. Dies in, ap. Aug. Op. viii, app. (P. L. xliii. 828).
4 Mart. Pol. xvi, § 2.
5 The Decretum of Damasus [if his], ap. P. L. xiii. 574 b.

chap, xix ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 391
from time to time, by legislation, on the parvenu See of Constanti
nople.1 Moreover, the authority of that See, by every such
bestowal, was defined afresh and, by consequence, limited.
Never defined and, by consequence, the more impressive was the
religious authority associated with the Roman See. At Rome itself,
moreover, such authority found natural support in an undefined
sense of the Roman church being served heir to the universal
dominion of the City ; and so, by right, ' mother and mistress of
all churches ' just as Rome was ' mistress of the world '. ' These
are they ', exclaims St. Leo, preaching on the Feast of St. Peter
and St. Paul, ' who promoted thee, Oh ! Rome, to such glory
that, being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and
royal state, and head of the world through the blessed Peter's
holy See, thou didst attain a wider sway by the worship of God
than by earthly government. For, although thou wert increased
by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea,
yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of
Christ has conquered.' 2 It was not, as the Byzantines would
have it, that in the civil dignity of the City lay the basis of the
ecclesiastical pre-eminence of the See ; but that pre-eminence in
Apostolic foundation was to be expected, as other pre-eminence,
for the Eternal City.3
Nor was this view, natural enough in Rome, without recognition
elsewhere ; for, in the fifth century, the undefined authority of
the Roman See counted for much all over Christendom.
§ 11. In the East the support of Innocent was asked for
Chrysostom, of Caelestine for Cyril, and of Leo for Flavian. On
the other hand, to interfere only as a makeweight, though in
these and other cases, as the decisive makeweight, in a controversy,
as Rome had come to do in the fourth and fifth centuries, was not
the way to improve her claims to universal authority. In the
domestic divisions of the Church of Antioch Rome had figured,
it is true, with Athanasius ; but, nevertheless, on the side of
a minority in schism. In the troubles of Chrysostom and
Eutyches, she had appeared as the mere rival of her old ally,
Alexandria. To the East, then, Rome would continually present
herself as party to a' conflict ; and, while centrifugal tendencies
1 P. L. xiii. 574 b.
2 Leo, Sermo, lxxxii, § 1 (Op. 322 ; P. L. liv. 423 a), and Document
No. 227.
3 Ibid., § 3 (Op. 322 sq. ; P. L. liv. 424 a), and Document No. 227.

392 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III partiii
thus affected Rome no less than the other churches of Christendom,
these latter were perfecting their organization and unity round
a new and rival papacy or potentate at Constantinople. This
organization supplied the East with a new centre of unity in the
chief bishop x at the Byzantine Court ; with a final authority
in the Oecumenical Council ; and in the metropolitans and their
provincial synods with interim, and often sufficient, machinery.
There thus came to be in the East no need of Rome ; and as there
were now, in actuality, two Empires and two languages, Rome still
counted, it may be, on occasion, but in ordinary times was ignored.
§ 12. In the West respect for the Roman See was, as might
be expected, much greater ; but even here there existed degrees
in the recognition of its authority.
Thus, over the two hundred sees of the suburbicarian churches,2
i. e. of the Roman Patriarchate proper in Southern Italy and the
isles, the Pope of Rome possessed an immediate authority like
that of the Pope of Alexandria over the hundred sees of his Patri
archal jurisdiction. He confirmed elections ; he held Councils ;
and no bishop could be consecrated without his permission.
But, beyond the suburbicarian churches, Leo had less authority
than his colleagues of Alexandria and Antioch in their respective
spheres. He had no share in the appointments to bishoprics.
This belonged in the West to the local metropolitans3; or, in
Africa, to the senior by consecration in each province. Nor had
the Pope any place in the election of a metropolitan : it belonged
to the comprovincials. Neither had he a Council of the West at
which, as Pope, he could normally preside, and so make himself
felt in the choice of bishops. He exerted his influence, instead, by
Decretals ; by intervention on complaint, where his decisions
were sometimes received but ill as of an authority badly informed
by comparison with authorities nearer home ; or by Vicars
Apo3tolic. This last turned out an expedient equally limited in
the success which attended it. Damasus, for instance, established
a Vicariate for Eastern Illyricum4; and, though it was continued
by men of discretion and captivity such as his successors Siricius
and Innocent, they could not make a success of it ; nor prevent
that region ultimately passing under the ecclesiastical, as it had
1 This appears to be the significance of the later title, Oecumenical
Patriarch, i. e. the bishop, or patriarch, of the Empire (i) ohovaivri).
2 Denny, Papalism, §§ 1201-6.
3 J. Bingham, Ant. ix. i, § 11 ; Denny. § 1204. 4 Denny, § 1210.

chap, xix ITALY, AND ST. LEO THE GREAT 393
long passed under the civil, control of Constantinople from which
they had endeavoured to preserve it.1 Where they had failed,
it was hardly likely that Zosimus would succeed. He tried the
experiment of a Vicariate for Gaul, in connexion with the see of
Aries 2 ; but in vain.
In Africa there was less for a Pope to do than in any other
region of Latin Christendom ; for Africa stood alone among
Western countries in having developed a more or less standing
system of synods, as effective as those of the East. Thus, besides
the metropohtan and the provincial Council there, we find superior
to these ' a plenary Council of Africa ' under the Primate of Carthage.
This great prelate, indeed, did not possess an authority over his
colleagues equal to that of the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch ;
for the doyen of each province had its episcopal appointments in
his hands, and was himself put into office not by the Primate
but merely by seniority of consecration among his comprovincials.
It was not the Primate of Carthage, then, who, like the Patriarch
of Constantinople, Alexandria, or Antioch, was the keystone of the
ecclesiastical system, but the General Council of Africa. Till the
Vandals destroyed it, the African system of Synods enabled
Africa easily to dispense with Popes and to keep them at a safe
distance. But, here as elsewhere, the Pope was universally recognized
as head of the West. Augustine, for instance, speaks of Pope
' Innocent as president of the Western Church '.3 This only
means that the Pope naturally represented all the Latin churches
in dealing with the East. There was, however, no regular system,
as yet, of provinces and Councils to keep the parts in relation to
the centre ; the members in dependence upon the head : only
ad hoc expedients, Decretals or interventions on request.
§ 13. But, owing to the relation set up between the Pope and
the State, such expedients issued in the enjoyment by the Pope of
an authority over the Church in the West that proved very real.
The Defensores ecclesiae,* often chosen from Scholastici 5 or barris-
1 Denny, §§ 1209, 1211. 2 Ibid., §§ 1173-8.
3 Aug. Contra lui. Pelag. i, § 13 (Op. x. 503 v ; P.L. xliv. 648).
4 First heard of in Rome, 366, when Damasus, through his Defensor,
claimed the Liberian basilica then occupied by Arsinus : see the letter of
Valentinian I, ordering its restitution, in Cod. Avell. Ep. 6 (C. S. E. L. xxxv.
49). 5 The privilege of employing Scholastici as Defensores was petitioned for
by the African Councils of 401 and 407 (Cod. can. eccl. Afr., cc. 75, 96, 97 ;

394 THE CHURCH UNDER VALENTINIAN III
ters, called in the secular courts to enforce ecclesiastical decisions.
Such decisions, where given by the Pope, had behind them the
Imperial legislation ; and, to see that they were carried out, the
Pope sent his Defensores into every country in the West. In
Africa, 419, this appeal to the secular arm was resented ; and so,
in 465, was the appearance of a papal Defensor in Spain.1 But
they could not have been successfully resisted indefinitely. Had
it not been for the fall of the Western Empire, the system would
have led to a rapid centralization of the Western Church in the
hands of the Pope ; and he would have attained a supremacy
such as he did not acquire till the Hildebrandine era. But Vandals
in Africa and Visigoths in Gaul and Spain took no notice of papal
Defensores. In those realms, the Imperial legislation, which
armed them, did not run. In Italy, under Odovacar,2 476-t93,
and Theodoric 3 the Ostrogoth, 493-t526, it continued in force * ;
and, with it, papalism, tb this extent, took root. For the Roman
spirit could never be exorcised from Italy ; and, as the years
receded from the death of St. Leo, 10 November 461, it received
ever-fresh consecration by its connexion with the memory of that
great Pope — calm, strenuous, and majestic — in whom it was
ideally impersonated.
Mansi, iii. 778 b, 802), and granted by Honorius 15 Nov. 407 (Cod. Theod.
xvi. ii. 38) : see also Possidius, Vita Aug., § 12 (Op. x, app. 265 B ; P. L.
xxxii. 43). If chosen from the scholastici, the defensor had the right of
pleading in court, J. Bingham, Ant. in. xi, § 4 ; D. C. A. i. 33 sqq.
1 Jaffe, Nos. 560-1 ; Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 678 sq.
2 Gibbon, cc. xxxvi, xxxix (iv. 49, 176 sq.).
3 Ibid., c. xxxix (iv. 170 sqq.) ; Cambr. Med. Hist I, c. xv.
4 Ibid. (iv. 194).

CHAPTER XX
THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82
During the ten years that elapsed between the Council of Chal
cedon and the death of St. Leo, the Church of the Empire was
chiefly occupied in holding out against the reaction in favour of
Monophysitism x that followed upon its overthrow at the Council.

A reaction was to be expected on grounds doctrinal, political,
and racial.
§ 1. Doctrinally, the Council had given a triumph to an anti-
Cyrilline orthodoxy : to the standpoint of Leo and Theodoret
rather than of Cyril. True, it condemned both Nestorianism and
Eutychianism alike. But it was hailed as an act of reparation to
his cause, if not by Nestorius himself, at any rate by his followers ;
and it put Cyril into the shade by lending no countenance to his
third letter to Nestorius — the letter with the Twelve Anathema
tisms ; by substituting for his ' One Nature Incarnate ' the formula
of Proclus ' One Person in two Natures ' ; and by drafting its
Definition in such conformity to the Tome as to show that it pre
ferred Leo's balanced statement of the doctrine of the Incarnation
to the presentation of it customary with Cyril. Certainly, the
Council assumed the harmony of the official language of Cyril with
its own and the Leonine formulation. But it ignored the real Cyril,
and abandoned him for Leo. Not content, Cyril's friends wanted
these decisions of the Council reversed, and Leo sacrificed to Cyril ;
nor were they without prospect of success. Stronger after Chal
cedon than before, they did not hesitate to drop Eutyches, and they
improved upon his doctrine. He made no provision for the per
manence of our Lord's manhood ; for he tended to think of His
human nature as having been absorbed, after the Incarnation, by
His Divine Nature. Monophysitism proper 2 now began to conceive
1 Gibbon, c. xlvii (v. 126 sqq.) ; C. M. H. i. 515 sqq. ; Tixeront, Hist.
Dogmas, iii. 99 sqq. ; Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 455 sqq.
2 Eutychianism, of course, was ' proper ' or ' real ' monophysitism. But
by 'proper', in the text, is meant monophysitism in the usual or con-

396 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
of the Divine Nature and the human nature as coalescing, at the
Incarnation, into one composite Nature ; with the result that the
Lord's Sacred Humanity, necessary, as all in that age would have
agreed, for our Spiritual sustenance in the Eucharist, could be
genuinely spoken of as permanent. Thus the resistance of the
Cyrilline or, as it now became, the Monophysite party x was a
growing menace to the dominant orthodoxy.
§ 2. The doctrinal was reinforced by a political opposition,
which rendered it the more threatening. At the Latrocinium the
Cyrillines had carried all before them owing to the influence of
Eutyches at Court. But by the death of Theodosius II their hopes
were dashed. The orthodoxy of Pulcheria, and Marcian's firm
conduct of business at Chalcedon in that interest, gave a triumph
to the opponents of the Monophysites which that party continued
to resent. There seemed, moreover, to be opening out some pros
pect of a quarrel between Leo and the Byzantine Court over the
twenty-eighth canon ; and it looked as if the Pope, who had been
the undoing of their triumph at the second Council of Ephesus,
might now be counted on to play into their hands by repudiating
the Council of Chalcedon and the Government behind it. But Leo
was too great a man to be betrayed into endangering the unity of
the Church. His opposition to the canon rose largely out of con
cern for unity. He saw in the old system of the episcopate ranged
under the primacy of the Roman See the only safeguard of ecclesi
astical unity y specially at a time when the unity of the Empire
was breaking up into two Empires, with two languages, and when
the new pope at Constantinople, by contrast with the Roman See
which had less than ever to fear from the moribund Empire in the
West, would certainly not be able to maintain his independence
of the autocrat on the Eastern throne. Leo therefore took care to let
the breach over the twenty-eighth canon be closed ; and set to work,
in a series of letters, to stiffen the Government in its resolve to con
solidate the decisions of Chalcedon. And not without reason, could
Leo have forseen that, within the next two centuries, the Govern
ment, face to face with centrifugal movements within the Empire,
would make frequent attempts at compromise, with* view to com
prehension of Chalcedonian and Monophysite in one communion.
ventional sense. Its representatives were Dioscorus, Timothy the Cat, &c.
They would say that while Nestorians and Chalcedonians separated the
two Natures and Eutychians confused them, they simply distinguished
them, Tixeront, iii. 107. 3 Tixeront, iii. Ill sq., 120 sq.

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 397
§ 8. Such movements owed their strength to racialism. The
fact that the Byzantine Court was itself enforcing the decisions
of the Council proved enough to render them odious to the populace
in Egypt and in Syria. Coptic and Syriac respectively were spoken
in these Patriarchates : they had never adopted Greek. And the
prevalence of the vernacular, after centuries of attempted Hel
lenism, represents the measure of hostility, racial no less than
political, to Imperial pressure. On such hostility the Monophysite
party could count. II
And this brings us to the events of the reaction : which we may
trace, past its open triumph in the Encyclical1 oi the usurper Basi-
liscus, 476, to the veiled welcome which it received by the Henoticon 2
of Zeno, 482.
§ 4. Its progress varied with changes in the political scene.
Marcian died,3 27 January 457. He had been chief of the staff to
the Patrician Aspar * ; and was succeeded by Aspar's steward,5
Leo I, 457-f74. To this Emperor's accession belong three points
of interest, (a) Leo was the first sovereign for sixty years not of
the House of Theodosius ; for that family, which for a full genera
tion had occupied either throne, had now ceased to rule : in the
East, by the death of Pulcheria,6 July 453, and in the West by the
murder of Valentinian III,7 455. Leo thought it an indignity that
its surviving princesses should remain captives of the Vandals ;
and in 462 he ransomed and brought back from Carthage the
Empress Eudoxia, widow of Valentinian III and daughter of
Theodosius II, with her daughter Placidia.8 (b) Next, Leo was the
nominee of Aspar, an Alan or Goth 9 by race and by religion an
Arian. Aspar and his son Ardaburius were strong enough to give
away the throne, but not to seize it ; for it was impossible, as yet,
for any but a Roman and a Catholic to succeed to the inheritance
of Theodosius the Great. But, even so, a prince who was not of
the Theodosian House needed further legitimation. In the absence
of any survivor of that House to give it, Leo was held to have
1 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 4 (P. G. lxxxvi, 2599 sqq.).
2 Ibid. iii. 14 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2619 sqq.).
3 Tillemont, Hist, des Emp. vi. 305. 4 Ibid. 281.
5 Ibid. 362. 6 Ibid. 297. ' Ibid. 253.
8 She became the wife of the Emperor Olybrius, 472 ; ibid. 378.
9 Ibid. 409.

398 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
received it at his consecration by the Patriarch Anatolius, 449-f 58.
He was thus (c) the first of sovereigns to receive the crown at the
hands of the bishops. In 468, to escape from the tutelage of Aspar
and his Goths, the Emperor placed himself under the protection of
Zeno and a bodyguard of Isaurians, and 'gave him his daughter
Ariadne in marriage.1 He then bestowed the succession on their
little son,2 Leo II, and died shortly afterwards. The first and only
act of the child was to place the crown on the head of his father,
1 8 November 474 ; and thus Zeno became Emperor, largely by
the aid of the Dowager-Empress Verina.3 But Verina was not
minded to part with the authority she had thus bestowed ; and,
finding her son-in-law disinclined to share it with her, she took
advantage of the unpopularity of the Emperor and his Isaurians
to stir up against him her brother, Basiliscus.4 The usurper had
proved his incompetence when, as commander of the expedition
which Leo I sent against the Vandals, he had suffered signal defeat
at the hands of Gaiseric 5 ; but he now maintained himself for
a time — in the fateful year, 476, of the fall of the Western Empire —
by relying upon the support of the Monophysite party6; while
Zeno and Ariadne took refuge in Isauria.7 Basiliscus was induced
not only to abrogate the theological decisions of the Council of
Chalcedon,8 but also to abolish its Patriarchate of Constantinople.9
But this was a blunder. The Patriarch Acacius,10 471— f 89, at once
took up the challenge ; and held out for his lawful sovereign, till
Zeno re-entered the city, July 477. The turn of events thus placed
Chalcedonian orthodoxy once more in power.11 But Acacius became
alarmed at the growing discords of the Empire ; and persuaded
himself that it would be wise to make terms, if possible, with the
defeated party. Taking advantage therefore of the improvement
manifest in Monophysite statements of doctrine by contrast with
the original Eutychianism, the Patriarch advised the Emperor
that, at last, reconciliation of Catholic and Monophysite was not
1 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 15 (Op. 307 ; P- G. lxxxvi, 2541) ; Tillemont, Hist.
des Emp. vi. 402 sq.
2 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 17 (Op. 309 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2545) ; Tillemont, vi. 418.
3 Ibid. 472.
4 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 3 (Op. 335 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2597 a) ; Tillemont, vi.
481. His usurpation lasted Oct. 475-July 477.
5 Ibid. 398 sqq. 3 Ibid. 483. ' Ibid. 482.
3 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 4 (Op. 335 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2597 o).
9 Ibid. iii. 6 (Op. 340 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2609).
30 Tillemont, Mim. xvi. 285-388.
11 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 7-9 (Op. 340-3 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2609-13).

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 399
impossible.1 In the ' statesmanlike ' 2 document called the Heno-
ticon, 482, Zeno made the attempt. Its effect was also ' statesman
like ', to purchase the civil unity of the State at the expense of
schism in the Church ; for the churches of the Empire, during the
Acacian Schism, 484-519, were out of communion with Rome and
the West. But from the accession of Justin I, 518-J27, a Chalce
donian reaction set in. It reached its height under Justinian,
527— f 65 ; whose schemes of reconquest 3 in Italy and Africa
required once more the support of the Roman See. Thus the
churches of East and West were reunited in common acknowledge
ment of the Council of Chalcedon ; but at the expense of disunion
in most of the churches of the East. For thirty -five years James
Baradaeus (i.e. Al-Baradai — the ragged — for he went about in the
guise of a beggar), bishop of Edessa 543-f78, laboured at the
erection of Monophysite churches independent of the official
hierarchy of the Empire. From the date of his death, a ' Jacobite '
or Monophysite prelate has stood over against the ' Melchite ' or
Royalist bishop in every important city of the East ; and, from
the first, the Monophysites carried the majority with them in
Egypt, in Mesopotamia or the hinterland of Antioch, and in
Armenia. Ill
To return, then, to the ecclesiastical events4 with which the re
action after Chalcedon began. It raised up trouble in all the Easter
Patriarchates, save that of Constantinople ; and for thirty years,
451-82, the history of the great sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem turns simply upon the success of Dyophysite or Mono
physite in gaming or regaining possession, according to the religious
pohcy of the prince in power.
1 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 12, 13 (Op. 345 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2620).
2 Gibbon, c. xlvii, n. 74 (v. 128). 3 Ibid., cc. xii, xliii (vol. iv).
4 The authorities are : (1) Zacharias Rhetor [= scholasticus, barrister],
bishop of Mitylene in Lesbos 536-f53. In 491 he wrote in Greek an
ecclesiastical history of events in Palestine and Alexandria from 450. It
is now preserved in an abridgement known as books iii-vi of The Syriac
Chronicle of Z. of M., tr. F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (1899). It was
written from the Monophysite point of view (Bardenhewer, 553) ; (2)
Evagrius, secretary to Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch 569-f94, wrote his
Hist. Eccl. in six books, covering the period 431-594 — ' ouvrage serieux et
bien documents ', in continuation of Socr., Soz., and Thdt., and from the
orthodox point of view (Bardenhewer, 554) ; (3) Liberatus, a deacon of
Carthage, wrote, c. 560-6, his Breviarium, covering the years 428-553. For
these authorities, see Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 455, n. 1.

400 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
§ 5. Thus, in Palestine, Juvenal1 returned from the Council, as
Patriarch of Jerusalem, 451-f 8, to find the monks of ' the three
Palestines ' in an uproar at the instigation of an ex-religious named
Theodosius.2 This worthy had played his part at the Council3 ;
but, returning to Palestine before Juvenal, had set to work to vilify
it for having, in effect, rehabilitated Nestorius4 and condemned
Cyril by deposing his successor, Dioscorus. Monks abounded in'
Palestine. There were the solitaries of the Jordan and the Dead
Sea, undisciplined save for the few who had come under the hand
of St. Euthymius,5 377— f 473. There were communities also, such
as that of the archimandrite, Passarion,6 in Jerusalem ; or the
double convent, for men and for women, on the Mount of Olives.
It had been founded by Melania the younger 7 ; but, since her
death, 31 December 439, it had been ruled by her almoner and
confidant, Gerontius,8 f 484. Pilgrims, as well as ascetics, flourished
in Palestine ; and most illustrious of these, there now resided in
Jerusalem a greater lady than Melania — Eudocia, the widow of
Theodosius II. To her the Council of Chalcedon, which the monk
Theodosius was so busy in denouncing, was the Council of her
sister-in-law, Pulcheria 9 ; her Council, and that of her departed
husband, was the second synod of Ephesus where Dioscorus, now in
exile at Gangra, had had his triumph. The ex-Empress therefore
easily lent herself to the party of the insurgent Religious.10 It
enjoyed the favour also of Gerontius, and of personages among
the solitaries as well. Now Juvenal had once seconded Cyril and
Dioscorus ; but he had gone over to ' the enemy ' at Chalcedon.
He was coming back with the reward of a Patriarchate for his
' treachery '. Theodosius and the monks determined that he
should be resisted ; while, both into his own see and into the sees
of his suffragans, bishops of one mind with the opposition were to
1 Tillemont, Mim. xv. 196-207.
2 For this affair see the two letters of Marcian addressed, after its suppres
sion, to the monks of Sinai and Jerusalem (Cone. Chalc. iii [Mansi, vii. 483-
96]) ; and Cyril of Scythopolis [a. d. 523-f60], Vita Euthymii, cc. Ixxii-
lxxxvi. The ' three Palestines ' had their metropolitical sees respectively at
Jerusalem, Scythopolis, and Bostra.
3 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 5 (Op. 293 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2514 a).
4 Vita Euthymii, c. lxxiii {Cotelerius, Eccl. Grace Man. ii. 261 ; Lutetiae
Parisiorum, 1681).
6 Ibid., cc. xv, xiii (Cotelerius, ii. 213, 233 sq.) ; Fleury, xxvni. xxvii ;
Tillemont, Mim. xvi. 76-96.
6 Ibid., c. xiii. ' Tillemont, Mim. xiv. 232-53.
8 Vita Euthymii, c. lxxiv (Cotelerius, ii. 262 b).
9 Tillemont, Mim.xv. 171-83. 10 Vita Euili., c. lxxxii (Cot. ii. 269).

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 401
be intruded. The programme was carried out to the letter ; and
Juvenal arrived, under Imperial escort,1 only to find the gates of
Jerusalem closed against him and Theodosius installed in the See.2
He took flight to Constantinople ; and, while Theodosius pro
ceeded to set up bishops of his party in the sees of Palestine,
Juvenal managed to enlist the intervention of the Eastern Sove
reigns. At his request, Marcian wrote, c. 453, to the monks of
Palestine ; bade them take no offence at the expression In tivo
natures as if it were a novelty ; and vindicated the Council of Chal
cedon against the accusation of having rehabilitated Nestorianism.3
Pulcheria also wrote to the monks,4 and to Bassa the abbess of
a convent at Jerusalem,5 to justify her proceedings and to clear
the Council against the calumnies of the intruder Theodosius.
From letters the Emperor at length went on to action, and issued
orders for the arrest of Theodosius, who escaped to Mount Sinai,6
and the reinstatement of Juvenal, July 453. Juvenal got things
back into good order by a Council, which wrote a synodal letter 7
to remove mistrust and was itself the recipient of a reassuring com
munication from Marcian.8
At the same time Pope Leo intervened. On 11 March 453 he
had already begun to ask for further information about the monks
of Palestine in a letter9 to his agent, Julian, bishop of Cos ; and,
21 March, he wrote to Julian to say that he had not only complied
with a request from Marcian that he should remonstrate with the
Empress Eudocia but had induced her son-in-law, Valentinian III,
to do the same.10 He wrote also, 15 June, to the monks11 in ex
planation of his Tome ; and in a letter, of the same date, to Eudocia 12
he exhorted her to reclaim those of them to whom she had lent her
patronage and to assure them that the Catholic Faith is equally
1 Chron. Zach. Mit iii. 5, 6.
2 So Marcian, in his letter to the Monks of Sinai, Cone Chalc. iii (Mansi,
vii. 484 d).
3 Cone Chalc. iii. 9 (Mansi, vii. 487-96) ; Fleury, xxvni. xii.
4 Cone Chalc iii. 14 (Mansi, vii. 509-12).
5 Cone Chalc. iii. 13 (Mansi, vii. 505-8). 6 Mansi, vii. 516 a.
7 Cone Chalc. iii. 20 (Mansi, vii. 520 sq.).
8 Cone. Chalc. iii. 15 (Mansi, vii. 514-18) ; Fleury, xxvni. xliv.
9 Ep. cxiii, § 3 (Op. i. 1192 ; P. L. liv. 1026) ; Jaffe, No. 489 ; Fleury,
xxvm. xl.
10 Ep. cxvii, § 3 (Op. i. 1209 ; P. L. liv. 1038 b) ; Jaffe, No. 493 ; Fleury,
xxvm. xiv.
11 Ep. exxiv (Op. i. 1236-43 ; P. L. liv. 1061-8) ; Jaffe, No. 500 ; Fleury,
xxvm. xiv.
12 Ep. exxiii (Op. i. 1234 sq. ; P. L. liv. 1060 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 499 ; Fleury,
xxvm. xiv.
2191 III t) d

402 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 part iii
opposed to. Nestorianism and to Eutychianism ; she will let him
know, of course, how far she succeeds. We do not know how the
Empress took this admonition, at first ; but the troubles that
came upon her by the assassination of her son-in-law and by the
captivity of her daughter Eudoxia and her grand-daughters Eudocia
and Placidia, who were carried off to Carthage, shook her resolution,
and caused her to think about returning to the communion of the
Catholic Church. She turned for advice to the oracles of the desert ;
and, while St. Simeon Stylites warned her that ' that scoundrel
Theodosius was the instrument of the devil '/ Euthymius informed
her that the calamities which had befallen her family in Italy were
a punishment for yielding to his villainy. Let her renounce the
communion of Dioscorus, and return to the allegiance of Juvenal.2
She took the advice : and the effect of her reconciliation with the
Patriarch did much to allay the disorders of Palestine.3 They
disappeared with the capture of Theodosius by the Imperial police,4
and his death in a monastery at Constantinople,5 30 December 457.
Marcian himself had died on 26 January of that year ; and next
year died Juvenal, five years after restoration to his see. He had
held it for forty years,6 418-f58.
§ 6. In Egypt 7 the resistance of the Monophysites was much
more serious. Dioscorus had been exiled to Gangra in Paphlagonia,
where he died, 4 September 454. So long as he lived the populace
of Alexandria, with Egypt as a whole, refused to regard him as
other than their lawful Patriarch. Four of his suffragans, however,
had voted with the majority at Chalcedon 8 ; and they presently
appeared with letters from the Emperor to the Prefect of Egypt
bidding him proceed to the election of a bishop of Alexandria.
The choice fell upon Proterius, to whom, as archpriest, Dioscorus
had committed the care of the church in his absence ; and he was
consecrated by the four. But the election was the work of the
Court and the city nobles ; and, in spite of the connexion of Pro
terius with his late chief Dioscorus, the mob broke out into riots
against him. With them it was a question not so much of prefer-
1 Vita Euth., c. lxxxiii (Cot. ii. 271 a).
2 Ibid., c. lxxxv (Cot. ii. 272 sq.).
3 Ibid., c. lxxxvi (Cot. ii. 273). Gerontius, however, held out, Fleury,
xxvni. lx. 4 Chron. Zach. Mit. iii. 9.
6 Duchesne, Hist ane iii. 473, n. 1. " Fleury, xxix. xiii.
7 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 5, .8 (Op. 292 sqq. ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2509 sqq.); Liberatus,
Breo. xiv, xv (P. L. Ixviii. 1016 sqq.); Chron. Zach. Mit. iv. 1 ; Fleury,
xxvni. xxxv ; Neale, Patr. Al. ii. 1 sqq. 8 Mansi, vi. 681 e, 684 a.

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 403
ence x for Of two natures as against In two natures, as for Egyptian
nationalism against Byzantine Imperialism. The rioters, of course,
were suppressed, at last, by a strong force of soldiery sent from
Constantinople ; but Proterius could never dispense with a mili
tary escort, so insecure was his hold, till the death of Marcian.
That event gave his opponents the chance they were awaiting.
On the accession of Leo I, 457-f74, a monk named Timothy,
nicknamed the Cat, took advantage of the absence in Upper Egypt
of the General in command to raise a tumult. The result of it was
that, 16 March, he was consecrated in the church of the Caesareum
to be Patriarch of Alexandria, 457-J77, in true succession, as his
adherents would say, to their late Patriarch, Dioscorus. Timothy
had but two consecrators, both of whom had previously been
deposed by Proterius and the Egyptian synod 2 ; and, after playing
the anti-Patriarch for a few days,3 he was expelled by the General,
Dionysius. Whereupon his partisans took their revenge by hunting
Proterius into the baptistery of the church of Quirinus, where they
murdered him on Maundy Thursday, 28 March, 457. They then
dragged his remains round the city and, after feasting upon them
like cannibals, burnt them and scattered his ashes to the winds.4
The friends of Proterius lost no time in putting their case before
the Emperor Leo I,5 and his Patriarch, Anatolius,6 at Constanti
nople. Meanwhile, ' rumours of the misdeeds of the Alexandrian
populace ' 7 reached Pope Leo by 1 June 457 ; but it was only
by ' the report of his brother and fellow-bishop Anatolius ' 8 that he
was enabled to take precise note of the situation. The Monophy
sites, Anatolius informed him, had demanded another Council to
revise the conclusions of Chalcedon, and the Emperor had refused
their request. This, of course, was to the good ; but Pope Leo still
thought it desirable to keep the Government loyal to its refusal.
He therefore wrote three letters,9 on 11 July, to the Emperor, to
Anatohus, and to his agent Julian, bishop of Cos, pointing out the
supreme importance of holding fast to the Synod of Chalcedon, and
1 As apparently in Jerusalem, where, says Evagrius, it all arose over the
substitution of one letter, of iv for Ik, H. E. ii. 5 (Op. 294 ; P. G. lxxxvi.
2513 c). 2 Cone Chalc. iii. 22 (Mansi, vii. 525 o).
3 Cone Chalc. iii. 22, 23 (Mansi, vii. 524-35) ; Fleury, xxix. ii.
4 Cone Chalc. iii. 22 (Mansi, vii. 526 sq.).
5 Ibid. iii. 22 (Mansi, vii. 524 sqq.).
6 Ibid. iii. 23 (Mansi, vii. 531 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxix. iv.
7 Leo, Ep. cxliv (Op. 1299 ; P. L. liv. 1112 sq.).
8 Ep. cxlv, § 1 (Op. 1300 ; P. L. liv. 1113 b).
9 Epp. cxlv-cxlvii (Op. 1300-6 ; P. L. liv. 1113-16) ; Jaffe, Nos. 520-3.
D d 2

404 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
begging the Emperor to provide a Catholic bishop for Alexandria.
These representations he followed up, on 1 September, by a second
series x : to the Emperor, expressing his gratification that his
Majesty had guaranteed the inviolability of Chalcedon — for, till the
death of Aspar, f471, it must be remembered, Leo was surrounded
by Arian influences ; and to the bishops of leading sees, such as
Basil, Patriarch of Antioch, 456-f8, and Euxitheus, bishop of
Thessalonica, assuring them of his confidence that, on this point,
the Government was sound. During the autumn, however, the
partisans of Timothy sent petitions 2 to put it to the proof ; and,
though these emanated only from four bishops,3 the four had the
hardihood to declare that their Creed was that of Nicaea only,
neither more nor less ; that, while they accepted the two Councils
of Ephesus — the assemblies, that is, of Cyril and Dioscorus — they
repudiated the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, Court
Councils both ; and, in conclusion, that they would be obliged by
an answer being forwarded to their archbishop, Timothy. The
Emperor referred this communication to Anatolius, and asked for
the opinion of the Home Synod as well on the validity of the con
secration of Timothy as on the point of upholding the Council of
Chalcedon.4 The Synod replied that Timothy's consecration was
null, and that to reopen the decisions of the Council would be to
open the flood-gates of confusion in every church.5 A circular
letter, in terms very much the same as those of the letter to Ana
tolius, was next sent to the chief bishops of Christendom 6 and to
three famous solitaries 7 — Simeon Stylites, James, and Baradat —
who, in popular esteem, took rank with them. The replies were
unanimous. From bishops, we may select the replies of Leo and
Anatolius. ' We can see no need ', wrote Leo,8 1 December 457,
' to, § 1, reconsider the decisions taken at Chalcedon. Indeed, § 2,
the proposal comes from anti-Christ. Timothy, § 3, is a usurper.
1 Leo, Epp. cxlviii-cl (Op. 1305-12; P. L. liv. 1117-21); Jaffe, Nos. 524-6.
2 Cone Chalc. iii. 24 (Mansi, vii. 536 sq.) ; Fleury, xxix. iv.
3 Leo, Ep. clvii, § 2 (Op. 1327; P. L. liv. 1133 a).
4 Cone Chalc. iii. 21 (Mansi, vii. 521 sq.) ; Fleury, xxix. v.
0 Ibid. iii. 26 (Mansi, vii. 537 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxix. v. The other side
said that Anatolius did not want ' the honours unjustly granted to his See '
to be brought into question, Chron. Zach. Mit iv. 5.
6 For their names, appended to Cone Chalc. iii. 21, see Mansi, vii. 523 sq.
7 Thdt. Rei. Hist, xxi, xxvi, xxvii (Op. iii. 1234 sqq. ; P. G. lxxxii.
1431 sqq.), and Fleury, xxix. vi-viii, xviii. For the letter of Baradat, in
reply, see Gone Chalc. iii. 61 (Mansi, vii. 623 sq.) ; Fleury, xxix. xii.
8 Ep. clvi (Op. 1321 sqq.; P. L. liv. 1127 sqq.); Cone Chalc. iii. 25
(Mansi, vii. 537) ; Jaffe, No. 532.

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 405
The petitions, § 4, presented to your Majesty by either side furnish
argument enough : the first, from Catholics, is authenticated by
names ; the other is unsigned, and has therefore no title to con
sideration. Let your Majesty, therefore, § 5, seize the opportunity
to evince your loyalty to the Faith ; of which, § 6, I hope, before
long, to send you a detailed exposition. Anatolius was equally
emphatic against reopening the questions closed at Chalcedon.
Sixty metropolitans, in all, had been consulted with a view to their
consulting their synods ; and of the sixty, thirty-six of whose
letters are extant,1 all but one, Amphilochius, bishop of Side
426-f58, and metropolitan of Pamphylia I, rephed in favour of
ranking Chalcedon along with Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus
as an Oecumenical Council ; while even Amphilochius repudiated
Timothy.2 St. Simeon Stylites, as he informs us in an extant letter
to his Patriarch, Basil of Antioch, concurred.3 The Government
thus succeeded in circumventing the demand for a Council, and yet
in securing the authoritative decision of the Church ; for the con
sent of the episcopate is final by whatever method, of votes collected
by letter or of votes given in Synod, it be attained. To this consent
Leo added the weight of his ' second Tome ', 17 August 458, as
the exposition4 which he promised5 to the Emperor has been
called.6 It was intended for the benefit of Timothy. But, though
the Emperor pressed it upon him,7 Timothy refused it absolutely.
' Its statements ', he said, ' are Nestorian.' 8 Timothy therefore
was banished, at first to Gangra,9 and ultimately, as he continued
his role of agitator, to the Crimea10 ; and there he remained till 475,
the year of the death of Leo I, fervently occupied in defending his
own theological position and combating the tenets alike of Euty -
ches and of the Council of Chalcedon.11 No sooner was he got rid of
than the Government proceeded to fill his place. The Proterians
elected another Timothy, 459-f82,12 nicknamed Salofaciolus, or
1 Cone Chalc. iii. 25-60 (Mansi, vii. 537-622) ; Liberatus, Breviarium,
c. xv (P. L. Ixviii. 1018 o) ; Fleury, xxix. xii.
3 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 10 (Op. 302 sq. ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2532 b) ; Chron. Zach.
Mit iv. 7.
3 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 10 (Op. 303 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2533) ; Fleury, xxix. ix.
4 Ep. clxv (Op. i. 1353-1400 ; P. L. liv. 1155-90).
6 Ep. clxvi, § 6 (Op. i. 131:5 ; P. L. liv. 1131 o).
6 sc. by Pope Martin I, 649-t53 (P. L. liv. 1151-2 ad fin.).
7 Chron. Z. M. iv. 5 ad fin. 8 Ibid. 6. » Ibid. 9.
10 Liberatus, Brev., c. xvi (P. L. Ixviii. 1019 d) ; Chron. Z. M. iv. 11.
11 Chron. Z. M. iv. 12.
12 Ibid. iv. 10 ; Evagrius, H. E. ii. 11 (Op. 303 sq. ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2534 o).

406 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
Wobble-cap x ; and, by his opponents, the Royalist or Melkite.
He was thus the first to bear the name by which the nationalist and
Monophysite majority in Syria and Egypt afterwards marked
their contempt for the Orthodox remnant as slaves to the religion
of the Court. Personally, however, they liked Timothy Salo-
faciolus. He had a good heart, and a kind word for everybody,
even for the fanatics who regarded his communion with horror.
' We love you well,' they used to say to him in the street, ' though
we do not want you for our bishop.' 2 The last three extant letters 3
of Pope Leo were written, 18 August 460, to congratulate the new
Patriarch, and his clergy, and certain Egyptian bishops, on his
election. ' Let him be on his guard against heresy, and keep us
constantly informed at Rome.' Leo, perhaps, had reason to think
him too accommodating * ; and so it turned out. For the Catholic
Patriarch of Alexandria consented to restore the name of Dioscorus
to the diptychs 5 ; till 478, when he received a reprimand 6 from
Pope Simplicius, 468-f83.
The accession of Zeno,7 474-f91, made but slight difference, at
first, to the ecclesiastical situation in Egypt ; for though, when in
command at Antioch, he had compromised himself with the Mono
physites, as Emperor he suffered himself, like his predecessor, to be
kept loyal to the Tome and the Council by the Patriarch of Con
stantinople. But Acacius carried less weight with the usurper,
Basiliscus,8 475-7,who had in his train friends of the exiledTimothy
of Alexandria. Yielding to their suggestions and, it is said, to the
entreaties of his wife Zenonis, the intruder made a bid for the
support of the Monophysites throughout the Empire. He recalled
their leader Timothy, and handed him the Encyclical,9 476. It
was a document entirely in harmony with Timothy's ideas ; for by
it the Government gave its sanction to the two Councils of Ephesus,10
and denounced at once the errors of Eutyches and the novelties of
1 Chron. Z. M. p. 62, n. 1.
2 Liberatus, Brev. xvi (P. L. Ixviii. 1021 a).
3 Leo, Epp. clxxi-clxxiii (Op. i. 1435-8 ; P. L. liv. 1215-18) ; Jaffe, Nos.
548-50. 4 Chron. Z. M. v. 5. 6 Ibid. iv. 10.
6 Ep. xi (P. L. Iviii. 49 c) ; Jaffe, No. 580.
' Evagrius, H. E. ii. 17, iii. 1 (Op. 309 sq., 333 sq. ; P. G. lxxxvi, 2545 sqq.,
2593 sqq.) ; Fleury, xxix. xxxiii.
8 Evagrius, iii. 3 (Op. 334 sq. ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2597 sq.) ; Fleury, xxix.
xxxiii. ,
9 Ibid. iii. 4 (Op. 335-7 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2599-2604) ; Chron. Z. M. v. 1 ;
Fleury, xxix. xlvi ; tr. in J. C. Ayer, Source-book far ancient Church History,
523-6, and Document No. 234. 10 P. G. lxxxvi. 2600 d.

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 407
Chalcedon.1 All the bishops were required to confirm it by their
signatures ; and while, for clerics, refusal was to involve deposi
tion, on the part of the laity any demonstration in favour of Chal
cedon was to be visited with exile and confiscation.2 Timothy,
after eighteen years of exile, 458-76, would now feel that his hour
of triumph was come ; and he lost no time in making the most of
it. Hastening from the Crimea to Constantinople, he landed amid
the cheers of Alexandrian sailors ; and was escorted by the people
to lodgings reserved for him in the Palace.3 Thence he intended,
by making a solemn entry into St. Sophia,4 to force the hand of
Acacius. But Acacius was well aware that, if the anti- Chalcedonian
reaction were to succeed, then with the doctrine of that Council the
newly won powers of the See of Constantinople would also go by
the board. So at his nod, no doubt, the Chalcedonian monks of the
capital 5 barred the way of Timothy to the cathedral. Acacius
clothed its pulpit and altar in black 6 for his reception, and closed
all the other churches against him. The Eutychians also who,
equally with the Catholics, had come in for Timothy's displeasure,
joined in to repel him. ' Let him go back into exile, to where he
came from ! ' 7 Foiled in the capital, Timothy thought it prudent
to withdraw ; but, on his way home, he endeavoured to retaliate
upon Acacius by stopping at Ephesus to reinstate in that see
a bishop named Paul whom the Ephesians had put in without
reference to the see of Constantinople, or to the canon of Chalcedon
which gave it authority over them. Acacius had therefore deposed
him ; and Timothy halted to summon a Council at Ephesus. The
Council reaffirmed the autonomy of Ephesus, deposed Acacius,8
and wrote to the Emperor to beg his support.9 Timothy then con
tinued his journey to Alexandria, where he re-established himself
without difficulty. The mild Salofaciolus retired to his Pachomian
monastery at Canopus, content to live on an allowance from his
1 P. G. lxxxvi. 2601 b.
2 Ibid. 2604 A. For the signatories, ' about 500 ', see ibid. iii. 5 (Op. 338 ;
P. G. lxxxvi. 2603 sq.) ; Chron. Z. M. v. 2, 3.
3 Chron. Z. M.v.l.
4 Theodorus Lector, H. E. i. 30 (P. G. lxxxvi. 180 c). For this Theodore,
a Reader in the church of CP., of the sixth century, see Bardenhewer, 552
. 5 Simphcius, Ep. iv (P. L. Iviii. 44 b) ; Jaffe, No. 574 ; Fleury, xxix.
xlvi. ' 6 Theod. Lector, H. E. i. 32 (P. G. lxxxvi. 181 a).
7 Chron. Z. M. v. 4 ; note this, and v. 1, for the difference between the
doctrine of Eutyches and of Monophysitism as represented by Timothy.
8 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 6 (Op. 340 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2008 sq.).
9 Chron. Z. M. v. 3.

408 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
rival of a penny a day. The remains of Dioscorus Timothy also
brought back with him to Alexandria in a silver casket,1 and
laid to rest by the side of his predecessors in the See. And thus
Timothy awaited the next move of Acacius.
§ 7. Meanwhile, in Syria, the Monophysite reaction had enjoyed,
up to the usurpation of Basiliscus, a like measure of success. From
early times Antioch had produced a succession of teachers whose
tendency was to look upon our Lord as a man who became God.
The Ebionites, Paul of Samosata, Diodore, Theodore, Nestorius,
were all inclined to minimize His Godhead for the sake of affirming
His manhood. But there had also been in existence, from the first,
a rival tradition at Antioch which tended to evacuate His humanity
because it had so firm a conviction of His Divinity. In the second
century the Docetics had denied the reality of our Lord's human
nature, as early as the days of Ignatius. His condemnation of
them 2 may have been prompted by the Docetism of Satornilus,3
his contemporary at Antioch and one of the Syrian school of
Gnostics. In the fourth century Apollinaris, bishop of the neigh
bouring Laodicea in Syria had denied the completeness of our Lord's
human nature. In the fifth the tendency showed itself in Mono
physitism, some forms of which were incompatible with the
permanence of our Lord's human nature ; and at Antioch the monk
Maximus, though a deacon of John the friend of Nestorius, adhered
so ardently to the Christology of Cyril that the latter had to write
and check his zeal.4 There was thus a rift beginning to appear
between the people and the hierarchy of Syria ; and the theology
of the Greek-speaking episcopate ran counter to the sympathies
of the monks and the Syriac-speaking populace. The misfortunes
of Ibas and Theodoret are sufficient to show how the official
theology of Antioch was falling into discredit in the country of its
origin. At the Council of Ephesus, 'under Dioscorus, several bishops
of Syria passed over to the side opposed to that of their prede
cessors ; and, though this process was due in part to the influence
of the Government being placed at the disposal of Eutyches and
Dioscorus, there is proof that other than Courtly influences were at
work for Monophysitism in Syria. The influence of the Govern
ment had passed over to the side of the Orthodox before Chalcedon ;
1 Chron. Z. M. v. 4. 2 Ad Smyrn. i-vii ; Ad Troll, ix.
3 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. xxiv, § 2 ; Ps.-Tert. Adv. omn. haer. i.
4 Epp. lvii, Iviii (Op. x. 192 ; P. G. lxxvii. 320 sq.).

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 409
and yet, in spite of this, no sooner had the Council decided upon
the restoration of Theodoret, than the Cyrilline party, far from
losing in importance, showed that it was a power to be reckoned
with. The monks of Mesopotamia rallied to it ; while, to devout
folk throughout Syria, Monophysitism alone appeared to guarantee
the Divinity of the Saviour. It was thus, like Sabellianism in the
third century, the religion of piety ; whereas the belief of the
Government, the Council, and the Roman church was held to be
indistinguishable from Nestorianism. If Monophysitism was
persecuted, so much the stronger case for its being the truth !
Martyrius, Patriarch of Antioch, 460-70, was the first to en
counter the forces of Monophysitism headed by Peter the Fuller.1
Peter had belonged to the community of the Acoemetae. But he
quarrelled with them ; and became a priest at Chalcedon where
he presided over the monastery of St. Bassa. The Acoemetae were
ardent Chalcedonians : to Zacharias of Mitylene, Nestorians.2
Peter therefore transferred himself to the opposite party ; and,
having attached himself to the retinue of Zeno who, upon his
marriage, 468, with Ariadne, the daughter of Leo I, proceeded to
Antioch as commander-in-chief of ' the East ', Peter not only took
the lead of the Monophysite party there and drove out Martyrius
but, with the aid of Zeno,- established himself, 470, as Patriarch in
his place.3 Martyrius carried complaint to Constantinople, where
the Patriarch Gennadius, 460-f71, came to his rescue4 and pro
cured the exile of Peter to the Oasis 5 under an order now recalled
by Qui in monasteriis 6 of 1 June 471 . But the exile was commuted
1 Theodorus Lector, H. E. i. 20 (P. G. lxxxvi. 176 a); Evagrius, H. E. iii.
5, 8, 16 (Op. 338, 341 sq., 349 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2604 b, 2613 A, 2628 a) ;
Gelasius, Tract I, § 12 (Epp. Rom. Pont. 518 : ed. A. Thiel).
2 Chron. Z. M. vn. 7.
3 It was in the course of these tumults that, in order to insist on the
Divinity of Him who suffered upon the Cross, Peter inserted into the
Trisagion [' Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, have mercy
upon us '] the words, ' Who wast crucified for us ', before the refrain,
Theod. Lector, H. E, i, § 20 (P. G. lxxxvi. 176 b). If the Trisagion was
addressed to our Lord, then the addition was unexceptionable, and probably
Peter regarded it as addressed to Him. But at CP. (Evagrius, H. E. iii.
44 (Op. 381, 2700 a) the Trisagion was addressed to the Trinity ; and the
addition would then be denounced as patripassian or theopaschite. See
J. Tixeront, Hist, of Dogmas, iii. 100 sq. For the Trisagion in the Liturgy
see F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, i. 590; L. Duchesne, Chr. Worship*, 191,
193, 197, 249 ; A. Fortescue, The Mass, 90, 96, 102.
4 Theod. Lector, H. E. i. 21 (P. G. lxxxvi. 176).
5 Gelasius, Tract, i, § 12 (Epp. R. P. 518).
0 Justinian, Codex, I. iii. 29.

410 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
to internment with the Acoemetae.1 They kept him safe till the
end of the reign of Leo I ; nor did Zeno, at his accession, 474,
release him. But on the usurpation of Basiliscus and the arrival
of Timothy the Cat in Constantinople, Peter was sent for and put
into possession, for the second time,2 of the throne of Antioch,
475-6. The triumph of the Monophysites, however, proved short
lived ; and, on the return of Zeno, 477, a second order was issued
for the banishment of Peter, this time to Pityus in the Caucasus.
Fortune again saved him from being sent so far afield ; and again
he was interned, this time with the Massalians at the sanctuary
of St. Theodore in the province of Helenopontus. His friends
endeavoured to enthrone in his place a protege of his, John Codo-
natus 3 ; but without success, for the Government put in Stephen,
478-f82. He fell a victim to the Monophysites, who murdered him
in church by running him through with pointed reeds.4 An Ortho
dox election at Antioch was quite impossible ; so Acacius ' pro
vided ' Calandion.5 He was Patriarch, 482-5 ; but then had to
give way to Peter the Fuller who thus occupied the throne for the
third time,6 485-t8. The mere record of these events is enough
to show the daring of the Monophysites, and to what impotence
they had reduced both the see of Antioch and the school of Diodore
and Theodore, of Nestorius and Theodoret, so long and so inti
mately associated with it. Nor was the situation different in Jeru
salem, where the successor of Juvenal, Anastasius, was Patriarch,
458— "f 78, and signed 7 the Encyclical of Basiliscus.
Thus in 475-7 the Monophysite reaction had everywhere risen
to the crest of the wave. At Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
three out of the four Eastern Patriarchs had signed the Encyclical.
But for the opposition of Acacius, everything was going well from
the point of view of Timothy the Cat. It remains only to consider
the check, and the ultimate advantage that his cause sustained
by the course of events in the capital.
1 Synodicon, ap. Mansi, vii. 872 b, and Gelasius, Tr. i, § 12.
2 Theod. Lect. H. E. i. 22 (P. G. lxxxvi. 176 sq.) ; Liberatus, Brev. xviii
(P. L. Ixviii. 1027 b, c). This last is the fullest and shortest account of
Peter the Fuller.
3 Theophanes [f817], Chronographia, a. c. 469 (Op. 107 ; P. G. cviii.
309 o) ; Fleury, xxix. xlviii, xlix. 1.
4 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 10 (Op. 343 ; P. G. lxxvi. 2613 c).
5 Ibid. (2616 a) : see also Pope Simphcius, Epp. xiv, xv [of 22 June 482]
to Zeno and Acacius (P. L. Iviii. 51 sqq.) ; Jaffe, Nos. 584-5.
6 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 16 (Op. 349 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2629).
7 Ibid. iii. 5 (Op. 338 ; P. L. lxxxvi. 2604 c).

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 411
§ 8. At Constantinople, Acacius refused to sign the Encyclical,
and threw himself for support upon the monks of the city, mostly
Chalcedonian ; and, in particular, on St. Daniel the Stylite. The
saint descended from his column,1 and, rousing the populace,2
so overawed Basiliscus by foretelling the speedy return of Zeno that
the usurper at once endeavoured to forestall it by revoking his
former pronouncement in the Anti-encyclical.3 By this document
he reaffirmed the decisions of Chalcedon in regard both to the
Faith, and to the privileges accorded to the see of Constantinople.
But it was too late to save himself by any such expedient ; and
Zeno re-entered the city, July 477. Having got rid of Basiliscus,
whom the Patriarch delivered up even from the sanctuary, Zeno
put out an edict reversing his measures affecting religion and re
storing the status quo ante.* In a letter5 of 9 October 477 he
received the congratulations of Pope Simplicius, 468-J83, on his
recovery of the throne. ' Let your Majesty ', urged Simplicius,
' now deliver the churches, and, in particular, the church of Alex
andria, from intruders ; and suffer no indignity to be offered to the
Council of Chalcedon or to the Tome of Leo.' To Acacius also
Simplicius wrote in similar terms on the same date.6 ' Let him put
pressure on the Emperor to send Timothy the Cat into perpetual
exile ; and let him remind his Majesty that Paul of Ephesus, Peter
the Fuller, and his protege John of Apamea deserve the same sen
tence.' These three last were quickly ousted 7 ; but Timothy the
Cat, as the Prefect of Egypt represented to the Emperor, was too
old to be disturbed ; and, indeed, he died — it was said, of poison
at his own hand — within a few months of the restoration.8 But
his death did not end the schism in Egypt ; for his archdeacon,
Peter, surnamed Mongus 9 or the Stammerer, was elected by the
Monophysite party to the See which he held, 477-f90, the election
taking place in spite of the fact that the Catholic Patriarch,
1 Theod. Lect. H. E. i. 32 (Op. 570 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 181 a) ; Chron. Zach.
Mit. v. 5.
2 Theod. Lect. H. E. i. 33 (Op. 570 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 181 b).
3 See it in Evagrius, H. E. iii. 7 (Op. 341 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2609 sqq.) ; and
see also Theod. Lect. H. E. i. 34 (Op. 570 ; P. G. lxxxvi. 181 c).
4 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 8 (Op. 341 sq. ; P. G. lxxxvi. 2612 sq.) ; Fleury,
xxix. xix.
5 Simplicius, Ep. viii (P. L. Iviii. 44 sq.) ; Jaffe, No. 576.
6 Ep. [xix] (P. L. Iviii. 59 sqq.) ; Jaffe, No. 577— in answer to a report
on the situation sent by Acacius through the deacon Epiphanius (P. L.
Iviii. 59 o). 7 Chron. Z. M . v. 5 ; Fleury, xxix. 1.
8 Liberatus, Brev. xvi (P. L. Ixviii. 1020 a).
9 W. Bright in D. C. B. iv. 336-8.

412 THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-82 partiii
Timothy Salofaciolus, was still alive. Justly indignant at this
irregularity, the Emperor sent orders to the Prefect of Egypt to
put Mongus to death, to punish his supporters, and to reinstate
Salofaciolus.1 But by the kindly intervention of Salofaciolus, so
characteristic of him, the Monophysite Patriarch was only banished.
The Catholic Patriarch was thus restored ; and for five years,
477-82, retained the See. Then, falling ill of a mortal sickness, he
sent a deputation to Zeno, at the head of which was John Talaia,
to procure the guarantee of the Government for a free election on
the next vacancy at Alexandria. On the return of the embassy,
Timothy Salofaciolus died,2 482, and John was unanimously
elected.3 But, by an unfortunate mistake, which had disastrous
consequences, he contrived to give deep offence to Acacius. By
the usual synodal letters he informed the sees of Rome and Antioch
of his consecration ; and wrote a similar letter, containing the
news of it, for the Patriarch of Constantinople. But instead of
posting it direct, he sent it under cover to Dlus, a former intimate
of his own and now Master of the Offices ; as if, by this means, it
would reach the Emperor and the Patriarch with more effect.
Illus, at this time, was at Antioch ; and before the enclosure could
reach Acacius, that prelate had learned, from another source, of
the election of John. He took offence at the slight thus put upon
him ; and so did a kinsman of Salofaciolus, Gennadius by name,
who had been made by him, in conjunction with Talaia, his
aprocrisiarius, or agent, at Constantinople.4 Together, Acacius and
Gennadius determined to ruin John Talaia, and put Peter Mongus
in his place. They represented to the Emperor that Peter, after
all, was acceptable to the people 5 at Alexandria, and not really at
variance with the Faith ; and they prevailed upon Zeno to suggest
this course to Pope Simplicius. ' If charges are to be made against
John,' replied the Pope, 15 July 482, ' by all means let his election
stand over while they are investigated ; but the appointment of
a heretic, such as Peter Mongus, is not for a moment to be contem
plated.' 6 Irritated at this curt rejection of his plans, the Emperor
1 Liberatus, Brev. xvi (P. L. Ixviii. 1020 b) ; Evagrius, H. E. iii. 11 (P. L.
Ixviii. 2616). 3 Liberatus, Brev. xvi (P. L. Ixviii. 1021 a).
3 Gelasius, Tract, i, §§ 9, 10 (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont i. 516) ; Liberatus,
cc. xvi, xvii (P. L. Ixviii. 1020-2) ; Evagrius, H. E. iii. 12 (P. G. lxxxvi.
2617 sqq.) ; Chron. Z. M. v, §§ 6, 7 ; Fleury, xxix. hi ; Neale, Patr. Al. ii.
19 sqq. 4 Liberatus, Brev. xvi (P. L. Ixviii. 1020 c).
5 Ibid., c. xvii (P. L. Ixviii. 1022 c).
B Simplicius, Ep. xvii (P. L. Iviii. 55 sqq.) ; Jaffe, No. 587 ; Fleury,
xxix. liii.

chap, xx THE EAST AFTER CHALCEDON, 451-S2 413
was the more bent upon giving them effect. He sent instructions
for the banishment of John, and the installation, at Alexandria, of
Peter Mongus.1 At the same time he addressed to the bishops of
Egypt the Henoticon,2 482, or Instrument of Union ; which, drawn
up, as it was, by agreement between Acacius and Peter, was for the
latter to sign 3 as the price of his recognition in the See. It begins
by setting forth the desire for reunion and the losses * due to
division. As the basis of union, the Nicene Creed is enough : it
was reaffirmed at the Council of Constantinople and accepted by
those who, at the Council of Ephesus, condemned Nestorius. The
document then goes on to denounce Eutyches and to approve the
Twelve Articles of Cyril ; and, after an unexceptionable re'sume of
the Faith, it concludes by anathematizing any who believe, or have
believed, whether at Chalcedon or elsewhere, anything to the con
trary thereof.5 But to approve the Twelve Anathematisms of
Cyril and to leave the authority of the Tome and of Chalcedon an
open question was, while nominally retaining, really to reverse
the settlement there attained. It was to put Leo second to Cyril
and the Anathematisms above the Tome. The Church of the
Byzantine Empire thus became officially Monophysite ; and, in
two directions, results followed of first importance. In the West
relations between Rome and Constantinople were suspended by
the Acacian schism,6 which lasted for thirty-five years. In the
East the Church of Persia broke away into a counter-organization
of its own; and Christianity there received the protection of 'the
King of Kings ' precisely because its creed was Dyophysite and the
very opposite of the now Monophysite religion of ' the Lord of the
World'. 1 Liberatus, Brev. xvii (P. L. Ixviii. 1022 sq.) ; Gelasius, Tract, i, § 10
(Thiel, Epp. Ram. Pont i. 517) ; Chron. Z. M. v. 7.
2 Text in Evagrius, H. E. iii. 14 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2619 sqq.) ; Liberatus,
Brev. xvii (P. L. Ixviii. 1023 sqq.) ; Chron. Z. M. v. 8 ; tr. in J. C. Ayer,
Source-Book, 527-9 : see also Fleury, xxix. liii ; Hefele, iii. 452.
3 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 13 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2620).
1 Ibid. 14 (2621 c). 5 Ibid. 14 (2624 c).
c Denny, Papalism, §§ 800, 922 sqq.

CHAPTER XXI
THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE
The contrast between the Christianity of Rome and Persia
brings us to a review of the churches to the east of the Empire,1
specially as affected by the decisions taken at the Council of
Chalcedon. They are the churches of Georgia ; Armenia ; Persia ;
'Arabia ', ' India ', and Abyssinia. I. Georgia.2
§ 1. Greek colonies 3 had long existed on either side of the
straits which separate the eastern shore of the Crimea from the
mainland : Bosporus, or Panticapaeum on the west, and Phana-
goria opposite. Following the seaboard, across the Caucasus,
a traveller would have come to three other Greek colonies on the
north-east coast of the Black Sea, Nicopsis, now Tuapse,4 in
Zichia,5 just under the mountain range ; Pityus, now Pitsunda ;
and Dioscurias, now Sukhum. The two latter belonged to the
province of Pontus Polimoniacus 6 ; and lay within the Roman
Empire. At an early date Christianity was represented in some
of these cities ; though later in others. Thus Bosporus 7 and
Pityus 8 each sent a bishop to the Council of Nicaea ; while at
Phanagoria, Nicopsis, and Dioscurias bishoprics date only from
the days of Anastasius, 519-f27, or Justinian,9 527-f65. South of
Dioscurias, known in the time of Justinian as Sepastopolis, lay
1 L. Duchesne, The churches separated from Rome ; A. Fortescue, The
lesser eastern churches ([Roman] Catholic Truth Society, 1913).
2 See Description geographiquede la Giorgie, par le Tsare witch Wakhoucht ;
Georgian text of eighteenth century, with tr. into French by M. F. Brosset
(Petersbourg, 1842).
3 Map in H. Kiepert, Forma orbis antiqui, No. x.
4 There stood here in the eighteenth century the great church of Bidch-
winta, built by Justinian, Brosset, 407.
5 For this region, see M. le Quien, Oriens Christianus, i. 1325 sq. ; J. E. T.
Wiltsch, Geography and statistics ofthe Church, i. 187 (1859).
6 Le Quien, i. 499 sqq. ; Wiltsch, i. 160, 441 sq.
' C. H. Turner, Eccl. Oec. Mon. lur. Ant i. i [No. 218], p. 90.
8 Ibid. i. i [No. 114], p. 62.
9 Le Quien, i. 1327 sq., 1357 ; Wiltsch, i. 187 sq.

THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 415
Phasis,1 now Poti, at the mouth of the Rion. That river flows
north-west into the Black Sea, and, beyond the slight watershed
whence it takes its rise, the Kura flows south-east into the Caspian.
Together, these two river- valleys form the lowland situate between
the Caucasus to the north and the highlands of Armenia to the
south — a fertile region ; and now of commercial importance as
well, owing to the discovery of oil and its transport by the Trans-
caucasian railway, running from end to end of the country between
Baku on the Caspian and Batum on the Black Sea. Along this
valley lay three territories : Colchis on the Black Sea and Albania
on the Caspian, and, between them, Iberia 2 (otherwise Georgia),
round the modern Tiflis. West of Tiflis lay Mtzkhet'ha,3 its
capital — the Canterbury of Georgia. Tiflis itself was built in
455 and became the capital ; and the ecclesiastical ruler of
Georgia thenceforward came to be known as the Catholicus of
Tiflis. The dynasty of the country was of Iranian extraction ;
and its fortunes, like those of its greater neighbour, Armenia, were
continually a prey to the rivalry of the Roman and Persian Empires
which hemmed it in.
§ 2. It was in the time of Constantine that Georgia became
Christian,4 332.5 Nina, a Christian captive, lived near the royal
city, and made a profound impression upon all with whom she
came into contact by her devout life. They brought her a sick
child, whose recovery she obtained by her prayers. The news was
carried to Queen Nana, when she fell ill ; and Nina procured the
hke benefit for her. The Queen succeeded, at last, in persuading
her husband to join her in becoming a Christian. They built
a church, and sent to Constantine for bishops and clergy. Such
was the story of Mirian (so named in legend), the first Christian
king of Georgia, as told to Rufinus,6 t410, by a second king of
Georgia, Bacurius, who afterwards became Count of the Domestics
under Theodosius I and was killed 7 at the Battle of the Frigidus,
394. A third prince of that house was Nabarnougi, better known
1 Le Quien, i. 1343 ; Wiltsch, i. 187, 461.
2 Le Quien, i. 1333 sq. ; Wiltsch, i. 244.
3 O. Wardrop, The kingdom of Georgia, 39 (1888).
4 T. E. Dowling, Sketches of Georgian Church History (S.P.C.K. 1912).
6 For this date, see ' The life of St. Nino ', by M. and J. O. Wardrop in
Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, v. i (1890).
• Rufinus, H. E. i. x (Op. 233-6 ; P. L. xxi. 480-2) ; Socrates, H. E. i.
xx ; Sozomen, H. E. n. vii.
7 Zosimus, Hist. iv. 57 sq. ; Socr. H. E. v. xxv, § 13.

416 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE partiii
as Peter the Iberian.1 When twelve years old he was sent as
a hostage to Theodosius II, where he edified the Court by hig
piety.2 About 420 he withdrew to Jerusalem, where he wag
welcomed by Melania the younger who had seen him at Constanti
nople ; and he received the monastic habit at the hands of the
Monophysite abbot,' Gerontius. He then set up a community of
his own at the Tower of David ; and ruled it in peace till the
arrival of the Empress Eudocia. She had known- him, at Con
stantinople, as Master of the Horse ; and she now so plagued him
with her visits that, in self-defence, he took flight to Gaza, and
there practised his rule, till he was again disturbed by ordination
to the priesthood against his will, 447. He was afterwards
consecrated bishop of Maiuma in Palestine I by Theodosius,3 the
intruding Patriarch of Jerusalem ; and was one of the two prelates
who consecrated Timothy the Cat.4 The church of Georgia, till
the end of the sixth century,5 depended on the Catholicus of
Armenia, as he in his turn had depended upon the Exarch of
Caesarea in Cappadocia. But the connexion ceased in 609 when
Kyrion I, the Catholicus of Georgia, who accepted Chalcedon
with a view, no doubt, to Byzantine favour, seceded ; and was
excommunicated by the Armenian Patriarch, Abraham I, at the
Synod of Dvin.6 From that day forward the Church of Georgia,
while continuing orthodox, became independent. Its orthodoxy
remains; but in 1811 its independence was abolished, and the
Georgian Church was absorbed by Russia.7 For a hundred years
everything in Georgia was Russianized : hierarchy and clergy,
liturgy and language ; the Exarch himself and the bishops of
Georgia being recruited from among the Russian clergy.8 But,
after the Russian revolution of 1917, a Georgian National Congress
met in Tiflis, 17 September, and elected archbishop Kyrion II
as Catholicus — Patriarch of Georgia. He had suffered much for
his patriotism from the Russian Government. He was consecrated,
1 His biography was written by Zacharias of Mitylene, and by another
author whose work is preserved for us in a Syriac version of the sixth
century ; for whom, see Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 457, 469 nn.
2 Chron. Z. M. iii, § 4.
3 Chron. Z. M. iii, § 4 ; Evagrius, H. E. ii, § 5 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2513 B).
4 Evagrius, H. E. ii, § 8 (P. G. lxxxvi. 2521 b) ; Chron. Z. M. iv, § 1.
5 Or, till the end of the fifth, on the see of Antioch, Si Bibl. v. i. 5.
6 M. Ormanian, The Church of Armenia, 40 sq. ; A. Fortescue, L. E. C.
413 sq.
7 Fortescue, L. E. C. 304 sq. 8 Ormanian, 41.

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 417
19 October 1917, in the ancient Cathedral of Mtzkhet'ha ; and is
now at the head of a national church which has regained its
independence. II. Armenia.
South of Georgia lay Armenia,1 in the highlands drained by
the upper waters of the Euphrates to the West, of the Tigris to
the south, and by the Araxes and its tributary the Kura to the
north. § 3. The capital of Armenia, from the end of the second century,
was Valarshapat (now Etchmiadzin) in the valley of the Araxes
(now the Aras), ' not far from Erivan, at the northern base of
Mt. Ararat '. Since Lucullus had taken its former capital, Tigrano-
certa, 69 b.c, the country had been considered to be part of the
RomanEmpire. But it was governed by native princes : Tigranes I,
90-t55 b.c, for instance, who was recognized, 66 b.c, as king
of Armenia when he broke with his father-in-law, Mithridates,
towards the end of the third Mithridatic War. The Armenian
princes were, as often as not, related to, or in alliance with, the
Arsacidae, 244b.c.-a.d. 226, who were kings of Parthia. Hellenism,
therefore, had httle attraction for the Armenians : nor was their
allegiance to be won for the Republic by its garrisons on their
borders — Ziata (now Kharput) on the Eastern Euphrates, and
Gorneae (now Garni) on the Western Euphrates. All their
sympathies looked towards the Parthians. Thus Armenia became
involved, as a frontier state, between the empires of Rome and
Parthia with an inclination towards the Parthians when, in
a.d. 165, the Romans established themselves in the- great fortress
of Nisibis,2 just across the southern border. The absorption of
Osrhoene, with its capital, Edessa (now Urfa), in a.d. 195, by the
arms of Septimius Severus, 193-f211, consolidated this advance.
Thirty years later the Parthian Empire passed into the hands of
the Sassanidae,3 a.d. 226-632 — a new and vigorous dynasty from
1 H. Kiepert, Forma orbis antiqui, maps 5, 33, 34 ; and, for ' the sources
and chronology of Armenian history ', Bury's Gibbon, ii, app. 18.
2 Nisibis was given up by the Parthians to the Armenians, b. o. 149 :
stormed by Lucullus, 68 ; taken by Trajan, a. d. 116 ; given up by Hadrian,
117 ; reconquered by Lucius Verus, 165 ; taken by the Persian king,
Sapor I, 258 (Gibbon, c. x [i. 269]) ; recovered by Odenathus, 261 ; besieged
by Sapor II, thrice, 338, 346, 350 ; abandoned to Persia by Jovian, 363
(ibid., c. xxiv [ii. 521]).
3 Gibbon, c. viii (i. 196 sqq.).
2191 ni je

418 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE pabtiii
Persia. The Armenians, as friends of the dethroned Arsacidae,
found themselves entangled in wars with the Persians. Moreover,
these were wars of religion ; for, unlike the Parthians, the Persians
were ardent propagandists 1 of their rehgion, and were bent on
seeing Mazdaism dominant in Armenia. But Persia suffered
a check, 261, from Odenathus,2 king of Palmyra. He recovered
the prestige of the Roman Empire in -the East, and restored the
fortunes of its allies. The victories of Carus,3 283, and of Galerius,4
297, completed the recovery ; and Armenia, under its king, Tiri-
dates,5 261-t317, entered once more into the orbit of Rome, 298.
A treaty was signed,6 314, between Tiridates and Constantine,
to whom the next two kings of Armenia, Chosroes II, 317-+26,
the founder of the royal residence at Dvin,7 and Tiran, 326-J37,
owed their elevation ; for ' Armenia was attached to the Empire
by the double ties of policy and religion '.8 But for thirty years
after the death of Constantine, Arsaces, 337-f67, occupied the
throne of Armenia, and made it his policy to hold the balance
between the Roman and the Persian Empire during the wars
of Constantius and Julian.9 On the defeat of Julian, Jovian
concluded with Sapor II the treaty of Dura,10 July 363, with the
result that the Romans withdrew their frontier west of Nisibis
and abandoned their protectorate over Armenia. The Persians
at once occupied it, murdered its king, Arsaces, and turned the
country into a Persian province.11 Restive under these conse
quences of their withdrawal, the Romans endeavoured to regain
by intrigue their losses in the field ; and Valens, 364-f78, set up
Pap,12 the son of Arsaces, as king of Armenia, 367-f74. He had
a precarious tenure, for he was opposed by the nobles and the
clergy; and, after his assassination,13 Armenia continued to be
the scene of the rivalries between Rome and Persia till, at last,
neither side could put up with it any longer. In 387 Theodosius I
and Artaxerxes II agreed upon a partition of the country14; and,
1 Gibbon, c. viii (i. 203). 2 Ibid., u. x (i. 272).
3 Ibid., c. xii (i. 340). 4 Ibid., c. xiii (i. 375).
5 S. Weber, Die Katholische Kirche in Armenien, 104 sqq. (1903).
6 Gibbon, ii, app. 18, § 3 (ed. Bury).
7 Weber, 237. 8 Gibbon, c. xviii (ii. 226).
9 Gibbon, vol. ii, app. 18, § 3 (ed. Bury) ; Weber, 240 sqq.
30 Gibbon, c. xxiv (ii. 520). 31 Ibid., c. xxv (iii. 53).
12 Amm. Marc. xxvn. xii, §§ 9, 10 ; Weber, 257.
13 Amm. Marc. xxx. i, §§ 1, 21 ; Faustus Byzantinus, Hist. Arm. v. 32
(V. Langlois, Collections, i. 295).
14 Gibbon places the partition in the fifth century (c. xxxii [iii. 392]) ; but
see app. 25, where Bury gives the date, 387.

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 419
while Rome retained a fifth of the whole with Theodosiopolis
(now Erzerum, or ' Arx Romanorum ') for its capital, the remaining
four-fifths were assigned to Persia.1 Nominal kings, of Armenian
lineage, ruled as Persian vassals till 428 ; then marzbans,2 or
governors of the frontiers, administered the country, some of them
Armenians. Such is the political history of Armenia. We have now to trace
its religious history 3 : through the stages of (1) conversion,
mainly from Caesarea in Cappadocia, (2) the breach with Caesarea,
and (3) autonomy.
§ 4. And, first, conversion. Maximin, 311--J-13, as we are told
by Eusebius, attempted to force the Armenians to sacrifice to
idols. They were Christians already, and ' allies of the Romans'.4
Probably they belonged to the south-west portion of Greater
Armenia called Sophene, which Diocletian in 297 had annexed
to the Empire, though he allowed it to be governed by native
chiefs. They, or their fellow-countrymen in Lesser Armenia,5
had had Christians among them a generation earlier ; for Meru-
zanes is mentioned as bishop of the Armenians at the time when
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria 247-f65, wrote to them on the
subject of penance.6 The country on either side of the border may
well have owed its knowledge of the Gospel to no organized effort
at first, but to traders. Be this so or not, the Christianization of
the kingdom of Armenia received a powerful impetus under its
sovereign, Tiridates I,7 261-f317. His agent in the conversion
1 Weber, 271 sq. 2 Ibid. 385.
3 The authorities are collected in V. Langlois, Collection des Historiens
de VArminie (2 vols., Paris, 1867-9). They are (1) Faustus Byzantinus,
a native Armenian of the fourth century, who wrote in Greek, and gives,
in Books iii-vi, the story of the conversion of Armenia and the history of
the Armenian Church down to the division of the country between Borne
and Persia in 387. He is ' our only trustworthy source for Armenian
history after 317 ' ; and (2) Agathangelus, an Armenian writer of the fifth
century, and our only good source for the reign of Tiridates, 261-f317 (so
Bury's Gibbon, ii. 563 sq., app. 18). For modern works, see E. F. K.
Fortescue, The Church in Armenia (1872) ; T. E. Dowhng, The Armenian
Church (1910) ; M. Ormanian, The Church of Armenia (1912) [all three
descriptive, with some historical matter ; ' the weakest side ' of Ormanian
being ' the historical ', according to F. C. Conybeare in J. T. 8. xv. 471 sq.] ;
A. Fortescue, L. E. C. 395 sqq. ; H. Gelzer, ' Die Anfange der armenischen
Kirche ' in Berichte der Koniglich Sdchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-Hist. Classe, 1895, I, n, pp. 109 sqq. ; S. Weber,
Die KathoUsche Kirche in Armenien (1903).
4 Eus. H. E. ix. viii, § 2.
5 Bury thinks that Meruzanes was bishop in Greater Armenia, Gibbon,
i. 565. " 6 Eus. H. E. vi. xlvi, § 2. 7 Soz. H. E. n. viii, § 1.
B e 2

420 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE pabt in
of his country was St. Gregory the Illuminator ; himself an
Armenian prince who had fled, during the Persian occupation, to
Caesarea in Cappadocia. Here he was converted to Christianity,
and received a Christian and a Greek education ; and here, at
the request of Tiridates, he obtained from archbishop Leontius1
consecration to the episcopate, 302, and became the apostle of
Armenia. For Tiridates had decided to change the religion of
his country ; and it was an official conversion over which he
summoned Gregory, as bishop, to preside. The Persians were
ardent propagandists of their religion in Armenia, by way of
expanding their political influence there. To this propaganda,
subversive of Armenian nationality, the ancient Armenian
paganism was incapable of offering adequate resistance ; and thus,
to oppose the peril of Mazdaism by an enthusiasm greater than
its own, Tiridates determined to adopt the Christian religion,
already so powerful over his borders both in Asia Minor and in
Syria. It was tolerated at that time and likely, as the king may
have perceived, to become dominant in the Empire, now friend
and protector to Armenia. He took it over ; and, from that day
forward, for Armenians their nation and their religion have been
preserved together. The neighbouring churches supplied Armenia
with teachers. From the West, i.e. from Lesser Armenia and
Cappadocia, came Greek-speaking clergy and cateohists ; while
Armenia owed as much — perhaps even before the mission of
Gregory 2 — to missionaries of the Syriac tongue from Edessa and
Nisibis, who penetrated the country from the south. As yet, the
Armenian language was spoken only, and not written : so up to
the middle of the fifth century the Armenians used the Byzantine
rite in Greek, or the Antiochene in Syriac 3 ; and Faustus Byzan-
tinus even says that true Christianity was limited to those who
could read Greek or Syriac.4 As to religious organization, the
Church simply took over, as did the parish in England,5 the
arrangements existing for the support of the ancient cults.
Temples, with their endowments, which were considerable,
became churches ; their priests became Christian clergy ; and,
at the head of the hierarchy, Gregory was installed as Catholicus
1 D. C. B. iii. 687. 2 Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 535, n. 1.
3 Fortescue, L. E. C. 409, n. 2.
4 Faust. Byz. iii, § 13 (Langlois, i. 223).
5 So E. W. Watson, s.v. ' Parish ' in S. L. Ollard and G. Crosse, Diet,
Engl. Ch. Hist. 442.

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 421
in a hereditary high-priesthood (one, among other touches of
Judaism *¦ in the Armenian Church) which for five generations
continued in his family, till 439. The title originally meant
" administrator ', ' procurator ', or ' Vicar-General ' ,2 and implied,
as was at first the case, that the Church of Armenia was dependent
upon the see of Caesarea. But the wealth and dignity of these
hereditary pontiffs brought them into rivalry with the kings ;
and this rivalry issued, about the time of St. Basil, archbishop
of Caesarea in Cappadocia 370-f9, in independence.
§ 5. The breach with Caesarea took place about 374. Gregory
had two sons.3 The younger, Aristaces, represented his father
at the Council of Nicaea,4 and succeeded him as Catholicus,
325— f 33. He was followed in that eminence by his elder brother,
Vertanes,5 333-f 41 ; who, after setting his elder son Gregory over
the Church of Georgia, bequeathed his own dignity to the younger,
Houssik,6 the fourth Catholicus, 341-t7. Houssik had occasion
to remonstrate with king Tiran II for the immoralities of his
Court ; and he paid for his boldness by a martyr's death.7 His
sons preferred to take no such risks. Indeed, they gave them
selves up to pleasure like other young nobles, and were, happily,
refused the Catholicate.8 For a time it passed out of the line of
direct descent to Paren,9 348-f 52, and another 10 who were content
to wink at abuses. But no sooner had it reverted to Nerses,11
353-f73, the grandson of Houssik, than the rivalry between the
priestly and the royal dynasty took a fresh lease of life. Nerses,
through his mother, was nephew of king Tiran. He had been
brought up at Caesarea.12 On returning to the Court of Armenia,
he occupied a place of trust about the person of king Arsaces,
337-f67. The nobles acclaimed him as Catholicus.13 They con
ducted him to Caesarea for consecration by the exarch Eusebius,
362-f70 ; and Basil took part in the function.14 Nerses could not
1 Gelzer, 140 sq. 2 M. le Quien, Oriens Chr. i. 164.
3 For these dates see Ormanian, 230 sqq. ; but they are uncertain, and
do not tally with the dates of the kings as given in Bury's Gibbon, ii. app. 18.
4 Faustus, iii, § 2 (Langlois, i. 210 sq.).
6 Ibid, iii, § 3 (Langlois, i. 211 sq.).
6 Ibid, iii, §§ 5, 6 (Langlois, i. 213 sq.).
' Ibid, iii, § 12 (Langlois, i. 221).
8 Ibid, iii, §§ 13, 15, 19 (Langlois, i. 224-9) ; Gelzer, 143, 50.
9 Faustus, iii, § 16 (Langlois, i. 227).
30 Ibid, iii, § 17 (Langlois, i. 228). u Ibid, iii, § 19 (Langlois, i. 229).
12 Gelzer, 151. 13 Faustus, iv, § 3 (L. i. 236 sq.).
14 Ibid, iv, § 4 (L. i. 238).

422 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE partiii
but contrast the austere religion he had learned to value there
with the paganism, veiled under Christian forms, which satisfied
the ideals of Armenia. In 365 he summoned a Synod 1 at Ashtishat,
the seat of the Catholicate so long as the connexion with Caesarea
continued, and instituted reforms. They aimed at securing the
indissolubility of marriage ; the abolition of heathenish customs
at funerals ; the observance of the Religious Life and, by the
clergy, of a higher standard ; the provision of new bishoprics
and of hospices for sick and poor ; the suppression of vagabondage
and the promotion of education, by the foundation of schools for
Greek and Syriac. It was an enlightened programme ; and
Nerses was supported, at first, by public opinion. But, at length,
he encountered the hostility of the Court 2 ; and Arsaces set up
a rival Catholicus, Tchonak 3 by name, and had him consecrated
by two fugitive bishops dependent upon himself, in spite of the
rights of Caesarea to consecrate the Catholicus of Armenia. In
367, however, the king was made prisoner by the Persians 4 ;
and Nerses, for a time, could pursue his reforms in peace.5 He
became Lord Protector to Pap, the young son of Arsaces, whom
Valens set up, as we have seen, and maintained upon the throne.6
But the young prince, when he came of age, claimed his hberty
for a life of licence 7 ; and, when Nerses remonstrated, the king
had him poisoned at a banquet.8 The death of the Catholicus,
373, was the signal for a reaction ; nationalist, anti-clerical, and,
in effect, anti- Christian too. Pap quashed the reforms of Nerses,
and withdrew the endowments which Tiridates had bestowed upon
the Church.9 The people, encouraged by the revulsion of feeling
at Court, again set up the altars of the gods. The king then
appointed as Catholicus Houssik, 873-J7, of the family of Albi-
anus, a rival house to that of Gregory,10 and had him consecrated
at home. But he had not decided to break finally with Caesarea.
He sent Faustus thither for consecration to an Armenian See ;
1 Faustus, iv, §4 (L. i. 239 sq.), and Document No. 118. Ashtishat was in
Taron in the south of Armenia. In the fourth century it was the ecclesias
tical capital of the country (Gelzer, 127), and the place for Synods (ibid. 131).
In the fifth century the Cathohcate was removed to Dvin, 484-931 ; and
in 1441 to Etchmiadzin (the ancient Valarshapat), which is now the centre
of the Armenian Church. 2 Ibid, iv, §§ 13, 15 (L. i. 248 sqq.).
3 Ibid, iv, § 15 (L. i. 254) ; Gelzer, 155.
4 Ibid, iv, § 54 (L. i. 269 sqq.). 3 Ibid, v, § 21 (L. i. 289).
6 Ibid, v, § 1 (L. i. 278 sq.). 7 Ibid, v, § 22 (L. i. 289 sq.).
8 Ibid, v, § 23 (L. i. 290). » Ibid, v, § 31 (L. i. 294 sq.); Gelzer, 156.
10 Ibid, v, § 29 (L. i. 293) ; Gelzer, 157.

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 423
but Basil decided against him, on finding that he belonged to
the Court — or ' schismatical '¦ — party, and gave the See to Cyril.
Faustus thereupon went off to Basil's rival, Anthimus, bishop of
Tyana and metropolitan of Cappadocia II, and procured con
secration from him.1 Clearly Armenia could do without Caesarea ;
and hence the breach. Basil took measures, in the case of the
Catholicus, to uphold the prerogative of his See 2 ; and was sup
ported in so doing both by the Emperor Valens and by the older
clergy of Armenia who clung to the House of Gregory. But his
claims were ignored ; and from this time forward the consecration
of the Catholicus of Armenia was lost to Caesarea.
§ 6. The Church of Armenia thus entered upon its career of
autonomy. In 385 died Manuel the Mamikonian, regent 378-85,
for the last king of an independent Armenia.3 His death led at
once to the partition of the country between Rome and Persia.4
In Greater Armenia (Persarmenia) two perils in succession
assailed the Church : first, persecution ; and then, heresy.
(1) The persecution, directed by the Persians toward the
breaking down of Armenian nationality, met with a manful
resistance. Sahak (Isaac), who succeeded Nerses his grandfather
as Catholicus, 387-f439, became, like the Jewish High Priest on
the overthrow of the monarchy, the rallying-point of every patriotic
interest, Christian or nationalist.5 Discipline and education
flourished under his rule. In collaboration with a disciple of
Nerses, Mesrob 6 by name, 354-f441, who in 404 invented the
Armenian alphabet, the Catholicus provided his people with
a national literature 7 and with the means of worship in their
mother-tongue. For, 404-33, translations of the Scriptures, from
the Septuagint and the Syriac, appeared in the vernacular : ' an
event ', says Gibbon, ' which relaxed the connexion of the Church
and nation with Constantinople 8.' These translations were
succeeded, from 433 onwards to the death of Sahak, by liturgical
books in Armenian ; though the Armenian Liturgy,9 while
1 Basil, Epp. cxx-cxxii (Op. iv. 212-13 ; P. L. xxxii. 540-4) ; Gelzer,
159 sq. 2 Faustus, v, § 29 (L. i. 293 sq.) ; Gelzer, 157.
3 Faustus, v, § 44 (L. i. 305) ; Gelzer, 105.
4 Ibid. vi. 1 (L. i. 307). At this point, Faust. Byz. ceases to be of interest
and the authorities for the Cathohcate of Sahak are (1) Gorioun, Biographic
de St. Mesrob ; (2) Elisee, Histoire de la guerre des Arminiens, both of the
fifth century ; and in V. Langlois, Collections, vol. ii.
5 Gelzer, 164. e D. C. B. iii. 908 sq.
7 Weber, § 17 ; Ormanian, c, vi. 8 Gibbon, c. xxxii, n. 83 (iii. 392).
9 F. E. Brightman, Liturgies, i. 412-57.

424 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE partiii
possessing peculiarities of its own,1 e.g. the Old Testament Lesson
and the unmixed chalice, is really a variant of the Byzantine rite,2
derived not from Constantinople but from Caesarea in Cappadocia
where the Byzantine rite was first formed.3
(2) Heresy was the second peril to assail the Church of Armenia
in the days of Sahak, and of his successor, Babken I, 490-|519.
In its first form, of Nestorianism, the assault was speedily
repelled. No sooner were the works of Diodore and Theodore
circulated in Armenia, than Sahak and the Armenian bishops,
warned by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, and Acacius, bishop of
Melitene and metropolitan of Armenia II, held a Synod at
Ashtishat, 435, which condemned the writings in question and
sought to elicit support from the See of Constantinople. The
celebrated doctrinal epistle, or Tome, of Proclus was received by
them in reply ; and, in accepting it, the Armenians preserved
their orthodoxy free, of all taint of Nestorianism.
They were not so happy in avoiding the second infection of
Monophysitism. The Council of Chalcedon had been held while
the Armenians were face to face with an effort on the part of
Jazdegerd II, 438-f57, the king of Persia, to enforce Mazdaism
by edict,4 449, on all his subjects and to crush out Christianity in
Armenia. During this struggle the Emperor Marcian gave the
Armenians no help ; and naturally they felt no interest in his
Council.5 Afterwards, when the Emperors went back upon the
Council, the Armenians, by conciliating Imperial favour, might
hope to throw off the Persian domination. After two revolts,6
450-1 and 481-4, they secured religious liberty, at last, by 485,
when their national hero, Vahan Mamigouni, became Governor-
General of Armenia 7 under the Persian king Balasch, 484-"j"8.
Meanwhile, they entered upon a literary campaign against 'the
decisions of Chalcedon ; and, at the Synod of Valarshapat, 491,
the Catholicus Babken I, 490-f515, condemned them in the
1 A. Fortescue, The Mass \ 92 sq. ; L. E. C. 441 sqq.
2 Brightman, i, p. xcvi. 3 Duchesne, Chr. Worship 5, 73 sq.
* For the text of the edict, in the form of an invitation to embrace the
worship of Ormazd, see Elisee, Hist. d'Arminie, c. ii (Langlois, ii. 190 sq.),
and Document No. 210.
5 Lazare, Hist. d'Arminie, c. xx (Langlois, ii. 281).
6 The history of these two revolts was written by Lazare de Pharbe in
the fifth century, and dedicated to Vahan Mamigouni ; q.v. in Langlois, ii.
259 sqq. . see also Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 547 ; Ormanian, 30.
7 He took up his residence at Dvin, which also became the seat of the
Catholicate, 484-931.

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 425
presence of Armenian, Georgian, and Albanian bishops.1 The
condemnation was an echo of the Henoticon ; and a bid, no doubt,
for the support of the Empire, under that instrument, officially
Monophysite. The Empire went back upon that creed under
Justin and Justinian, 519-65 ; but Armenia was only confirmed
in it. For the Church in Persia, in order to secure its protection
from the State, became Nestorian, c. 483-4, by way of assuring the
Shah-in-Shah that its religion was not the rehgion of his enemies
the Romans. But Armenia, which had suffered so much from
Persia, if it looked in vain to the Roman Empire for protection,
looked to Persia with dread. It was fear of, and antipathy to,
Persia that weighed with Armenia far more than marching with
the changing religious policies of successive Byzantine Emperors.
Accordingly, the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the
Synod of'Valarshapat, 491, was confirmed in 527 and 551 by the
Synods of Dvin 2 ; and, to the extent of such rejection, the Church
of Armenia became Monophysite and so remains now. The
Synods, however, repudiated Eutyches by name, as do Mono
physites generally ; and as does every Armenian presbyter at
his ordination to-day.3 But the Church of Armenia became
Monophysite also by defect of the Armenian language. The
whole question at Chalcedon turned on the difference between
Person and Nature : whereas, for these two terms, an Armenian
had only one word, pnuthiun.* A Greek, therefore, might readily
acknowledge one Person of Christ in two natures ; but, if an
Armenian spoke of two pnuthiunkh [plural] in Him, that might
be to confess himself a Nestorian. Now Nestorianism was the creed
of Christians in Persia and Chalcedonianism the creed of Rome.
The Persians had persecuted him and the Romans had deserted
him," an Armenian would say ; there was not much to choose be
tween their creeds : better the simpler and more straightforward
belief, as expressed in his native tongue — ' One Person ... in one
Nature united '.5
1 Ormanian, 351.
2 For these dates, see Fortescue, L. E. C. 413, n. 1 ; but Ormanian gives
Valarshapat, 506, and Dvin, 554, Ch. Arm. 35 sq.
3 At the ordination of a presbyter: 'Deinde iubet magnus Vartaped :
Opertet te, fili, detestari omnem sectam 159 haereticorum, et anathema-
tizare proprio nomine omnes haereticorum ordines . . . Interrogat episcopus
dicens : Anathematizas Eutychen, qui iustificationem per gratiam Christi
negavit ? ' H. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, ii. 302 sq. (Wirceburgi, 1863).
4 Fortescue, L. E. C. 412.
5 From the Armenian ' Confession of Faith ' in T. E. Dowlmg, The
Armenian Church, 65 : see also Ormanian, 107.

426 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE partiii
III. Persia.
§ 7. Of the Church in Persia 1 ; its persecution under Sapor II,2
309-t79, and Bahram V, 420-J38 ; and its proclamation first
of its independence, 424, and then of its Dyophysitism, 484, to
distinguish itself from the Churches of the Empire 3 and so obtain
toleration from the kings of Persia, enough has been said.
IV. ' Arabia ', 'India ', and Abyssinia.
We pass, in conclusion, to the churches of 'Arabia', ' India',
and Abyssinia.4 Between Syria and Mesopotamia, each the seat
of a settled population, "belonging on the West to the Roman
Empire and on the East to the Persian, lay deserts inhabited only
by nomads. These deserts constituted ' Arabia ', from their
northern limit to the Sinaitic peninsula ; and, further still, to
the outlets of the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. From these
shores onwards lay the districts vaguely called ' India ' by the
ancients. None of the tribes offered much of a field to Christian
missions. § 8. But in ' Arabia ' some Christian influences were exercised
at scattered points by the ascetics.5 They had also become, by
the fourth century, children, though not natives, of the desert.
Thus Hilarion, 300-f71, who lived as a hermit near Gaza, gathered
disciples round him 6 ; and Sozomen tells us of a solitary in the
days of Valens, 364-t78, who converted a sheik named Zokom.
The sheik had no heir ; and laid his grief open to the solitary,
who prayed for him and promised that, if he would believe on
Jesus Christ, he should have a son. The heir was born to him ;
and Zokom and all his tribesmen became Christians.7 Mavia,
also, a queen of the ' Saracens ', was involved in war with the
Romans during the reign of Valens ; and would only make peace
on condition that a bishop should be sent to her tribe and that
her bishop should be a solitary named Moses, whom she held in
high esteem. Valens consented, 375 ; and Moses was presented
for consecration to Lucius, the Arian intruder at Alexandria.
1 J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans Vempire perse (1904) ; Duchesne,
Hist ane iii. 547 sqq. ; Fortescue, L. E. C. 38 sqq.
2 Vol. ii, c. iv. 3 Vol. iii, c. xiii.
4 Duchesne, Hist, ane iii. 571 sqq. ; The Churches separated from Rome,
180 sqq. s g0Z- ## ^_ yj. xxxviii, § 14.
6 Jerome, Vita Hilarionis, § 25 (Op. ii. 27 ; P. L. xxiii. 41 B, o) ; Soz.
H. E. m. xiv, § 41, vi. xxxii, § 6 ; Vitae Patrum, v. iv, § 15 (P. L. lxxiii.
568). i Soz. H. E. vt. xxxviii, §§ 14-16.

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 427
But Moses refused so tainted a source for his commission, and
obtained consecration from Catholic bishops in exile.1 Moses then,
it would appear, converted an Arab tribe of the desert of Paran,
or Mt. Sinai, in Palestina Salutaris, under its chief, Obedian.2
Thence arose the bishopric of Paran,3 at the oasis of that name ;
a see that afterwards took its title from the celebrated monastery
of St. Catherine * in the peninsula of Sinai.
Other sees, of a similar type, sprang up on the Eastern borders
of Palestine and Phoenicia, such as that of Parembolae, or the
Camps,5 whose first bishop was the sheik Aspebetus.6 He went
over to the Faith because his paralytic son was healed 7 by
Euthymius, f473, an ascetic near Jericho. He was baptized8
by Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem 418-|58, under the name of
Peter, and then consecrated 9 by him to be bishop of the Saracens.
As such he figured at the Council of Ephesus, 431 .10 Probably
these were tribal bishoprics ; and, on this account, failed to unite
themselves into a national church, as did their neighbours in
Armenia and Persia. Room was found for them instead in the
hierarchical system of the Church of the Empire.
§ 9. To the south of ' Arabia ' lay the districts vaguely called
' India ', between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. These
shores were tenanted by populations organized not tribally but in
settled communities ; for they made their livelihood not as
nomads but by commerce. On the East coast of the Red Sea,
towards Aden, in Arabia Fehx, now Yemen, lay the kingdom
of Himyar (Homer11). On the African coast, opposite, was situate
in what is now the Italian protectorate of Erithrea, the port of
Adulis ; and, behind it, Abyssinia with its capital, Axum. Jewish
influence dominated Yemen ; and so to this region may have
belonged the ' Indians ' among whom, c. 200, Pantaenus found
' the Gospel according to Matthew in the Hebrew language \12
But neither of that Gospel nor of the ' Indians ' nor of the success
1 Eufinus, H. E. ii, § 6 (Op. 276 ; P. L. xxi. 515) ; Socr. H. E. iv. xxxvi ;
Soz. H. E. vi. xxxviii, §§ 1-14 ; Thdt. H. E. iv. xxiii ; Tillemont, Mim. vii.
593-7. 2 F. Combefis, lllustr. mart triumphi, 99 sqq. (Parisiis, 1660).
3 M. Le Quien, Or. Chr. iii. 751 ; Wiltsch, i. 225. 4 Wiltsch, i. 226.
5 Ibid. i. 225 ; and note in Fleury, iii. 28. This see was also in Palestina
Salutaris. 6 Fleury, xxv. xiv, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxvm. xxxvi.
7 Cyril of Scythopolis [c. 510-f60], Vita Euthymii in Analecta Graeca, i,
p. 19 (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1688) ; Bardenhewer, 558.
8 Ibid., p. 23. 9 Ibid., p. 29. 10 Ibid., p. 41.
11 Cosmos Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana, iii. 179 (P. G. lxxxviii.
169 c). 12 Bus. H. E. v. x, § 3

428 THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE partiii
that attended the labours of Pantaenus among them have we
further information.
§ 10. More information has survived of the beginnings of
Christianity in ' Ethiopia ' or Abyssinia.1
In all probability, it is to the ' Golden Decade ' of Athanasius,
346-56, that there belongs 2 the story of Frumentius and Aedesius,
the first missionaries to Abyssinia, as told by Rufinus.3 He heard
it, as he is careful to note, from the lips of Aedesius himself, then
a priest at Tyre.4 Athanasius consecrated Frumentius to be
bishop of Axum ; and hence the founding of the national Church
of Abyssinia, whose Matran, or metropolitan, is still consecrated
by the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria. ' His proper jurisdiction ',
says Neale, ' is that of a metropolitan, but there are some peculiar
limits to his power. He is never a native of Abyssinia, but an
Egyptian. His nomination and consecration rests with the
bishop of Alexandria alone ; and he has the right of consecrating
bishops, so that the whole number in his province does not exceed
seven. This, as the event proved, was a most unwise regulation.
It was, apparently, adopted at first by the jealousy of Alexandria,
lest Axum should constitute itself a patriarchate. As twelve
bishops were canonically required for the consecration of a patri
arch, the limitation to seven entirely obviated this danger. But
it has caused two great evils. It has prevented the spread of the
Gospel in Africa. And [it] has been the occasion of the [Mono
physite] heresy in the Abyssinian Church.' 5
Athanasius, however, could scarcely have foreseen the evils
that would follow upon a precedent created out of a sense of the
sanctity of his name. The mission of Frumentius, successful as
it proved and emanating from Athanasius, attracted the sus
picions of the Emperor Constantius. He was alarmed at this
extension of the influence of the man whom he most feared in
his Empire. Accordingly, he wrote 6 to Aizanas and Sazanas,
1 J. M. Neale, Patr. Al. i. 156 sqq. ; D. C. B. ii. 232 sqq. ; Fortescue,
L. E. C. 293 ; and, for the Ethiopic Liturgy, Brightman, i. 194-244, and
S. A. B. Mercer, The Ethiopic Liturgy (Milwaukee, 1915). It is ' funda
mentally identical with the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril ', i. e. with ' the
most ancient text ' at our disposal for studying the Alexandrine rites,
Duchesne, Chr. Worship 5, 81.
2 For this date, see Gwatkin, Arianism2, 97-9.
3 Rufinus, H. E. i, § 9 (Op. 230-2 ; P. L. xxi. 478 sqq.) ; Socr. H. E. I.
xix ; Soz. H. E. n. xxiv ; Thdt. H. E. I. xxii.
4 Rufinus, H. E. i, § 9 (Op. 232 ; P. L. xxi. 480 a). 5 Patr. Al. i. 156.
6 Ath. Apol. ad Const, § 31 (Op. i. 250 ; P. G. xxv. 636 sq.).

chap, xxi THE CHURCHES BEYOND THE EMPIRE 429
two princes of Axum, and bade them send Frumentius to be
better instructed by George, the intruding Arian bishop at
Alexandria. The bearer of this letter was Theophilus the Indian.1
Theophilus had come, as an hostage, from Ceylon in the days of
Constantine. He was educated by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
developed into a thorough-going Arian. By curing the Empress
Eusebia of a malady, he earned the gratitude of Constantius ;
and, after being consecrated bishop, 356, was dispatched by him
with the document demanding the recall of Frumentius. Visiting
the kingdom of Himyar. he attempted to convert its ruler, but
met with opposition from the Jews. He succeeded, however, in
procuring liberty of worship for Roman merchants residing there ;
and built three churches, at Safar the capital, at Aden, and at
Ormuz near the entrance to the Persian Gulf. There must, then,
have been Christians on these distant shores. This done, for his
missionary zeal was as ardent as his Arianism, Theophilus took
the opportunity of crossing the Indian Ocean and paying a visit
to his native island of Ceylon. There, as at other points in his
journey, he found Christian congregations. Their faith differed
nothing from his ; the only difference was that they sat during
the reading of the Gospel. Cosmas Indicopleustes, a merchant
of Alexandria, who, c. 520, made long voyages to India, Arabia,
and East Africa, found Christians on the shores of India and in
the island of Socotra.2 They had settlements also on the Persian
Gulf. In each of these regions they had bishops of their own,
whose sees date, in the main, from the fifth century. They were
colonists from the Church of Persia ; and a remnant of them still
survives in the Christians of St. Thomas, on the Malabar Coast.3
1 Greg. Nyss. Adv. Eunomium, i (P. G. xiv. 264 a) ; Philostorgius, H. E.
iii, §§ 4-6, iv. §§ 1, 7, 8, v, § 4, vii, § 6, viii, § 2, ix, §§ 1, 3, 18 (P. G. lxv.
481-90, 516 sq., 520 sq., 532 a, 544 a, 557 A, 568 a, 569 A, 584 a).
2 Top. Chr. iii. 168 sq. (P. G. lxxxviii. 169) ; Labourt, 165, n. 6, 327.
3 Fortescue, L. E. C. 353 sqq.

INDEX

Abda, martyr in Persia, 420 ; 172 n.
Abraham, a sohtary of Auvergne,
372.
Abundius, Bishop of Como, 450-f69 ;
312.
Abyssinia, Church of, 427 sq. ; Lit
urgy of the, 428 n.
Acacian Schism, 484-519 ; 399, 413.
Acacius, Archbishop of Melitene,
431-+8 ; 215, 239, 242, 265 sq.,
272, 424.
Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, 381-+437 ;
174, 179, 221 sq., 250, 253, 257.
Acacius, Catholicus of Persia, 485-
95 ; 272.
Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
471-f89 ; 398 sq., 406 sqq., 411
sqq.
Accidie, 79 and n.
Acoemetae, The, 188, 409.
Actors and actresses, tied to their
trade, 366 n.
Adam, created mortal, 70 and n. ;
the first and the second, 76, 117,
125.
Aden, Churches at, 429.
' Adiutorium sine quo non fit ' and
' quo fit ', 122 n., 137.
' Adorable Divine Letter ', The, 241.
Adrumetum (Susa), 135 sqq.
Aeonius, Archbishop of Aries, 493-
-j-502; 158 sq.
Aetius, Count of Italy, f454 ; 150,
278, 341 sq., 367.
Affinity, a bar to marriage, 5.
Africa, Donatism in, 11 sqq. ; Counts
of, 12 n., 25 n., 150 ; Proconsul
of, 13, 25 n. ; Vicar of, 13, 25 n. ;
Roman exiles in, 45 sq. ; over
run by the Vandals, 150, 343 sqq.,
374 sqq. ; seven provinces of, 344
sq. ; persecution in, 375 sqq. ;
hst of the Catholic episcopate of,
375 n. 2.
Agathangelus (5 cent.), 419.
Agricola, a Pelagianizing Briton,
139.
Alans, The, 341.
Alaric, King of the Visigoths, 395-
f410 ; 17, 40 sqq., 341.
Alban, St., 139.

Albina, +431-2 ; 46, 115, 185 and n.
Alexander, Archbishop of Antioch,
413-+21 ; 173 sqq., 248 sq.
Alexander, Bishop of Apamea, 431-4 ;
240.
Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis,
431-4 ; 240, 255 sqq., 263 sq.
Alexander, f 430 ; founder of the
Acoemetae, 188, 255.
Alexandria, authority of the see of,
51 sq., 180, 235 sq. ; Monophy
site reaction in the patriarchate
of, 402 sqq.
' Alleluia ', The, 377.
Alleluia victory [430], The, 140.
Altar, sometimes of wood, 14.
Alypius, Archbishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, c. 458 ; 186.
Alypius, Bishop of Tagaste, 394-
|429 ; 21, 33, 80, 130, 166, 184.
Amator, Bishop of Auxerre, +418 ;
139, 350.
Amphilochius, Bishop of Side, 426-
+58 ; 185, 405.
Amphitheatre, Callousness of the,
366.
Amusements, Passion for, 45, 365.
Anapsychia, the wife of Marcellinus,
84.
Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica,
435-+51 ; 309, 315.
Anastasius, Chaplain of Nestorius,
192, 201 sq.
Anastasius, Emp., 491-f518 ; 414.
Anastasius, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
4S8-+78 ; 410.
Anastasius, Pope, 399-+401 ; 4, 11,
56 sq.
Anatohus, Patriarch of Constanti
nople, 449-+5S ; 309 sq., 312 sq.,
315, 324 sqq., 332 sqq., 398, 403,
405 sq.
Anatolius the Patrician, 308, 315.
Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, 431-4 ;
232, 234 n., 255 sqq., 263.
Andronicus, Governor of the Penta-
polis, 52 sq.
' AvbpamoToios, required to balance
QeoroKos, 230.
Anointing of the sick, The, 11.
Anthemius, Bishop of Tyana, 423.

INDEX

431

Anthemius, Emp., 467-t72 ; 368,
382, 390.
Anthemius, 408-14, minister of
Theodosius II, 49 ; walls of, 49 n.,
172.
Anti-encyclical of Basiliscus, The,
411.
Antioch, schism of, 174 ; exegesis of,
187, 197, 233; Christology of,
193 sqq., 408 ; and Cyprus, 248
sq. ; decline of the patriarchate
of, 331 sq. ; Monophysite reaction
in patriarchate of, 408 sqq.
Antony, Bishop of Fussala, 168.
Antony, Bishop of Germa, 193.
Antony, Bishop of Merida, 445-8 ;
373.
Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica,
383-|410; 4.
Apiarius, Case of, 113, 162 sqq., 249.
Apocrisiarii, 210, 215, 412.
Apollinarianism, 89, 179, 194, 262,
283 n., 408.
Apostles' Creed, 248.
Applause at sermons, 182, 204, 231,
260 sq.
Apringius, Proconsul of Africa, 25.
Aquileia, Libellus Fidei of the pro
vince of, 124.
' Arabia ', The Church in, 426 sq.
Arcadia, sister of Theodosius II, 49,
216.
Arcadius, a bishop and papal legate
at Ephesus, 237, 244.
Arcadius, Emp., 395-+408 ; 50 sq.
Archelaus, exarch of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, 186.
Ariadne, Empress, 398, 409.
Arianism, at Constantinople, 50, 192,
404 ; at Antioch, 178 ; its doctrme
of our Lord's Priesthood, 235 n. ;
among the Sueves, 374 ; in Africa,
377; in Rome, 385, 390.
Aristaces, Catholicus of Armenia,
325-+33 ; 421.
Aristolaus, tribune and notary, 256
sqq.
Aristotelian dialectic, 123.
Aries, growth of the See of, 353 sqq.
Armenia, pohtical history of, 417
sqq. ; rehgious history of, 419
sqq. ; authorities for, 419 n. ;
conversion of, 419 ; Church of,
272, 420 ; its breach with Caesarea
in Cappadocia (374), 421 sq. ; its
autonomy, 423 sqq. ; its persecu
tion, 423 sq. ; its heresy, 424 sq. ;
partition of the country between
Rome and Persia (385), 272, 423 ;

literature of, 423 ; liturav of,
423 sq.
Arnobius Junior, c. 440-54 ; 155 sq.,
389 sq.
Arsenius, 53.
Asceticism, 39, 76 sq., 372, 400, 404.
AseUus, a Roman presbyter and
legate in Africa, 163.
Aspar, The Patrician, +471 ; 397,
404.
Ataulf, King of the Visigoths, 410-
+15; 341.
Atonement, Doctrine of the, 203.
Attalus, Emp., 409-15 ; 43.
Atticus, Bishop of Nicopolis, 446-
+51 ; 317.
Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
406-t25 ; 50 sq., 104, 126, 132, 167,
170, 172 sq., 178 sq., 185, 212, 224.
Attila, King of the Huns, f 453 ;
313, 367, 380 sqq.
Augustine, Archbishop of Aquileia,
407-+34; 124.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 396-
+430 ; on the Donatist position,
12 ; on the Circumcellions, 14 ;
on the use of force, 14, 16, 18 ;
preaches at Carthage (411), 21 ;
at the Conference of Carthage
(411), 21 sqq. ; on the Sermon
on the Mount, 25 ; Breviculus
Collationis (412), 26 ; Ep. cxli
(412), 26 ; Ad Donatistas post
Collationem (412), 26 ; Sermo ad
Caesarienses (418), 27 ; De gestis
eum Emerito (418), 27 ; Contra
Gaudentium (420), 27 sq. ; De
octo Dulcitii quaestionibus (422-5),
28 ; Enchiridion (421), 28 ; in
controversy with Manichaeans,
29 sqq. ; De actis cum Felice
(404), 29 sq. ; Contra ep. Mani-
chaei (396), 29 ; Contra Faustum
Manichaeum (400), 31 ; De
natura boni (404), 31 ; Contra
Secundinum (405), 32 ; in con
troversy with Jerome, 32 sqq. ;
on the authority of Scripture,
33 ; De Urbis excidio (410), 44,
46 ; on the obligation of an oath,
46 ; De civitate Dei (413-26),
46 sq., 362 ; his theory of hoh
ness, 54 ; on the character of
Pelagius, 55, 81 ; Confessions of,
57 ; Anti-Pelagian Writings of,
59 n. ; intervenes in the Pelagian
controversy (412), 68 ; De peccat
orum meritis ac remissione et de
baptismo parvulorum (412), 69 sq. ;

432

INDEX

on Grace, 70, 81, 122, 135 ; as an
interpreter of Scripture, 70 and n.,
72 n., 121 sq., 122 n., 141 ; De
gratia N.T. (412), 71 ; De Spiritu
et littera (412), 71 sq. ; on Justi
fication, 72 and n. ; on free-will,
73 ; De fide et operibus (413), 73 ;
Sermo ccxciv (413), 74 sq. ; on
infants dying unbaptized, 74, 86 ;
and Cyprian, 75 ; on Counsels
of Perfection, 76 ; on oaths, 76 ;
letter to Juhana, 80 ; De natura
et gratia (415), 80 sqq., 100, 103 ;
denies salvation to the un
baptized, 81, 101, 129; on the
inadequacy of Pelagianism, 81
sq. ; on the immaculate con
ception of Mary, 82 ; De per-
feetione iustitiae hominis (415),
82 ; Ad Orosium (415), 84 ; on
the origin of the soul, 84 sq.;
on Origen's universahsm, 84 ;
on the celestial hierarchy, 84 ; on
Creationism and Traducianism,
85 nn. De origine animae hominis
(415), 85 sq. ; De sententia Iacobi
(41.5), 86 ; his sense of humour,
91 n. ; De gestis Pelagii (417),
92 sqq., 108 ; on Synod of Dios
polis (415), 95 sq. ; at Synod of
Milevum (416), 99 sq. ; letter to
Pope Innocent I (416), 100 ; on
' merit ', 101 ; his predestinari
anism, 101, 120 sqq. ; De peccato
originali (418), 105, 116 sqq. ; on
theLibellus Fidei (418) of Pelagius,
107 sq. ; at the Council of Carthage
(1 May 418), 111 sq. ; as com
missary of Pope Zosimus, 1 14 ;
De gratia Christi (418), 115 sq. ;
letter to Sixtus (418), 118 sqq.,
134 ; typical statements of his
predestinarianism, 120 n. ; teaches
a ' double ' predestination, 121 n.,
128 n. ; and Calvin, 121 n., 122
and n. ; his remorseless logic,
121 ; his overstatements, 122,
128, 133, 135 m. ; on the Church
and the Sacraments, 122 n. ;
allowances to be made for, 122,
knew httle Greek, 122 n. ; De
nuptiis et concupiscentia (419-20),
126 sq. ; Contra Iulianum Pela-
gianum (422), 127 sq. ; Opus imper-
fectum (429-30), 128, 149 ; criti
cism of his theology, 129 ; Contra
duas epp. Pel. (420), 130 sqq. ;
his services to rehgion in the
conflict with Pelagianism, 133 ;

De gratia et libero arbitrio (427),
135 sq. ; on free-will, 135 and n. ;
De correptione et gratia (427),
136 sq. ; on final perseverance,
136 ; and Leporius, 138 ; on
Semi-Pelagianism, 140 sq., 146
sq. ; how he differs from it, 144 ;
De praedestinatione sanctorum
(428-9), 144, 146 sq.; once a
Semi-Pelagian, 146 sq. ; De dono
perseverantiae (428-9), 147 sqq. ;
De haeresibus (428), 149 ; on
flight in persecution (428), 150
sq. ; death of, 150, 345 ; services
and influence of, 151 and n. ;
ever in communion with the
Apostohc See, 153 ; at Council of
Carthage (419), 167 ; and Antony
Bishop of Fussala, 168 ; on our
Lord's impeccabihty, 199 n. ; in
vited to the Council of Ephesus
(431), 230 ; letter to Honoratus,
Bishop of Thiava (429), on the
Vandal persecution, 375.
Augustinianism, 57 n., 68 n., 118 sqq.,
122, 128, 133 sqq., 137, 141, 144
and n., 151 ; modifications of,
151 sqq. ; rejected by the Vin-
centian canon, 155 ; ruled out in
Rome, 155 sqq. ; at Council of
Orange (529), 160 sq.
Aurelius, Archbishop of Carthage,
391-+430; 11, 20 sq., 65 sq., 73,
77, 99, 106, 109, 114, 124, 138,
150, 164, 166.
Ausonius, +388 ; 364.
Auspiciola, d. of Salvian, 361.
Authorities for the period, 50 sq.,
145, 343 »., 369, 399 n., 400 n.,
419 n., 423 n., 424 n., 428.
Auxiharis, Prefect of Gaul, 359.
Avitus, Emp. 455-+6 ; 342 sq., 367
sq., 382.
Babken I, Catholicus of Armenia,
490-+519 ; 424.
Bacurius, Count of the Domestics,
+494 ; 415.
Bahram V, King of Persia, 420-+38 ;
172 n., 270.
Balasoh, King of Persia, 484-+8 ;
424.
Baptism, minister of, 5, 290 ; Easter
the time for, 5, 290 ; doctrine of,
112, 124, 264 sq.
Barbarian invaders, 364 ; invasions,
340 sqq. ; enhance the authority
of the Roman See, 374.
Barbarity of the fourth arid fifth

INDEX

433

centuries, 122; its influence on
Christian theology, 122 sq.
Barsumas, +458, abbot; 302, 304,
307, 323.
Barsumas, +492, Rector of the Persian
School at Edessa, and Bishop of
Nisibis, 271.
Basil, an archimandrite of Constanti
nople ; 202, 212 sq., 229.
Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, 295, 305,
317.
Basil, Patriarch of Antioch, 456-+8 ;
404 sq.
Basiliscus, Emp., 475-7; 398, 406,
411.
Bassa, Abbess, 401, 409.
Bathanarius, Count of Africa, 401-
+8 ; 12 and n., 16.
Baths of Ga'rgihus, The, 20 sq.
Beronician, Bishop of Perga, 426-
+31 ; 185.
Besulas, a deacon of Carthage, 238,
249.
' Bishop of the Catholic Church ',
390.
Bishops, unity among, 5, 52 sq. ;
no clandestine consecration of, 6 ;
not to be trusted to draw up
forms of prayer, 17 ; administra-
tors of justice, 25 ; qualifica
tions of a bishop, 51 ; laymen
not to be made bishops per
solium, 153 ; appointment of,
153 ; rivalries at the election of,
165, 168, 173, 180, 371 sq. ; co
ercive jurisdiction of, 202 ; ap
pointed from among ascetics in
Gaul, 356, 368 ; or from among
the wealthy, 368 ; day1 of a
bishop, 371.
Boniface I, Pope, 418-+32 ; 130,
132, 165, 167, 174.
Boniface, Count of Africa, 422-+32 ;
149 sq., 345.
Boniface, Papal legate at Chalcedon,
313.
Bonosus, Bishop of Naiisus (Nich),
4 and n.
Britain, abandoned by the Romans,
407 ; 41, 341, 349 ; Pelagianism
in, 138 sqq., 347 ; degenerate
Christianity of, 352.
Burgundians, The, 342.
Byzantine Court, Hostility to, 396,
403.
Byzantinism, 302 sq., 325, 336.
Caelestine, Pope, 422-J32 ; condemns
Caelestius, 132 sq., 212; sends
2191 in F f

Germanus to Britain, 139, 347 ;
and Palladius to Ireland, 139 ;
and Prosper, 152 ; on the dress
of the clergy in church (428), 152,
356 ; on Augustine, 153 ; death
of, 154 ; and the case of Apiarius,
167 sqq. ; asks Cyril for informa
tion about Nestorius, 211 ; ex
perienced in administration, 218 ;
deals with Nestorius, 219 ; his
seven letters of 11 August (430),
223 sqq. ; letter to Cyril (of
7 May 431), 237 ; his legates to
Ephesus, 237 ; he forbids clergy
to preach upon subtilties of
doctrine, 356, 384.
Caelestius, 57 sq. ; Contra tradueem
peccati, 58 ; Definitiones, 58, 83,
86 ; denial of the FaU, 58 ; in
Sicily, 05 ; in Africa, 65 sqq.
charges against, 66, 92, 94
excommunication of (417), 101
in Rome (417), 104 ; his con
fession of faith there, 105
exonerated by Pope Zosimus
106 ; banished by Honorius (418)
111; denied original sin, 116
ejected from Italy and Constanti
nople, 133, 212 ; condemned at
Ephesus (431), 133 ; an Irish Scot,
347.
Caesarius, Bishop of Aries, 502-
+42 ; 142, 158 sqq.
Calandion, Patriarch of Antioch,
482-5 ; 410.
Calpurnius, 349.
Candidian, Count, 237, 240, 244.
Canonical Books, 8.
Capreolus, Archb'shop of Carthage,
430-+5 ; 230 n., 238, 243.
Carthage, Conference of (411), 19
sqq. ; Capture of (439), 28, 374 ;
wickedness of, 28 n. ; numbers
of the clergy of, 376 ; churches
of, 376 ; revival of rehgion at,
376.
Cassian, 360-+435 ; 138, 142 sq. ;
his Institutes (426), 143; his
Collations (429), 143, 144; his
Semi-Pelagianism, 143 ; De in
carnatione (430-1), 152, 154, 174,
219 ; knew both Greek and
Latin, 219.
Castor, Bishop of Apta Juha, 419-
+28; 143.
Catherine, Monastery of St., 427.
Catholic doctrine ; of the Church,
22 sq. ; of the sacraments, 62 n. ;
of the work of Christ, 82.

434

INDEX

Catholicism, not opposed to Evan
gelicalism, 62 n. ; Concihar and
Papahst, 339.
Catholicity of the Church witnessed
to by (1) the Greek of the N.T.,
(2) the Sermon or Homily, and
(3) the Eucharistic Vestments,
385 and n.
Catholics, ' uneducated and stupid ',
124 n. ; charged with Manichae
ism, 87, 98, 124, 127 sq., 130
sq., 215 ; with Apollinarianism,
220.
Catholicus, The title, 269 and n., 421 ;
of Georgia, 415 sq. ; of Armenia,
416.
Celidonius, Bishop of Vesontio (Be
sancon), 356 sqq.
Ceremonial, different from ' Ritual ',
32 ; influence of the Court on,
40 ; of paganism on, 40, 243.
' Certus numerus ', The, 101, 137
and n., 146, 148.
Chair of St. Peter, Feast of the,
309.
Chalcedon, Council of (451), 311
sqq. ; summoned (17 May), 313 ;
president of, 314 and n., 315 ;
mainly Eastern, 314 ; first session
(8 October), 315 ; second (10
October), 318 ; third (13 October),
320 sq.; fourth (17 October),
accepts Tome of St. Leo, 321 sq. ;
fifth (22 October), issues Definitio
Fidei, 324 sqq. ; estimate of,
326 ; sixth (25 October), for its
promulgation, 326 sqq. ; legisla
tion of, 328 sq. ; seventh to
fourteenth session, 329 ; creation
of Patriarchate of Jerusalem,
330 sqq. ; of Constantinople, 332
sqq. ; Synodical letter to Leo, 335 ;
its doctrinal decisions approved
by him, 338 ; Imperial confirma
tion (452), 338 sq. ; reaction in
favour of Monophysitism after,
395 sqq. ; its decisions not to be
re-opened, 404 sq. ; condemned
(491), in Armenia, 424.
Chalons, Battle of, 451 ; 342, 367.
Charisius, a priest of Philadelphia,
247.
Chasuble and alb, 152 and n., 385.
Christianity, influence on legisla
tion, 11, 25; on morals, 42, 52
sq. ; on war, 356, 367, 377 ;
on the Goths, 43 sq. ; pagan
objections to, 46 sq. ; frequency
of conversions to, 131.

Christians, bad Uves of, 7 ; may
serve as magistrates and inflict
penalty of death, 8.
Christology, of Diodore, 193 sqq. ;
of Apollinaris, 194 ; of Photinus,
195 ; of Nestorius, 201 sq., 207,
215, 230 sq. ; of Paul of Samo
sata, 202 and n., 408 ; of Proclus,
203 sq. ; of Cyril, 209 and n., 214,
216, 226 sqq., 236, 262, 266; of
Leporius, 219 ; of Theodoret,
235, 287 sq., 291 sq. ; of Paul,
Bishop of Emesa, 260 sq. ; of the
Tome of St. Proclus, 273 sq.;
of the ultra-CyriUine party, 283 ;
of Eutyches, 285, 295 sqq., 395 ;
of Flavian, 301 sq. ; of the Tome
of St. Leo, 303 sq., 318 sq., 394 ;
of Council of Ephesus (449),
305 sq. ; of Council of Chalcedon
(451), 324 sqq., 395 ; of Antioch,
408 ; of Armenia, 425.
Xpto-TOTiUos, 206 n., 208, 215, 230.
Chrysaphius, 286, 299, 302, 311.
Chrysostom, St. John, on Grace, 56 ;
on the power of the will, 92 ; on
eternal torment, 122 ; ordained
Cassian, 142 ; loyalty of Con
stantinople to, 173 ; re-instated
on diptychs of church of Antioch,
174 ; of Constantinople, 179 ;
his relics brought home to Con
stantinople, 277.
Church, The, a hospital, 69 m.
Chureh-buUding, 372 n., 384 sq., 414
n., 429.
Church -Steward, The office of, 247.
Churches beyond the Empire, 414
sqq.
CircumceUions, The, 14 sqq., 21, 25,
27.
Civilian and Canonist standards of
orthodoxy, 339.
Clergy, continence of, 6 sq., 39 and
n. ; scarcity of,- in Africa, 11 :
celibacy of, 39 ; not to preach
about subtilties of doctrine 153,
356 ; secularity of, 329 ; rapacity
of, 329, 362.
Clerks in Holy Orders, to remain
unmarried, 5 ; if married, not to
cohabit, 7.
Clovis, King of the Franks, 481-
+511 ; 343, 369.
Codex canonum ecclesiae Africanae,
162 n.
Co-inherence, The Divine, 239.
Communio, The, 32.
Communion in one kind, 387 and ».

INDEX

435

Communion with the See of Rome
not necessary, in order to be a
Catholic, 359.
' Compel them to come in ' (Luke
xiv. 23), 18.
Concessa, mother of St. Patrick, 349.
Concupiscence, 61 sq.
Confession of St. Patrick, 348 ;
meaning of the word, 348 n.
Confirmation, The minister of, 10 ;
administered to infants, 69.
Constantine, usurper, 407-fll ; 103
n., 354, 367.
Constantinople, walls of, 49 n. ; Ari
anism at, 50 ; growth of the See
of, 332 sqq., 407 ; Monophysite
movements at, 411 sqq.
Constantius III, Emp. 421 ; 103,
340 sq., 354 sq.
Constantius of Lyons, 139, 347, 369.
Constitution of the Church, Concihar
theory of the, 245.
Coronation of Emperor by a bishop,
First instance of, 398.
Corotic, 348, 352.
Cosmas Indicopleustes (c. 520), 429.
CouncU, First abbot and layman to
sit in a, 302.
Counsels of Perfection, 76.
Country house in Gaul, Life at a,
370 sq.
Creationism, 84 sq., and 85 nn.
Crispinus, Donatist Bishop of Ca-
lama, 13.
Ctesiphon, an inquirer of Jerome, 87.
Curialis, incapable of ordination, 6.
Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, 524-
+49; 159.
Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (412-
+44); 167, 170, 172, 179 sqq. ;
puts down Novatianists, 181 ;
and Jews, 181 ; and Hypatia,
183 sq. ; and Isidore, 187 ; on
the source of Nestorianism, 196 ;
did not ordinarily use <pio-i's of our
Lord's Human Nature, 206 and ».,
248, 273 ; right in his criticism
of Nestorius, 208 ; intervenes
against Nestorius (429), 209 ;
Paschal Letter (429), 209; Ad
monachos Aegypti (429), 210 ;
Advenerunt (1 Ep. ad Nest. [429]),
211 ; Obloquuntur (2 Ep. ad Nest.
[430]), 213 sqq., 242, 310, 318;
De recta fide, 216 sq. ; replies to
Pope Caelestine (Ap. 430), 220
sq. ; Adv. Nestorii blasphemias
libri V (Ap. 430), 221 ; letter to
John of Antioch, 225 ; to Juvena
Ff

of Jerusalem, 225 ; Cum Salvator
(3 Ep. ad Nest), 226 sqq., 242,
319 ; and its Twelve Anathe
matisms, 228, 242, 319 ; charged
with ApoUinarianism, 228, 231,
235 ; criticism of, 234 n. ; Apo
logia contra orientales (431), 234
sq. ; Apol. e Theodoretum pro
XII capitibus (431), 235 ; hauteur
of, 235 sq. ; Adversus Nestorii
blasphemias (431), 236 ; starts for
Council of Ephesus, 238 sq. ;
his (?) Encomium in S. Mariam
Deiparam, 239 ; his indecent
haste, 240 ; presides at Ephesus,
.241 ; bribes the Court, 247, 252,
258 sq. ; arrest of, 250 ; Ex
plicatio XII capitum (431), 252 ;
returns to Alexandria (30 October
431), 253 ; Apol. ad Theodosium
II, 255 sq. ; negotiations for Re
union, 257 sqq. ; sticks to his
XII Articles, 258 ; Laetentur coeli
(23 April 432) to John of Antioch,
261,318; disclaims Apollinarian
ism, 262 ; charged with defection,
265 ; Mia (pio-is tov Qeov Ao-you
o-eo-apKa>fi.evi],265; accepts the Tome
of Proclus (435), 274 ; death of,
280 ; character and services of,
280 ; contrast between his spon
taneous and his official language,
283 and n., 325, 395; his XII
Articles ratified by Council of
Ephesus (449), 307 ; ignored by
Council of Chalcedon (451), 319,
395 ; recognized by the Henoticon
(482), 413.
Cyril of Scythopolis, 523-+60 ; 400.
Dadyeshu, Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesi-
phon, 421-+ 56 ; and Catholicus
of Persia, 271, 289.
Dalmatius, abbot at Constantinople,
+440 ; 190, 246, 251, 258, 285.
Dancing, Licentious, 11.
Daniel, an envoy of Cyril to Nestorius,
242, 246, 251.
Daniel the Stylite, St., 411.
De vocatione omnium gentium, ^S4r-
61 ; 156 sq., 388.
Death and sin, Connexion of, 112
and n.
Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium,
c. 416 ; 8 sqq.
Decretals, 3 sqq., 351, 356, 373, 392.
Decurio, 349.
Defensores ecclesiae, 17, 393 sq.
Demetrias, 45 sq., 76 sqq., 87.

436

INDEX

Deogratias, Archbishop of Carthage,
454-+8 ; 7, 346, 377.
Dereliction, 121 »., 128 »., 148.
Development in doctrine, 155.
Dioceses, size of, 308.
Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus, 378-+94 ;
193 sqq., 268, 273.
Dionysius Exiguus, +550 ; 163.
Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria,
444-51 ; 280, 284 sq., 286, 302,
306 sq., 312, 315 sqq. ; deposi
tion of, 320 sq. ; exile and death
of, 402 ; relics restored to Alex
andria, 408.
Diptychs, The, 174 and n., 178 sq.,
406.
Divination, 42.
Divine decrees, The, 121, 145.
Divorce foUowed by re-marriage is
adultery, 8, 73.
Docetism, 198, 283 n., 408.
Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch', 440-
+52 ; 278, 289 sq., 304, 306 sq.
Donatism, decline of, 401-11 ; 11
sqq. ; the question of principle
and of fact, 22 sq.
Donatists, 375 sq.
Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, 425-
32 ; 265.
Dorotheus, Bishop of Marcianopolis,
430^1 ; 211, 221, 254.
' Double predestination ', 121 n.
Dulcitius, 24, 27.

East after Council of Chalcedon, The,
395 sqq.
Eastern Patriarchates, c. 410 ; 50
sqq. ; rivalries of, 209, 238, 286,
302 ; of Jerusalem, 330 sqq., 400
sqq. ; of Constantinople, 332 sqq.,
411 sqq. ; of Antioch, 331 sq., 408
sqq. ; of Alexandria, 402 sqq.
Edessa (Urfa), prestige of, 255, 268 ;
closing of the School of, 271 n. ; i
memorial of the clergy of, 290 n., ;
417.
Edict of Union, The, 15 sq.
' Etc 8uo (pvireoju and ev 8io (fivtre crtv •
287 n., 294 sq., 305, 324 sqq., 401,
403 and n.
Emeritus, Donatist Bishop of Cae
sarea in Mauretania, 21, 27.
Empire, Divisions of the, political, '
4, 396; linguistic, 91 sq., 122 »., I
219, 304, 396, 408 ; ecclesiastical
and civil, 176, 336, 354 sq. ;
spoken of (418) as ' Christian ',
117, 362 sq., 385 ; oppressiveness of

the, 361, 365, 370 ; causes of the
downfall of the, 363 sqq., 378;
services of the, 363 n. ; ' Chris
tian and Catholic ', 363 ; Churches
beyond the, 414 sqq.,
Encyclical of Basiliscus, The, 476 ;
406, 410.
Energumens, 10.
Ephesus, Council of (431); sum
mons to (November 430), 229 ;
arrivals at, 238 ; a fortnight's
delay there, 238 sq. ; first ses
sion (22 June 431), 241 sq. ;
deposition of Nestorius, 243 ;
proceedings of John, 243 sq. ;
Roman legates at (10 July), 244 ;
second session (10 July), 244 ;
third (11 July), 245; fourth
(16 July), 245 ; fifth (17 July),
245 ; intervention of Dalmatius
with the Emperor, 246; sixth
session (22 July), 247 ; forbids
any Creed other than the Nicene
to be used as a baptismal Creed,
247 ; seventh session (31 July)
about Cyprus, 248 sq. ; John,
High Commissioner, arrives (Aug.
431), 249 ; proceedings of Orien
tals at, 243 sq., 250 sq. ; For
mulary of Reunion, 250 ; Theo
dosius II receives its envoys
(11 September 431), 252; comes
to an end, 253.
Episcopal benediction super populum,
The, 99.
Equal standard for men and women,
8.
Eternal punishment, 121 sq.
Eucharist, carried in a basket and
a glass, 6 ; as Viaticum, 8 ;
argument from the Eucharist to
the Incarnate Person, 69, 227 and
n., 287 »., 389, 395 sq. ; a sacri
fice, 89 ; invocation of Holy
Spirit at, 186 ; celebrated in
private houses, 212 sq. ; only
offered at one church in Rome
and Alexandria on Great Feasts,
285 ; Hour for the celebration of
the, 372 ; fasting before, 372.
Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, 435-
+50 ; 142, 362.
Eudocia (Athenais), Empress, 421-
+53 ; 49, 217, 230, 276, 286, 302,
400 sqq.
Eudocia, daughter of Valentinian III,
346, 402.
Eudoxia, Empress of Valentinian III,
425-+55 ; and daughter of Eu.

INDEX

437

docia, 277, 309, 345 sq., 381, 383,
397, 402.
Eugenius, Archbishop of Carthage,
481-+505 ; 378.
Eulahus, Archdeacon of Rome, 165.
Eulalius, Bishop of Chalcedon, 430-
+51 ; 191.
Eulahus, BiBhop in Persarmenia, 271.
Eulogius, Bishop of Caesarea in
Palestine, 404-+17 ; 92.
Eulogius, envoy of Cyril at Con
stantinople, 265 sq.
Euric, King of the Visigoths, 466-
+85 ; 342, 369.
Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra, 292, 317,
334.
Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, 448-
51 ; 202, 294, 305, 308 sq., 315 sq.
Eustathius, Bishop of Beryius, 448^-
58 ; 290, 312, 317, 323.
Eustochium, -f419 ; 184.
Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, 254,
258, 263.
Euthymius, St., 377-+473 ; 400 sqq.
Eutyches, 258, 285 sq., 290, 295 sqq.,
305, 312, 395, 413 ; repudiated by
Armenians, 425 and n.
Eutychianism, 277 sqq., 283, 407.
Euxitheus, Bishop of Thessalonica,
404.
Evagrius, historian, 267 sq., 399 n.
Evil not in matter but in a perverted
wUl, 32.
'Y.^iiKiovhai, 49 n.
Excommunication, 52 sq.
Executores (or exactores), 17.
Exegesis, Different schools of, 187,
233 and n.
Exorcism, 120, 128.
Exposure of children, 122.
Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, 405-
+15 ; 6 sqq., 37, 40.

Fabiola, 8.
Faith, a reasonable principle, 31 ;
and works, 73.
FaU, denial of the, 55, 58, 61, 66 ;
the Fathers explicit upon, 132.
Fashions for ladies in fifth century,
78.
Fastidius, a British bishop, 139.
Fasting, before Ordination, 285 ;
before Communion, 372.
Faustinus, Bishop of Potentia, 418-
+25 ; 163, 166, 169 sqq.
Faustus, Abbot of Lerins and Bishop
of Riez, 462-+85 ; 142, 154, 157
sq. ; De gratia, 157.

Faustus Byzantinus (fourth centurv),
419.
Fehx, a monk of Adrumetum, 135.
Felix of Nola, St., 37.
Felix IV, Pope, 528-f30 ; 159.
Fehx the Manichaean, 29 sq.
Fermentum, The, 10.
Filioque, 374.
Firmus, Archbishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, 431-+8 ; 231.
First Four Councils, Authority of,
339.
Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, 225, 238.
Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople,
446-+9 ; accession of, 281, 286,
294 sqq. ; his Confession of Faith,
301, 304 sqq., 317 ; his Appellatio,
308 and n.
Florentius the Patrician, 296 sqq.
Florus, a monk of Adrumetum, 134.
Fops of the fifth century, 78.
Formulary of Reunion, The, 250, 259
sqq., 265, 283.
Free-will, Pelagian doctrine of, 59,
64 ; Augustine's doctrine of, 73,
77, 132, 135, 137.
Frumentius, Bishop of Axum, 428.
Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, 507-
+33; 158.
Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, 428-
+77; 150, 343 m., 345 sqq., 375
sqq.
GaUa Placidia, Empress, 425-+50 ;
103 sq., Ill, 149, 165, 278, 309,
340 sqq., 380 sqq., 384.
Gaudentius.Donatist Bishop of Tamu-
gada, 21, 27.
Gaul, Papal authority in, 5 ; Ger
man invasion of (406), 7, 42 n. ;
Pelagianism in, 137 sqq. ; Semi-
Pelagianism in, 141 sqq. ; or
ganization of the Church in, 353
sqq. ; intelligence and piety in,
360 sqq. ; social conditions of,
366 sqq. ; universities of, 367.
Gelasius, Pope, 492-+6 ; 287 n., 389.
Genevieve, St., 422-+512 ; 189.
Gennadius, 362.
Georgia, Church of, 414 sqq.
Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, 418-
+48 ; 138 sqq., 343, 347, 350.
Gerontius, +484 ; 400, 402 «., 416.
Gladiatorial games, Abolition of, 42.
Glycerius, Emp. 472-+3 ; 382.
Good Friday, The intercessions on,
140.
Gospel, lights at the, 40 ; sitting at
the, 429.

438

INDEX

Gospels symbohcal of our Lord's
Presence, The Book of the, 241,
296 and n.
Grace, doctrine of, 54 sqq. ; Chry
sostom on, 56 ; prevenient, 56,
82, 141, 157 ; Pelagian doctiine
of, 62, 79 sqq., 87, 96, 100, 135,
145 ; meaning of, 62 n., 99 n. ;
means of, 62 n. ; not destructive
of nature, 68, 81 ; co-operative,
82 ; Catholic doctrine of, 112,
117, 131, 135, 151 ; Augustine
and Pelagius on, 116 ; irresistible
or ' indefectible ', 122 and n., 129,
135, 137 ; Julian's doctrine of,
124 ; ' Grace is predestination
taking effect ', 147 ; Leo I on,
156, 158.
Gregory the Illuminator, St., 420.
Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus, c. 430 ;
254, 258, 263, 275.
"Evwo-ts cpvo-iKi), 228 n., 235 n.
Henoticon, The, 272, 397, 399, 413,
425.
Heraclian, Count of Africa, 408-+13 ;
17, 43, 76.
Heraclius, Bishop of Hippo, 138.
Heresy, Repression of, 14 sq., 24,
192 sq., 202, 373, 411 ; often due
to misguided reverence, 283 and
re. ; extent of, 308 ; flourishes
where repressive legislation has
been broken down by barbarian
invasions, 373.
Hermanric, King of the Sueves, 409-
41 ; 372.
Heros, Bishop of Aries, 40*9-12 ; 92,
98, 103 n„ 104, 106, 108, 354.
Hierarchy, precedence in the, 175 sq.
Hierax, a schoolmaster of Alexandria,
182
Hilarion, 300-+71 ; 426.
Hilary, a layman of Syracuse, 65, 75,
90, 94, 144, 151, 356.
Hilary, a retired officer who objected
to ritual, 32.
Hilary, Archbishop of Aries, 429-
+49; 142, 144, 146, 154, 343,
355 sqq.
Hilary, Pope, 461-f8 ; 303, 307 and
n., 308, 390.
Himerius, Bishop of Nicomedia, 254.
Himyar (Homer), kingdom of, 427,
429.
Hippo, blockade of, 430-1 ; 150.
' Home Synod ', The, 294 and n., 404.
Honoratus, Archbishop of Aries, 429-
+49 ; 141 sq., 355.

Honoratus, Bishop of Cirta, 376.
Honoratus, Bishop of MarseiUes, 475-
+92 ; 355 n.
Honoratus, Bishop of Thiava, c. 428 ;
150 sq., 375.
Honoria, daughter of Galla Placidia,
340, 380.
Honorius, Emp. 395-+423 ; re
presses schism, 15 sq., 17, 24 ;
triumph of (402), 41 sq., 103 ;
his rescript (418), in condemna
tion of Pelagius and Caelestius,
111, 163 ; letter to Aurelius (419),
124 ; death of, 149, 340 ; inter
venes at papal elections, 165, 168.
Hormisdas, Pope, 514-+23 ; 158.
Houssik, Catholicus of Armenia, 341-
+7 ; 421.
Houssik, Catholicus of Armenia,
373-+7; 422.
Human nature, doctrine of, 80, 87,
132.
Doctrine of our Lord's, 194, 198,
235, 248, 260 sq., 273, 283, 297
sq., 301, 324 sq., 395, 408.
Huneric, King of the Vandals, 477-
+84 ; 346, 375, 378.
Huns, invasion of the, 313 sq., 342,
363 ; downfall of the, 344.
Hypatia, 50, 183 sq.
Hypatius, abbot at Chalcedon, 406-
+46; 191.
Hypomnesticon contra Pelagianos et
Caelestianos, 434-61 ; 156, 388.
'Yiroo-Tairis, 274.
Hypostatic Union, The, 214, 228 n.

lazdgerd I, King of Persia, 399-+420 ;
172, 268.
lazdgerd II, King of Persia, 438-+57 ;
424.
Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, 435-J57 ;
270 sq., 281, 289 sqq. 302, 307,
329.
Iberia, see Georgia.
Idacius, Bishop of Aquae Flaviae,
Chronicle of, 343 n.
Illus, Master of the Offices, 412.
Illyria, Papal authority in, 3 sqq.,
131 ; handed over (421) to Con
stantinople, 281 n.
Illyricum, Papal Vicariate of Eastern,
4, 131, 282 n.
Illyricum, Western, 4, 277 sq., 282
and n.
ImpeccabiUty of our Lord, 199 n.
Imperial Court on ceremonial of the
Church, Influence of the, 40.

INDEX

439

Impersonahty of our Lord's human
nature, 147, 200 sq., 207 n.
Incarnation, and the FaU, 68.
' India ' (between the Red Sea and
the Persian Gulf), 427.
Infant Baptism, 62, 66 sqq., 67 n.,
68 sq. ; rationale of, 70, 74 ;
argument from, 75, 105 re., 116,
128 ; Caelestius on, 105 ; taken
for granted by both sides, in
fifth century, 112 ; Juhan's doc
trine of, 124 sq.
Infant Communion, 69, 102, 265.
Infants dying unbaptized are lost,
74, 112, 120.
Innocent I, Pope, 402-+17 ; 3 sqq.,
42, 46, 78 n., 91, 99 ; three letters
of (417), 101 sq. ; death of, 102,
123, 143, 165, 174 sqq., 248, 354,
384.
Institutions of the Church, a check
to heresy, 66, 68 sq., 75, 99, 102,
105 n., 116, 119 sq., 128, 140 sq.,
149.
Insufflation, 120, 128.
Invocation of the Holy Spirit, The,
186.
Ireland, PaUadius sent to, 431 ; 139,
347.
Irenaeus, Count, 237, 246 ; Bishop of
Tyre (447-8), 267 ; his Tragoedia,
267, 281 sq. ; his deposition (448),
288 ; ditto (449), 307.
Isaac, a hermit at Constantinople,
190.
Isidore of Pelusium, +440 ; 179 sq.,
186 sqq., 251 sq., 264.
lus Cyprium, The, 175 sqq., 248 sq.
Ius liturgicum of bishops, 17.

' Jacobites ', 399.
James Baradaeus, Bishop of Edessa,
543-+78; 399.
Jerome, +420 ; on the invasion of
Gaul (406), 7 ; in controversy
with Augustine, 32 sqq. ; Comm.
on Job (393), 33 ; on Galatians
(386-7), 33 ; in controversy with
Vigilantius (404-6), 36 sqq. ; on
places of pUgrimage, 37 ; Contra
Vigilantium (406), 38 ; on Ezekiel
(410), 44 ; on the capture of
Rome, 44 ; receives Roman exUes,
45 ; and Rufinus, 57 ; letter to
Demetrias, 77 sq. ; on fashions
and fops, 78 ; on Orosius, 84 ;
on Creationism and Traducianism,
84 sq., 85 mm. ; in controversy

with Pelagianism (415), 87 sqq. ;
Dialogus adv. Pelagianos (415),
87 sq. ; on Apollinarianism, 89 ;
on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, 89 ;
inclined to Semi-Pelagianism, 89 ;
on Synod of Diospolis (415), 96 ;
attacked by Theodore of Mop
suestia, 98 ; his monastery raided,
98 ; Chronicon of, 145 ; death of
(420), 184 sq.
Jews in the Roman Empire, Position
of, 181 sq.
John, Archdeacon of Nestorius, 245.
John, Bishop of Germanicia, 263.
John, Bishop of Jerusalem, 386-
+417 ; 86, 89 sqq., 92, 100, 103.
John, chaplain and envoy of Cyril,
247.
John, Count, 249.
John, Emp. 423-+4 ; 149, 341.
John, Patriarch of Antioch (428-
+41), 185, 192, 222 sq.; sides
with Caelestine and Cyril against
Nestorius, 225, 231, 239 ; arrives
at Ephesus, 243 ; deposes Cyril
and Memnon, 244 ; adopts For
mulary of Reunion, 250 ; in
clined to peace, 255 ; Imperial
letter (432) to, 256; efforts at
Reunion, 256 sqq. ; abandons
Nestorius, 261 ; accepts the Tome
of Proclus, 274; death of, 278.
John Talaia, Patriarch of Alexandria,
482 ; 412.
Julian, Bishop of Cos, 448-58 ; 304,
309, 313, 404, 406.
Julian, Bishop of Eclanum (417-
+54), 58 sq., 114 ; knew both
Latin and Greek, 122 »., 123
sqq. ; and Zosimus, 124 sqq. ;
his Libellus Fidei, 124 ; con
demned by Pope and Emperor,
125 ; by others, 126 ; finds refuge
with Theodore, Bishop of Mop
suestia, 126, 196 ; his contro
versial methods, 128 ; examina
tion of his arguments, 132 ;
death of, 133 ; attempts to re
cover his see (439), 156 ; in Con
stantinople, 212.
Juhana, mother of Demetrias, 45, 76,
94.
Juliana, mother of Juhan, Bishop of
Eclanum, 123.
Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, 303.
Just, Vigil and Feast of St., 372.
Justification, doctrine of, 72 n., 160
n.
Justin I, Emp. 518-+27 ; 399,

440

INDEX

Justinian, Emp. 527-+65 ; 399, 414
and n.
Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
428-+58 ; 223, 238, 304, 306, 312,
315, 317, 331 sq., 400 sqq.
' Kingdom of heaven ' and ' eternal
life ', 62, 105.
Kiss of Peace, The, 9.
Kyrion I, Catholicus of Georgia,
c. 609 ; 416.
Kyrion II, Catholicus of Georgia.
1917 ; 416.
Lampetius, a Messalian, 186.
Lateran, The, 386.
Latrocinium, The, 449 ; 301 sqq.
Law, office of the, 132.
Laymen aUowed to speak at synods,
296 sq.
Lazarus, Bishop of Aix, 409-12 ; 92,
104, 106, 108, 354.
Leo I, Emp. 457-+74 ; 397 sq., 403.
Leo II, Emp. +474 ; 398.
Leo I, Pope, 440-J61 ; as acolyte,
114 ; as archdeacon, 152, 155,
219, 222; rules out Augus
tinianism, 155 sq. ; canons of
(435), 156 ; becomes Pope, 278 ;
as preacher, 279, 389, 391 ; his
theory of the authority of his see,
279 sq., 299 ; his doctrine of the
priesthood of the laity, 280 ; his
letter to Dioscorus (445), 284 sq. ;
Eutyches appeals to, 298 ; letters
to Flavian and Theodosius II,
299; Tome of (448), 299 sq.,
303 sq., 310, 316, 318 sq. ; accepts
General Council at Ephesus (449),
303 ; heads the reaction against
it, 307 sqq. ; thinks another
General Council unnecessary, 312
sq., 314 ; accepts it, 313 ; his
Tome examined and accepted at
Chalcedon, 321 sq. ; opposes the
elevation of Constantinople into a
Patriarchate, 333 sqq. ; reasons for
his opposition, 336 sqq. ; approves
the doctrinal decisions of the
Council, 338 ; goes out to meet
Attila (451), 345, 381; and
Gaiseric (455), 345 ; receives
St. Patrick 351 ; his treatment
of Hilary of Aries, 357 sq. ; pro
cures Rescript of Valentinian III
(445), 358 ; his Tome accepted by
Milan, Gaul, and Spain, 359 ;
letter to Turibius, Bishop of
Astorga (447), 373 ; administers

the church in Mauretania, 377 ;
episcopate of, 382 sqq. ; found
Rome Christian and left it
Cathohc, 383 sqq. ; puts down
Novatianists, 386 ; Manichaeans,
386 sqq. ; Pelagians, 388 ; Arians,
389 ; Eutychians,. 389 sq. ; argues
from the Euchafet to the In
carnate Person, ^g^inst the Eu
tychians, 389 ; tfieiauthority of
the Roman See iiHbiiMlay, 390
sqq. ; his death and^lfcaracter,
394 ; his care for the um%lof the
Church, 396 ; intervenes ih^Pales-
tine (453), 401 sq. ; in Egypt
(457), 403 sqq.
Leontius, Bishop of Forum Julii
[Frejus], 419-+32 ; 142.
Leontius of Byzantium, 458-+543 ;
68.1
Leovigild, King of the Visigoths, 572-
+86; 374.
Leporius, a monk of Treves, 137 sq.,
219.
Lerins, Isles of the, 141 sq., 350, 355
sq., 360, 372.
Letter and Spirit, 71 sq., 152.
Lex orandi lex credendi, 149.
Liberatus, c. 560 ; Breviarium causae
Nestorianae et Eutychianae, 284,
399 n.
Lights and incense, 243.
' Limbus infantum ', 112.
Linguistic division of East and West,
91.
Little Entrance, The, 296 n.
Liturgical, experts in demand, 17 ;
dress, 89, 152.
Lupercaha, The, 383.
Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, 433-+79;
138 sqq., 142, 347, 369, 372.
Macedonians, The, 193.
Macedonius, an ascetic, 233 sq.
Majorian, Emp. 457-+61 ; 368, 377,
382.
Mamertus, Archbishop of Vienne,
463-+75 ; 369, 372.
Manichaeans, 15, 29 sqq., 83, 185,
215, 374, 386 sq.
Manichaeism, attractions of, 30 sq.,
60 ; charged against Cathohcs,
87, 98, 124, 127 sq., 130 sq., 215.
Mansuetus, Bishop of Toul, c. 350 ;
347.
Manuel, Regent of Armenia, 378-
+85 ; 423.
MarceUa, +410 ; 43 sq.
Marcellinus, 19 sqq., 69, 84 sq.

INDEX

441

Marcellus, Abbot, 440-+86 ; 188.
Marcian, Emp. 450-+7 ; 311, 397
400, 424.
Marina, sister of Theodosius II, 49
216.
Marinus, Count of Africa, 413-14 ; 24,
Maris, Bishop of Ardashir, 271, 289.
Marius Mercator, fl. 418-60 ; 56, 58.
98, 125 ; Commonitorium super
nomine Caelestii, 212, 215 ; Nestorii
blasphemiarum capitula, 231 ; per
haps the author of the Hypom
nesticon contra Pelagianos, 388 n.
Marriage, of clergy, 57 ; with deceased
wife's sister, 5 ; institution of, 61
why ordained, 118, 127 n. ; Au
gustine on, 126 sq., 132.
MarseiUes, a focus of Christian in
fluence in Gaul, 142 sqq., 360.
Martyrius, Patriarch of Antioch, 460-
70 ; 409.
Marutha, Bishop of Maiferkat, 268.
Mary, perpetual virginity of, -4 and
n. ; immaculate conception of, 82.
Mass, not to be said on Friday or
Saturday, 10 ; the chants of the,
32, 317 and n., 377.
' Massa perditionis ', 54, 121 and ».,
136 n„ 148.
Maundy Thursday, 10.
Mavia, Queen of the Saracens, 426.
Maximian, a bishop of Constanti
nople, 431-+4 ; 252, 253, 258, 260
sq., 264.
Maximian, Bishop of Bagai, 14, 19.
Maximianists, 12 and n., 20, 23.
Maximin, Bishop of Anazarbus, 258.
Maximus, a monk of Antioch, 408.
Maximus, Patriarch of Antioch, 449-
+55 ; 309, 312, 315.
Mazdaism enforced by edict, 449 ;
424.
Melania I, 350-+410 ; 45, 115.
Melania II, 383-+439 ; 46, 184, 185 m.,
383, 400, 416.
' Melkites ', 399, 406.
Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, 431-
+40 ; 238, 250.
Memor, a bishop, 123.
Merit, doctrme of, 101 ; grace not
given according to, 131, 135, 148.
Mesrob, +441 ; 423.
Messalians, The, 185 sq., 188, 410.
Metropolitans, System of, in Gaul,
104, 353 ; in Hhe East ', 178 ; in
Spain, 373 sq.
Mia (jivo-is rov Aoyov aeerapnajxevr],
236 and m., 265 sq., 274, 283.
' Middle place, The ', 112 and n.

Ministry, The, a gift from above, 153.
Minutes, Advantage of taking, 91 n.
Miracles, 38 sq.
Mirian, King of Georgia, 415.
Missions, in Flanders, 5 ; in Ireland,
350 sqq. ; in Armenia, 420 ; in
Abyssinia, 428; in Ceylon and
on the Malabar Coast, 429.
Mixed marriage blessed by the
Church, The one instance of a, 51.
Monasticism, 39, 45, 141 sqq., 153,
184 sqq., 233 sq., 352, 372 and n.
Monks, disorderliness of, 183, 328,
407 ; in Palestine, 400 sqq. ; in
Constantinople, 407, 411 ; in
' Arabia ', 426 sq.
Monophysitism, 266 ; meaning of,
395 n. ; reaction, after Chalce
don, in favour of, 395 sqq. ; its
strength due to its devotion to
our Lord's Deity, 409 ; in Ar
menia, 425.
Moses, Bishop of Paran, 427.
Nana, Queen of Georgia, 415.
Narsai, martyr in Persia, 420 ; 172 n.
Nationahsm, a source of heresy, 403.
Nedao, Battle of the, 454 ; 344.
Nepos, Emp. 473-+5 ; 382.
Nerses, Catholicus of Armenia, 353-
+73 ; 421 sqq.
Nestorianism and Pelagianism, 57
and »., 126, 138, 144, 199, 219 ;
Cassian writes against, 152, 219 ;
within the Empire (428-35), 192
sqq. ; source of, 196 ; takes root
in Persia, 271 sqq. ; in Armenia,
424.
Nestorius, Archbishop of Constanti
nople (428-31) ; his appointment,
173 ; warned against Messalians,
185sq. ; early history of, 193; ser
mons in support of Anastasius,
202 ; not a foUower of Paul of
Samosata, 202 ; sermons in reply
to Proclus, 204 sq. ; his teaching in
the Book of Heraclides, 205 sqq.,
267 ; his criticism of Cyril, 206 ;
his doctrine of Christ's Person,
207 sqq., 215 ; was a Nestorian,
208 n. ; not a Pelagian, 212 ;
letters to Pope Caelestine, 213,
219 sq. ; reply to Cyril's second
letter (430), 215 ; reply to John
of Antioch (430), 226 ; drafts the
citation to Ephesus, 229 sq. ;
sermon of 13 December 430,
230 sq. ; his Twelve Counter-
Anathematisms, 231 ; starts for

442

INDEX

Council of Ephesus, 237 ; de
position of, 243 ; arrest of, 250 ;
sent back to Antioch, 252, 267 ;
exUe and death of (June 451), 267.
' Nicene ' canons, 165.
Nicene Creed fatal, by anticipation,
to Nestorianism, 214, 231.
Nicephorus Calhstus (fl. 1320-30) ;
302 m.
Nilus, +430 ; 186 sq.
Nina, a Christian captive in Georgia,
415.
Nisibis, becomes Persian, 268 ; school
of, 271 n. ; weU-spring of Nes
torianism throughout the East,
271 m. ; pohtical history of, 417 n.
Nitria, The monks of, 183 sq.
Nonnus, Bishop of Edessa, 457-+71 ;
271.
Notitia Dignitatum, e 402. The ;
40 m.
Novatianists, at Constantinople, 173,
193 ; at Alexandria, 181 ; in Lydia,
247 ; at Rome, 386.
' NuUus invitis detur episcopus ', 153
and n., 348.
Numidia, Prevalence of Donatism in,
16.

Odovacar, King of Italy, 476-+93 ;
382, 388 n., 394.
Olybrius, Consul, 395 ; 76.
Olybrius, Emp. f472 ; 382, 397 n.
Olympius, Master of the Offices, 16.
' One Incarnate Nature ', 236, 265,
273 sq., 283, 297, 301, 395.
' One Person, in two Natures ', 395.
Ordinances, Jewish and Christian.
68 m., 122 n.
Ordination, municipal office a bar to,
6 ; digamy a bar to, 282, 288 ;
shedding of blood a bar to, 357.
Orestes, Prefect of Egypt, 182 sqq.
Origen, +254 ; errors of, 84.
Original Sin, 55, 60 and n., 67, 73,
148 ; denied by Caelestius (417),
105, 116 ; and by Pelagius, 117 ;
and by Julian, 124 ; defended by
Augustine, 127 ; Pelagian argu
ments against, 127 sq. ; Catholic
doctrine of, 151 ; held by Nes
torius, 224.
Orosius (fl. 414-18), 43 ; Histories of
(417-18), 48, 362 ; at Hippo (414),
83 ; Consultatio of, 83 sq. ; arrives
in Palestine (415), 87 ; at the
Synod of Jerusalem (415), 89
sqq. ; Liber apologeticus de arbitrii

libertate (415), 91 ; returns to
Africa (416), 98, 343.
Ostrogoths, The, 42, 344.
Pagan objections to Christianity,
46 sq., 360 sqq.
Paganism, repression of, 11 ; at
Alexandria, 183 ; in Rome, 363,
383 ; in Armenia, 420, 422.
Palestine, Monophysitism in, 400
sqq. ; ' the three Palestines ',
400 and n.
Palladia, wife of Salvian, 361.
PaUadius, Bishop in Ireland, 431 ;
347 sq.
PaUadius, Bishop of Helenopolis,
c. 400 ; 173.
Pammachius, +409 ; 57, 66, 185.
Pap, King of Armenia, 367-+74 ;
418, 422.
Papal autocracy the creation of the
civil power, 358, 386.
Papal legates, did not rank above the
local hierarchy, 166 n.
Papal Vicar, of Gaul, 104, 354, 393 ;
of Eastern IUyricum, 104, 223,
389, 392.
Papahsm, repudiated by the Church
of Africa, 169 sqq. ; incompatible
with the proceedings of the Council
of Ephesus, 246 n. ; in Italy, 394.
PapianiUa, 367.
Parables of the Wheat and the Tares,
&c, 22 m.
Parabolani, 183 sq.
Paren, Catholicus of Armenia, 348-
+52 ; 421.
Paschasinus, Bishop -<5f Lilybaeum
and papal legate at Chalcedon,
313 sqq., 333 sqq.
Pass of the Pear Tree, The, 41, 381.
Passarion, archimandrite, 400.
Pastor, Libellus in modum Symboli,
374.
Patiens, Archbishop of Lyons, 451-
+91 ; 369 sq., 372.
Patrick, St., Apostle of Ireland,
Bishop 432-161; 348; authori
ties for, 348; early life, 349
sq. ; at Lerins, 350 ; consecrated
bishop, 350 ; visits St. Leo at
Rome, 351 ; settles at Armagh
(444), 351 ; character of his work,
351 sq. ; his death, 352.
Patroclus, Bishop of Aries, 412-+26 ;
103 sq., 153, 354, 357.
Paul, Bishop of Emesa, 256 sqq.
Paula, the elder, +404 ; 184, 185 m.
Paula, the younger, 184, 185 n.

INDEX

443

Paulinus, a deacon of Milan, 64 sq.,
105, 109.
Pauhnus, Bishop of Nola, 409-f31 ;
5 sq., 36 sq., 56, 100, 109, 123, 141.
Pelagianism and Nestorianism, 57
and n., 126, 138, 144, 198 sq.,
219 ; a reaction from Augus
tinianism, 57 and n. ; sketch of,
58 sqq. ; in Africa, 65 sqq. ; Au
gustine's arguments against, 68,
132 ; its doctrine of human
nature, 80, 87 ; and Stoicism,
59, 86 sq. ; stock-texts of, 88 ;
its charges against Catholics, 131 ;
a novelty, 132 ; its overthrow
(420-31), 132 sq. ; the gain to
Christianity thereby, 133 ; in
Gaul and Britain, 137 sqq., 347 ;
how it resembles and differs from
Semi-Pelagianism, 144 ; in Con
stantinople, 224 ; in Rome, 388
sq. ; a '. proud error ', 389 and n.
Pelagius, 45, 55 sqq. ; his Testi-
moniorum Liber, 56 ; character
of, 56, 71, 81 ; intimacy with
Pauhnus of Nola, 56, 100 ; in
Rome c. 400, Commentary on
Ep. to Romans, 58 and n. ; Ep.
ad Demetriadem, 58 m., 78 sqq. ;
in SicUy, 65 ; in Africa, 65 ;
meets Augustine, 65 ; in Pales
tine, 65 ; Comm. on St Paul's
Epistles, 66, 70, 114 ; on riches
and oaths, 75 ; De natura, 80,
100 ; Augustine's testimony to,
81 ; and Jerome (415), 87 ; at
the synod of Jerusalem (415),
90 sq. ; his personal appearance,
55, 91 ; at the synod of Diospolis
(415), 92 sqq. ; spoke both Greek
and Latin, 92 ; acquittal of, 95 ;
' stole absolution ', 96, 117 ; Pro
libero arbitrio, 97, 107, 116 ;
inadequate senses of grace, 97,
116; excommunicated by Pope
Innocent (417), 101 ; his Libellus
Fidei (418), 107 ; exonerated
by Pope Zosimus, 108 sq. ; ban
ished by Honorius (418), 111 ;
disclaims the opinions charged
against him, 115 ; denies original
sin, 117 ; condemned at Ephesus
(431), 133.
Penance, mitigation of ancient se
verity of, 7 sq. ; of Fabiola, 8 ;
not to be refused in extremis,
155.
Permanence of our Lord's Human
Nature, 395 sq.

Persecution leads to a revival of
rehgion, 376.
Persia, The Church in, persecution of,
172 and ¦»., 426; history of,
268 sqq. ; independence of, 270,
413, 426; Nestorianism in, 270
sqq., 425 sq. ; Creed of, 272 ;
Liturgy of, 272 ; colonists of the,
429.
Persian and the Roman Empires,
Rivalry of the, 192, 270, 413, 415,
418.
Persian Gulf, Christians on the, 429.
Peshitta, The, 188.
Peter, Bishop of the Saracens, 427.
Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of
Ravenna, 433-+49 ; 299.
Peter Mongus (the Stammerer), Mono
physite Patriarch of Alexandria,
477-f90 ; 411 sqq.
Peter the Fuller, Monophysite Patri
arch of Antioch, 470-+88 ; 409
sqq.
Peter the Iberian, Bishop of Maiuma,
416.
Peter's Chains, St., 385.
Petilian, Donatist Bishop of Cirta, 21.
Petrine hierarchy, Theory of a, 174
sqq-
Petronius Maximus, Emp. 455 ; 345.
PhUaster, Bishop of Brescia, 379-
+87 ; 149.
Phihp,a Roman presbyter and legate,
in Africa, 163 ; at Ephesus, 237,
244.
Philip of Side, c. 430 ; 173.
Photius, Bishop of Tyre, 448-51 ;
289 sq., 323.
Photius, Patriarch of Constanti
nople, 858-69 and 878-86; 187.
$u<m, 206 ; once used by Cyril of
our Lord's human nature, 248,
266, 297.
PUgrimage, places of, 37, 277 sq.,
386, 400.
Pinian, +431-2 ; 46, 115, 185 n.
Piroz, King of Persia, 457-+84 ; 272.
Placidia, daughter of Valentinian III,
346, 397 and »., 402.
Plays and actors, 11, 45.
PoUentia, Battle of, 402 ; 41.
Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch, 404-
fl3 ; 188, 269.
Porphyry, objections of, 35.
Posidonius, envoy of Cyril, 221,
224 ; and of Dioscorus, 284.
Possessor, an African bishop, 158.
Possidius, Bishop of Calama, 13, 17,
21, 150, 375 sq.

444

INDEX

Potitus, grandfather of St. Patrick,
349.
Praeteritorum sedis Apostolicae epis
coporum auctoritates de gratia Dei,
c. 435 ; 156.
Pragmatic Sanction, Meaning of, 323
and m.
Prayers for the Faithful Departed,
40 m.
Praylius, Bishop of Jerusalem, 416-
f25 ; 106, 108, 331.
Preaching, Undue exaltation of,
233 n. ; at Aries, 355 ; of St. Leo,
279, 389, 391.
Predestinarianism, 101, 120 sqq., 131,
137 ; modified, in Augustine, by
his sacramentalism, 122 ; objec
tions to, 145 ; refuted, 156 ; of
Lucidus, 157.
Predestination and reprobation, 121
and m., 128 n., 146, 149 ; Prosper's
view of, 154.
Predestinatus (c 440), The ; 156.
Priesthood of the ministry not in
compatible with the priesthood
of the laity, The, 280.
Primates of Numidia and Maure
tania, 13 n.
Primian, Donatist Bishop of Car
thage, 20 sqq.
Primianists, 12 and m.
Principia, 43. *
PriscUlian, Bishop of AvUa, 380-+5 ;
errors of, 83 ; foUowers of, 185,
373 sq. ; tenets of, 373 sq.
Proba, 45, 76 sq.
Proclus, Bishop of Cyzicus, then of
Constantinople (434-+46), 173,
203, 264 ; Tameoi (435), 273, 277,
281, 289, 383, 424.
Procopius, fl. 500-60; De bello
Vandalico, 343 n.
Proculus, Bishop of MarseUles, 138.
Profuturus, Bishop of Cirta, 33 sqq.
Projectus, papal legate at Ephesus,
237, 244.
' Proles, fides, sacramentum', 118 n.,
127 m.
Prologus Galeatus, 391 ; 32.
Upoo-amov, 207 and M.
Prosper of Aquitaine (+463), 139,
144 sq., 151 sqq. ; and Caelestine,
153 sq. ; and Sixtus III, 154 ;
Contra Collatorem (443-4), 154,
356 ; Carmen de Procidentia
Divina (e 416), 360 sq. ; Poema
conjugis ad uxorem, 361.
Proterius, Patriarch of Alexandria,
+457 ; 402 sq.

Pubhcola, +405 ; 45, 185 n.
Pulcheria, Empress 450-+3 ; 49, 172,
217, 230, 277, 286, 302, 304, 310
sqq., 381, 397, 400 sq.
Punic, spoken in Africa, 168.
Purgatory, 89.
Quartodecimans, The, 193, 247.
Quicunque vult, The, 142, 247 sq.
' Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab
omnibus ', 155, 226 n.
Quodvultdeus, Archbishop of Car
thage, 437-+54 ; 149, 376.
Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, 412-+35 ;
188, 255, 264, 271, 273, 281, 289,
424.
Racialism, a menace to Christian
unity, 397, 403.
Radagaisus, 41 sq.
Ravenna, 41 sqq., 149, 164, 299.
Ravennius, Archbishop of Aries, 449-
+55; 359.
Reader, the minor Order of, 123, 377,
407 n.
Real Presence, Doctrine of the, 227
n., 287 n.
Reccared, King of the Visigoths, 588-
+601 ; 374.
Rechiar, King of the Sueves, 448-
+57 ; 373.
Rechila, King of the Sueves, 441-+8 ;
373.
' Recitation of names ', The, 9.
ReconcUiation of penitents, 10.
Rehcs, objection to, 37 ; honour to,
37, 277 sq.
Remigius, Archbishop of Rheims,
457-J533 ; 369, 372.
Renatus, papal legate at Council of
Ephesus, 449 ; 303, 308.
Reprobation, 121 n.
Responsales, 210.
Resurrection, Weekly and annual
commemoration of the, 10.
Ricimer, +472 ; 368, 381 sq.
Rite, the Roman, 8 ; the non-
Roman rite of the West, 9.
Rites and ceremonies : to be uniform,
8 ; may vary, 10 n. ; differ from
each other, 32 n.
' Ritual ' different from ' Ceremonial ',
32.
' Ritual-murder ', Stories of, 182.
Rogations, 369.
' Roma locuta est ; causa finita est ',
102, 117 m.
Roman church, to be the model of
other churches, 6, 11 ; influence

INDEX

445

of, 100 ; clergy of, 131 ; primary
of, 333 sqq.
Roman See, Authority of the, 3 sqq.,
6 sq., 46, 101 sq. ; African view
of it, 110 ; gains by the break
down of synodical action in
Africa, 152 ; case of Apiarius,
162 sqq. ; over Alexandria, 221 n.,
285 ; mystical presence of St.
Peter in his successors, 245 and n.,
279, 299; Theodoret's view of,
292 and n., 308 and m. ; appeal
of Celidonius to, 357 ; Rescript
of Valentinian III (445) in fa
vour of, 358 ; profited by the
barbarian invasions, 374, 381 ;
largely due to powers conferred
by the State, 386 ; its authority
under Pope Leo I, 390 sqq.
Rome, Churches of, 383 sqq. ; St,
John Lateran, 8, 383 ; St. Peter
43 sq., 384; St. Paul, 43, 384
capture of, by Alaric, 40 sqq.
by Gaiseric, 45, 145, 278, 345
Salarian Gate of, 43 ; great
families of, 46 ; under Pope
Leo I, 383 sqq.
Romulus Augustulus, Emp. 475-6 ;
366, 378.
Rufinus, a Syrian, 57.
Rufinus of AquUeia, +410 ; 45, 57,
86, 185, 415.
Rufinus of Rome, 57, 66.
Rufinus, the minister of Arcadius,
41.
Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, 410-
+31; 4, 126, 130 sq., 223, 225,
238, 249.
Rutilius Namatianus, 363.
Sacramentalism, 122 n. ; arguments
against, 283.
Sacraments, doctrine of the, 62 m. ;
how they differ from Jewish
ordinances, 122 n.
Sacred vessels, sold for the rehef of
the poor, 7, 346 and m., 356, 377 ;
of St. Peter's, Rome, 44 ; of the
Temple at Jerusalem, 346 and n.
Sahak (Isaac), Catholicus of Armenia,
387-+439; 423.
Salvian, 400-+80 ; 39, 142, 343,
361 sqq. ; Adversus avaritiam,
382 ; De gubematione Dei (439-
51), 362 sqq.
Sanctorum communionem, 40.
Sardica, Canons of, 164.
Sassanidae, The, 417.
Saturday, a fast-day at Rome, 10 ;

a feast-day in Milan and East,
10 m.
' Scholasticus ', meaning of, 393,
399 m.
' Scot ' means an ' Irishman ', 55.
Scripture, authority of 33, 36.
Scythian monks, The, 158.
' Second nature ', 62, 79.
Seleucia-Ctesiphon, capital of Persia,
268 sq.
Seleucus, Bishop of Amasea, 295,
305.
Semi-Pelagianism, of Jerome, 89 ;
a reaction from Augustinianism,
120 ; its rise and history, 133
sqq. ; in Africa, 140 sq. ; Hooker
on, 140 ; date of the name, 140
and m. ; of Cassian, 143 ; how it
resembles and differs from Pe
lagianism, 144 ; and from Augus
tine, 144 and n. ; in South of
Gaul, 146, 152, 356.
Septimus, Bishop of Altinum, c. 444 ;
388.
Septuagint, authority of the, 32.
Sermon on the Mount, The, 25, 383.
Sermons, congregation in Africa
stands at, 231 ; in Gaul sits at,
355 ; length of, 355.
Severian, a Pelagian bishop, in
Britain, 139.
Severus, Bishop of Treves, 446-+55 ;
140.
Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Urbs
Arverna (Clermont-Ferrand), 472-
+89 ; 139, 343, 364, 366 sqq.
Simeon Styhtes, St., 388-+459 ; 189
sqq., 233, 253, 402, 404 sq.
Simplicius, Pope, 468-+83 ; 406, 411
sq.
Sin, and Grace, 54 sqq., 60, 80 sq. ;
transmission of, 66, 105 ; a disease,
69 m. ; sins not equal, 86 ; not
necessary to complete manhood,
89 ; no sin which is not personal,
105 ; Catholic doctrine of, 112.
Sisinnius, a deacon, 34.
Sisinnius, Archbishop of Constanti
nople, 426-f7 ; 173, 192, 224.
Sixtus III, Pope, 432-+40 ; 100, 114,
118 sqq., 134; and Prosper, 154,
261, 263 ; death of, 278, 282, 384.
Socotra, Christians in, 429.
Socrates, on Origen, 50 ; finishes his
History, 267, 278.
Solifidianism, 73.
Soul, no part of the divine sub
stance, 84 ; origin of the, 84 sq.
Spain, invaded by the Vandals (409),

446

INDEX

83 ; conquered by the Visigoths
(456), 342, 373; by Moham
medans (711), 343 ; by the Sueves
(409), 372 sq. ; PrisciUianism in,
373 sq.
State a Divine Institution, The, 8.
Stephen, Bishop of Hierapolis, 446-
59 ; 289.
Stephen, Exarch of Ephesus, 315,
330.
Stephen, Patriarch of Antioch, 478-
+82 ; 410.
Stilicho, +408 ; wishes to recover
Eastern Illyricum for the Western
Empire, 4, 12, 16, 41 sq.
Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesarea,
266.
Sueves, The, 150, 341 sq., 373.
Sulpicius Severus, 363-f425 ; 36,
141.
Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, 410-
+13 ; 50 sqq.
Synod, of Rome (402), 5; Fifth
African (401), 11 ; Sixth African
(401), 11 sq. ; Seventh African
(402), 13 ; Eighth African (403),
13; Ninth African (404), 14;
Tenth African (405), 16 ; Eleventh
to Thirteenth African (407-8),
16 sq. ; Fifteenth African (410),
17, 19; Cabarsussi (393), 23;
of Carthage (411-12), 66, 68, 94 ;
of Carthage (418), 83 ; of Jeru
salem (415), 89 sq. ; Diospohs
(415), 92 sqq., 99 sq., 102 sq.,
117, 119 ; of Carthage (416), 99,
102 ; Milevum (416), 99 sq., 101
sq. ; Turin (400), 104 n. ; Rome
(417), 105; Rome (417 also),
108 sq.; Carthage (417), 110;
Carthage (418), 111 sq., 163;
Antioch (424), 132; Ephesus
(431), 133 ; Aries (473), 157 ;
Lyons (474), 157 ; Valence (527-
8), 159 ; Orange (529), 159 sqq. ;
Caesarea in Mauretania (418),
164 ; Sardica (343), 164 ; Philip-
popolis (343), 164; Carthage
(419), 165 ; Carthage (424), 169 ;
Rome (415), 174 ; Ephesus (431),
178; Constantinople (426), 185;
Alexandria (362), 195 ; Alexandria
(430), 213 sq. ; Ephesus (431), 218
sqq. ; Rome (August 430), 222 sq. ;
Alexandria (November 430), 226
sq. ; Constantinople (431), 254 ;
Tarsus (431), 254 ; Antioch (432),
256; Zeugma (433), 263; Anazar-
bur(433),263; Seleucia-Ctesiphon

(410), 268 ; Markabta of the Arabs
(424), 270 ; of Acacius (486), 272;
of Armenia (435), 273 ; Antioch
(435), 274 ; Constantinople (553),
275, 280, 289; Constantinople
(437), 282 ; Constantinople (448),
294 sqq., 316; Ephesus (449),
301 sqq. ; Rome (449), 309 ; Chal
cedon (451), 311 sqq. ; Constanti
nople (450), 312 ; Milan (417), 355 ;
Angers (455), 367 ; Tours (461),
367 ; Vannes (461-5), 367 ; Toledo
(589), 374; Dvin (609), 416;
Ashtishat (365), 422; Ashtishat
(435), 424; Valarshapat (491),
424 sq. ; Dvin (527, 551), 425.
Synodical action, broken down in
Africa by the Vandal conquest,
152, 171, 346 m. ; at Aries, 356,
377 ; rare in Spain, owing to
difficulties of travelling through
barbarian conquest, 373 ; more
vigorous in Africa, 393.
Synodicon, The, 267, 282.
Tchonak, Catholicus of Armenia,
c. 366 ; 422.
Te Deum, The, 47.
Telemachus, The monk, 42.
Temples, destruction of, 11 ; closed,
383 ; turned into churches, 420.
Thalassius, Exarch of Caesarea, 315
sqq., 334.
Theatre, Immorality of the, 366
and n.
Ben86xos, 215.
Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of
Antioch, 1193-+1200 ; 178 m.
Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (392-
f428) ; 57 ; Against those who
say that men sin by nature and
not by their own will (416), 97 sq.,
197; welcomes Julian of Eclanum
126, 212 ; visited by Nestorius,
192; his early life, 196; his
writings, 196 sqq. ; his doctrine
of the Person of Christ, 198 sqq. ;
reaUy a Pelagian, 199 ; circula
tion of the works of, 268, 273;
posthumous condemnation of,
275.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (423-
+58), 173, 189 ; adviser to John
of Antioch, 225 ; history and
writings of, 232 sqq. ; De Pro-
videntia (432), 233 ; Graecarum
affectionum curatio (427), 233 ;
Philotheus sive Religiosa Historia
(444), 233 ; Hist. Eccl. (450), 234 ;

INDEX

447

Compendium (451), 234 ; Repre-
hensio XII Anath. Cyrilli (430),
234 ; his theology not unex
ceptionable, 235 ; author of the
Formulary of Reunion, 250 ; ser
mon at Ephesus, 252 ; efforts at
Reunion, 256 sqq. ; accepts it,
263 ; adviser to Domnus, 281 ;
Eranistes (446-7), 287 sq. ; Eu
tychian attack on, 291 ; his
letters, 291 ; his doctrine, 291 sq. ;
forbidden to attend at CouncU of
Ephesus (449), 302 sq. ; deposed
(449), 307 ; appeals to Pope Leo,
307 sq. ; on the ' hegemony ' of
the Roman See, 308 ; recaUed,
312 ; admitted to Council of
Chalcedon, 316 ; rehabilitation
of, 329.
Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths,
493-+526 ; 382, 388 »., 394.
Theodoric I, King of the Visigoths,
419-+51 ; 342, 367.
Theodoric II, King of the Visigoths,
453-|66 ; 342, 371.
Theodoras Lector (sixth century),
407 m.
Theodosius, archimandrite, 400 sqq.,
416.
Theodosius I, Emp. 379-+95 ; end
of the House of, 397.
Theodosius II, Emp. 408-+50 ; 43, 49,
172 ; intervenes at the election of
a bishop for Constantinople, 173,
179 ; appoints Nestorius, 192 ;
brings CouncU of Ephesus to an
end, 252 ; court of, 258, 286 ; wel
comes the relics of St. Chrysostom,
277 ; publishes the Theodosian
Code (438), 277 ; summons Coun
cU of Ephesus (449), 300, 302 ;
death of, 310.
Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, 431-
8 ; 239, 242.
Theodotus, Bishop of Antioch, 420-
+8 ; 132, 179, 188, 233.
Theodulus, 186 sq.
Theology influenced by the customs
of the tiine, 25.
Theopemptus, Bishop of the Nova
tianists, 181.
Theopemptus, one of the envoys of
Cyril, 242, 246, 251.
Theophilus, Archbishop of Alex
andria, 385-+412; 50, 53, 142,
180, 187.
TheophUus the Indian, 429.
BeoroKos, 200, 201 and n., 203
and »., 209 sqq., 262, 282, 324.

Thomas, Archbishop of Carthage,
c. 458 ; 377.
Thomas, Christians of St., 429.
Thomists and Scotists, 68.
Timasius and James, 80, 90, 108.
Timothy Aelurus (the Cat), Mono
physite Patriarch of Alexandria,
457-+77; 403 sqq.; death of,
411.
Timothy Salofaciolus, Patriarch of
Alexandria, 459-+82 ; 405 sqq.,
412.
Tiridates I, King of Armenia, 216-
+317 ; 419 sq.
Toleration, Fathers in favour of,
17 sq.
Traducianism, 84 sq., 85 n.
Transmarine appeals, 113, 162 sqq.
Trisagion, The, 317 and n., 409 m.
Troilus, Bishop of Salamis, 248.
Turibius, Bishop of Astorga, c. 444 ;
373 sq.
Uniformity in rites and ceremonies, 8.
Unity of the Church, 396.
Unity, Essence of Catholic, 53 n.
Uranius, Bishop of Himeria, 445-51 ;
289.
Urban, Bishop of Sicca Veneria,
162 sqq.
Vahan Mamigouni, Governor of Ar
menia, 424.
Valarshapat (Etchmiadzin), 417, 422
n., 43,4,.
Valentine, Abbot of Adrumetum,
134.
Valentine, Primate of Numidia, 166 m.
Valentinian III, Emp. 425-+55 ; 149,
276, 278, 309, 340 sqq., 345, 358
sq., 367, 380, 383, 386 sq., 397.
Valerian, Bishop of Abbenza, 377.
Valerius, Count, 126 sq.
Vahdity of sacraments conferred in
heresy or schism, 4 and n., 178.
Vandalism, 378.
Vandals, The, 28, 83 ; in Spain, 150,
341 ; in Africa, 150, 314, 343 sqq.,
374 sqq. ; authorities for, 343 n. ;
conquer Sicily (442), 345 ; capture
Rome (455), 345 ; their devasta
tions in Aquitaine, 360, 363 ;
persecution by, 375 sqq. ; pur
pose and effects of, 378.
Venerius, Bishop of MarseiUes, 428-
+52 ; 153.
' Veni, Redemptor gentium ', 222.
Venice, Founding of, 381.
Verina, Empress, 398.

448

INDEX

Vertanes, Catholicus of Armenia, 333-
+41 ; 421.
Victor, Bishop of Vita, Historia
persecutionis Africanae Provinciae
[c 486], 343, 375 sqq.
Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, 395-
+415 ; 5 sq.
Vienne and Aries, Rivalry of, 353 sq.,
358.
Vigilantius, 36 sqq.
Vigils, objection to, 37 sq. ; descrip
tion of a Vigil, 372.
Vincent of Lerins, 139, 142, 144, 151,
154 ; his Commonitorium (434),
154 sq., 220, 226 n.
Vincentius Victor, c. 419-20 ; 85.
Virgin Birth, The, 222, 224.
Visigoths, The, in Spain, 150, 342 ;
in Aquitaine, 341 ; the three
Visigothic kingdoms, 341 sq. ; be
come Catholics (sixth century),
343 ; decline of (seventh century),
343 ; conquered by Mohamme

dans (711), 343, 363; become
Catholics (589), 374.
Vitahs, a Carthaginian monk, 140 sq.,
144.
Volusian, 25 sq., 383.
Wallia, King of the Visigoths, 415-
f 18 ; 341.
Zacharias Rhetor, Bishop of Mity-
lene, 536-+53 ; 399 n.
Zeno, Emp. 474-|91 ; 377, 398, 406,
409, 411.
Zosimus, Pope 417-+18, 92, 100,
106 sqq. ; acquits Caelestius, 106 ;
acquits Pelagius, 108 ; Africans
remonstrate with, 110 ; his reply
to them (418), 110 sq. ; his
Epistola Tractoria, 113 sq., 124;
and Julian of Eclanum, 124 sqq. ;
unduly considerate towards Cae
lestius, 131 ; and Apiarius, 162
sqq. ; legates of, 164, 354 sq.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

3 9002 00459 0627