See other formats

Full text of "Early history of the Christian church : from its foundation to the end of the fifth century"

CT) 



m - 



CO 






HE EAR 
1 HISTOR C 

Ti CHURCH i 
E DUCH! 




FROM-THE- LIBRARY-OF 
TR1NITYCOLLRGETORQNTO 



EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR 

THE EARLY HISTORY OF 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 
FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO 
THE END OF THE FIFTH 
CENTURY. 

Vol. I. To the End of the Third 
Century. 

Vol. II. The Fourth Century. 



All Rights reserved 



EARLY HISTORY OF 

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 

FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO 

THE END OF THE FIFTH 

CENTURY 

BY MONSIGNOR LOUIS DUCHESNE 

HON. D.LITT. OXFORD, AND LITT.D. CAMBRIDGE 
MKMJBRK DK I/INSTITUT DE FRANCE 

VOL. III. THE FIFTH CENTURY 



ENGLISH TRANSLATION 
BY CLAUDE JENKINS 

PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, KING S COLLEGE, LONDON 
LAMBKTH LIBRARIAN 



LONDON 
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 



Oo 



/I 

V - 



First published 1924 
Reprinted 1939 
Reprinted 1948 
Reprinted 1951 
Reprinted 1960 



Made and printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd., Frome and London 
and published by John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. 



83568 

JUN 16 1970 



PREFACE 



THE fifth is a melancholy century : a century of ruin and of 
tottering to a fall. The Roman Empire collapses in the West 
beneath the weight of assailants more unconscious of their 
strength than malignant in intention, the victim of its own 
internal weakness rather than of the blows which it received. 
In the East it still holds its ground, because it has not been 
seriously attacked. Though not as yet hemmed in by Slavs 
on the one side and Arabs on the other, it struggles without 
against the pressure of the barbarian and the menacing 
proximity of Persia, and within its own borders against 
centrifugal elements which begin to notify to it in Coptic, 
in Syriac, and in Armenian their defection from a hegemony 
which was Greek. 

The Church might have lent its aid in overcoming the 
forces of disintegration, but the Church too is in convulsion. 
It wins, it is true, a decisive triumph over Paganism ; but 
this victory is itself the source of tremendous difficulties for 
the Church in adjustment to the position. Every one is 
Christian. Could every one be so in reality ? To this question 
the monks returned a denial often extravagant in its absence of 
qualification. Other people made the best they could of the 
situation and tolerated in the practice of the Christian life 
a distortion of the noble ideal of early days. In the field of 
doctrine rival schools dash themselves into collision, parties 
wax hot and engage in strife. The lesson of the century before 
and of its deplorable dissensions goes absolutely for nothing. 
Men whose opinions are at bottom the same, anathematize 
each other for modes of expressing them. Rather than yield 
on the use of words they set Alexandria in conflict with 
Constantinople, the East with the West. Christian unity is 
sacrificed to the unprofitable defence of personal feeling. 

Still, we must not exaggerate the details. To take a singte 



vi PREFACE 

instance, we must be carefully on our guard against supposing 
that the cause of this turmoil in theology was a serious doubt 
as to the Tradition. That had long been fixed. Like those of 
our own day the Christians of that time had received from 
their fathers the Faith in Jesus Christ truly God and truly Man. 
Their divisions from one another had to do only with methods 
of explanation (niodalitts\ nay with less still, with questions of 
terminology. The monk Barsumas would have brained us if 
we had not said, like St Cyril, that there is only One Nature 
in Jesus Christ. Yet, if we analyze, not the content of 
Barsumas dull brain but the teaching of his master Cyril his 
teaching as a whole, that of his acts as well as that of his 
writings we readily discover that Cyril, in spite of his " Single 
Nature," can be reconciled with Leo, Flavian, and Theodoret, 
who postulate Two Natures. All that has to be done is to 
arrive at a common understanding. But with the warlike 
temper of the theologians it is not the common understanding 
which matters, but the conflict. 

A melancholy century ! 

Yet, happily, we meet in it with many figures that are 
picturesque and even attractive. Some of them call for a little, 
even for much, indulgence. This or that saint of this period 
would not perhaps have passed without some difficulty through 
our modern processes leading to canonization. That is no 
concern of ours. Only it must be clearly understood that 
hagiographical positions which we accept, without taking stock 
of them, as the centuries have handed them down to us, 
cannot change the balance of the judgements of the historian. 
Besides, it is seldom that these figures of saints, however im 
perfectly their characteristics may seem to harmonize, do not 
exhibit some congenial traits. Epiphanius and Jerome were 
loved and revered in their lifetime by saintly people who 
knew them personally. Cyril of Alexandria in one crisis 
showed himself a leader resolutely in favour of peace when the 
army which he led was little moved by such sentiments, and he 
deserves great credit for it. 

For St Augustine, at any rate, we have no need to plead 
extenuating circumstances. He stands upon an eminence 
entirely by himself. From his far-off African home his 
influence extended over the whole of Christendom. To the 
men of his own day he spoke the words which met their needs. 



PREFACE vii 

He knew how to express for them the aspirations of their souls, 
to console them for the troubles of the world, to direct their 
thoughts through the deep problems of religion. He was 
kindly to all. It was by him that the frenzy of enthusiasts 
was stilled, the ignorant were enlightened, thoughtful minds 
kept true to the faith they had received. He was the teacher 
of the whole of the Middle Ages. In our own day still, after 
the decline inevitable to a supremacy of such long duration, 
he remains the great authority in theology. And above all 
it is through him that we get into touch with Christian 
antiquity. From some points of view he belongs to all ages. 
His soul, and what a soul it is ! has passed into his writings ; 
in them it still lives. There are some of his pages on which 
men will always shed tears. 

The fifth century was a century of writers. It is par 
excellence the century of the Fathers of the Church. History 
here has an enormous library at its command. Jerome and 
Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theodoret have left us an 
imposing mass of completed works, treatises, sermons, and 
letters, which are storehouses of information. The discussions 
of the great Councils and the controversies which they evoked 
have been responsible for the production of formal records 
of proceedings and of collections of official documents. All 
this material has for long years been at the disposal of the 
historian. To this ancient stock modern researches have made 
some important additions. Various works, historical or of 
other kinds, have been recovered in Syriac manuscripts ; 
unwearied Orientalists are busying themselves in giving them 
to the world. Useful monographs * have been produced on 
particular points on which, whether as the result of controversies 
or for lack of information, obscurity remained. 

Some of this still remains. Workers, far more numerous 
than they used to be, who have entered upon this field or will 
do so in the future, will long have subjects on which to exercise 
their abilities. Yet even now, it may fairly be said, we know 
far better than the contemporaries of Tillemont the true 
condition of the controversies which were debated after the 
Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon. For example, it is no 
longer possible for us to allow ourselves to be imposed upon by 

1 Especially those of Loofs and Kriiger, either in the shape of lengthy 
articles in Hauck s Encyclopedic or in separate works. 



viii PREFACE 

such labels as " Nestorians " and " Eutychians," which for the 
most part in contemporary writings represent only polemical 
devices, indeed mere terms of abuse, and in no way correspond 
to the real classification of religious parties. 

If documents abound, the same can by no means be said of 
historical narratives. We have no longer Eusebius, nor even 
Socrates. The latter does not go far into the fifth century, 
and his two companions of the same calibre, Sozomen and 
Theodoret, scarcely mention it. To find another historian of 
the Church, we have to go down as far as Evagrius, that is to 
the end of the sixth century. There were such historians, 
however, men like Hesychius of Jerusalem, Basil of Cilicia, 
John of ygeum, Zacharias of Gaza, and Theodore the Reader. 
But of their works we now possess only fragments of greater 
or less extent. The Chronicle of Theophanes, in the ninth 
century, laid these writings under contribution, especially that 
of Theodore the Reader ; but Theodore s text appears there 
parcelled into small pieces often badly arranged and not easily 
to be connected together again. The contemporary chroniclers, 
Prosper, Hydatius, and Marcellinus, are still more dismembered 
and still more incomplete. The result of this is seen in some 
measure of doubt as to the chronological order of certain facts. 
But this is a small matter. The history of the Church includes 
few periods which are so well known or at least which admit of 
being so well known as that which will be dealt with in this 
volume. 

ROME, February 2, 1910. 



NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR 

An effort has been made to reproduce Mgr. Duchesne s 
words as faithfully as possible, even at the sacrifice of smooth 
ness of expression. For any failure to do justice in this volume 
(for which alone he is responsible) to the reputation of a scholar 
whose memory he holds in reverence, the translator can only 
express affectionate regret. He has ventured to add an Index. 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 



PREFACE, ...... v 

CHAPTER I 
THE CHURCH IN THE DAYS OF THEODOSIUS I. AND II. 

The decay of the Empire. Christian morality. The aristocracy and 
the masses. Penitential discipline. Developments of public 
worship. Popular religion ; the cultus of the Saints, of Relic? 
and of Images. Theology. Progress of the Hierarchy. The 
election of Bishops. Groupings of the Episcopal body. Ecclesi 
astical legislation. Monks and monasteries, i 

CHAPTER II 
ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME 

Origen, doctor and controversialist. Evagrius the monk. Rufinus, 
Epiphanius, Jerome. Journey of Aterbius. Jerome s change of 
attitude. John, Bishop of Jerusalem. Epiphanius in Palestine. 
His quarrel with John. Ordination of Paulinian. Conflicts. 
Intervention of Theophilus. Transient peace. Rufinus returns 
to Italy. He publishes the Peri Archon. Pope Anastasius. 
Theophilus and the Nitrian monks. He proscribes Origen. 
His expedition to Nitria. Exodus of the Origenist monks. 
Origen condemned at Rome. Position of Rufinus. His 
controversy with St Jerome. His literary works, . . 27 

CHAPTER III 

CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS 

The successors of Theodosius : Stilicho, Rufinus, Eutropius, Gainas. 
Archbishop John. His reforms, his preaching, his relations with 
the Arians and the Goths. Forces of opposition which he 

ix 



CONTENTS 

PAQV 

arouses. Rivalry of the Alexandrian Patriarchs to the Bishop 
of the Capital : their power. The monks of Nitria at Constanti 
nople. Arrival of Epiphanius : his death. Theophilus appears 
on the scene. Council of the Oak : deposition of John. His 
departure : his return. Affair of the statue of Eudoxia. John 
disgraced : his exile. Schism and persecution. John s appeal : 
intervention of Pope Innocent. Death of John in exile. Attitude 
of Jerome, ........ 49 



CHAPTER IV 

THE END OF DONATISM 

Return of the Donatist clergy in Julian s reign. Romanus the 
Count. Parmenian. Optatus of Milevis. Tychonius. The 
Rogatists. Revolt of Firmus. The Councils under Genethlius 
(390). Gildo the Count and Bishop Optatus. Schism under 
Maximian : Councils of Cabarsussi and Bagai. Revolt of Gildo. 
Augustine. Council of Hippo. Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage. 
Reception given to the converted Donatists. Inquiries regarding 
the followers of Maximian. Augustine s activity. The Donatists 
summoned to a Conference. Their refusal and acts of violence. 
The schism abolished by law (405) : imposition of unity. The 
Conference of 4 1 1. Marcellinus the notary : his death. Spread 
ing of unity. Emeritus of Caesarea. Gaudentius of Thamugad, 76 



CHAPTER V 

ALARIC 

Weakness of the Western Empire. Alaric and Stilicho. Taking of 
Rome. Gaul a prey to the Barbarians. The Emperors of Aries. 
Athaulf in Gaul and in Spain. The <c Patrician " Constantius. 
Christians of strict views. Prudentius. Paulinus of Nola. 
Sulpicius Severus. Postumianus. Vigilantius. Remnants of 
Arianism in Illyricum : Maximin. Bonosus of Naissus. The 
"Vicariate" of Thessalonica. Nicetas of Remesiana. The 
Episcopal Hierarchy in Italy. Roman Society. The Probi. 
The Friends of St Jerome. The Valerii : Melania the Younger. 
Melania the Elder reappears in Rome. Her grandchildren 
sacrifice their fortune. The downfall of Rome. Sensation 
which it produces. The City of God and the History of Orosius. 
After the invasion, . 104 



CONTENTS xi 

CHAPTER VI 
PELAGIUS 

PAGE 

Demetrias the Virgin. Pinianus and Melania in Africa. Beginnings 
of the controversy on Grace and Original Sin. Doctrines of 
Pelagius and of St Augustine. Pelagius at Rome and in Africa. 
Celestius : his condemnation at Carthage. Pelagius in Palestine. 
Attitude of Jerome and of Orosius. Council of Diospolis. The 
troubles of Jerome. African Councils. Pope Innocent condemns 
Pelagius and Celestius, ...... 140 

CHAPTER VII 

POPE ZOSIMUS 

Accession of Pope Zosimus. Patroclus of Aries, Heros and Lazarus. 
Celestius and Pelagius find a welcome at Rome. Intervention 
of the Africans. Definitive condemnation of Pelagianism. 
Zosimus and the African bishops. Affair of Apiarius. The 
canons of Sardica. Death of Zosimus. Schism under Eulalius. 
Pope Boniface. African Council of 419. Affair of Antony of 
Fussala. Second affair of Apiarius, .... 159 

CHAPTER VIII 

AUGUSTINIANIS^ 



Pelagian opposition. Julian of Eclanum, His controversies with 
St Augustine. The Pelagians and the Western Empire. 
Pelagianism in Britain : St Germanus of Auxerre. Reaction 
against the extreme views of St Augustine. The monasteries of 
Lerins and of Marseilles. The last writings of Augustine : his 
death. Cassian, Prosper, Vincent of Lerins. Attitude of the 
Holy See, . ...... 181 

CHAPTER IX 

ATTICUS AND CYRIL 

The successors of Arcadius. Atticus and the followers of John. In 
Egypt : Theophilus, Synesius, Isidore of Pelusium, St Nilus. 
Death of Jerome. Antioch : reunion of the followers of Paulinus 
and of John. John s memory cleared at Constantinople. Cyril 
of Alexandria : his early days. Massacre of Hypatia. 
Messalians and Akoimetoi. The monks of Constantinople. 
St Simeon Stylites, ....... 201 



xii CONTENTS 

CHAPTER X 

THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS 

PAOI 

Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus. Nestorius and the heretics. 
The question of the "Unity" of Christ. The term " Mother of 
God." Unguarded sermons of Nestorius. His relations with 
Rome. Leporius, Cassian, Marius Mercator. Intervention of 
Cyril. He is commissioned by Pope Celestine. His Anathemas. 
The Easterns. Meeting of the Council of Ephesus. Cyril 
deposes Nestorius. The Easterns depose Cyril and Memnon. 
Conflict. Intervention of the Court. Banishment of Nestorius. 
The two parties send representatives to Chalcedon. Maximian, 
Bishop of Constantinople. The council disperses. The Eastern 
schism. Mission of Aristolaus. Difficult position of Cyril. 
The Peace of 433. Official severity against Nestorius and his 
supporters. Disputes in regard to Diodore of Tarsus and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Tome of Proclus, . . 219 

CHAPTER XI 

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 

Death of Cyril and of John. Dioscorus, Domnus, Ibas, Theodoret. 
Confidence of the Easterns : Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre. Flavian 
succeeds Proclus. The Chamberlain Chrysaphius. Importance 
of Eutyches. His conflict with the Easterns : the Government 
supports him. Flavian deprives him. The doctrine of Eutyches 
and the formulas of Cyril : the " Two Natures." Roman 
opinion : the Tome of Leo. The Second Council of Ephesus : 
rehabilitation of Eutyches, condemnation of Flavian and the 
Easterns. Death of Flavian : succession of Anatolius. Leo 
quashes the Council of Ephesus. Death of Theodosius II. 
Reaction under Pulcheria and Marcian. Summoning of the 
Council of Chalcedon. Repudiation of the Council of Ephesus. 
Personal questions : Dioscorus, his accomplices, the Egyptian 
bishops, the monks. Definition of Faith. Presence of the 
Emperor. Rehabilitation of Theodoret and of Ibas. The 
revenge of Nestorius. His end, . . . . .271 

CHAPTER XII 

THE MONOPHYSITES 

End of the Council of Chalcedon. Patriarchates of Jerusalem and of 
Constantinople. Opposition of the Pope. Monophysite rising at 
Jerusalem. Theodosius the monk and the Empress Eudocia. 



CONTENTS xiii 

PAOK 

Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria, his difficulties, his tragic end. 
Timothy ALlurus. Consultation of the Episcopate, ^lurus 
exiled. The Emperors after Marcian : Leo, Zeno, Basiliscus. 
Return of ^lurus. The Encyclical of Basiliscus. Opposition of 
Acacius of Constantinople. Affairs at Antioch. Progress of the 
Monophysite party. Peter the Fuller. Daniel the Stylite. 
Restoration of Zeno. The Henotikon. Peter Mongus and the 
Acephali. Position in Syria : the Crucifixus pro nobis. The 
Opposition party in Palestine : Peter of Iberia. Acacius deposed 
by Pope Felix III. Schism between Rome and the Greek 
Church, ........ 316 



CHAPTER XIII 

CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE 

Christian foundations in the Caucasus. The Church in Georgia. 
Armenia and its political vicissitudes. Conversion to Christianity. 
Tiridates and Gregory the Illuminator. Organization of the 
Armenian Church. Its history in the 4th century : Narses, 
Sahag. The Wars of Religion in 450 and 481. Vahan Mami- 
gouni. The Persian Church : its origins. Persecution under 
Sapor II. Aphraates and his Homilies. The Catholicate of 
Seleucia. Marutas and the Council of 410. Relations with the 
Churches of the Empire : Acacius of Amida. Armenia passes over 
to Monophysitism, Persia to Nestorianism. Arabian develop 
ments of Christianity in Eastern Syria. Churches founded in 
the territory of Axoum and among the Homerites. The Gospel 
in the Indian Ocean, ...... 360 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 

The Empire in the days of Aetius. The Priscillianists of Spain. 
Turribius of Astorga. Hilary of Aries : his disputes with Pope 
Leo. St Germanus of Auxerre. Attila. The Councils in 
Armorica. Sidonius Apollinaris. Salvian. Faustus of Riez. 
The Church of Britain. St Patrick, Apostle of Ireland. Gildas. 
The Vandals in Africa. Religious Policy of Genseric. The 
Persecution under Huneric. St Eugenius of Carthage. Victor 
of Vita, ........ 401 



xiv CONTENTS 

CHAPTER XV 
THE ROMAN CHURCH IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 

PAGE 

The Empire in its agony. Ricimer and the last Emperors of the 
West. Odoacer and Theodoric. Catholic Rome. Disappear 
ance of the Novatians. The Manicheans and Pope Leo. 
Pelagians and Eutychians. The Arians. The Holy See and 
the Churches of the East The jurisdiction of the Pope. 
Episcopal Elections ; Roman Councils. The Pope and the Latin 
Church. The Secular Arm, ..... 445 

INDEX . ...... 471 



EARLY HISTORY OF THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 

CHAPTER I 

THE CHURCH IN THE DAYS OF THEODOSIUS I. AND II. 

IN uniting itself closely to the State, the Church under 
Theodosius was not making a good match : it was wedding 
a sick man, soon to become a dying one. A strong and 
determined ruler who as the beginning of his career had 
extricated the empire from a frightful disaster, who had caused 
it to be respected by the barbarians and had twice repressed 
dangerous rivals to his authority, was succeeded by two poor 
young princes, wilted blossoms of the women s quarters ; and 
under these what little vital force the old worn-out body 
still retained was soon seen to fade away, leaving no fruit 
behind. 

And the force that remained was little enough. In its 
early days Rome justified its hegemony by the services which 
it rendered to the world in the maintenance of peace, and 
the propagation and defence of the best forms of civiliza 
tion. For the performance of these functions there sufficed 
at that time an executive comparatively small in numbers, 
directed from the capital by an administration of very little 
complexity. The local organizations, the subject or allied 
cities, the vassal states, provided for the rest. The local com 
munities lived their own lives under the protection of Rome, 
lives which contributed to the general life of the Empire and 
gave it strength. After a time all this was crushed out, and 
all that remained was an enormous mass of subjects and 
an administration which was as highly centralized as it was 
complicated. The Government became a huge machine of 
judicature, of administration, and, above all, of oppression, 



2 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

for the more the system was perfected, the more the central 
organ, the imperial court, developed, the more complicated 
became the hierarchy of officials and the greater also grew 
the cost The autonomy of former days, the freedom of 
tenure and of trade, was replaced by various kinds of official 
organization : the system of colonization which riveted to the 
rural domains the population of the country districts ; the 
urban corporations within which were confined the greater 
part of the artizans of the towns ; the town councils, in 
which, in order to ensure the payment of taxation, the State 
kept its eye upon persons who possessed any considerable 
means. The result was a sterilization which was alike universal 
and progressive. Wealth disappeared or was concentrated in 
the hands of a few, poverty became the normal condition, 
the population was thinned to a frightful extern. There was 
no military spirit even among the aristocracy which had long 
been diverted from the pursuit of arms. The career which was 
sought after was that in the civil administrations ; by an irony 
of language it was called the " Service " (militia). Men 
" served " in the government offices ; the pen replaced the 
sword. Men " served " also in the Church. These two 
" Services," the militia sczculi and the militia ecclesiastica 
exhausted their ambition. Of the national feeling there 
remained a certain attachment to Graeco-Latin civilization. 
From the literary circles which cherished this attachment at 
all times, and in some cases with a pathetic solicitude, this 
feeling spread among the people and established itself in some 
degree in their hearts. In more than one province, however, 
less assimilated than the rest to its conquerors, traditions which 
dated back before their subjection showed a tendency to revive, 
like the wild plant which springs up again in fields allowed to 
go out of cultivation. And besides taxation was so heavy, 
the State so harsh a master ! There were many people who 
came to think that they were made to pay too dearly for the 
privilege of not being the subjects of the Barbarians. 

In this process of decay Christianity has little or no responsi 
bility J : the causes were foreign to it, and for the most part 
earlier in date. But we must admit that if Christianity had 
no share in bringing about the downfall of the Empire, on the 
other hand it equally did nothing to arrest it. The strength 
1 On this question see Boissier, La fin dupaganisme^ ii., 391 ff. 



p. 2-5] THE CHURCH IN THE STATE 3 

which a State may derive from a national religion firmly 
established in fervour and observances the Roman Empire 
could not ask of the Church. Universal in its character even 
before its birth by virtue of the principles which it inherited 
from the Judaism of later days, and not only universal but 
politically indifferent, it could show but little interest in any 
other city but the City of God, in any other future than that 
beyond the grave. The only service that it could render to 
the Empire of this world was in effecting a moral reformation 
in its subjects. And again we have to remember that the 
moral teaching of the Church, at any rate in its ideal and in 
its most complete exemplification, transcended in a marked 
degree the ordinary needs of the State, and that their respective 
ordinances were liable to find themselves in conflict. 1 The 
Church aimed at making saints ; it produced many virgins and 
monks ; the " heavenly aspirations " which it implanted in their 
souls left little place there for the matters which occupy the 
thoughts of the citizen. It offered consolations to the victims 
of an extortionate treasury and of all the misdeeds of a bad 
government ; it offered consolations also to the victims of 
barbarian invasions. But the resignation which it preached 
and the material relief which it was able to dispense represent 
no effort to stay the progress of the decline of the Roman 
State. 

At the same time we must make allowance for a lack of con 
sistency in practice. It was very far from being the case that all 
adherents of the Church were equally devoted to the realization 
of the ideal system of the Gospels. Long distances separated 
them from the spiritual enthusiasm of the early Church, from 
those tiny communities of ancient days which were recruited 
with jealous care, each member watching over and confirming 
his brethren, while the hearts of all were directed with eager 
expectancy to the speedy return of the Christ. Now everyone 
was Christian, or nearly everyone ; and this implied that the 
profession involved but little sacrifice. At the sacred seasons 
the baptisteries were thronged literally by crowds; but they 
were crowds of neophytes hurriedly prepared, with scant instruc 
tion in their new religion, and, more serious still, little tested in 
the practice of the virtues which the Gospels taught. Children 

1 The State had scant need of the monks ; its matrimonial legislation 
allowed of divorce, and the Church had the utmost difficulty in enduring it. 
III. B 



4 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

born of Christian parents did not always find at home the 
religious instruction which they needed, nor even a good 
example. The Church services did not provide, apart from 
the catechetical instructions in preparation for the baptism of 
adults, a well-arranged system of teaching. The Bible was 
read in them, and was commented upon ; the good Christians of 
that period seem to have been well acquainted with it, for 
the sermons of the time are full of references to the sacred text, 
and we find the faithful taking an interest in details of variant 
readings and of exegesis which would leave the Christians of 
our own day cold. 

But such Christians were a select band, more regular than 
the rest in their attendance at services, more attracted than the 
generality by spiritual readings. The mass of the community 
was Christian in the only way in which the mass could be, 
superficially and in name ; the water of baptism had touched 
it, but the spirit of the Gospel had not penetrated its heart. 
Upon their entry into the Church the faithful invariably 
renounced the pomps of Satan ; but neither the theatres nor 
the games were deserted : it was a subject on which preachers 
uttered their most eloquent protests, and all to no purpose. 
The temples it is true were closed ; but the places of amuse 
ment, even those of the most objectionable character, retained 
their clientele. Was it really the Church which was overcoming 
the world ? Was it not rather the world which was overcoming 
the Church? 

In the 4th century the Imperial Court, the upper ranks of 
the various hierarchies of officials, included side by side with 
Pagans, who were always numerous, a considerable body of 
Christians. But what Christians! The Emperors themselves 
left much to be desired in this respect ; and below them the 
prefects, generals, and governors of provinces whom we know 
to have embraced Christianity, did very little credit to their 
new religion. For the most part they postponed baptism till 
their last illness ; and in view of this combination of the two, 
the children of the great families were not baptized. If he had 
not become a bishop, St Ambrose, no doubt, would only have 
received the sacrament in the hour of death. His kinsman, 
Probus, who was a Praetorian Prefect almost without a break, 1 

1 Ammianus says that when he was not Prefect he had the appearance 
of a fish out of water (xxvii. n, 3). 



p. 5-7] CONVENTIONAL CHRISTIANITY 5 

passed from the baptistery to the tomb l ; the same had been true 
of the Prefect of Rome, Junius Bassus (359). 2 The garment of 
innocency which such neophytes carried into Paradise was not 
it was very far from being the emblem of a life without spot 
and an administration without reproach. 

After all, was it possible to give a moral character to the 
old Roman machine, to subject to the yoke of the Gospel, 
I do not say the Emperor but the government of the Empire ? 
The Christians who were really worthy of the name do not 
seem to have thought so : they held aloof from public affairs 
and refrained even from entering the ranks of the clergy, whom 
they considered still too much occupied in the things of this 
world. They lived in retirement, in town or country, engaged 
in religious meditation and the practice of an ascetic life. In 
some cases they gathered round them friends or dependents 
whom they persuaded to live as they did and to form a kind 
of monastery. Pammachius, Pinianus, Prudentius, Sulpicius 
Severus, Paulinus, Dalmatius, and many others were men of 
this way of thinking. Others went further still and fled for 
refuge to the desert. 

We must not, however, suppose that the monks were the 
only good Christians that there were. Many others were to 
be found besides in ordinary life, in the avocations and business 
of the towns, in the domains of the country districts. All did 
not practise the same degree of devotion. Some of them were 
constant attendants at the offices of the Church, by day and 
night. At the time with which we are dealing we find such 
gatherings becoming increasingly frequent : this is a sign that 
they were welcomed by the faithful. When at Jast these grew 
weary of them, there were formed in connexion with the great 
churches groups, which soon became guilds, of habituts who were 
called " religious " or " zealous " (religiosi, o-Trovdaioi, QiXoTrovoi). 
A man was a spoudaios of St Sophia, of the Holy Sepulchre, 
and so on. 3 

1 This tomb still exists : it may be seen at St Peter s in the chapel of 
the Pieta. It came there from a kind of mortuary basilica which belonged 
to the family of the Probi and was situated at the chevet of the great basilica, 
behind the apse. Cf. Melanges de VEcole de Rome, vol. xxii., p. 386. 

2 His tomb is to be seen in the crypt of St Peter s. 

3 As to this see S. Petrides, Spoudaei et Philopones^ in the Echos d Orient, 
vol. vii., p. 341 ; cf. vol. iv., p. 225. Cf. Concilium Toletanuni L, c. li, 15, 18, 
and Jaffe, Regesta Pontificum^ 2078, 2079. 



6 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

Charity to the poor had in no sense grown cold. It was 
practised in various ways. Patricians who were engaged in 
ridding themselves of the cares of their wealth had no difficulty 
in finding the hungry to feed. This was charity in its direct, 
its most ancient, form the Agape. At Rome the basilica of 
St Peter witnessed the distribution in this way of enormous 
quantities of food which was consumed to a large extent 
immediately and upon the spot. These feedings of the 
populace were often attended with scenes of disorder of more 
than one kind. It was inevitable. The leaders did their best 
to obviate these drawbacks ; in particular they sought to divert 
the bounties of the rich in the direction of organized and 
specialized institutions, branches from the central organization. 

The penitential discipline was still maintained, but the 
degree of rigour to which it had been carried rendered its 
application more and more difficult. The sinner who sought 
and obtained admission to the number of the " Penitents " had 
to submit to an elaborate system of humiliations and austerities. 
He had a special place in the church and could only show 
himself clad in garments of mourning. Fasts of extreme 
severity were imposed upon him, together with abstention from 
all conjugal relations, if he were married ; if he were not, he 
was forbidden to contract marriage ; if he were a soldier or 
official, he was compelled to leave the service and return to 
private life. Never, at any period of his life, could he be 
admitted to the ranks of the clergy. Practically speaking, he 
was obliged, without betaking himself to the desert, to retire 
to his own home and live there the life of a monk. 

When these tests had been endured for a fixed time, the 
duration of which varied according to the judgement of the 
bishop, the penitent was admitted to a public reconciliation and 
incorporated once more in the body of the faithful. But woe 
betide him if he fell into sin again, for penitence was allowed 
but once. The sinner who relapsed could rely no longer upon 
the Church, but upon God alone. 

Conditions so harsh were calculated to discourage good 
desires. The reason why so many deferred their definite 
initiation to the closing hours of their lives was that, inasmuch 
as they did not feel themselves to possess the strength either 
to offer a constant resistance to temptation or to endure the 
penitential discipline to which a fall exposed them, they preferred 



p. 7-10] DISCIPLINE AND PRACTICE 7 

to avail themselves of the easy remission involved in baptism. 
As for those to whom this way had been closed by the solicitude 
of their parents, it became daily more difficult to induce them 
to ask for admission as penitents. Deeming no doubt that to 
render this so difficult was equivalent to refusing it, they 
turned aside from the absolution of the Church and made their 
peace with God without intermediary, offering to Him their 
repentance and such material expiation as was within their 
power. This was the system of the Novatians; it was even 
that which the Catholic Church applied to penitents who 
had relapsed. The great majority contented themselves with it. 

Such were the general conditions of Christian morality. 
As for the religious life it continued and developed upon 
traditional lines. 

The meetings for worship were always, as they had been 
from the earliest times, two in number the nocturnal " vigil " l 
and the morning " station," usually concluded by the Eucharistic 
Liturgy. These meetings varied in frequency in different 
countries; but in any case they took place everywhere on 
Sunday. All were bidden to them, but all could not be 
constant in their attendance. 

The ascetics so long as they continued to live among the 
rest of the faithful were distinguished by the regularity of their 
presence at meetings for worship. They had even complicated 
the arrangement of these services by carrying with them to the 
public churches the prayers which at first they were wont to 
recite privately or in their oratories. To the Vigil there was 
added in this way the Office of Matins ; other times of the day 
were consecrated by the Offices of Terce, Sext, Nones, and 
Vespers. The clergy at first took but a limited share in these ; 
but little by little when the others had grown weary of them, 
these new Offices came to devolve as a duty upon them, in the 
same way as the ancient Offices, and devolved upon the clergy 
alone. 

1 The "vigil," which has fallen into disuse for many centuries is still 
represented, in the Offices, by the long series of lessons, responds, and 
prayers which on Holy Saturday and the eve of Pentecost precede the 
benediction of the baptismal fonts, and on the Saturdays of Ember-seasons 
form the beginning of the Liturgy. See my Origines du culte chretien, 
p. 233 (fourth edition). 



8 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

The singing of Psalms and other Bible canticles, reading of 
the Old and New Testaments, prayers, sometimes silent the 
president confining himself to giving the signal for them and 
concluding them by a short invocation (collect) sometimes in 
a loud voice, the officiant uttering one by one the petitions and 
the congregation reinforcing them with a word, Kyrie eleison> 
Te rogamus^ audi nos (litany) ; such was the foundation of the 
usual religious exercises. 1 To this was added when the 
Eucharist was celebrated the great prayer of consecration, Vere 
dignum, or Eucharistic Prayer, 2 at the end of which the service 
of Communion took place. The text of the lessons was often 
the subject of homiletical comments, more or less frequent and 
copious, according to the country and also according to the 
oratorical abilities of the clergy. A Chrysostom or an 
Augustine was not always at command. At Jerusalem all 
the priests were accustomed to preach every Sunday, one after 
the other, a practice which had the disadvantage, to say no 
more, of greatly prolonging the Offices. At Rome, on the 
other hand, there were very few sermons. 

This represents the ordinary and general order of worship ; 
the ceremonies connected with baptism lent variety to it at 
certain great festivals Easter, Whitsuntide, Christmas, and 
Epiphany ; there were also special ceremonies for ordinations, 
the consecration of Virgins, and the dedication of churches. 3 

The feasts of the martyrs acquired in the 4th century a 
great popularity. In them is found the beginning of the cultus 
of the saints which became so widespread and so varied in 
its manifestations. Nothing could be more natural than to 
pay honour to the memory of the heroes of the Faith. 
Unfortunately the ardour with which this course was embraced 
was joined with motives which were open to criticism, and 
even sources of danger in some aspects. The feasts of the 
martyrs were accompanied in many places by agapce, which 
quickly deteriorated into junketings which were a cause of 
scandal. 4 It needed much eloquence, determination, and even 

1 Origines du culte chr^tien^ c. iv. 

2 This is what is called in Greek the Anaphora ; it corresponds in the 
Latin use to the Preface, the Sanctus, and the Canon. 

3 In regard to all these points, cf. my book Origines du culte chrttien. 

4 Ad calicem venimus was written on the walls of the cemetery of 
Priscilla by one of the faithful whose mind was unduly occupied by thoughts 
of the agape and of refreshment. 



p. 10-13] SERVICES AND CULTS 9 

courage to eradicate these monstrous abuses. Advantage, too, 
was supposed to be obtainable from securing burial in close 
proximity to the saints, since they were thought bound to extend 
at the day of the final resurrection a special protection to their 
neighbours in the grave. The result of this was seen in an 
unseemly jostling from which the sacred edifices in some 
instances suffered. 1 

While waiting for the Last Day the souls of the righteous 
were regarded as living in the presence of God and forming for 
Him, in company with the angels, a kind of celestial court. To 
the mind of the populace whose perceptions in theology were 
not specially acute, this body of the Blessed, which was also, in 
virtue of the solidarity of Christians or communion of saints, a 
body of intercessors, presented some points of resemblance to 
the ancient Pantheon. I believe that this resemblance is 
grossly exaggerated when it is asserted that polytheism, which 
had at first been driven out, returned by this door. Even the 
least educated of the faithful recognized a difference between 
God and His saints of quite another kind from that which 
their fathers had put between Jupiter and his colleagues. At 
bottom their conception of the celestial court was influenced far 
less by the Olympus of the poets than by the sight which lay 
open before their own eyes, that of the earthly kingdom, of the 
Emperor and his immediate attendants, attendants whose favour 
availed against the laws, often mitigated their severity and 
ensured to those to whom it extended the accomplishment of 
their desires. None the less the distribution of the divine 
implied in the cultus of the Blessed did correspond, in some 
degree, to a mode of regarding the relations of the Divinity 
with men which was common enough among the Pagans. A 
particular saint protected more particularly this or that country, 
showed himself helpful in particular circumstances, healed this 
or that disease. Benefit was to be derived from invoking him 
near his tomb or in a sanctuary which was specially dedicated 
to him. From this popular theology it was impossible to break 
free without a determined effort to resist it. The effort was 
not made, or if made it was speedily discouraged. 2 The general 
temper among the clergy was bent how could it be otherwise? 

1 On this point see the De cura pro mortuis of St Augustine, and De 
Rossi, Bulletino di archeologia cristiana (1875), P- 2I 

2 This was the case of Vigilantius of which we shall hear later. 



10 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

upon the conversion of the masses of the people. But 
these masses who were ushered abruptly into the banqueting 
hall of the mystic feast brought with them the practices to 
which they were accustomed, and it was necessary to make the 
best of these, however repellent they might appear to the 
ihstincts of persons of superior education. 

To the martyrs of the persecutions were speedily added the 
saints of the New and even of the Old Testament. Some of 
their tombs were already known and visited ; others disclosed 
themselves through dreams and other modes of "revelation." 
In this way were discovered the tomb of Job in Batanea, 1 those 
of the prophets Habakkuk and Micah at Eleutheropolis, 2 those 
of the prophets Samuel and Zechariah, of the patriarch Joseph, 8 
and above all that of St Stephen, the opening of which in 
415 created an enormous sensation throughout the whole of 
Christendom. Palestine was prolific in discoveries of this kind. 

The angels also were beginning to receive religious homage. 
It was in vain that in the time of Theodosius the Council of 
Laodicea in Phrygia raised a protest against certain forms of 
this cult. Its roots in the country were of very ancient date : 
there was nothing to be done but to accept it. The sanctuary 
of Chonae, not far from Laodicea, is one of the oldest of those 
which have been consecrated to the archangel Michael. 4 With 
him was soon associated Gabriel, known like him from the 
Book of Daniel and fulfilling besides an important part in the 
Gospel. In Syria they were both grouped together with Christ, 
and the triad thus formed possessed a well-known siglum XMT. 
In the same country we find the appearance of the cultus of the 
archangel Raphael, the archangel of the Book of Tobit, and 
even- of the angel Uriel supplied by the Fourth (uncanonical) 
Book of Esdras. In Egypt they went further still : they 
celebrated the festivals of the four-and-twenty elders (vieillards) 
of the Apocalypse and of the four symbolical animals the 
festivals, that is, of beings whose actual existence was not 
easy to establish. 

1 Peregrinatio, c. 16, in the Itinera Hierosolymitana, ed. Geyer (Corpus 
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum^ vol. xxxix., p. 59). 

2 Sozomen, H.E., vii. 29. 

3 Jerome adv. Vigilantium^ 5 ; Sozomen, ff.E., ix. 16, 17 ; Paschal 
Chronicle, 406, 407, 415. 

4 Cf. vol. I., p. 53, note. 



p. 13-16] SHRINES AND SANCTUARIES 11 

The cultus of the saints was a sanctuary-cult ; it was prac 
tised in well-marked places, in most instances near a tomb. 
Great meetings for service were held there on days set apart for 
the observance ; at ordinary times pilgrims resorted to them and 
procured the celebration of the Offices, and in particular of the 
Eucharistic Liturgy (Oblatio missce). The solemn assemblies 
were occasions for processions and feasts, features which closely 
resembled the Pagan festivals. This fact excited no alarm in the 
minds of prudent ecclesiastics ; the people, they thought, experi 
enced in this way less disturbance in their traditional customs. 

But it was not only to sanctuaries that devotion was 
directed. Sanctuaries, even those of simple martyrs, were not 
to be found everywhere ; the most venerable shrines were 
unique in the world. Only at Rome could one venerate the 
tombs of St Peter and St Paul. In order to visit the Holy 
Sepulchre or the Grotto of the Nativity it was necessary to 
undertake the journey to the Holy Land. Piety, ever fertile in 
expedients, got round this difficulty. Souvenirs were procured, 
typical relics, phials of oil filled from the lamps of the shrines, 
bits of stuff cut from the veils which covered the hallowed 
tombs, fragments detached from the sides of the sacred 
grottos. 1 We hear also of blood collected on pieces of linen 
or in sponges at the time of the martyrs agony ; less frequently 
of bones, of similar origin, I think, for it was only later that 
people began to open the tombs and to cut in pieces the bodies 
of the saints for the satisfaction of a piety of which the lack of 
discretion was more evident than its refinement of feeling. 

The cult of images took longer to establish itself; it bore too 
close a similarity to the cult of idols. The use of painting and 
of sculpture in the decoration of churches, of cemeteries, 
and of private houses is a different matter from the venera 
tion which attached later on whether to certain images 
which were regarded as miraculous or to representations 
of Christ and of the saints, set up in certain places and in 
certain ways. This last cult was practised in the 4th 

1 An inscription belonging to the year 359 and found in Mauritania 
Sitifensis provides us with a list of relics (Audollent, in the Melanges 
de VEcoie de Rome, vol. x., p. 441 ; cf. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum^ 
vol. viii., No. 20,600), which include some of the wood of the Cross, some 
of " the land of promise where Christ was born," and relics of the Apostles 
Peter and Paul. 



12 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

century and in the 5th, but it was not to images of Christ 
and of the saints that it was addressed but to representations 
of the Emperors. This was the model which inspired the 
religious veneration of the sacred images when it found its way 
into the Church. As for miraculous images, none of those which 
attained celebrity later seems to go back earlier than the 6th 
century. 1 At the time with which we are now dealing there 
were only images used for ornament. Even so they were not 
favourably regarded by everybody. The Council of Elvira 
(c. 300 A.D.) had forbidden them in the churches, 2 and not only 
these but every kind of paintings. St Epiphanius, at the 
end of the 4th century, adopted the same attitude. 3 But such 
was not the general feeling. The churches of the period of 
Constantine at Rome, at Constantinople, and in many other 
places were plentifully adorned. Certain decorative arrange 
ments were appropriated to the apses ; treated on a large 
scale, they could not fail to attract men s attention, and to 
convey a message to all. To this class belonged, for example, 
the Vineyard of the Lord ; the Lamb of God placed upon a rock 
from which gushed out the four rivers of Paradise ; Jesus seated 
in the midst of the Apostles, delivering to St Peter the book of 
the New Covenant ; or, again, Christ in majesty, in the imagery 
of the Apocalypse, with the four-and-twenty elders and the 
representations, which certainly possessed but little aesthetic 
merit, of the four mysterious animals. Along the sides of the 
naves were reproduced, in panels of mosaic, scenes from the 
Bible, copied on illuminated manuscripts. The use of these 
seems to have been of great antiquity. 

In. the Christian religion the cultus of the saints, of relics 
and of images, is a contribution of the masses. It is in the 
nature of things that religion should exhibit something of the 
character of those who practise it. Why should the masses not 
have set their mark upon it? The thinkers certainly set theirs, 
and it is a mark of a more perilous kind. They broke free in 
the earliest days from Rabbinical and Oriental fantasies, but it 

1 On this subject see Dobschiitz Christusbilder (Leipzig, 1899) in the 
Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. xviii. 

2 Can. 36: " Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur 
et adoratur in parietibus depingatur." 

3 Jerome, Ep. li. 9. 



p. 16-19] POPULAR RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 13 

took longer to extricate oneself from Greek philosophy, or rather 
from the gnostic adaptations of it. Even so complete success 
was not achieved : the gnosticism of Clement and of Origen, 
orthodox as it was by comparison, retained for many attractions 
which did not all proceed from the traditional elements that 
it had preserved. Side by side with this, and after it, less 
intrepid spirits set themselves, if not to propose new syntheses, 
at any rate to explain certain beliefs by the categories of Greek 
thought. Many of them fell into error and had to be brought 
back to the Tradition. But between them and their opponents 
there was some common ground, the scientific explanation of 
religion, Theology, to call it by its right name. Like the 
popular form of worship it had roots of some antiquity and 
sprang from causes which lay deep down. In a greater or less 
degree the religious man, as soon as he begins to think, 
endeavours to think religiously ; from this point of view 
theology is coeval with Christian origins, ,and it finds further 
in the writings of St John and of St Paul some notable 
manifestations. For all that, we must not confuse it with 
religion itself. Religion must not fail to appreciate the services 
which it has received from theology ; but history, while on its 
side it takes note of these, perceives that the price paid has 
sometimes been very heavy. In producing the orthodoxy of the 
Greek councils theology has done its work, of that there is no 
doubt, but it has done it by successive stages, and in ways which 
have differed in character ; at first by producing heresies, then 
by assisting to put them down, and finally by systematizing the 
results of these struggles. Like a famous weapon it has served for 
the defence of institutions, and sometimes also to attack them. 

At the time with which we are dealing, theology found its 
most usual expression in exegesis. This was its ordinary form, 
its form on a peace-footing, if I may use the phrase ; that which 
was made use of when there was no heresy in sight. Days of 
crisis gave birth to polemical treatises ; then, when the dust 
of the conflict began to subside a little, dispassionate workers 
appeared on the scene who quietly deduced the conclusions 
and reconciled with the received tradition the decisions which 
resulted from the recent disputes. 

By the development of its worship and of its theology, 
the Church adapted itself to the feelings, customs, and 



14 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

prepossessions of the adherents, of very varying degrees of 
culture, whom it received from all sides. At bottom its teaching 
underwent no change ; based as it was on tradition, it remained 
firmly attached to it; at the very most it admitted of a few 
closer definitions as the result of the repudiation of certain 
theories and the employment of new terms. 

Its government, too, in its turn remained essentially the 
same. The local church is always the private association of 
ancient times; it continues to possess its property, both real 
and personal, its organization for relief, and its hierarchy. As 
in the time of Trajan, this means the supreme director, the 
bishop ; the council of the priests ; the body of those engaged 
in service, the deacons and inferior ministers. But from the very 
fact of the enormous increase of numbers, how great is the 
difference in its outward appearance ! The tiny groups of the 
initiated, the few dozens or hundreds of persons who composed 
the churches of primitive times have been succeeded by 
multitudes. No longer were meetings held in a garret by the 
light of a few lamps. The Christian body was now gathered 
together in basilicas which were spacious, and in some cases 
magnificent ; lustres or colossal candelabra threw floods of light 
upon the scene. A large body of ministers directed the sacred 
meetings ; deacons maintained order in them ; readers in 
sonorous tones endeavoured to make themselves heard above 
the noise of the multitude, and to carry even to the back rows 
the words of the sacred texts. The bishop and his assistant 
ministers performed the religious acts handed down by tradition, 
but with rites which had already become intricate, and above 
all, with imposing ceremonial. 

As in other days the bishop and his council decided matters 
of dispute between the faithful ; but the faithful were now so 
numerous that this judicial system had come to occupy a great 
deal of time. It was further complicated by the fact that the 
Emperor threw open the bishop s court to all suitors without 
distinction of religion, 1 and that suitors as a rule in place of the 

1 This, however, only lasted for a time. The arbitration of the bishop 
always remained open to suitors, with the consent of the parties ; but from 
398 onwards various imperial ordinances revived the obligation of this 
agreement, and did so in regard to the court of the Jewish "patriarchs" 
equally with that of the Christian bishops (Cod. Theod. ii. I, 10 ; Cod. 
Just. \. 4, 7). 



p. 19-22] CHURCH ORGANIZATION 15 

dilatory forms of procedure of the civil tribunals preferred the 
simple and inexpensive methods of an episcopal hearing. 

As in other days, also, the bishop with his body of officials 
administered the property of the Church. At the outset this 
meant the management of a small and scantily filled purse ; 
now it included movable property of considerable variety, 
buildings alike numerous and important, a vast patri 
mony in country districts with farmers, cultivators, slaves, 
revenues, and expenses of management. It is extremely 
surprising when we consider it closely that so enormous an 
external development should not have produced a greater effect 
than it did upon the essential lines of the government of the 
Church, It did have some effect, however, an effect which 
we must not overlook. 

At first the collective body of the faithful showed itself less 
and less active. When the numbers were very small it was 
possible for each to have " a voice in the chapter." It is easy 
to see that in the early days many had a share in the acts 
of public worship who later on no longer took any but a 
passive part. 1 It is in the nature of things that this should be 
so: the larger the numbers, the smaller the direct share in 
the government taken by individuals. In the 4th century the 
distinction between laity and clergy has already entered, and 
to a very marked extent, into established customs. Not only 
in worship but in the administration of the temporal affairs of 
the Church it is the clergy alone who count. It was only in 
elections that the feelings of the people had an opportunity of 
expressing themselves effectually. 

Apart from this the layman had no voice in the Church : his 
attitude in regard to it is uniformly passive ; he is called upon 
to hear readings and sermons, to associate himself by short 
ejaculations with the prayers which the clergy frame, to 
receive from the clergy the sacraments and to recognize the 
clergy as the depository and the ordainer of them. 

The body of the clergy itself had greatly developed. 2 
Priests and deacons retained their essential attributes ; but, 

1 We need only remind ourselves of the inspired persons, the prophets 
of early days. At Rome at the beginning of the 3rd century the assembly 
of the faithful was still consulted to know whether a penitent could be 
absolved. (Cf. vol. I. p. 230 f.) 

2 Origines du culte Chretien, c. x. 



16 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

except in certain places (notably at Rome, where the total of 
seven was adhered to for the deacons), their number had largely 
increased. Below the deacons swarmed quite a host of inferior 
clergy. At first there were the sub-deacons and acolytes who 
assisted the deacons in the service of the altar : these two 
grades remained undistinguished in the East, and even in 
certain Churches in the West. Next followed the exorcists. 
In the East these do not form part of the clergy properly 
so-called. In the West they had at first considerable import 
ance, especially in the preparation for baptism. People s minds 
at that time were greatly concerned in regard to evil spirits, 
their power and the necessity of delivering from them not only 
the souls of men but their bodies and nature itself, whether 
animate or inorganic. Everything over which the name of 
Jesus Christ had not been vigorously invoked was deemed to 
be subject to the action of the evil spirit and capable of 
transmitting it. It was for this reason that exorcisms were 
multiplied over the candidates for baptism, and that it was 
insisted that they should descend in complete nudity into the 
sacred font {piscine) without the smallest object, whether 
ornament, amulet, or binding for the hair, which could afford 
a lodgement for the enemy. This concern may seem to us 
strange, but it had formerly too much importance, it has left 
traces too evident in the liturgy, from ancient times down to 
our own day, to make it possible for it to be passed over 
unnoticed. However, since it was especially with the baptism 
of adults that the part played by the exorcists was connected, 
in proportion as infant baptism became general the importance 
of these clergy diminished and also their number. At the council 
of Aries in 314 almost all the clergy who accompany the 
bishops are exorcists ; in the 6th century they became 
infrequent ; their functions or what remains of them pass to 
other clerics ; we no longer hear of them except in the rituals 
of ordination. 

Side by side with the exorcists came the readers, whose 
name is a sufficient indication of their duties ; then, below 
these, in the West at any rate, the door-keepers, who do not 
elsewhere form part of the clergy properly so-called. Last of 
all come a host of servants, employed especially for the burial 
of the dead the guardians of the cemeteries and the churches, 
fossores, copiata, parabolani, etc., bearing different designations 



p. 22-5] THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH 17 

according to the locality. All these formed, in the great towns, 
a numerous body, salaried and directed by the clergy, and 
entirely at the disposal of the bishop. To them we must add 
further the body of officials, the notaries and other employe s of 
the chancery, the managers of the patrimony of the Church, 
whether urban, suburban or rural, and finally the advocates, 
legal representatives in the service of the Church. 1 One can 
understand that, surrounded by such a host, presiding over 
an administration of such wide extent, and furnished, apart 
from his spiritual powers, with a judicial authority to which 
such frequent recourse was had, the bishop in each city and 
in proportion to the importance of the city was a very great 
local personage. 

He became so or appeared so the more that the town 
councils (curies municipales) were falling into an ever-increasing 
state of disorganization. For many years they had been placed 
under supervision, arid side by side with their elected magistrates, 
the duumvirs, the State had placed its Curator. In the time of 
Valentinian the common people were provided with a kind of 
special protector, the Defensor? who was taken from outside 
the curia. These magistracies complicated the administration 
without strengthening it ; their powers were gradually absorbed 
in all important respects in that of the governor of the province, 
and speedily in that of the local Count. Besides, defenders, 
curators, and duumvirs were only nominated for a short period ; 
the bishop, on the other hand, for life. The choice of him was 
therefore no trifling matter; the whole life of the city was 
interested in the election of the bishop. 

Though directed by the neighbouring bishops, this election 
remained in the hands of the inhabitants of the place, people 
and clergy. We can well understand that like all elections 
in all times it did not pass off without schemings and intrigues, 
without conflicts of interests or of ambitions. Bad choices, 
if we confine ourselves to established facts, were infrequent 
enough ; but there were many cases of men of mediocre 
calibre, I do not say in knowledge, for that does not amount 
to much, but in character and in administrative experience. 

1 " Defen sores." Vide infra^ c. xv. 

2 The institution appeared first in a law of 368 (or a little later) Cod. 
Theod. i. 29, i. Cf. Em. Chenon, Etude hintorique sur le Defensor civitatis 
(Paris, 1889). 



18 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

Theological quarrels made themselves heard in the elections ; 
but the general body of the electors concerned themselves 
rather with the administration of the ecclesiastical property, 
and the organization of charitable relief. Towards the end 
of the 4th century we find feeling running high for or 
against asceticism. St Martin is acclaimed ; for the sake 
of the austerity of his life Priscillian is excused his dis 
quieting doctrines. Elsewhere men were afraid of persons 
of severe views and elected easy-going prelates. Generally 
speaking, however, the populace when it followed its instinct 
looked with favour upon personal holiness. The worldly 
prelate, who is, alas, not uncommon, owes his position to 
other influences. His supporters relied upon him to secure 
for them freedom from disturbance in a certain laxity of life 
which was forbidden to earnest Christians by their principles 
and to common folk by their poverty. 

Once installed in his little principality, the bishop was not 
much disturbed from without It was not every day that 
the Government summoned him to great synods or asked 
for signatures which vexed his peace. As for councils of the 
region or the province, their use, which had been introduced 
in various places earlier than the 4th century, had been 
recommended and even enjoined by the Council of Nicaea. 
In spite of this, however, they were not held by any means 
every year and in every province. Even in those distant days 
the bishops were not very fond of moving from one place to 
another, especially when the result was to bring them into 
the society of colleagues who were moved by the very fact 
of being assembled together to interfere in each other s affairs. 
Still meetings of bishops did take place ; when they were not 
held in virtue of the canons and at regular intervals, they 
took place on the occasion of the consecrations of bishops, 
the dedications of churches, and other solemn functions. In 
this grouping of bishops the greatest diversities are to be found. 
In some countries, notably in Asia Minor, the model of the 
Council of Nicaea was adhered to ; the bishops of each province 
gathered themselves together round their metropolitan. In 
Egypt, in Africa, and in Italy no account was taken of the 
place which was the metropolis for administrative purposes : 
the centre for common meeting was afforded by the mother 



p. 25-7] BISHOPS AND COUNCILS 19 

church, Alexandria, Carthage, Rome. In the East there were 
councils which gathered the bishops of Syria round the 
Bishop of Antioch ; the council of Upper Italy meets for 
business sometimes, under the presidency of the Bishop of 
Milan. In Gaul we find the designation episcopi per Gallias et 
VII. provincias which corresponds to a strictly defined method 
of grouping, but one which lacked both a common centre and 
a recognized head. 

In these regionary councils, as in those assemblies which 
were more or less oecumenical in character, decisions were 
made upon important matters ; in case of need sentences 
of the first degree were reviewed. Legislation was also 
enacted, and the canons adopted in such a gathering were 
often accepted as authoritative at a distance, even beyond 
the bounds of the jurisdiction in which they originated. At 
the same time this still fell far short not merely of a systematic 
codification, but even of authorized collections of canons. 
These grew up slowly, and in separate centres. Their primary 
basis was always the group of the twenty canons of Nicaea. 
At Rome there were speedily added to these the canons of 
Sardica ; at Carthage the African councils ; in Asia Minor 
various councils of the 4th century, those of Ancyra, Neo- 
caesarea, Gangra, Laodicea, and Constantinople. 

The authority of the councils rested, in the last resort, 
on the principle, or rather the feeling, that above the local 
church there was the Universal Church, above the bishop the 
episcopate. It is as the representation in greater or smaller 
numbers of the Universal Episcopate that the council is the 
superior of the local bishop. The authority of the president, 
senior bishop or metropolitan, adds nothing or at any rate 
little to that of the assembly itself. This statement, how 
ever, must be understood as holding good in the majority 
of cases only and as apart from certain traditional positions. 
Councils which were gathered together in metropolitical cities 
such as Rome, 1 Alexandria, Antioch, or Edessa derived their 
authority rather from the metropolis itself, of which all the 
churches represented were in some sense the suffragans. As 
the governing body of the episcopate of a region, no council 

1 At Rome councils were held very frequently on the anniversary of 
the consecration of the Pope (natale episcopatus] : the bishops attended 
them by invitation. 

III. C 



20 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

presented an authority equal to that which the Bishop of 
Rome exercised in the Italian peninsula, or the Bishop of 
Alexandria in Egypt. In those places there were speedily 
established, and being established there were henceforth main 
tained, relations of strict subordination and regular government, 
which attempts were made to imitate elsewhere but with 
unequal success. When the Alexandrian Pope had spoken 
it was superfluous to ask the opinion of the bishops of Egypt ; 
with a smaller measure of centralization the authority of the 
Roman Pope was quite as strong. 

We must take into account also the prestige exercised by 
the imperial towns, Constantinople in the East, Milan in the 
West. The first, the ecclesiastical origins of which we have 
already traced, was to become the centre of an enormous 
patriarchate, which included besides the provinces of Thrace 
those of Asia and of Pontus, that is to say of the whole of 
Asia Minor. The second, from the time of St Ambrose 
onwards, had obtained as its ecclesiastical jurisdiction the 
whole of the diocese of the North of Italy ; it was soon 
obliged to share this with Aquileia and later with Ravenna. 
But numerous facts show us that towards the end of the 
4th century the Bishop of Milan was considered throughout 
the whole of the West as an ecclesiastical authority of the 
first rank. In Gaul, in Spain, in Africa, and in the Danube 
provinces, when a dispute of importance did not find a 
solution in the country in which it arose, reference was made 
simultaneously to Rome and to Milan, to the Apostolic see 
and to the see of the residence of the Emperor. 

Rome, however, did not lose its traditional prestige. At 
a time when Christianity was undergoing enormous develop 
ments, when the number of conversions broke through all 
established limits and threatened to disorganize the ancient 
institutions, recourse was had voluntarily and as a natural 
thing to the wisdom and the long experience of the Apostolic 
metropolis. Strings of questions came to it from countries 
of the most diverse character, from Spain, from Gaul, from 
Dalmatia, even from the East. It was asked about the 
conditions of admission to baptism, to penitence, to orders, 
about the reconciliation of heretics, the administration of the 
sacraments, in a word about all points of discipline and of 
worship. The Pope was wont to reply ; several of these 



p. 28-30] MILAN AND ROME 21 

letters have been preserved ; they are what are called the 
Decretal Letters. In the number and the arrangement of 
the solutions, they present an appearance analogous to that 
of the various series of canons which emanated from the 
councils. Received with the greatest respect by the bishops 
who had asked for them, they passed from one church to 
another; when men began, in the West, to form collections 
of canon law, they found a place in them along with the 
documents of councils. 1 

Thus at the time when Christianity became the universal 
religion throughout the Empire and even the religion of the 
State, the ecclesiastical organization continued on the primitive 
lines of its development ; the local church, very strongly 
established under the control of the bishop and the clergy ; 
the Universal Church, the recognition of which in feeling is 
very keen but which it is not very easy to perceive in a concrete 
embodiment ; intermediate between the two, various groupings 

1 Decretals of Damasus (?) ; Constant, Epp. Rom. Pont^ p. 685 (Synodus 
Romanorum ad Gallos episcopos \ cf. E. Babut, La plus ancienrie dtcrttalC) 
1904) ; of Siricius : Jaffe, Reg. 255, to Himerius of Tarragona, and Roman 
Council of 386 ; of Innocent : Jaffe, 286, to Victricius of Rouen ; ibid. 
293, to Exuperius of Toulouse ; ibid. 303, to the bishops of Macedonia ; 
ibid. 311, to Decentius of Gubbio ; ibid. 314, to Felix of Nocera ; of 
Zosimus : ibid, 339, to Hesychius of Salona ; of Celestine : ibid. 369, to 
the bishops of the districts of Vienne and Narbonne ; ibid. 371, to the 
bishops of Apulia and Calabria ; of Leo : ibid. 402, to the Suburbicarian 
bishops ; ibid. 410, to the bishops of Mauritania; ibid. 411, to Anastasius 
of Thessalonica ; ibid. 536, to Nicetas of Aquileia ; ibid. 544, to Rusticus 
of Narbonne ; of Hilary : Roman Council of 465 ; Jaffe, 560, to Ascanius 
of Tarragona ; of Gelasius : ibid. 636, to the bishops of Lucania and 
Bruttium. A collection of them was early made. In the oldest form in 
which we can trace it, it included eight documents ; first the four decretals 
of Innocent to Exuperius, Rufus, Decentius, and Victricius ; then that 
of Siricius to Himerius, and that of Zosimus to Hesychius, and lastly the 
two of Celestine. This collection is met with, in most cases separated into 
its elements, but always recognizable, in a great number of ancient libri 
canonum belonging to. Gaul and Italy. It is this, I think, which is referred 
to in a letter (Jaffe, 402) of St Leo addressed in 443 to the bishops of 
his Suburbicarian jurisdiction, in which he threatens them with the severest 
penalties if they do not observe omnia decrctalia constituta^ tain beatae 
recordatioiiis Innocentii quam omnium decessorum nostrorum, quae de 
ecclcsiasticis ordinibus et canonum promulgata sunt disciplinis. These 
threats could not be explained if the ordinances in question had not 
been published (promulgata) outside the places for which they had been 
written in the first instance. 



22 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

of churches, the strongest of which proceed from relations of 
great antiquity, going back to the first preaching of the Gospel, 
much more than from the provincial apportionment sanctioned 
at Nicaea. In the days which are now to follow, we shall find the 
intermediate organizations gaining steadily in definiteness and 
strength in the Eastern Empire by virtue of some degree of 
analogy with the civil administration ; the bishoprics will be 
grouped in patriarchates, as the cities were in provinces and 
the provinces in "dioceses." The State will quite naturally 
look with favour upon an hierarchical system so arranged 
as to simplify relations. In the West the barbarians arrived 
before mctropolitical or primatial organizations had been estab 
lished everywhere. Thus it was not with bodies of bishops 
that the new-comers had to deal but with isolated ones. And 
some time must needs elapse before, under the action of 
the same forces in their little kingdoms as had in the past 
exercised their influence in the old Empire, we find the 
episcopate arranging itself there in national churches. But 
we must not too far outrun the course of events. 

Yet this hierarchy, strong as it was, deep-rooted in traditions 
of the greatest antiquity and supported by its harmony with 
the State and the State s institutions, had to reckon with a new 
power which was establishing itself little by little on the confines 
of the Church : I mean the monks and the monasteries. 

It was not without difficulty, as we have already seen, that 
this new institution had succeeded in obtaining acceptance. 
Among the sources of the opposition which it evoked there 
were some which could only do it honour. The monks were 
hissed in the streets for the Good which they represented, for 
their earnestness and strictness in interpreting the profession 
of Christianity. Those who scoffed at them were either pagans 
or shallow Christians. From another point of view it was not 
very easy to find a place within the four corners of the Church 
for people who were seeking to live apart from it, and who by 
the very fact of their mode of life adopted a somewhat critical 
attitude in regard to it. So long as the monks remained in the 
deserts and concerned themselves only with the progress of 
their individual perfection, it was still possible to manage with 
them. But they were soon to be seen everywhere and in large 
numbers, attracting attention by eccentricities of dress and by 



p. 30-3] DIOCESES AND MONASTERIES 23 

an asceticism which was often exaggerated or stamped with 
ostentation, mingling with the populace and with its religious 
life, espousing its quarrels and arousing its pa ssions, even and 
especially when these were excited against the authorities. 
From time to time they rendered services as the active agents 
in strong measures or even in disturbance. They assisted in 
demolishing the temples, in chastising heretics, in making 
life a burden to officials whose conduct gave ground for 
complaint. At ordinary times bishops and prefects would 
gladly have been rid of such restless folk. The institution of 
monasteries which spread rapidly throughout the Greek Orient 
and even in the West, from the end of the 4th century 
onwards, afforded a means of stemming the torrent to some 
extent. But all the monks were not in the monasteries; there 
were many of them wandering about the fields and the towns. 
Besides, the facility with which monastic institutions could be 
set up led to the establishment of some which were devoid of 
a serious purpose. The outskirts of the towns became covered 
with hermitages, veritable dens, which gave shelter to two or 
three monks, sometimes only to one : in these they lived the 
life of savages, emaciated, unclean, and in rags. Even in the 
best regulated monasteries the doors possessed no very effective 
fastenings ; exit as well as entrance was allowed with the 
greatest ease. For one recluse who remained for forty years 
without crossing the threshold of his cell, there were hundreds 
of restless monks who passed from one monastery to another, 
roaming about through the different provinces of the Empire, 
and making their appearance in turn at Antioch, at Constanti 
nople, on the highways of Pamphylia or in the deserts of 
Mesopotamia. 

In days of religious excitement all these people were in a 
state of seething unrest. In the great monastic hives of Egypt, 
Syria, or Constantinople there was heard a buzzing as of hornets 
in disturbance. The ringleaders knew where to lay hold of these 
holy men ; they spread amongst them a rumour that the Faith 
was assailed, that the bishop was teaching false doctrines, that 
he was making terms with heretics. Public demonstrations were 
quickly organized ; processions marched through the streets of the 
town ; meetings were held in the open air or in the churches ; they 
hurried to make themselves heard at the imperial palace ; they 
demanded j ustice and raised an outcry that religion was in danger. 



24 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

With people in this state of frenzy, collected together for 
disturbance, all discussion was impossible. You must say what 
they said and grant them what they demanded ; otherwise they 
continued incessantly to groan and to call upon God against 
His misguided representatives. For they took it for granted 
that they alone could be right ; a mere archbishop counted for 
nothing ; even before oecumenical councils they appeared with 
disdain in their looks and insolence in their words, listening 
neither to admonition nor advice. 1 

These excesses were peculiar to the East, where circum 
stances had given to monasticism a development at once 
enormous and inordinate. The authorities, alike ecclesiastical 
and civil, ought to have concerned themselves with it earlier 
than they did. It was not only by favouring the establishment 
of monasteries, it was by regulating and disciplining the 
institution itself that it was possible to succeed in rendering 
monasticism compatible with good order. It required the 
serious disturbances which took place in regard to Nestorius and 
Eutyches to induce the Byzantine government to make up its 
mind to interfere. At its request the Council of Chalcedon 
issued a series of regulations on the subject. From that time 
the power of the bishop could appeal for support to ecclesiastical 
canons of some degree of definiteness. Monasteries could not 
be founded without the authorization of the bishop; to the 
bishop was given the supervision of these institutions ; slaves 
were not to be received in them without the consent of their 
masters ; having once entered monks must no longer go forth, 
and above all must not go forth in order to meddle with the 
affairs of the Church or of the State ; those who had not their 
own monastery at Constantinople must be invited or even 
compelled not to make a stay in the capital. The serving of 
the monasteries, in the matter of worship and the sacraments, 
remained entirely under the control of the bishop. 

In the West the monasteries were much less numerous and 
their members limited much more than in the East. The 
largest number of them was to be found in Gaul. The first 
impulse was due to St Martin, but subject to that they were 
influenced by Egyptian and Eastern models. At Marseilles, in 
the islands of Hyeres and Lrins, in the outskirts of Vienne 
and amid the solitudes of the Jura, places of holy retirement 

1 The analogy with the great strikes of our own day may be noticed. 



p. 33-6] MONKS IN EAST AND WEST 25 

were soon to be seen growing up, and we find no suggestion 
made that they gave rise to difficulties. There were certain 
relations, however, which it was necessary to adjust. The 
island of Lrins formed part of the diocese of Frejus, and a 
conflict arising between the bishop, Theodore, and the abbot 
whose name was Faustus, as to the extent of their respective 
prerogatives, a council was held at Aries (c. 455), which laid 
down rules in regard to the matter. All that concerned the 
administration of the sacraments and ecclesiastical government 
was recognized as being within the jurisdiction of the bishop. 
The rest, viz., the administration of property and the direction 
of the monks in matters which concerned their life, remained in 
the hands of their abbot. This solution, which was a very wise 
one, was based upon the essential character of the monastic 
community. This community consisted of a group of lay 
persons who formed, as it were, an artificial family, the existence 
of which was perpetuated by the addition of new members. 
The civil law, which is now so suspicious in the matter of such 
collections of persons, offered no opposition at that time to 
their organizing themselves, leading their lives and holding 
property. From the ecclesiastical standpoint there was nothing 
to hinder the monks, so long as they respected the common 
obligations of the Christian law, from devoting themselves, as 
it suited them best, to religious exercises and practices peculiar 
to themselves. On the other hand the members of the 
monastery were, like other Christians, members of the local 
Church ; in their Church life they depended upon the bishop. 

The Council of Aries had only had to deal with these 
natural relations ; the monks for whom it was making rules 
were peaceable folk, who had never been found in rebellion, 
either against the bishops or against the imperial authorities. 
The men who had had to be dealt with at Chalcedon were of a 
very different character. There is a corresponding difference 
of some importance in the two sets of ordinances. The 
regulations in Gaul recognized for the monasteries a large 
measure of autonomy ; those in the East placed them under 
the watchful supervision of the bishops. Isaac, Barsumas, 
Eutyches, Carosus, and other individuals of the same character 
had somewhat compromised in the general estimation the 
institutions to which they belonged. It was necessary to put 
a stop to abuses which were intolerable : the freedom of the 



26 THEODOSIUS I. AND II. [CH. i. 

monasteries paid the penalty for the lack of discipline of 
the monks. 

The principles of the Council of Aries were applied almost 
everywhere in the West, those of the Council of Chalcedon in 
the East, until the rise of new circumstances necessitated more 
minute regulations. At Rome the question was slow in 
presenting itself. That ancient and venerable Church did not 
easily relinquish the idea that Christian perfection is the duty 
of all and not the special concern of a few connoisseurs. It 
contented itself for a long time with " consecrated virgins " and 
"confessors," whose vow of continency in no way separated 
them from the general body of the faithful. Monks who lived 
in isolation were always looked upon in Rome with more or 
less disfavour, and monasteries were founded there compara 
tively late. 1 When they did arise, and the earliest belong to a 
time when the 5th century was already far spent, the authority 
of the hierarchy took effectual steps to prevent them becoming 
a source of opposition. There were monasteries at Rome, but 
they were small ones, usually attached to the churches of the 
suburbs and even of the city, and there use was made of them 
for the Offices, under the supervision of the clergy. Thus 
regulated, they never gave rise to causes of complaint. And 
further, according to the Roman system, no monk could enter 
the ranks of the clergy. Nothing could be better calculated to 
maintain the superiority of the hierarchy. 

1 The Liber Pontificalis speaks of monasteries founded by Pope 
Xystus III., Leo, and Hilary. These are the most ancient of which we 
have any knowledge at Rome. I am not speaking here of pious companies 
like that of Marcella. 



CHAPTER II 

ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME 

IT was Origan s unhappy fate to furnish in the Church for a 
protracted period an interim subject for theological disputes. 
When the great dogmatic crises began to subside and the 
heresiarchs to disappear, the demon of discord, which was not 
deprived of occupation thereby, brought up again the question 
of Origen. At once tempers began to grow warm ; sparks flew 
through the air ; designing persons blew upon them with 
enthusiasm ; it was not long before a blaze burst out. We 
have seen this happen at the end of the 3rd century, 
immediately following the modalist crisis and the affair of 
Paul of Samosata. Then came persecution, then Arianism and 
its long turmoil : men s minds were otherwise engaged. But 
the times were now to become favourable once more. 

After the Councils of 381 and 394 peace was restored in the 
East. The Arian party was gradually becoming part of the 
history of the past. The disciples of Apollinarius were 
beginning to take cover ; those of them who remained 
were busied in depriving their master s works of marks of 
identification by attributing them to orthodox authors. By 
this means they kept his heresy in circulation and even 
procured for it for future days patronage which stood it in 
good stead ; but for the moment, as the name of Apollinarius 
was no longer heard, no stir was caused. From his island of 
Cyprus the zealous Epiphanius swept the horizon in vain to 
discover some new heretic, and to furnish another item for his 
Panarion. It was labour lost ! No teacher was now hazarding 
himself to produce an unpublished counterfeit of the Christian 
tradition. There was nothing for it but to turn one s attention 
to Origen and the Origenists. 

The term " Origenist " is one upon which it is of the 
utmost importance to arrive at a clear conception. The great 

27 



28 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

Alexandrian doctor enjoyed, in cultivated circles, an admiration 
which was general, but always and everywhere tempered by a 
measure of reserve. The whole of his system was no longer 
held by anyone; even his most faithful disciples, Gregory of 
Nyssa and Didymus the Blind, had been obliged to come to 
terms with recent dogmatic definitions, and to accept important 
corrections of statement. At Antioch there was small relish 
for his transcendental mode of exegesis, in which the reality of 
the sacred narrative was dissolved. On other points, too, the 
origin of souls, the final restoration, the resurrection of the 
body, very serious objections had been raised in one quarter or 
another. In the acceptance extended to Origen one principle 
and one only was adopted as a guide : to take whatever in his 
work was wholesome and useful, and to leave to the author the 
responsibility for the remainder. 

However, as we can well believe, the choice which was 
made in this way was not likely to be uniform ; each decided 
for himself according to his education and his perception of 
doctrine. People like Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, 
Ambrose or Jerome knew how to profit by Origen without 
allowing themselves to be led into dangerous courses. Others, 
less well protected from within, yielded too much to certain 
attractive features such as the spiritualizing way in which the 
Alexandrian master explained the origin of souls and the 
resurrection of the body. This state of mind was not uncommon 
in the cells of Egypt and Palestine, at any rate in those where 
the occupants were thinkers. For these holy men the body 
was so inconsiderable a thing, and they put so much desperate 
vigour into their warfare with it, that they could not picture to 
themselves without a feeling of repugnance the immortality to 
which it was predestined according to the teaching generally 
received. Origen on this point opened to them views more in 
accordance with their prepossessions. 

Among the representatives of this tendency we may mention 
the monk Evagrius, one of the celebrities of Nitria. 1 A native 
of Pontus, he had begun his clerical career under the auspices 
of Basil and of Gregory of Nazianzus. The latter ordained him 
deacon and, on his departure from Constantinople, left him 
with his successor Nectarius. At this moment his virtue was 
almost overcome in a temptation of guilty passion ; he fled in 

1 Cf. vol. II. p. 394, note i. 



p. 39-42] EVAGRIUS, PALLADIUS, AND JEROME 29 

time and took refuge at Jerusalem. But even there he had to 
endure terrible struggles, and as a result fell ill. Melania took 
care of him, heard his story, cured him and sent him to the 
monks of Nitria. For several years he had lived in the frightful 
desert of the Cells, when there came there (c. 390) a monk of 
Galatia, Palladius by name, who enrolled himself in the number 
of his disciples. Evagrius soon became a master in asceticism ; 
he composed for the benefit of the monks various writings 
which have been partly preserved. He was a man of great 
culture. In the school of Basil and of Gregory he could not 
have learnt to undervalue Origen. Like all those among the 
solitaries who were acquainted with letters, he read much of 
him. For all that, in what he himself wrote, there is scarcely 
any trace to be found of Origenist errors. As for Palladius, he 
is the author of the Historica Lausiaca, the historian of the 
monks of Egypt, among whom he lived down to the time of 
the death of Evagrms (January 399). He also, like Evagrius, 
was acquainted with Rufinus and Melania. All this circle 
found a common interest in Origen. Jerome, as we have seen, 
was of the same way of thinking. However we have now come 
to the time when he was to change his attitude. Hitherto, 
although he had translated much of Origen and had laid him 
largely under contribution for his commentaries on the Bible, 
he does not seem (far from it) to have perceived the heterodoxy 
of his author. Later, when he had changed his attitude and 
found himself embarrassed by his early writings, we shall see 
him protesting strongly that in Origen he had followed the 
interpreter of the Scriptures, not the dogmatic theologian. 
That is what at that time he would have wished to have done 
in the past ; but when we read the books to which he refers in 
this connexion we are not struck by this distinction. Down 
to the year 392 and his De viris illustribus inclusive, the name 
of Origen is nowhere found in his writings without some 
laudatory description. He is never criticized : he is often 
defended, and defended with very considerable spirit. 1 

It was not that Jerome was ignorant of the opposition 

1 For what follows besides the letters and other writings of St Jerome, 
which are our principal evidence, cf. the recent studies of M. Brochet, 
S. Jerome et ses ennemis (Paris, 1905), and of Griitzmacher, Hieronymus^ 
Part III. (Berlin, 1908, vol. x. of the Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie 
nnd der Kirche}. 



30 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

aroused from the end of the 3rd century onwards, and aroused 
still a hundred years later, by the doctrinal work of his master. 
He had visited Egypt and knew that the monks of Nitria were 
not all Origenists. Then also, no doubt, he had got wind of 
the special horror which was professed in regard to Origen by 
the disciples of Pacomius, a horror which grew steadily in 
proportion to the decline in general culture and which was 
strengthened by the aversion of the Copts for everything which 
savoured of Hellenism. 

But the most serious cause of Jerome s disturbance was the 
attitude of Epiphanius. The invectives of the -Panarion were 
not suffered to lose their warmth. The Bishop of Salamis was 
always there, always on the war-path, an adversary all the more 
troublesome because the eminent sanctity of his life won for 
him universal respect. To Jerome and Paula he was an old 
friend ; they had entertained him in Rome and had visited 
him in Cyprus. The clergy and the faithful in Rome were also 
acquainted with him ; any words of his which penetrated to 
them were sure to find respectful hearers. Jerome had for a 
long time allowed him to talk ; but he had no desire to make 
an enemy of him and used the greatest circumspection in his 
relations with him. On the other hand, and that was not 
likely to turn him from a certain reserve, in the monasteries 
of the Mount of Olives they readily made a great display 
of Origenism. Certain indications 1 lead us to believe that 
Evagrius Nitrian cell communicated with those of Rufinus 
and of Melania and that letters of Palladius fostered there 
the feeling of enthusiasm for the master they revered. 

Such was the position of affairs when in 393 there arrived 
at Jerusalem a certain Aterbius 2 who had been sent, no doubt, 
by the watchful Epiphanius. He went from monastery to 
monastery, insisting that the inmates should condemn the 

1 It is in this way that 1 explain the passage in the letter of St Epiphanius 
to John of Jerusalem (Jerome, Ep. li. 9), in which the latter is warned to be 
on his guard against a certain Palladius, a Galatian, quia Origenis haercsim 
Praedicat et docet, ne forte aliquos de populo tibi credito ad perversitatem sui 
inducat erroris. The author of the Lausiac History was certainly in Egypt 
when this letter was written. If the point were pressed we might admit 
that another Palladius, also a Galatian and residing at Jerusalem, was referred 
to by Epiphanius in this passage. But this doubling is not at all easy to 
conceive. 

2 Jerome adv. Ruf. iii. 33. 



p. 42-5] JEROME AND EPIPHANIUS 31 

dogmas of Origen. Jerome satisfied him ; Rufinus showed 
him the door, and rightly so, I think, for he was under no 
obligation to render accounts to this self-constituted inquisitor. 
If any one was in a position to require them from him, it was 
John, the Bishop of Jerusalem. 

John was not a very great teacher, but he was not without 
literary knowledge. Like his predecessor Cyril, he had lived 
at first in an ecclesiastical circle which was somewhat suspect, 
or, to say the least, unfavourably regarded by Athanasius, 
Epiphanius, and Jerome. But that was a long while before. 
For the time being there was little reason for finding fault with 
him. Rufinus and Melania had rendered great services to his 
Church l ; he was on the most excellent terms with them. He 
was not in the habit of railing at Origen on every occasion 
and succeeded in performing his duties as a preacher without 
exciting provocative questions on that subject We do not know 
how he regarded the mission of Aterbius, which was already 
an infringement of his episcopal rights ; but we may feel sure 
that the news, which was reported shortly after, of the arrival 
of Epiphanius in person did not overwhelm him with joy. 

Epiphanius landed in Palestine in the spring of the year 394. 
His monastery of Ad Vetus was still in existence, and in spite 
of distance he continued to care for it, and even visited it 
from time to time. But it was not for Ad Vetus that he had 
left his island of Cyprus this time. The old warrior came with 
a firmly fixed intention of extinguishing the central fire of 
Origenism which he believed himself to have discovered at 
Jerusalem. 

He alighted upon Bishop John, who gave him a hearty 
welcome. Epiphanius was far advanced in years. His virtues, 
which were already renowned at the time when he was living in 
his monastery in Palestine, had not ceased during the twenty- 
seven years of his episcopate to shine with the brightest lustre. 
The populace regarded him with veneration : they attributed to 
him many miracles. He had still ten years of life before him, 
and already he had entered into the domain of legend. Here 
was a living saint, a man of God. During his stay in Jerusalem 
the multitudes thronged around him, receiving his discourses 
with avidity, beseeching his blessing and tearing his robes from 
him in order to make relics of them. John was somewhat 
1 Hist. Laus. 46 (118). 



32 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

embarrassed with his guest. He thought that Epiphanius 
sermons lasted a very long time, and that there was too much 
in them about Origen and the Origenists. By way of retaliation 
he himself dealt with the subject of anthropomorphism. This 
was an old weapon of offence, often employed against the 
adversaries of the spiritualizing exegesis. They were asserted 
to be so attached to the letter of the Scripture that they pictured 
God to themselves in the form of a man with eyes, ears, and all 
the attributes of humanity. It is unnecessary to say that people 
so enlightened as Epiphanius did not fall into such absurdities; 
but it would not have been difficult to find in the lower ranks of 
the monastic body or of the common people heads which were 
open to such ideas. 1 Epiphanius was ready to express as much 
disapproval of anthropomorphism as anyone desired, but he 
always returned to the subject of Origenism. In exasperation 
John at length delivered a long discourse, in which he summarily 
set forth his belief in language conforming as closely as possible 
to the received teaching. Epiphanius, ill-satisfied with this 
formal display, could not, in the hearing of the people, do 
anything but express approval of it. John said only things 
that were good ; but he did not say everything that would have 
been required to satisfy the old master, and Epiphanius retained 
inwardly certain suspicions. He departed to Bethlehem to give 
vent to them before Jerome and his friends. 

Jerome up to that time had not put himself forward. Any 
objections that he might have to Origenism were not of long 
standing ; at any rate he was conscious of only having formulated 
them a few months earlier. For various reasons, among which 
must be reckoned the asperities of his character, he was less 
advanced than Rufinus in the good graces of the Bishop of 
Jerusalem. But he had not any real ground for breaking 
with him. He therefore advised Epiphanius to see John 
again and to endeavour to come to an understanding with 
him. The old man allowed himself to be half persuaded ; he 
set out again on the road to Jerusalem ; but being seized once 
more on the way by his fury against the Origenists, he went 
away again the same night to shut himself up in Ad Vetus. 

1 An Egyptian monk to whom someone had succeeded, not without 
difficulty, in proving that God was not made like a man, protested with 
grief that they had taken away his God and that he found himself rendered 
unable to pray (Cassian, Coll, x. 3). 



p. 45-8] EPIPHANIUS AND ORIGENISM 33 

Once on his own ground, he passed quickly from dull 
hostility to open war and set himself to write to various 
monasteries to rouse them against John and to persuade 
them to break off all communion with him. Jerome, though 
seriously annoyed by the turn which the affair was taking, 
at last made up his mind and ranged himself on the side of 
Epiphanius. It was a great sacrifice that he was making to 
his friendship for the Bishop of Salamis. His communities, 
as a matter of fact, were situated within John s episcopal 
jurisdiction ; he might cause them serious trouble in regard 
to the sacraments, and this the more easily because neither 
Jerome nor the priest Vincent who assisted him in the 
direction of his disciples would consent to depart from the 
resolution which they had themselves taken not to exercise 
priestly functions. 

In these circumstances there was sometimes tension 
between the monks of Bethlehem and the intractable saint of 
Ad Vetus. One day when Jerome had sent him some of his 
monks for the purpose of giving him explanations, and notably 
his brother Paulinian, Epiphanius took advantage of the 
opportunity to carry out a project which he had had in mind 
for some time : he announced his intention of conferring on 
Paulinian ordination to the priesthood. In this way Jerome s 
monasteries would be able to be served without having to 
trouble about John and his clergy. Paulinian, it is true, had 
no desire to become a priest, but such a refusal was not 
likely to stay Epiphanius. He caused the young monk to be 
seized, and whilst he was held by his arms and legs, and no 
protest could proceed from his mouth, because it was gagged, 
he ordained him deacon, and then, with the same procedure, 
conferred on him the ordination of priests. 

Such proceedings might have passed in the times of Samuel 
and Elijah ; in the reign of Theodosius there was some difficulty 
in securing their acceptance. John uttered vigorous complaints. 
He threatened to denounce the proceedings of Epiphanius far 
and wide, forbade the priests of Bethlehem to admit to baptism 
catechumens presented by Jerome s monks, and even refused to 
the latter access to the holy places connected with the Nativity. 

Epiphanius, somewhat alarmed by the commotion which he 
had caused, made up his mind to depart, carrying with him to 
Cyprus "le consacre malgre lui." Before his departure, how- 



34 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

ever, he wrote to Bishop John a very clumsy letter in which he 
endeavoured,on extremely poor grounds, to justify the ordination 
of Paulinian, 1 and under colour of dissuading the bishop from the 
errors of Origen,does his utmost to compromise him with them. 
Rufinus, in spite of the fact that Epiphanius had treated him 
with friendship during his stay at Jerusalem, is singled out in 
this same document as being specially attached to Origin s 
heresies. Palladius is also included in its purview. The 
letter acquired, thanks to Epiphanius efforts that it should 
do so, considerable publicity. 

John was extremely aggrieved at the whole proceeding. 
He had been denounced to all persons of religious zeal as a 
supporter of heresy, and found himself brought into unpleasant 
difficulties with the Latin colony at Bethlehem. Of the latter 
he attempted to rid himself by decisive measures. He 
represented the monks of Bethlehem as schismatics, and 
obtained an order of expulsion against Jerome from the 
Praetorian prefect, Rufinus. But an invasion of the Huns 
which laid waste Cappadocia and the north of Syria, and 
threatened to extend to Palestine, delayed the execution of 
the order, and then came the downfall of the powerful minister. 
As a result, the police left both Jerome and his disciples 
undisturbed. But such methods of procedure were not 
calculated to soothe Jerome. The strife between the 
hermit and the bishopric became more bitter, so did that 
between the two Latin communities of Bethlehem and the 
Mount of Olives. Rufinus succeeded in obtaining a copy of 
the letter of Epiphanius to John which was preserved in Jerome s 
monastery, and had been enriched by him by a translation in 
the margin. This discovery made a great stir, and efforts 
were made to spread the belief that Jerome had not only 
translated but inspired the letter of Epiphanius. 

1 This saintly man was only too prone to neglect the rights of others 
when these were opposed to the outbursts of his zeal. While passing in 
company with John of Jerusalem through a village in the latter s diocese he 
tore down a piece of embroidered tapestry in the church on the pretext that 
there was displayed on it an image of Christ or of some saint. Epiphanius 
shared the views of the Council of Elvira (canon 36), which was hostile to 
the use of images in churches. It did not occur to his mind that in acting 
as he did he was offering an insult to the Bishop of Jerusalem. All that he 
felt that duty demanded of him was to send another piece of tapestry in 
place of the one that he had torn down (Jerome, Ep. 51, c. 9). 



p. 48-51] EPIPHANIUS AND JOHN OF JERUSALEM 35 

To this letter John answered at first only by a contemptuous 
silence ; later he had recourse to Theophilus, the Bishop of 
Alexandria, who was also appealed to by Rufinus. Theophilus 
was the friend of both of them ; he was not regarded as 
anti-Origenist far from it. A man of education himself, he had 
a strong admiration for the great man, and did not disturb 
himself too much about his theology. In Border to prejudice 
him against Jerome, they did not fail to inform him of the 
hospitable reception accorded at the monastery of Bethlehem 
to an Egyptian bishop who was " persecuted " by his patriarch. 

The attempt did not fail of its object. Theophilus sent to 
Palestine one of his priests, Isidore, a man of standing, who 
was himself extremely favourably disposed to Origen and was 
known to be so. He made great efforts to bring back Jerome 
into communion with his bishop, or at any rate to induce him 
to say why he had withdrawn from it. Jerome s one repeated 
answer was that the Faith was at stake ; when pressed, he 
admitted that John had in no way changed since the time when 
they were on the best of terms ; then he sheltered himself 
behind Epiphanius, who, so he alleged, regarded John as a 
heretic. The hermit was in the wrong, since before treating 
his bishop as a heretic he ought to have waited until the bishop 
had been declared to be so by the competent authority, an 
authority which was clearly not represented by Epiphanius 
acting quite alone. In Jerome s attitude in this matter we can 
see very clearly the tendency which was eminently character 
istic of monks of referring oneself in matters of faith and 
discipline to the judgement of saintly individuals without 
troubling oneself much about the hierarchy or actual law. 
Isidore returned to Egypt without having met with success. 
He carried with him, however, a letter 1 from Bishop John to 
the Patriarch of Alexandria, in which John described the 
position of affairs from his own point of view. This document 
created a stir which spread as far as Rome and was a source 

1 We still possess this, in fragments, in the refutation of it by Jerome, 
Contra Johannem Hierosolymitanum, a pamphlet which it is very difficult 
to place chronologically and which is, besides, unfinished. It would seem to 
have been written in 396, shortly after the letter which it combats ; but certain 
passages point to a date about three years later (c. I., 17, 41). Jerome, if 
he wrote it in 399, had already been reconciled with the Bishop of Jerusalem. 
We can imagine that he neither completed nor published a work so 
likely to give him umbrage. 

III. D 



36 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

of anxiety to Jerome s ordinary correspondents. Epiphanius, 
on his side, wrote to Pope Siricius, but the Pope turned to him 
a deaf ear. He had been warned previously against Jerome 
and against Epiphanius himself, who was represented to him 
by the letters of Theophilus 1 as an upholder of schism and of 
heresy. Jerome, who had no great support to expect from 
Rome, ended by yielding to the urgent exhortations of 
Theophilus and became reconciled to Rufinus. They met 
one another at the Holy Sepulchre, shook hands, and a Mass 
was celebrated. This was in 397. In all probability an 
arrangement dating from that time was arrived at with John, 
who seems to have authorized Paulinian to exercise his 
functions in his brother s monastery, and Jerome seems in 
return to have pledged himself not to harry the bishop any 
longer on the question of doctrine. 

Peace being made, Rufinus set out for Rome. We do not 
know exactly what brought him back to Italy, after an absence 
of four-and-twenty years. But, to judge from his proceedings 
there, it is to be feared that the object of his journey was to 
rehabilitate in Latin opinion the position of Origen which 
had been compromised by the recent disputes. Immediately 
on landing he fell in with a holy man, Macarius, who, as 
though in the nick of time, was in search of information in 
regard to Origen and his teaching. Rufinus translated for him 
the Apology for Origen, which had been composed in earlier 
days by the martyr Pamphilus with the collaboration of 
Eusebius of Caesarea. It would have been impossible to 
conceive a better recommendation. Pamphilus was a martyr of 
renown ; he had written his book in close confinement, while 
waiting for the hour of his agony ; he had dedicated it to 
the confessors who were shut up in the gaols of Palestine and 
with the express intention of replying to the criticisms already 
raised against Origen. Rufinus knew what he was doing in 
beginning with such a book. He adopted, however, certain 
personal precautions and added to his preface explanations of 
his own doctrine, especially in regard to the resurrection of 
the flesh, adding that such was the doctrine taught by the 
Bishop of Jerusalem. This doctrine is as orthodox as it is 
uncharacteristic of Origen. 

The first step taken, Rufinus in answer to new and urgent 
1 Palladius, Dial. 16. 



p. 51-3] RUFINUS AND JEROME 37 

entreaties from Macarius, determined to take the bull by the 
horns and to offer to the Roman public the great summary 
of Origen s teaching, the Peri Archon. But he did not translate 
it exactly as it stood. As an explanation of Origen s very 
serious errors he had ready to his hand an idea, a mistaken idea 
but one of which in analogous cases many others before him 
had availed themselves, viz., that the works of the great Doctor 
had been retouched by heretics. Acting on this presupposition, 
he adapted the passages to which objection might be raised in 
the name of the Council of Nicaea. The passages were not 
the only ones which were open to criticism. However, Rufinus 
stayed his hand there, very mistakenly, for as a result he 
seemed to adopt all that he did not correct. 

To crown his imprudence he purported to cover himself 
with the patronage of Jerome. In his preface he recalls the 
eulogies addressed to Ongen in earlier days by his illustrious 
friend and the partial translations of him which he had already 
made. It would have been much to be desired that the Peri 
Archon should have been presented to the Latin public by so 
well practised a pen; but smce more important labours did not 
allow Jerome leisure for the humble business of translation, 
Rufinus had thought it in his power to undertake it himself. 
He proposed, further, to translate Origen in the same way as 
Jerome had done before him, that is to say with a certain 
independence in regard to the text, where that should be 
incorrect from a doctrinal standpoint. 

The arrival of Rufinus had not been unattended by some 
degree of uneasiness in the circle of Jerome s friends. They 
had followed the polemics in Palestine during the previous 
years ; a certain Eusebius, a native of Cremona, who had lived 
for a long time at Bethlehem on terms of close intimacy with 
Jerome, returned to Italy about this time, and his attitude may 
readily be imagined. The translations of the Apology and the 
Principia as the one followed the other created a great stir in 
such circles as these. Marcella protested loudly. Pammachius, 
Oceanus, and others of the same way of thinking made a great 
commotion. But the old Pope Siricius who, thanks to a cairn 
and conciliatory spirit, had seen the end of more than one 
difficult affair, was not the man to be fired by these quarrels 
between monks. When Rufinus left him in order to return to 
Aquileia, the Pope gave him letters for the bishop of that 



38 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

great town. In spite of all that the friends of Jerome might 
say, it was his rival who had the upper hand. 

Unfortunately for Rufinus, Siricius died at the end of the 
year 399, 1 and Anastasius, who was appointed as his successor 
without delay, was not slow in giving evidence of quite different 
views. He was not a great ecclesiastic. Before Rufinus and 
his translations, he had never heard either of Origen or of his 
works. 2 Marcella, Pammachius, and the rest eagerly gathered 
round him ; but it does not seem, for all that, that he was in 
a great hurry to take a side. However, in the spring of the 
year 400, he received from Alexandria news which was 
eminently calculated to stir him to action : Theophilus had 
declared war upon Origenism. 

It was a complete surprise. Theophilus, as we have seen 
from what has just been said about the quarrels in Palestine, was, 
in the East, the most notable patron of Origenism, not of course 
in the sense of embracing Origen s errors but because those 
errors did not seem to him a sufficient reason for proscribing 
alike the author and his works. His attitude was almost 
exactly that of John of Jerusalem and of Rufinus. Epiphanius 
was a person with whom he felt little sympathy. It was 
certainly not to please him that he had published, at the 
beginning of the year 399, a Paschal Letter in which he 
delivered an uncompromising attack on the anthropomorphites. 
This document met with a very unfavourable reception in the 
deserts of Nitria, 3 where anthropomorphites were by no means 
rare ; and the discontent found vent, at Alexandria itself, in a 
disturbance on the part of the monks in which the archbishop 
found himself hemmed in closely enough to discover that his 
campaign would not be supported by public opinion, and that 
this opinion declared itself with unmistakable clearness against 
Origen. 4 

It was at this time that there arose his quarrel with the 
priest Isidore. Till then, Isidore had been the Patriarch s 
confidential servant, his right hand. Theophilus had taken 
him from the Nitrian desert to make him the head of the 

1 November 26. As to the year, cf. Liber Pontificalis^ i., p. ccl. 

2 Origenes autem, cuius in nostram linguam composita derivavit 
(Rufinus), antea et quis fuerit et in quae processerit verba nostrum 
propositum nescit. (Jaflfe, 282, Letter to John of Jerusalem.) 

3 Cassian, Coll. x. 2. 4 Socrates, H. E. vi. 7. 



P. 53-6] THEOPHILUS AND THE TALL BROTHERS 39 

organization of hospitality and alms (gevoSoxw) m connexion 
with his great Church. On various occasions he had entrusted 
him with delicate missions to Rome, to Constantinople, and to 
Palestine. In the previous year (398) he had made strenuous 
exertions to secure his election as Bishop of Constantinople. 
But in spite of all these relations in the past they fell out. 
Isidore, the natural protector of the interests of the poor, 
thought that his bishop wasted money on useless buildings ; 
and on other points too he found himself compelled to oppose 
him. 1 People did not oppose Theophilus : Isidore was broken 
in the attempt. He was eighty years old ; his asceticism and 
his aloofness from the world were well known. It was not easy 
to find a hold upon such a man. Theophilus attacked him in 
his honour. He set on foot an odious accusation which was 
never developed but which he used as a pretext for excommuni 
cating his former friend without trial. Isidore retired to Nitria 
and resumed his life as a solitary. The monks gave him a 
warm welcome, or at any rate those of them did so who did 
not tremble at the very name of the Patriarch. Among the 
number were four brothers, all of great stature, who were 
known as the Tall Brothers ; one of them, Dioscorus, had 
been compelled by Theophilus to accept the bishopric of 
Hermopolis Parva, in the jurisdiction of which the deserts of the 
monks were situated ; another was the celebrated Ammonius, 
who had cut off one of his ears in order to escape the office of 
bishop 2 ; the two others were called Eusebius and Euthymius. 

The storm broke upon them also. Theophilus demanded 
the banishment of those of the monks whom he regarded as 
responsible for the welcome given to Isidore whom he had 
proscribed. But these monks were those who were held in the 
highest esteem for their knowledge, and regarded with the 
greatest veneration for their moral character. 3 They felt it 
incumbent upon them to go to Alexandria to talk over the 
matter with the Patriarch : the only answer they received was 
insult and brutality. Theophilus so far forgot himself as to 
box the ears of the venerable Ammonius ; he threw his own 

1 Socrates, H. E. vi. 9 ; Palladius, Dial. 6. 

2 Vol. II., p. 494. He was the godfather of the minister Rufinus. It is 
clear that if Rufinus had been still in power, Theophilus would not have 
dared to touch Ammonius. 

3 Evagrius, who died in 399, escaped these melancholy quarrels. 



40 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

pallium round his neck as though he intended to strangle him, 
and cried " Heretic : anathematize Origen then." 

It was the first time that Origen appeared in this dispute, 
the first exhibition of the change which had taken place in 
the Patriarch s opinions. From that time forward Theophilus 
had a starting-point for his campaign. He called together a 
council l it was but a matter of form, for what power had the 
bishops of Egypt against the will of their Patriarch? and 
decreed in this assembly that the works of Origen were 
definitely pernicious, and that the reading of them should be 
henceforth proscribed. 2 Then turning against the monks, 
who had betaken themselves once more to their solitudes, 
the Patriarch caused three of them, the three brothers of 
Dioscorus, to be accused by persons devoted to his interests, 
delated them to the Augustal Prefect, obtained a decree of 
expulsion against them and took upon himself the execution 
of the sentence. To effect this he set out for Nitria, accom 
panied by a few bishops and officials of the Prefect with the 
addition of the episcopal servants and a large muster of repre 
sentatives of the rabble of Alexandria. On arriving at its 
destination, the expedition was swelled by a crowd of monks 
of more or less anthropomorphite views, who were filled with 
fanatical hatred of Origen and greedy for an opportunity of 
taking part in the rout of their opponents. Bishop Dioscorus 
had collected his flock in the principal church of the valley ; 
his monks held palms in their hands, in order, it would seem, 
to do honour to the Patriarch. But Theophilus did not so 
interpret them ; to him these leafy branches seemed suspicious ; 
he regarded them as concealing cudgels for unfriendly use. 
His company assumed a hostile attitude ; dreadful shouts were 
raised, and they rushed into the sacred edifice. Negro slaves 
dashed to the episcopal chair where Dioscorus was seated, and 
he was torn from it. Theophilus, having overcome all resist 
ance, held council with his bishops and his monks ; the 
doctrine of Origen was investigated and condemned, with 
how much freedom of spirit we may imagine in such an 
assembly and in such circumstances. 

1 In the early months of the year 400, after the sending of the Paschal 
Letter, which does not seem to have mentioned Origen. 

2 In the same spirit the Paschal Letter of 401 (Jerome, Ep. 96) contains 
a direct attack upon the errors of Origen. 



p. 56-9] THEOPHILUS AND PALESTINE 41 

As for the three monks that the expedition had come to 
arrest, they were not discovered, for they kept themselves 
concealed at the bottom of a well. Their opponents had to 
be content with burning their cells and their books. The 
Patriarch returned to Alexandria, but he made life a burden 
to his adversaries, and they, regarding the position as untenable, 
made up their minds to depart of their own accord. Besides 
the three who had been condemned, hundreds of monks left the 
Egyptian deserts at this time. The main body made their 
way towards Palestine. Among them was Isidore, and as he 
was not lacking in means he provided for their maintenance. 
Such an exodus was not at all in accordance with the wishes of 
Theophilus, who had not the least desire to be represented as a 
persecutor of monks and was not without uneasiness as to the 
reception which the exiles might receive. 

At the outset 1 he had sent word to Pope Anastasius, who 
without further delay declared himself in opposition to Origen, 
his books, and his translator. From that quarter the Bishop 
of Alexandria was free from anxiety. He wrote also to the 
bishops of Palestine and of the Island of Cyprus a letter 2 of 
extreme violence against the Nitrian monks and against 
Origen s doctrine. We still possess the reply of the Episcopate 
of Palestine, a reply couched in very prudent terms, in which 
they reprehend categorically those who have wished " to draw 
from the doctrines of Origen a noxious form of teaching," and 
at the same time they declare that persons excommunicated by 
the Bishop of Alexandria will only be received into communion 
provided they have given satisfaction to him and in this way 
recover his good-will. The reply was correct in tone, but 
nothing more. 3 It is quite a different order of enthusiasm 
which is displayed in the correspondence between Jerome and 
Epiphanius. 4 The holy man of Cyprus is quite beside himself 
with joy: "At last Amalek is destroyed, root and branch; 
on Mt. Rephidim is raised the trophy of the Cross. . . . On the 
altar of the Church of Alexandria, Theophilus, the servant of 
God, has raised the standard against Origen." 

1 In the spring of the year 400. 2 Jerome, Ep. 92. 

3 Jerome, Ep. 93. A letter (Ep. 94) of Dionysius, the Bishop of Lydda, 
an opponent of Origenism of long standing (Jerome, c. loh. 42), is expressed 
in different terms from the synodal letter. 

4 Ibid. Epp. 86-91. 



42 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

The most peaceable among the monks remained apparently 
in Palestine or even returned to Egypt as the result of some 
arrangement with the terrible archbishop. Some fifty of them 
who were not satisfied with being left in peace and desired that 
they should be given justice, embarked for Constantinople. 1 
But before we follow them thither we must return to Italy, 
where the storm was bursting upon Rufinus. 

On leaving Rome Rufinus had written to Jerome, who at 
the same moment had just received the unfortunately-timed 
preface of the Peri Arc/ton. An extraordinary thing happened ! 
The hermit did not take fire at once. He preferred to call to 
mind the reconciliation which was still quite recent and the 
promises made at the Anastasis ; he replied to Rufinus, 2 not 
without irony, but on the whole quite amicably, assuring him 
that he was making people whom he sent to Italy promise not 
to fail to see his old friend at Aquileia, and his supporters in 
Rome not to awaken fresh disputes. 

But Jerome s friends were little inclined for peace. When 
the letter to Rufinus reached them, they intercepted it. 
Pammachius and Oceanus had, no doubt, already written to 
Bethlehem to draw Jerome s attention to the misuse which was 
being made of his name, and the danger in which he stood of 
being regarded as a patron of Origenism. He was exhorted 
to translate the Peri Archon himself in order that light might 
be thrown on it once for all and people might be able to see 
whether Origen was orthodox or heretical. 

Jerome complied. He immediately sent to his friends a 
straightforward translation, without any correction. Pam 
machius was so greatly scandalized by it that he kept it at 
the bottom of his desk, but not so strictly, however, as to 
prevent a copy of it being taken. If some doubts might still 
have been maintained after the version made by Rufinus, 
Jerome s dissipated them : Origen was undoubtedly heretical. 

At the same time as the new translation, Jerome s two 
friends received a letter 3 from him in which, without naming 

1 It is not certain, in spite of what is said about it by Socrates (vi. 9) 
and Sozomen (viii. 13), that Isidore and Dioscorus made the journey with 
the others. In a letter to Epiphanius, written at the end of 401 or the 
beginning of 402 (Jerome, Ep. 90), Theophilus only mentions among the 
leaders of the monks who made their way to Constantinople, Ammonius, 
Eusebius, and Euthymius. Isidore died in 403 (Palladia:, Hist. Laus. i.). 

2 Ep. 8 1. 3 Ep. 84. 



p. 59-62] JEROME AND RUFINUS 43 

Rufinus, he adopted a defensive attitude, and one characterized 
by singular asperity. " Why should people claim his patron 
age? Could they not be heretics without him ? No doubt he 
had praised Origen, but the admiration which he had always 
professed for Origen s ability had never closed his eyes to 
Origen s errors. It is alleged that these errors are interpola 
tions of designing persons. Let them believe it if they can. 
Origen had fallen absolutely and unquestionably into the 
heresies contained in his books. It was useless to seek to 
cover him under the patronage of Pamphilus : the Apology was 
not the martyr s, it was the work of Eusebius of Caesarea." 

At the time when he entered the lists Jerome was still in 
ignorance of the changes of front which were in course of 
execution in high places, equally at Rome and at Alexandria. 
Theophilus had not shown more energy in "raising the 
standard " than Pope Anastasius, whom he had warned, 1 in 
taking formal action of his own. At the request of Eusebius 
of Cremona, Origen was expressly condemned and his books 
proscribed ; a notification 2 of the sentence was despatched to 
Simplicianus, the Bishop of Milan ; subsequently, as he died 
shortly afterwards, 3 his successor, Venerius, received another 
letter to the same effect 4 ; and finally steps were taken 
to obtain from the imperial authority a decree of official 
proscription. These steps were successful : the writings of 
Origen were officially prohibited, in the same way as the 
works of Porphyry and of Arius. 

Origen was not the only person concerned. Jerome s 
friends demanded also the condemnation of Rufinus, towards 
whom the new Pope was evidently exceedingly ill-disposed. 
But Rufinus was not easy to attack. Apart from the friends, 
also numerous, that he possessed in Rome and whom he 
owed in part to his relations with Melania, he was known 
to be closely allied with the saintly persons of Nola, Paulinus, 
and Theresa, who though treated with some coldness by 
Pope Siricius, were now in high favour with his successor. 
Chromatius, the venerable Bishop of Aquileia, had given an 
exceedingly warm welcome to his fellow-countryman. Not 

1 Jaffe, 276 ; cf. Jerome, Ep. 88. 

2 Jerome, Ep. 95 ; Jaffe, 276. 3 August 1 5, 400. 

4 Jaffe, 281 ; cf. Add. et corr. vol. ii., p. 691. The best edition is that of 
P. van den Gheyn in the Revue d hist. et de litt. relig^ vol. iv., p. 5. 



44 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

that he was not on good terms with Jerome : he never ceased 
to inculcate peace. Finally Bishop John of Jerusalem did not 
forget his friends on the Mount of Olives 1 ; under guise of 
consulting Anastasius on the case of Rufinus, he endeavoured 
to set him on his guard against the counsels of fanatics. 

We have no evidence that Anastasius took steps against 
Rufinus. The latter, however, thought that he ought to do 
something to appease the anger which had been excited 
against him : he addressed to the Pope 2 a confession of faith 
of a highly satisfactory character. This document does not 
seem, it is true, to have made any sensible change in the 
attitude of its recipient, but no doubt it contributed to hinder 
him from pushing matters further, and created a good impression 
in the ecclesiastical world. We do not know whether Anastasius 
made any reply to this Apology of Rufinus ; he refrained from 
mentioning it in his reply to John of Jerusalem 3 : " Origen," 
he says, " is a pernicious author ; if Rufinus has translated him 
to make people detest his errors, he has done well ; if to 
recommend him, he has done ill. All depends upon the 
intention, a matter of which God alone is the Judge. For 
the person of Rufinus the Pope has no responsibility ; he 
does not wish to know either where he is or what he is 
doing " 

It would be difficult to show less kindliness of tone. 
Rufinus might make up his mind to say good-bye to any 
pontifical favour. It only remained to him for the future to 
address himself to public opinion. He did so without delay. 
I have already said that Jerome s friends had had the stupidity 
to suppress the letter in comparatively pacific terms which he 
had sent to them for his old friend. The result was that the 
shrewd thrusts of the letter to Pammachius and Oceanus stood 
alone and without modification as expressing his feelings in 
regard to Rufinus. Rufinus now took up his pen : in his 
Apology, which is divided into two books, he sets out in the 
first place his defence against Jerome s imputations, and then 
takes his opponent to task for his attitude in the matter of 
Origen, for his translation of the Bible, and for his devotion to 

1 Melania, in all probability, was still at Jerusalem. 

2 Migne, P. L., vol. xxi., p. 623. 

3 Migne, P. L., vol. xxi., p. 627. Another letter, which is now lost, was 
addressed to the East after this one (Jerome adv. Ruf. iii. 21, 38). 



p. 62-5] THE POSITION OF RUFINUS 45 

pagan literature. He discharges the whole of the load which 
lay upon his breast with a bitterness which is not justified 
by the tone of Jerome s letter to Pammachius, but which is 
explicable when we take into account the unbridled attack 
of which the writer had been the object since his return to 
Italy. 

The book, addressed to Apronianus, one of his friends at 
Rome, was not (so it was said) intended for publicity ; but 
Jerome s supporters, always anxious to stir up the fire, procured 
extracts from it and sent them to Bethlehem. Incapable of 
self-restraint, Jerome would not wait for the complete text of 
the Apology, but set himself to refute it on the basis of the 
extracts at his command. His reply, couched in a style at 
least as spiteful as that of Rufinus pamphlet, drew upon him a 
reply from the latter. 1 Jerome made a further reply, always 
with the same asperity. Rufinus, in his last writing, had 
threatened, if he did not keep silence, to disclose certain 
misdoings which Jerome had confided to him in former days. 
To this Jerome replies that Rufinus is asking for his head, 
without reflecting that by this exaggeration he is giving people 
reason to think that he had actually confided to his friend 
some very terrible secrets. 

This insane polemic filled all well-disposed people with 
misery. Augustine, who was reached by its echoes even at 
Hippo, was greatly distressed. 2 The good Bishop Chromatius 
used all his efforts to secure silence ; but it was not easy. At 
the end of his reply, Rufinus said to Jerome : " I hope you 
love peace," to which Jerome retorted . " If you care for 
peace, begin by laying aside your arms/ 

That ib what Rufinus did, and we must give him credit for 
it ; for in matters of this sort the first who holds his tongue 
is the better advised. During the ten years of life which 
remained to him he seems to have forgotten the existence 
of his formidable adversary. At the request of Chromatius 
and his other friends he continued his translations. It was 
at this period that he turned into Latin the Ecclesiastical 
History of Eusebius, the Clementine Recognitions, the dialogue 
Adamantius, the history of the monks of Egypt (journey of 

1 Now lost, but capable of being reconstructed from Jerome s third book. 

2 Aug., Ej>. Ixxiii. 



46 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

394), 1 a number of homilies of Basil, of Gregory of Nazianzus, 
and of Origen, some " Sententiae " of Evagrius, and even the 
maxims of Sextus the Pythagorean, which circulated under 
the name of the Martyr Pope Xystus II. 2 For him the evil 
days were over. At the end of the year 401 (December 19) 
Pope Anastasius died ; and his successor, Innocent, does not 
seem to have espoused to the same extent as he had done 
the personal animosities of Jerome. 3 

Besides, Jerome, in his fury against the Origenists, was on 
the point of adopting in the East an incredible attitude which 
was in any case little calculated to win for him Innocent s 
good graces. Thus Rufinus was enabled to pursue his 
literary labours undisturbed, to maintain his relations with 
his numerous pious and distinguished friends, and to pay no 
heed to the distant rumblings, the echo of which reached 
him from Bethlehem. 

For Jerome on his part abated no whit of his anger. 
Melania was to him an object of horror. He erased from his 
Chronicle the eulogies which he had lavished upon her twenty 
years earlier : " The very name of this woman," he said, 4 
" bears witness to the blackness of her soul." As for Rufinus 
he could no longer speak of him without abusing him, referring 
to him by nicknames, and calling him the Scorpion, the Pig 
(Grunnius 5 ). Rufinus died in Sicily, in the year of the fall 
of Rome (410). Here would have been an opportunity for 
applying the rule : Jam parce sepulto ; but Jerome uttered 
a shout of rejoicing : " See the scorpion lies hid beneath the 

1 Vol. II., p. 402, note. 

2 St Jerome makes much fun of Rufinus (Ep. 133, 8 ; Comm. in Jerem. 
xxii. 24 ; in Ezech. xviii. 5) in regard to this confusion into which St 
Augustine has also fallen (De natura et gratia, 64 ; but cf. Retract, ii. 42). 
However the matter is not so clear as he thought it. Cf, Harnack, Gesch. 
d. altchristl. Litteratur, p. 765 ; Chronol. ii. p. 190 ; Martin Schanz, Gcsch. 
d. romischen Litteratur, $ 339. The Sentences of Xystus, in the form in 
which Rufinus translated them, represent a Christian adaptation of a 
Pythagorean book ; Origen had already before him the same text as 
Rufinus. 

3 Jerome never speaks of Anastasius save in language of extravagant 
eulogy. He goes so far as to say {Ep. 127, 10), that if he died so soon 
it was that Rome might not be taken (410) under such a bishop. It was 
a curious compliment to his successor. 

4 Ep. 132, 3. Melania, in Greek, means "black." 

5 The verb grunnire expresses the grunting of the pig. 



p. 65-8] RUFINUS AND JEROME 47 

soil of Trinacria ; at last the hundred-headed hydra ceases to 
hiss against me." In point of fact the hydra of whom he 
complained had long ago ceased to trouble him. It was only 
Jerome himself who hissed, and he did so as long as he had the 
strength. 

It was a melancholy quarrel ! Jerome, at some moments, 
seemed tempted to lament it : " What an edification for the 
public to see two old men trying to kill each other on a 
question of heretics, and professing each of them at the same 
time to be Catholics." It was a good impulse, which he 
immediately repressed. Both of them were in the wrong. 
Rufinus was unwilling to see what is clear as daylight, that 
the theology of Origen is incompatible with the teaching 
of the Church ; that to spread it and make much of it 
was the surest way to provoke its condemnation and to draw 
suspicion upon himself, despite the fairest-seeming professions 
of faith. On this point Jerome had the advantage. But he 
himself had an Origenist past; he had had to sing a Palinode 
and did not like it to be mentioned. Rufinus, and this was 
a second false step, felt called upon to irritate him on the 
subject; taking advantage of Jerome s former writings he 
represented him as a patron of Origen. Jerome defended 
himself too thoroughly. It would have been easy for him 
to make his position quite secure, and to protest in a few words 
against the part which it was designed to make him play. 
But with the impulsiveness of his character and the power 
of his verve the old rhetor was not the man to let slip an oppor 
tunity for invective. Let us admit in his excuse that his friends 
in Rome, who ought to have calmed him, used their whole 
efforts to spur him on. But the most regrettable feature in 
the matter is that he should have cherished a grudge for 
so long, and that even on the death of his opponent he should 
not have quenched his anger. 

Jerome was a monk apart. In his retreat at Bethlehem 
he thought too much of the public at Rome, and of the opinion 
which was held there in regard to himself. It was for this 
world that he was wont to write, whereas other monks for 
the most part wrote only for readers in the desert. But we must 
not pursue this train of thought too far : if Jerome had done 
as they did, not only Latin literature but the Church itself 
would have sustained too heavy a loss. In the honours with 



48 ORIGENISM AND ST JEROME [CH. n. 

which it surrounds his memory the Church signalizes with great 
care his translation of the Scriptures and his works of exegesis. 1 
And it does so with justice ; to the author of the Latin Bible 
one may well forgive a few intemperate expressions. 

1 Deus, qui Ecclesiae tuae in exponendis- sacris Scripturis beatum 
Hieronymum, confessorem tuum, doctorem maximum providere dignatus 
es . . . (Prayer for the Feast of St Jerome, September 30.) 



CHAPTER III 

CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS 

THEODOSIUS died too soon. He left three children, two sons of 
his first marriage with Flaccilla Arcadius and Honorius-- 
and by his second wife, Galla, the sister of Valentinian II., a 
daughter Placidia (Galla Placidia). This daughter who was 
reserved for so strange a destiny was still only a child. The 
Empire was divided between her two brothers, Arcadius 
receiving the East and Honorius the West. The first was 
scarcely eighteen, the other eleven. Their age placed them 
under wardship, as did, even more inevitably, their dispositions ; 
both of them attained what is called the age of manhood, but 
they scarcely emerged from childhood. 

The guardians were already in control, Rufinus at Con 
stantinople, Stilicho at Milan. As they regarded each other 
with hearty detestation, a conflict was easily to be foreseen. 
Stilicho was the stronger : he was a warrior, one of the best 
of Theodosius generals ; the Emperor esteemed him highly 
and had given him in marriage his niece Serena. 

From his last communications with the dead sovereign 
Stilicho inferred a sort of general mandate to himself to watch 
over the whole Empire and the whole of the imperial family. So 
far as the West was concerned he had his hands free : Honorius 
did not count. The army of the East had followed Theodosius 
to Italy ; it was still there, and Rufinus in consequence had no 
troops under his orders. His depredations and his cruelties 
had created for him innumerable enemies ; the most formidable, 
the Great Chamberlain (prcepositus sacri cubiculi), Eutropius, 
lost no time in dealing him a home-thrust by thwarting the 
plan which he had made of marrying his daughter to the 
young emperor. Eutropius forestalled him and made Arcadius 
marry a young girl of Prankish birth, Eudoxia, the orphan 
child of the Consul Bauto, who had been brought up in the 



50 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. in. 

household of the late general Promotus, one of the enemies 
of Rufinus. The marriage took place on April 27, 395, to the 
great mortification of the Praetorian Prefect. 

However, the barbarians began to become a menace. 
Alaric, the leader of the Goths whom Theodosius had brought 
to Italy as auxiliaries, being sent by Stilicho back to the 
Illyrian provinces laid those districts under pillage. Stilicho 
interfered, but ineffectively, with the result that Arcadius 
called on him to surrender his command. He obeyed, but 
came to an understanding with the general Gainas, another 
Gothic chief, who was to lead these troops to Constantinople. 
Their first step on their arrival there was to seize the 
person of Rufinus and put him to death (November 26, 395). 
Arcadius completed the downfall by confiscating his minister s 
property. 

The guardianship passed into the hands of Eutropius who 
exercised it for nearly four years. Though less cruel than 
Rufinus, he showed himself quite as greedy, and thought only 
of enriching himself by extortions, while the Eastern Empire 
was submerged by barbarians. Among these were the Huns 
who, forcing the Caucasus and the Danube, were spreading over 
Thrace, Cappadocia, and Syria, and threatening to advance 
as far as Palestine. 1 Others were the Goths who had settled 
in Asia Minor and now rose under their commander Trebigild. 
They were engaged in ravaging Phrygia and the neighbouring 
provinces, winning over to their side the troops, themselves 
barbarians, which were sent to oppose them ; and thanks to 
the complicity of the commander-in-chief, their country 
man Gainas, were holding their ground in spite of anything 
that could be done against them and were making ready to 
cross the straits. Eutropius, eunuch though he was, had led 
an expedition against the Huns and had compelled them to 
recross the Caucasus, a service for which he was rewarded by 
being nominated Consul and Patrician. The revolt of the Goths 
cost him not only his place and his fortune but his life. Gainas 
in concert with Stilicho demanded the disgrace of the favourite 
as the only means of pacifying the insurgents. Arcadius 
hesitated : the Empress insisted. It is true that it was to 
Eutropius that she owed her crown ; but she had begun to find 
him too powerful. The altar of St Sophia protected the fallen 

1 See above, p. 34. 



p. 70-3] HUNS AND GOTHS 51 

minister for a short time ; he was even able to leave this place 
of sanctuary, but he was overtaken again shortly afterwards and 
executed (399). 

Gainas threw aside the mask, united his troops with those 
of Trebigild and marched on Chalcedon. Some high dignitaries 
to whom he owed a special grudge the consul Aurelian and 
Saturninus, the consul-designate were perforce surrendered to 
him. The Emperor was compelled to cross the sea, to go to 
St Euphemia and give pledges to the barbarian ; and then what 
remained of the Roman troops having been sent away from 
the capital, the Goths established themselves in Constantinople. 
They gained no good by it, for after a very short time a kind of 
unreasoning terror impelled them to flight. Gainas, who was 
the first to leave, was able to withdraw into Thrace with a small 
company ; the rest were massacred by the populace. In the 
neighbourhood of the Danube Gainas fell in with the Huns 
who slew him and his band (400). The court of the East could 
breathe freely. The barbarians were annihilated, at any rate 
those with whom Constantinople had to do for the time being ; 
it was in Italy that Alaric was giving ground for anxiety. 
Gainas was, in short, the Alaric of Constantinople, but a good 
Alaric who caused more fear than harm. 

On this troubled scene there stands out from the rest the 
figure of the Archbishop John. 1 It was in 398 that he had 
been summoned from Antioch, through the instrumentality of 
the Court, where the influence of Eutropius was still dominant. 
The death of Nectarius had thrown open the field to rival 
candidates. Besides local ones, who were not wanting, the 

1 For the history of the events which follow the principal authority is 
the Dialogue of Palladius with the Roman deacon Theodore. The dialogue 
is clearly fictitious and purports to have been held about the year 408. This 
Palladius is, in my opinion, the same person as the author of the Historia 
Lausiaca, Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis (cf. the reasons adduced by 
Dom. E. C. Butler, Authorship of the Diafagus de Vita Chrysostomi in the 
volume published by the Committee for the Fifteenth Centenary of St John 
Chrysostom) ; he is a witness, but a partisan who has been exasperated 
by exile and the ill-treatment which his fidelity to Chrysostom cost him. 
Socrates and Sozomen (cf. also Philostorgius and Zosimus) have preserved 
to us reminiscences which are local but occasionally perverted by the 
confusion produced through too long a course of oral tradition. It is the 
same, with greater reason, with Theodoret. Certain discourses of Chrysostom 
connect themselves closely with events. As to his correspondence it 
concerns chiefly the period of his exile. 

HI. E 



52 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

candidature of Isidore, 1 a celebrated priest of Alexandria, was 
of special importance. He was pushed with much energy by 
his Patriarch, Theophilus, who had no lack of means of influence, 
both good and bad, and little scruple in employing them all. 
But Isidore was a man of eighty and Theophilus caused 
uneasiness by his daring. Eutropius set aside the Alexandrian 
candidate and cast his eyes upon the ecclesiastical orator whose 
name was spoken of throughout the East. John was brought 
to Constantinople, presented to the suffrages of the local clergy 
and faithful laity, and then consecrated by the bishops. The 
Court required Theophilus to preside at the ceremony; and he 
did so, much against his will. 

Constantinople had as its bishop a man of great eloquence : 
that was why he had been chosen ; but he was also a saint, and 
one of those unyielding saints in whose eyes principles are 
made to be put in practice. There was at once a crowd around 
his episcopal chair, and an enthusiastic crowd ; but away from 
it there was soon heard a general chorus of recriminations. 
The abuses which he lashed and cut down without mercy found 
spokesmen to protest against his severity. Under the aged 
and peace-loving Nectarius discipline had fallen into a deep 
slumber at Constantinople. We may suppose that the same 
was the case at Antioch, where the pastoral staff was in the 
tired hands of the venerable Flavian. But at Antioch John 
was not the master : the responsibility was not his, and so he 
had not shown his measure. Now his hands were free. His flock 
saw him first of all setting the bishop s house in order, and 
removing from it everything that savoured of luxury. Nectarius 
was in the habit of receiving freely the notabilities of the city 
and the Court ; John received no one and ate always alone. 
The clergy had not troubled themselves about the regulation of 
morals, or at any rate with the precautions which safeguard 
it; John required that the "spiritual sisters" should be dis 
missed. The clergy of all ranks and the canonical widows" 
(deaconesses) were urged to live frugally and not to frequent 
the tables of the wealthy. Upon the monks who drifted 
unceasingly through the city he imposed retirement in their 
cells and monasteries. Being always keenly interested in the 
care of the poor, he caused charitable institutions to profit by 
the economies which his reforms introduced into the administra- 
1 See above, pp. 35, 39, et seq. 



p. 73-6] EARLY HISTORY OF CHRYSOSTOM 53 

tion of the Church. But it was not only the clergy that he 
took to task. As at Antioch, he waged war upon the over 
weening ostentation of the rich, the shows of the hippodrome, 
and the vices of the Court. His hearers applauded him 
enthusiastically. His eloquence, the animation of which 
differed greatly from the official addresses and panegyrics, 
touched men s hearts to the quick. Mid the silence of the 
great city in thraldom his voice and his alone, made 
itself heard ; and always it pleaded for the weak against the 
oppressor, for the poor against the rich, for virtue against 
over-weening vice. John struck without sparing, caring no 
more for the dull anger which his eloquence stirred up than he 
did for the resistance provoked by his reforms. These resist 
ing forces he broke in pieces without pity. At his side worked 
his archdeacon, Serapion, an Egyptian dour and stern, a 
determined advocate of deprivation and other extreme 
measures. Few months had elapsed since John s advent, and 
already a party of opposition was being formed. 

But for a man of John s character opposition means struggle, 
and struggle is the normal state, the necessary relation between 
evil and good. 

There were still many Arians at Constantinople. In accord 
ance with the Theodosian legislation their churches were 
situated outside the walls ; within the town they were allowed 
to live, but not to perform their worship. To compensate 
themselves they had adopted the plan of going out to their 
churches in the suburbs in procession ; they were accustomed 
to meet under certain colonnades, and before their departure, 
which took place at early dawn, to spend part of the night in 
going through the Vigil office in the open air. Their chants 
drew people together to them ; John was alarmed by this and 
organized a rival service. Orthodox processions and Vigils 
soon disputed the hours of night and the streets with the 
followers of the Council of Ariminum. From this conflict of 
psalmody it was a short step to objurgations and then to 
blows, with the result that the Arian Vigils were at last pro 
hibited. A great strength of the surviving Arians lay in the 
fact that they were the co-religionists of the Goths, who were 
so powerful in the army. But the Goths were not all Arians; 
there were Catholics 1 among them. John gave them a church 

1 Vol. II., p. 450. 



54 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

with priests belonging to their nation, who officiated in the 
Gothic language. He readily took part in their religious 
services, and even preached there through the medium of an 
interpreter. Upon this mission, and also upon the Gothic 
churches in the Crimea, 1 he built certain hopes. During the 
occupation of the town by Gainas he had hard work to prevent 
the barbarian seizing one of his churches ; but he succeeded. 
Gainas entertained a great respect for him ; it was at his 
entreaty that he had spared, a few days before, the lives of 
Aurelian and Saturninus. 

The Court was at first quite favourable to the Archbishop. 
Since the death of Eutropius, between whom and his punish 
ment the eloquence of Chrysostom had for a moment stood, 
influence had passed into the hands of Eudoxia : her piety, 
which she manifested on occasion, did not hinder her from 
listening to the protests excited by John s zeal. Priests and 
deacons, deprived without mercy, were endeavouring to stir up 
a revolt of the clergy, and the monks were hostile. The most 
prominent among them was a Syrian named Isaac, who was 
credited with having prophesied in 378 the disaster of Valens. 2 
He had founded a monastery, the first orthodox monastery 
which had been seen at Constantinople. As Isaac was a man 
of great popularity, his attitude was not without serious 
importance. 3 Nearer the person of the Empress, agitation was 
fomented by certain great ladies who had their own reasons 
for finding scanty relish in the Archbishop s homilies. Pro 
minent in this circle were Marsa, the widow of Promotus, 
Castricia, the widow of the Consul Saturninus, and Eugraphia, 
who showed herself specially active. Lastly, some of the 
bishops whose business called them to Constantinople, allowed 
themselves to be captured by the coteries of the opposition. 
Three Syrian prelates are especially mentioned Antiochus of 
Ptolemais, a polished speaker, Severian of Gabala who also 
was a fluent preacher, though he spoke with the accent of 
his country, and finally Acacius of Beroea, whose conduct was 
not always in keeping with his grey hairs. These prelates, 
who were in favour at Court, were accustomed to spend more 



1 Vol. II., p. 450, note 2. 2 Ibid. p. 332, note 2. 

3 In regard to this individual see the observations of Pre Pargoire in 
the Echos tPOrienf, vol. ii., p. 138 et seq. ; cf. Revue des quest, hist.^ vol. Ixv. 
(1893), p. 120. 



p. 76-9] OPPOSITION TO CHRYSOSTOM 55 

time in the capital than was reasonably necessary. John 
would have preferred that they should have been in their 
Syrian dioceses, and between himself and them disputes arose 
from time to time. On one occasion Acacius, dissatisfied as 
it seemed with John s hospitality, let fall a remark which 
was at once sinister and wanting in respect : " I am going," 
he said, "to prepare for him a dish of my own." He kept his 
word. 

An incident occurred which still further increased the 
number of the saint s enemies. Antoninus, the Bishop of 
Ephesus, was accused before John by one of his suffragans. 
According to the second canon of the Council of 381 this 
matter fell rather within the jurisdiction of the bishops of the 
"Diocese" of Asia. The importance of the see, the urgency 
with which the charge was pressed, and the gravity of the 
circumstances determined the Archbishop to receive the plaint. 
While the matter was in course of examination Antoninus died, 1 
and a number of clergy belonging to Ephesus and other places 
entreated John to come in person in order to re-establish order 
in these churches which were the scene of many abuses, the 
principal one being simony.- John actually went, and spent 
the early months of 401 at Ephesus. The guilty prelates were 
deposed and successors were appointed, various things were 
set in order, and then the Archbishop returned to the capital, 
leaving behind him a feeling of hostility in more than one 
quarter. 

It was shortly after this, towards the end of the same year 
(401), that there arrived in Constantinople the Nitrian monks 
who had been persecuted by Theophilus on the pretext of 
their Origenist views. Thus the enemies, already numerous, 
influential, and active, who were bestirring themselves against 
John, were joined by another, a foe of a very formidable kind 
both on account of the variety of his resources and his lack of 
scruple. The struggle began to promise to be interesting. 

We have already seen a conflict between the Bishop of the 

1 He does not seem to have refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of Constantinople. 

- The rich, in spite of legislation to the contrary, were wont to seek to 
enter the ranks of the clergy in order to escape from the duties of the curia. 
To attain this end they had no hesitation in incurring expense, and, in one 
way or another, succeeded in purchasing ordination. 



56 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

great metropolis of Egypt and the Bishop of the capital, and 
that long before the Church of Constantinople was of serious 
importance. At the time when the seat of government was 
still at Nicomedia, Eusebius, the bishop of that town, had 
conducted a somewhat bitter controversy with his colleagues of 
Alexandria, Alexander and Athanasius. During the sojourn 
of the Court at Antioch, this struggle was continued by the 
Arian holders of that great see. The Bishop of Antioch 
supported the Anti-Popes of Alexandria, Pistus, Gregory, 
George, and Lucius ; the Bishop of Alexandria extended his 
patronage to the " Little Church " of Antioch. From the days 
of Theodosius onwards the political importance of Antioch 
was transferred definitely and decisively to the New Rome, 
and as every one had come over to the orthodoxy of Nicaea, 
peace seemed assured. But in these quarrels on the subject 
of dogma, men had become accustomed to assuming an 
attitude of hostility. When arms were laid aside they were 
placed in the rack and thus served to awaken only too 
frequent recollections of the use which had been made of 
them. 

Alexandria had long proved a doughty opponent. Athanasius 
had laid up for it a large store of respect in the eyes of the 
world. And from another point of view th physical conditions 
of the country and its traditions of extreme centralization in 
secular affairs had made their influence felt even in the domain 
of ecclesiastical policy. This country must always have a 
Pharaoh, a head who was absolute in authority and invested 
with a sacred character, who took everything under his charge 
and was responsible for everything. In the sphere of religion 
this chief existed : he was the Bishop of Alexandria, the 
absolute master of his body of bishops, which as a body took 
its origin, without exception, from him and governed itself 
invariably in accordance with his orders. When we speak of 
Councils in Egypt, we must not think that the word bears the 
same meaning there as it did elsewhere, that is, that we have 
to do with an assembly deliberating unfettered under a 
formally appointed president. In the Egyptian Councils 
whether there were more or fewer bishops was a matter which 
made absolutely no difference. One voice only counted, that 
of the chief, the Pope as he was called ; the others only made 
themselves heard to approve what he said. The sole power 



p. 79-81] THETSEE OF ALEXANDRIA 57 

beside that of the ecclesiastical Pharaoh l was the power of the 
monks. Since the time of Athanasius it had been kept in 
hand. The conflicts of Theophilus with the solitaries of Nitria, 
passing conflicts as they were, taught the Patriarch that in the 
monastic world it was not the best educated, the intellectuals 
as we should say nowadays, who could offer an effective 
resistance. The important thing was to come to an under 
standing with the democracy of the cells, and to know how to 
guide that. In 400 Theophilus had taken his side : he now 
felt the whole of Egypt behind him, the whole of the influence 
of the clergy, and all the enthusiasm of the monks. 

When contrasted with such a power the civil authority, at 
any rate on the spot, presented a much less distinguished 
appearance. From the time of Diocletian, who did not like 
Alexandria, the country had been divided into several provinces 
and attached, so far as concerned its higher administration, to 
the " Diocese of the Orient," which was governed from Antioch 
by the high official who bore the title of Comes Orientis. Thus 
Egypt, regarded as a whole, had no administrative expression. 
There were provinces in Egypt ; there was no longer, from a 
civil point of view, a Province of Egypt ; still less was there 
a "Diocese" of Egypt. This state of things changed under 
Valens ; in 368 we find the appearance of the "Augustal 
Prefect" in residence at Alexandria, placed in a superior 
position in the hierarchy to the governors of the provinces. 
In this respect there was a revival of the ancient Prefect of 
Egypt, the heir of the kings of the race of Ptolemy ; but it was 
a revival in a highly attenuated form, for the new dignitary 
had not control of the troops. This force was provided, as 
everywhere, with special commanders. Here it obeyed the 
orders of the " Count of Egypt." 

In the sphere, already a very large one, which was thrown 
open to him by legislation, and which he himself enlarged in 
case of need, the Patriarch had his hands free in quite another 
sense and modes of action far more efficacious. The officials 
were at his beck and call. At Constantinople, where he was 
represented by confidential agents (apocrisiarii\ either resident 
or despatched on special missions, we find him constantly 
taking part in nominations. He had an abundant supply 

1 The comparison is already to be found in the writings of the holy 
monk, Isidore of Pelusium, a contemporary of Theophilus (Ep. 5. 152). 



58 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

of money, and knew how to distribute it to the best 
effect. A governor who valued his position had to take good 
care not to displease him ; even for the magnificent Augustal 
Prefect a good understanding with the Pope of Alexandria was 
a condition of security of tenure. The Government was far 
away, and the Bishop had a long arm. 

As soon as the see of Constantinople had been taken from 
the Arians, it was felt at Alexandria that the Bishop of the new 
capital, thenceforward a Catholic, was likely to become a rival 
of importance. Precautions were at once taken : Alexandrian 
candidates for the see presented themselves. Maximus was 
pushed by Bishop Peter, Isidore by Theophilus. But if Peter 
and Timothy, the brothers of Athanasius, who held his see 
after him, had known how to resign themselves to their failure 
in the matter of Maximus, Theophilus on the other hand did 
not tolerate with patience the success of John of Antioch. He 
knew him ; he had taken his measure at the time of his conse 
cration, and foresaw that, with his character, he would not be 
long in creating difficulties for himself. Hence he kept an eye 
upon him, and John, who mistrusted him, was little disposed 
to join hands with a person of so pushing a disposition. 

The arrival of the monks of Nitria placed him in a situation 
of considerable embarrassment. They explained to him their 
position, told him that they were weary of finding themselves 
repulsed everywhere, owing to the fear which Theophilus 
inspired, and that if he, the Archbishop of Constantinople, did 
not consent to adjudicate on their case, they would proceed to 
carry a complaint to the secular tribunals, however great the 
scandal that might ensue, for they had had enough of their 
Patriarch. 1 John, without admitting them to communion, 
which would have been illegal, gave them a lodging in the 
out-buildings of the Church of the Anastasis, and gave them 
permission to attend the Offices. Some pious matrons, 
Olympias and others, undertook their maintenance. The 
envoys of Theophilus, when consulted by the Archbishop, 
approved of this arrangement. After this John wrote to 
the Patriarch, exhorting him to restore his favour to the 
monks. Theophilus did nothing of the sort ; on the contrary, 

1 At the beginning of the year 402, Theophilus in his Festal Letter 
(Jerome, Ep. 98) and Jerome, his faithful echo (Ep. 97), complain bitterly 
of these attacks. 



p. 81-4] CHRYSOSTOM AND EPIPHANIUS 59 

he sent to Constantinople other monks who were charged to 
accuse the first body, and inasmuch as these had placed a 
written complaint in John s hands, Theophilus bluntly told 
his brother of Constantinople that he had no right to receive 
it, that such a course was forbidden by the canons of Nicaea. 1 
John recognized it, and after having seen the failure of new 
attempts at conciliation decided to abandon the affair. 

But the victims of persecution held their ground. They 
succeeded in obtaining an audience with the Empress, and 
secured from her two boons: the first, that the accusations 
of their opponents should be examined by the Praetorian 
Prefects; the second, that Theophilus should be summoned, 
and that he should come to Constantinople either willingly 
or by force to appear before Archbishop John. On the first 
head, the investigation of the prefects afforded the exiles 
ground for lodging against their brethren a suit for false 
accusation, a suit which resulted in the severest sentences. 
These were not carried out on the spot, for emissaries of 
Theophilus secured a delay till the arrival of their Patriarch. 
However, the condemned men were cast into prison, and some 
of them died there. The coming of Theophilus failed entirely to 
save the rest, and they were sent to the quarries of Proconnesus. 

The second decision, that with regard to the appearance of 
Theophilus, was less easy to carry out. Theophilus took his 
time, and as a first step despatched to Constantinople the 
venerable Epiphanius in whom the crusade at Alexandria 
against the Origenists seemed to have produced a renewal of 
youth. He forgot his ninety years, and at the first appeal of 
the Egyptian Patriarch embarked for Constantinople. At the 
Hebdomori, where he landed, he celebrated an ordination ; 
and then refusing John s invitation to stay with him proceeded 
to hold meetings, for worship and otherwise, at which he collected 
signatures against Origen. All this was highly irregular. 
Epiphanius had made up his mind to represent John as an 
Origenist. Everyone whom he did not like or against whom 
people excited his animosity became an Origenist in his eyes ; 
but his eyes must have been blind indeed for him to think of 
making of John a disciple of Origen. Completely engrossed in 
his pastoral duties, John s religious ideas were of a simple, 

1 It was at this time, too, that he drove from his see of Hermopolis the 
Bishop Dioscorus, who forthwith rejoined his brethren at Constantinople. 



60 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. in. 

homely kind, completely divorced from any sort of theological 
speculation. He had been brought up at Antioch, in the least 
Origenist atmosphere in the East, and had always adopted the 
literal exegesis which was favoured around him : no one had 
ever seen him following the fantastic paths of allegory. 

What of that ? John had been pointed out to Epiphanius as 
an adversary to be encountered. Had he not refused to espouse 
the quarrel of Theophilus against the monks who were readers 
of Origen? He could not be anything but an Origenist in 
disguise. So the Bishop of Salamis advanced to the attack. 
All the enemies of John in the ranks of the clergy, of the monks, 
and in society had adopted anti-Origenist principles of the 
most extreme and uncompromising kind. A great meeting 
was announced to be held in the Basilica of the Apostles. 
Epiphanius was to preside : it was anticipated that he would 
fulminate against Origen, against the Nitrian monks, Origen s 
disciples, and finally against John, their protector. At the 
appointed time the aged bishop did, as a matter of fact, 
present himself: but on the threshold of the Church he was 
met by Serapion, who, speaking in the name of his Archbishop, 
invited him to reflect upon the enormity that he was about to 
commit. Epiphanius was shaken, stopped, and returned to his 
lodging : then, without waiting, he embarked once more for his 
island of Cyprus. He was not destined to reach it, for death 
struck him on the journey. I do not know if he repented : 
repentance is seldom a characteristic of men of his temperament. 

If he had had the perspicacity of Theophilus, instead of 
creating troubles for Archbishop John, he would have thrown 
himself into his arms. They were made to understand each 
other ; at anyrate they were astonishingly alike, in the burning 
zeal which animated both of them, in an equal incapacity for 
holding commerce with evil when they perceived it, and even 
for lending themselves to certain accommodations which are 
sometimes won by circumstances even from the most con 
scientious of men. 

Anyone but the saintly Archbishop would have said that it 
was incumbent on him to take advantage of the favourable 
opportunity and establish himself in the good graces of the 
Court, with the object of exercising a commanding influence 
in the conflict which was beginning. Far from doing so, John 
continued with increasing vehemence to thunder against the 



r. 84-7] EPIPHANIUS AND THEOPHILUS 01 

vices of the great. Some evil-disposed persons fastened on 
certain Biblical allusions in his addresses as little in accord with 
respect for the imperial dignity. If he spoke of Jezebel, it was 
suggested that he was insulting Eudoxia. Naturally, this 
method of interpretation was sedulously spread abroad alike 
by local opponents and by the emissaries of Theophilus. The 
Patriarch who was kept well informed watched from Alexandria 
the actions of his colleague and the effects of his eloquence. 
When he judged that the situation was ripe, he took ship, not 
concealing that he was going to depose Archbishop John. With 
this end in view, although the summons was addressed only to 
himself, he took quite a Council on board with him, some 
thirty bishops in all ; and what was more, a large sum of money 
and various presents. 

On a fine spring day, at high noon, the Egyptian Patriarch 
cast anchor at the Golden Horn. 1 The harbour was filled with 
Alexandrian vessels : the sailors of the corn fleet received with 
acclamations of joy the great religious head of their native land. 
On landing, Theophilus passed in front of St Sophia without 
entering it, in front of the Bishop s house, without casting a 
glance at it, and proceeded to take up his lodging at the Palace 
of Placidia. John made an effort to win him to his own 
house ; he had prepared apartments for him and for his suite. 
Theophilus would neither see the Bishop nor set foot in his 
churches. On the other hand he made such progress in the 
society of the Court, by his presents, his dinners, and his 
intrigues of every description that at the end of three weeks 
all danger had been removed from his own head, and his 
opponent found himself in a most unfavourable position. All 
John s enemies had rallied around the Patriarch. Informal 
meetings took place in the house of Eugraphia, in whose heart 
there rankled certain observations of her Archbishop on the 
subject of elderly coquettes, observations of a kind which they 
never forgive. Evidence was collected, and formal accusations 
were prepared. 

1 Socrates (Eccl. Hist. vi. 15), followed by Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. viii. 16), 
makes him stay first of all at Chalcedon. This is highly improbable, and 
there seems to be some confusion in the statement. Theophilus had made 
a stay in Lycia : this follows from a remark which he made against 
Chrysostom and which Palladius puts in the mouth of the latter (Dial. 8) ; 
but that is not a justification for maintaining that he traversed Asia Minor 
by land. 



62 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. in. 

When everything was ready Theophilus crossed the Bos- 
phorus with his train and established himself near Chalcedon, 
in the villa of the Oak, or villa of Rufinus, the one in which 
the celebrated Rufinus had been baptized. There was a church 
there which bore the name of the Apostles Peter and Paul. 1 
Around him were assembled, besides his twenty-eight Egyptian 
bishops, half a dozen of the opposition, the three Syrians already 
named Acacius, Severian and Antiochus, Cyrinus the Bishop 
of Chalcedon, a Mesopotamian whose language was Syriac 
Maruthas, 2 and finally Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia ad 
Sipylum? The last offered himself as accuser of his metro 
politan Heraclides, who had been installed by John in 
succession to Antoninus. 4 

It was not a large number : the majority of the bishops 
who had come to Constantinople in accordance with a regular 
summons, about forty, had refrained from crossing the Bos- 
phorus and were staying with John. Officially the situation 
had undergone no change : there was to be a great Council, 
under the presidency of the Archbishop of Constantinople, and 
Theophilus was to appear before it to answer charges. But 
already the attitude adopted towards John by Theophilus 
and his establishment at the Oak, away from Constantinople, 
betrayed the ascendancy which the Patriarch had regained in 
the counsels of the sovereign, and indicated that the accused 
was likely to be transformed into the judge. However John 
was requested, on the part of the Emperor, to transfer himself 
to the Oak and to preside at the trial of Theophilus. A 
scruple held him back: the canons of 381 forbade him to 
interfere in the affairs of Egypt. It was his ruin. If he had 
appeared at the Oak with his bishops, who having been officially 
summoned could not have been excluded, there is no doubt 
that he would have succeeded in carrying the day. His 

1 Vol. II., p. 494. 

2 The latter, who must have been somewhat stout, trod on the foot of 
the Bishop of Chalcedon and wounded him : gangrene was set up in the 
wound and the unfortunate man died in terrible agonies. 

3 He was a man of learning : he had written a commentary on Genesis 
and refuted a book against the Christians. On his writings see my mono 
graph, DC Macario Magnets et Scrip its eius, and Schalkhausser, Zu den 
Schriften des Makarios von Magnesia. Cf. Vol. I., p. 403. 

4 This matter had, it would seem, been raised before that of John, but 
difficulties arose which prevented it from being brought to a conclusion. 



p. 87-90] THE SYNOD OF THE OAK 63 

scruples in the matter of the canons of 381 had not hindered 
him from interfering in the affairs of Ephesus. The legal 
question was not then so serious, more especially since the 
assembly which was about to take place was not the council 
of a single " Diocese," but a council of the whole of the Empire 
of the East. The energy of John only sustained him against 
moral evil; it failed before a difficulty on a point of law. 
Theophilus,onthe other hand, was rrot a man to disturb himself 
for so little : his authority, his pride, being at stake, nothing 
could intimidate him. He won the day. 

John s refusal, which both he and the Court clearly expected, 
enabled Theophilus to give a new aspect to the affair. Since 
they were not willing to try him, he affected to consider himself 
as innocent and at once proceeded to reverse the roles. Two 
formal accusations had been presented to him, one on behalf 
of a deacon named John who had been deposed by the 
Bishop of Constantinople, the other by the monk Isaac. 
Each of them set out grievances as numerous as they were 
absurd. Theophilus treated the whole matter ait, serieux and 
caused John to be summoned to defend himself. To this 
summons the bishops who were assembled at Constantinople 
returned a very dignified reply, declaring that the Bishop of 
Alexandria remained in the position of an accused person, and 
that they for their part were ready to try him, having been 
brought together for the purpose ; that they were superior in 
number and from a larger number of provinces than the 
collection of bishops gathered round him ; and finally, that 
they had before them a letter in which Theophilus protested 
against those who wish to interfere in the affairs of another 
" Diocese." With what effrontery was he, an Egyptian, come 
to mix himself up with the administration of the Church of 
Constantinople ? 

It could not have been better put ; but the Council was 
not in control of the saintly man who was its president. At 
the same time as this protest, Theophilus received a letter from 
John who declared himself ready to appear, provided that there 
did not figure in the number of his judges either Theophilus J or 

1 John meant, no doubt, also that his council should unite itself to that 
of Theophilus ; otherwise he would have been too simple in trusting him 
self to a majority of Egyptian bishops absolutely at the disposal of their 
Patriarch. 



64 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

Acacius, or Severian or Antiochus, his declared enemies. His 
colleagues had raised the question of legality; Chrysostom 
appealed to equity. Theophilus paid no heed either to the 
one or the other : a second summons having produced no 
result, he proceeded per contumaciam. Some of the main 
charges were examined ; but it was only on the refusal to 
appear that the sentence of deposition was founded. It was 
communicated the same day to the clergy of Constantinople 
and to the Emperor. The latter was requested to secure the 
removal of a bishop who was henceforth deprived of his 
powers ; further than this his attention was called to the fact 
that among the articles of accusation was one which was 
concerned with acts of lese-majeste the oratorical allusions to 
the Empress and which outstepped the limits of ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction. They referred this part of the case to him. It 
was asking for the Archbishop s head. 1 

The Empress refused to go so far : it was merely decided 
that John should be exiled from Constantinople. This was 
not very easy to bring about. Not that the clergy would 
offer a serious resistance : they had been worked upon by the 
Patriarch of Alexandria, and had already for the most part 
passed over to the side of the victors. But the populace was on 
the side of the Archbishop : it was in a state of unrest and 
made clamorous protests : an outbreak of disturbance was to 
be feared. They waited for two or three days ; and then, 
since they had to do with a saintly man who was more inclined 
to relieve the police of trouble than to take advantage of 
popular feeling, they succeeded in inducing him to go on board 
a ship which took him to Praenetos on the Gulf of Nicomedia. 
He never ceased to demand other judges. 

On the day after his departure Theophilus, Severian, and 
the others ventured to show themselves at Constantinople. 
Theophilus set himself to restore to their places all those 
whom John had deprived : Severian had the hardihood to 
preach against the exile. This act of audacity served only to 
exasperate the populace, and in face of their menacing attitude 

1 The Acts of the assembly, including its report to the Emperor, its 
notification to the clergy of Constantinople and the reply of Arcadius, were 
extant down to the time of Photius who has left us (Cod. 59) a fully detailed 
analysis of them. The beginning of the report to the Emperor is in 
Palladius, Dial c. 8. 



p. 90-2] EXILE AND RESTORATION 65 

Theophilus and his friends thought it prudent to recross the 
Bosphorus. In their rear alarming affrays took place between 
the people of Constantinople and the Egyptians of the fleet; 
and at last the emeute made itself heard in the neighbourhood 
of the imperial palace. Eudoxia, who had been resolute enough 
up till then, began to feel alarmed ; a mysterious accident l 
which happened in her private apartments precipitated a 
decision. She caused an order to be despatched for bringing 
the Archbishop back, and sent a notary to him without delay 
bearing a letter in which she protested that she was in no way 
responsible for the attack on him. John allowed himself 
to be brought back. His flock came to meet him ; in the 
evening, when his ship appeared at the entrance of the 
Bosphorus, he found himself surrounded by a crowd of 
illuminated vessels. However the Archbishop was not willing 
to enter the city; they had to land him in the suburbs 2 where 
he took up his lodging in a house belonging to the Empress. 
Since he had been deported in execution of the sentence of a 
council, he wished before resuming his functions that this 
sentence should have been quashed in due form : he demanded 
another council. He was not listened to : the disturbance 
became even more threatening : it was necessary, in order to 
calm the people, to give them back their Bishop. He was 
obliged to yield. They transported him to the Holy Apostles, 
then to St Sophia : the people desired at all costs to see him 
on his episcopal throne as before. Of formalities, of Canon 
Law, they would hear nothing. John at last gave way. We 
still possess, as they were taken down after a fashion in 
shorthand, the speeches which he" made in these amazing 
hours. Theophilus, of course, is very severely dealt with in 
them ; the people of Constantinople are exalted to the skies : 
u My Church," said John, " has remained faithful to me : our 
modern Pharaoh has desired to take it from me as he of old 3 
had taken Sara. But once more Sara has remained pure : the 
adulterers are put to confusion." 



6pa.vffivTtva."yev{ff6a.i tv r$ /cotrwi/t, says Palladius (c. 9) ; Theodoret 
(H. E. v. 34) speaks of a great earthquake. Neither Chrysostom nor 
Socrates nor Sozomen make any mention of this accident. 

* Ej> Trpoa<TT(Lif} o /caXetrat Ma/navai, says Socrates (//! E. vi. 1 6) ; iv 

c r^s /3a<n\i5os irepl rbv AvdirXovv (Sozomen, H. E. viii. 1 8). 
3 Gen. xii. 14-20. 



66 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. in. 

During these scenes of crisis, Theophilus was effecting a 
reconciliation with his monks. Isidore, the primary cause of 
dissension, had not, it would seem, come to Constantinople. 
He died that same year. Dioscorus and Ammonius also 
died : the former was buried at St Euphemia, 1 the other in 
the church of Rufinus, at the Oak, to which in all probability 
he had betaken himself for the negotiations. These did not 
take long. Theophilus showed himself very accommodating ; 
the monks withdrew the accusation that they had laid against 
him ; the Patriarch gave them his benediction and pro 
nounced a most elaborate eulogy on Ammonius, the best 
monk, he said, that he had ever known. Ammonius, even 
after his death, justified this praise : his tomb wrought many 
miracles. 

The populace of Constantinople gradually returned to 
quiet ; but it still continued to dislike the Patriarch of 
Alexandria and talked of throwing him into the water. 
On the other hand, John did not cease to importune the 
Court to summon a real council, and to cause his case to be 
reopened. He got his way ; but while the letters of summons 
were being despatched, Theophilus, little pleased by this 
solution, embarked once more with his suite, bishops, and 
monks. Such a return brought him little honour : the 
Alexandrians hissed him on his arrival. 

To quench his animosity against John there was perhaps 
only one means, a drastic one it is true that advocated 
by the people of Constantinople. But at the same time to 
hinder John from getting himself into trouble, it would have 
been necessary to deprive him of the use of his speech. Two 
months after his return, matters had already once more taken 
an unfavourable turn. 

In front of St Sophia, at the entrance to the Palace 
of the Senate, a statue 2 of the Empress was inaugurated 
with the accompaniment of noisy and undignified sports. 
The Archbishop took it amiss and proceeded to preach 

1 This is the place which Palladius (Dial. c. 17) seems to indicate ; 
Sozomen (H. E, viii. 17) speaks of St Mocius ; Socrates (H. E. vi. 17) of St 
Peter in RufinJanis > but by confusion with Ammonius. 

2 This statue, in silver, was raised on a column of porphyry, the pedestal 
of which still exists in the Museum of St Irene, with the dedicatory 
inscriptions in Latin and Greek (Corpus Inscript. Lat. iii., No. 736.) 



p. 93-5] CHRYSOSTOM AND EUDOXIA 67 

against these demonstrations. He spoke of Herodias and 
of St John, and his remarks were carried to the Palace, no 
doubt with additions. Eudoxia, who was easily moved, was 
inflamed by this, and it was quickly known that John had 
once more forfeited her favour. However, as he continued 
to insist on being brought to trial, the bishops at length 
re-assembled at Constantinople. They were not all favourable 
to him. The one who in a matter of this kind might have 
been expected to count the most, and to exert himself the 
most energetically in John s defence the venerable Flavian 
of Antioch was enfeebled by age and could not render him 
any assistance. The bishops of Syria were greatly divided: 
those of Laodicea, Emesa, and Bostra were on the side of 
John, but those of Tarsus and of Caesarea in Palestine bore 
him no good will ; while those who led the campaign against 
him Acacius, Severian, and Antiochus were also Syrian 
bishops. In Asia Minor he had against him the occupants 
of the important sees of Caesarea and Ancyra. 1 The attitude 
of the Government gave cause for uneasiness. In short, John s 
main support was the populace of the capital. Bishop he was, 
bishop he desired to remain ; but his partisans, with their 
noisy and enthusiastic demonstrations, gave him in prejudiced 
eyes the appearance of a tribune of the people. 

Theophilus would not come : he declared that he was 
detained in Egypt by his people, whom he alleged to be so 
greatly attached to him that they would not let him leave 
them. He flattered himself, so we may well believe; but, 
however that may be, even though he did not come, his 
spirit did not cease to inspire and to direct the enemies of 
John. It was he who pointed out to them the procedure to 
follow. Among the canons of Antioch 2 was to be found 
one the fourth which dealt with the case of a bishop who 
had been deposed by a synod but continued to exercise 
his functions, declaring that such a bishop lost ipso facto 
the possibility of being restored by another synod or even 
of making his defence at it. This was precisely John s 
position. 

On arrival at Constantinople the prelates began by entering 
into communion with the Archbishop a proceeding which 

1 Leontius of Ancyra enjoyed a great reputation for sanctity. 

2 With regard to these canons, see Vol. II., p. 168, note. 

III. F 



68 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

displeased the Court. 1 They speedily divided themselves 
according to their views. John had forty-two of them upon 
his side ; his adversaries were more numerous. It cannot 
be said that anything which could properly be called a 
conciliar decision was given: the proceedings consisted of 
meetings of sections and of disputes. The Archbishop s friends 
laid stress on the irregularity, the nullity, of the sentence 
passed by Theophilus and his supporters, the violence which 
had been done to John alike to cause him to depart, and to 
compel him to resume his functions. Further they challenged 
the authority of these canons of Antioch as having been 
enacted by partisans of Arius, and demanded that those who 
used them to buttress their case should state whether they 
followed the teaching of their authors. 

The Christmas celebrations passed without the Emperor 
coming to church ; there was no desire at the palace to 
hear John s name mentioned. The business dragged on 
until Easter, obviously because disturbances were feared. At 
last the opponents of the Archbishop, eager for his de 
struction, succeeded in overcoming him in Court councils. 
Twice John was confined in the Bishop s house. On the 
night before Easter Day, when enormous crowds were wont 
to assemble for the baptism of catechumens, his clergy 
and his flock were excluded from the churches. In vain 
did they attempt to collect in the Baths of Constantine in 
order to celebrate there the holy vigil and baptism. Soldiers 
burst in and blood flowed even into the baptismal fon f s, from 
which the neophytes escaped half clad. On the morrow 
John s flock were obliged to go outside the city, and to 
celebrate the Holy Mysteries in the open country. Of course 
the churches were re-opened for his opponents, for the imperial 
court, and for the section of the populace which did not 
associate itself with the Archbishop s protests. 

The Church of Constantinople was in schism. After the 
Easter festival there appears to have been a lull. John still 
remained in his house, closely guarded by his flock, for the 

1 The fourth canon of Antioch pronounced excommunication (airo- 
pa\\<r8at. r^ tKK\rialas) against those who wittingly held communion with 
recalcitrant bishops. But the character of the penalty gives reason 
for thinking that it was only the laity that the council here had in 
mind. 



p. 96-8] EXILE OF CHRYSOSTOM 69 

worst acts of violence were anticipated, and some attempts at 
assassination had to be foiled. At last, on June 9, 404, five 
days after Pentecost, Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, and Cyrinus 
obtained from the Emperor an order to bring matters to a 
head. Once more John lent himself to measures calculated to 
preserve the public peace. The twentieth of June was chosen 
for the execution of the order of exile. He took leave of the 
bishops his faithful supporters, then of the beloved deaconesses, 
Olympias, Pentadia, and others ; and at last, leaving them all 
in tears, he left St Sophia by a back door. 

As he was being taken across the Bosphorus, the rumour of 
his departure began to spread in the crowd which was besieging 
the outside of the church, and filled the interior. Affrays 
took place between the faithful who had been outwitted and 
their triumphant opponents. Suddenly fire seized the episcopal 
throne and then other parts of the building ; in a few minutes 
the magnificent basilica became an immense furnace. The 
Palace of the Senate, which was quite close to St Sophia, 
also caught fire, and in three hours the flames had devoured 
the two historic buildings and all the houses in the vicinity. 
In the conflagration there perished the Muses of Helicon, 
transported from Greece in the time of Constantine, and many 
other masterpieces of ancient art, which adorned the Senate 
House. The fire, as we can well believe, was attributed to 
John s supporters, the Johannites, as they had already begun 
to be called. Rigorous and even sanguinary prosecutions 
were undertaken against the exile s best friends: no definite 
culpability, however, could be proved. 

Eight days after the removal of the Archbishop, a successor 
to him was elected in the person of Arsacius, a priest over 
eighty years old : he was the brother of the former bishop 
Nectarius, and had been prominent among the adversaries 
of John. The latter, who had at first been detained at Nicaea, 
found assigned to him as his place of exile the little town of 
Cucusa in Anti-Taurus. He was transported thither under escort 
with little care for his comfort: he had to suffer en route from 
the harshness and malice of his former colleagues, the Bishops 
of Ancyra and of Caesarea. On the other hand the people of 
Cucusa, with their bishop at their head, gave him the warmest 
of welcomes. 

With John s exile begins an enormous correspondence 



70 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

between him and his friends in Constantinople, Antioch, every 
where. They came to see him in his retreat, difficult as it was 
to risk oneself in these mountains where the Isaurians, the 
Kurds of that day, rendered journeying dangerous. Exiled 
though he was, he did not cease to interest himself in the 
works in which he had been engaged, notably in the spreading 
of the Gospel among the Goths and the missions of Phoenicia. 
Being now closer to Antioch, he resumed his former relations 
with that great city. Among his correspondents there, one of 
the most prominent was the priest Constantius, a man who 
enjoyed a high reputation for his virtues and his knowledge of 
affairs. 

While these things were happening, on September 26, 404, 
the old bishop Flavian died, almost a hundred years old. 
Shortly after, on October 6, came the turn of the Empress 
Eudoxia. Her disappearance from the scene brought no 
change. Arcadius remained under the domination of John s 
enemies, whose position since the fire had become much stronger 
than before. To this party it was a matter of the highest 
moment to make itself master of the See of Antioch. Acacius, 
Severian and Antiochus hurried back to Syria. They had a 
candidate, a priest named Porphyrius, who was known for 
his great hostility towards John. 1 John s friends demanded 
Consiantius : the others succeeded in securing his exile. 
Whilst he was on his way to his friend at Cucusa, the bishops 
who favoured Porphyrius took advantage of a day when the 
whole city had gone to Daphne to see the Olympic games, 
hurried through the election and consecrated him bishop. 
After this they disappeared. As they had an understanding 
with the Government, Porphyrius was at once recognized, and 
shortly afterwards 2 a law was promulgated which excluded 
from the churches any one who refused to hold communion 
with the reverend Bishops Arsacius, Theophilus, and 
Porphyrius. 

A threefold cord, 3 difficult to break. It was but strengthened 

1 Palladius represents him as a man of ambition and a priest of ill-repute. 
Theodoret, who takes the least controversial line in this matter, confines 
himself (//. E. v. 35) to mentioning the works of beneficence which he left 
behind him and to extolling his mental powers. 

2 Cod.Theod. xvi. 4, 6 (November 18, 404). 

3 Funiculus triplex. 



p. 98-101] ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE 71 

when in place of the aged Arsacius, who died towards the 
end of the following year (405), Atticus, another priest of 
Constantinople and an anti-Johannite of the most pronounced 
type, had been called to the see of the capital. He was a 
man of head and hand, admirably qualified to conduct the war 
which had been begun, and very ready to wage it. It was a 
ruthless war : bishops and clergy who were favourable to 
John were deposed wherever it was possible, and not only 
deposed but proscribed ; anyone who sheltered them under 
his roof was exposed to the penalty of confiscation. Numbers 
of them were sent into exile, to places of the greatest hardship. 
One might have thought oneself to be living in the worst 
days of the reign of Valens. 

The situation was complicated by intervention from the 
West. In the first stage of the affair John had not thought of 
invoking the protection of Rome. In view of the relations 
between the two halves of the Empire, this was a very delicate 
matter. Theophilus, who was under less constraint in this 
respect than the Bishop of New Rome, and better accustomed 
to correspond with the Old, was the first to inform Pope 
Innocent. Even he showed no hurry. His first letter only 
arrived in the spring of 404. In it he merely stated that he 
had deposed the Bishop of Constantinople, without giving a 
reason or mentioning a council. Innocent, disquieted by this 
unceremonious proceeding, waited for some days, and soon saw 
the arrival of three bishops sent by John with letters from 
himself, 1 from the forty bishops who supported him, and lastly 
from the clergy of Constantinople. These letters, which had 
been despatched soon after Easter, contained, an account of 
what had happened up to that time. The signatories protested 
against the wickedness of Theophilus and the irregularities of 
his procedure : they invoked the support of the Pope as well 
as of the Metropolitans of Milan and of Aquileia to whom 
similar letters had been addressed. 

Innocent replied to Theophilus and to John, quashing 
(aOerrivas) the sentence passed on the Archbishop of 
Constantinople. He declared that a new council must be 
summoned, to be composed of Easterns and Westerns, with the 
exclusion of friends and enemies, to render an impartial judge 
ment. Then, as Theophilus had ended by sending him the Acts 
1 This is preserved in the Dialogue of Palladius, c. 2. 



72 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. in. 

of his council, the Pope saw from these that John had been 
condemned by thirty-six bishops, of whom twenty-nine were 
Egyptians. This in itself told him the secret of the comedy ; he 
ran through the list of plaints set out and found in them nothing 
of importance. Theophilus received a letter in severer terms, 1 
in which he was informed that he was to present himself at 
the Council which was to be called : the proceedings would be 
according to the canons of Nicaea, the only ones recognized by 
the Roman Church. 

In the meantime events moved fast at Constantinople. John 
departed for exile : his supporters who had been driven out 
began to arrive in large numbers in Rome, where, despite 
Arcadius police, they met with an excellent reception. In vain 
did emissaries of Acacius endeavour to fasten on John 
responsibility for the burning of St Sophia. Not only from 
Constantinople, but from Thessalonica, from Caria and even 
as far as from Mesopotamia, priests and bishops flocked in and 
produced a mournful series of evidences. The Pope at length 
communicated the whole of these facts to the Emperor 
Honorius, and the Emperor collected a certain number of 
bishops who besought him to procure the holding of a great 
council at Thessalonica. Honorius gave his consent : his 
letters and those of the Pope, of the Bishops of Milan, Aquileia 
and others, were entrusted to a mission consisting of five 
Italian prelates and two Roman priests, who set out for 
Constantinople accompanied by Palladius and three other 
Greek bishops, partisans of Chrysostom. On arriving at 
Athens these dignitaries were hindered from proceeding to 
Thessalonica, where they wished to make arrangements with 
the Bishop Anysius, and were taken straight to Constantinople. 
They did not enter the city. From the customs house they 
were forced to go back to the Castle of Athyra on the Propontis, 
where they were exceedingly badly treated. On being 
summoned to recognize Atticus, they refused ; whereupon the 
letters of which they were the bearers were violently taken 
from them and the Latin bishops were re-embarked for Italy. 
As for the Greek prelates, they were retained in order to be sent 
into exile. It was then that Palladius returned to Egypt and was 
taken to Syene, in the neighbourhood of the Blemmyes, whilst 
his colleagues were scattered in the deserts of Libya and of Syria. 
1 Palladius, Dial. c. 3 ; Jaffe Regesta, 288. 



p. 101-4] DEATH OF CHRYSOSTOM 73 

No course remained open to Innocent save to renounce all 
communion with the opponents of John and to do his best 
to comfort the unfortunate exile ; and that is what he did. 
At this moment political discord was rife between the two 
parts of the Empire. Stilicho ever cherished his dream 
of re-annexing Illyricum ; and with this end in view he 
availed himself of Alaric. The Gothic chieftain had seen his 
first attempt at establishment in Italy fail at the Battle of 
Pollentia (402). Being compelled to recross the Julian Alps, 
he had made peace with his conqueror and was preparing to 
march with him on Constantinople. We can imagine what 
must have been, in times like these, the relations between the 
two Emperors : the representations of Honorius in regard to 
the internal affairs of tfie Eastern Empire had not much chance 
of being received with favour. 

In this way all John s friends had been reduced to 
impotence : he could do no more than exchange with them 
testimonies of fidelity and affection. Innocent wrote to him 
several times. At length all this correspondence, all these visits 
which (especially from Antioch) were constantly paid to Cucusa, 1 
ended by alarming his persecutors. Porphyrius and Severian 
secured the removal of their victim to a greater distance. A 
new place of exile was assigned to him, and he was sent to 
Pityus, a place on the Black Sea, at the foot of the Caucasus, 
far away from roads of communication and from civiliza 
tion. He never reached it. He was taken with brutality 
across the mountains of Pontus, without regard to his age and 
infirmities : if they came to a town where he might have 
found some relief, they hurried on to camp in a place where 
no resources were to be found. Thus it came about that he 
slept his last night near Comana in a country chapel, dedicated 
to a local martyr, St Basilicus. In a dream he saw the saint, 
who invited him to rejoin him on the morrow. He did in fact 
on the next day find himself worse. In spite of his representa 
tions, his keepers insisted on his setting out and hastened the 
departure. But after a few miles the poor Bishop was in such 
a condition that they were obliged to return to the little chapel. 
He died there the same day. " Glory to God in all things ! " 
such were the last words which issued from the Golden-mouth. 

1 For some time Bishop John resided at Arabissus, Cucusa having been 
found exposed to the incursions of the Isaurians. 



74 CHRYSOSTOM AND THEOPHILUS [CH. m. 

Stretched now upon the floor of a country oratory, in the 
recesses of a forgotten land, Archbishop John could no longer 
be an object of fear to anyone. His friends were scattered, 
exiled, reduced to misery, imprisoned. Their voices were 
lifted to bless his memory ; but no one save God heard them. 
Throughout the whole of the Orient wickedness enjoyed its 
triumph. Theophilus continued to rule over Egypt. It was not 
Jerome s fault if his high deeds were not applauded in the 
West. Scarcely had the Patriarch published something against 
the Origenists or against Chrysostom but Jerome hastened to 
translate it. It is through his pains and in his Latin version 
that there have come down to us these works of hate. 1 The 
last is an invective of a shameful character. John was repre 
sented in it as possessed of an impure spirit, as an impious 
person, a robber, a prcfaner, a Judas, a Satan, for whom Hell 
would never hold enough torments. Jerome thought this 
splendid. The Patriarch desired to make known to the Latins 
the character of his rival : he adopted his views and translated 
it. 2 Pammachius and Marcella, to whom he communicated 
these effusions, 3 must have ended by finding themselves 
disturbed by them. The Roman world was amply informed by 
the Johannite bishops, a goodly number of whom were receiving 
ready hospitality in the houses of Pinianus and the younger 
Melania. We have seen what were the feelings of Pope Innocent. 
Jerome s attitude, with his enthusiasm for Theophilus, could 
not fail to be regarded with disfavour. His correspondence 
with his friends at Rome seems to have slackened about this 
time. 

It was a long while since Origen s day. But Jerome had 
not forgotten him. For him, Origen lived once more in 
Rufinus, and Theophilus was the Destroying Angel of this 
disturbing monster. It was for that that he forgave him so 
many things. Theophilus, it is said, satisfied with having made 
his enemy bite the dust, began to forget the pretext of the 

1 Ep. 92 (a circular letter to the bishops of Palestine) ; Epp. 96, 98, 100 
(Festal Letters of 401,402,404); Ep. 113 (on the despatch of the book 
against Chrysostom). 

2 The copyists have been disgusted more than he was : of Theophilus 
pamphlet, there remain to us only citations by Facundus (Def. trium. capit. 
vi. 5 ; Migne, P. L. y vol. Ixvii., p. 677), and the beginning of a covering 
letter to Jerome (Ep. 113). 

3 Ep, 97 



p. 104-6] JEROME 75 

quarrel. He was often to be seen absorbed in the reading of 
Origen. If any one expressed surprise he would reply, " The 
works of Origen are like a meadow, in which there are beautiful 
flowers and some noxious plants : it all rests in choosing." 
That was what Rufinus also thought. Then why destroy the 
whole. 1 

1 In the course of this chapter I have several times alluded to St John 
of Constantinople by the surname of Chrysostom. It is as well to remember 
that this designation is not found earlier than the 7th century. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE END OF DONATISM 

WHILST the Eastern Empire resounded with these disputes, 
Latin Africa was releasing itself painfully from the terrible 
schism which had rent it ever since the time of Constantine. 
And here we must retrace our steps a little. 1 

At the first news of the proceedings of the Csesar Julian 
the Emperor Constantius had taken measures to safeguard 
his authority in Africa. 2 It was only after his death that 
his rival was recognized there, to the great joy of the 
Donatists. For them the change was a deliverance. The 
union established in the last years of Constans had been 
maintained since, under Magnentius and under Constantius. 
No doubt in many places the populace had been disposed to 
come to terms and had actually done so. But there remained 
some irreconcilables whom force alone had been able to bend 
and who straightened themselves again in a moment ; there 
remained in certain districts groups sufficiently strong or 
sufficiently removed from the centre to have been able to 
escape from the control of the Government ; above all, there 
remained in places of exile bishops and deported clergy, 
embittered by isolation and persecution. Julian speedily 
received their application, drawn up in the name of one of the 
most important of them, Bishop Pontius, and some others. 
In this they made an appeal to his justice. 8 The new Emperor 
must have heard Donatism spoken of: he knew what a scourge 
it was for African Christianity. Hence he hastened to grant 
pardon to the exiles: the attitude of his officials was changed 
without delay to one of neutrality between the two parties. 

The Donatists did not enjoy a peaceful triumph. Optatus 4 

1 Vol. II., Chap. Hi., p. 79 ff. 2 Ammianus, xxi. 7. 

3 Optatus ii. 16 ; Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 37 ; Augustine, c. Litteram 
Petiliani, iii. 92. 4 Optatus ii. 16-26 ; vi. 5-8. 

76 



p. 107-10] DONATISM UNDER JULIAN 77 

who saw them at work, tells us the story of their return in no 
unmoved fashion. Naturally, they hurled themselves on their 
churches and drove the Catholics out of them with violence if 
need served. 1 In answer to their call the larger part of the 
masses who had submitted to reunion returned noisily to 
schism. When the churches had bee$\ recovered, they set 
themselves to disinfect them by repeated lustrations; sacred 
things found in them could only be considered as profane, for 
the Catholic priests possessed, in the eyes of their opponents, 
no sacerdotal power. The altars were broken, or at any rate 
scraped: the Chrism was thrown out of the window and the 
Eucharist to the dogs. As for those who had accepted union 
and had taken part in the sacraments of the " traditors," they 
were subjected to penance whether they were clergy or simple 
lay folk. Needless to say, the consecrations of virgins, the 
ordinations, the baptisms, 2 and all the ceremonies performed 
during the union were declared void and repeated. 

The disappearance of Julian from the scene made no 
material change in the situation. Valentinian, as we have 
seen, was little disposed to take a side in ecclesiastical 
controversies. He did not alter the policy of his predecessor. 
The exiles remained in the country, and the relations of the 

1 Optatus tells us of several incidents which occurred at Lemellef, 
Tipasa, Carpi, and Tysedis ; but it is chiefly the general features that we 
must bear in mind here. 

2 The Donatist, Tychonius (vide infra, p. 79), gave an account of a great 
council held at Carthage in the early days of the schism by 270 bishops 
belonging to his party. It was there decided, after protracted debates, to 
admit the "traditors" to communion without imposing on them, if they 
did not wish it, a new baptism. He cited in particular the case of one 
Deuterius, Bishop of Macriana, who had acted in this way, and with whom 
the great Donatus had always remained on good terms. This was further 
the universal practice in Mauritania, down to the enforced union of 347 
(Aug. Ep. xciii. 43). The persons here in question are not Catholics 
baptized in their church since the beginning of the schism who had passed 
over later to the ranks of the Donatists, but "traditors" properly so-called, 
immensi criminis rei, persons who had been baptized before the schism, in 
the still united Church, and consequently validly baptized even in the eyes 
of the schismatics. The question debated in the council then was whether 
backsliding subsequent to this baptism had or had not destroyed its effect. 
Such had been, immediately after the persecution, the opinion of Donatus of 
Casae Nigrae (Vol. II., p. 87). At Rome too, after the Council of Ariminum, 
there were to be found fanatics (Vol. II., p. 285) who maintained that those 
who had accepted its formulas must be rebaptized. 



78 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

dissentients whether with the Catholics or with the Imperial 
authorities practically assumed once more the character which 
they had possessed in the last days of Constantine and down 
to about 347. 

Roman Africa reflected the general weakening of the 
Empire. Ever and again the tribes of the desert made their 
appearance to hurl themselves on the frontier which was often 
dismantled of its defences and too weak to stay their inroads. 
In the interior the Berber peoples who had retained their 
autonomy were in a state of unrest and sought for and assumed 
positions which gave cause for alarm. The result was an ever- 
increasing preponderance of the military authorities. The 
Proconsul and the Vicarius, officials of very high rank, but 
civilians, counted for little in the counsels of the Count of 
Africa, who was the commander of the army. This position 
was occupied at that time by Romanus, 1 who owed his appoint 
ment to Jovian. He was a cruel and rapacious man, more 
ready to plunder the provinces than to defend them. Everyone 
complained of him, but the favour of Remigius, the " Master 
of the Offices," prevented the accusations from reaching the 
Emperor. The Donatists reckoned him in the number of their 
persecutors ; but they were not the only sufferers from his 
administration. This was prolonged for a considerable time, 
about a dozen years, and ended in a catastrophe. 

The two Bishops of Carthage at that time were Restitutus 
for the Catholics and Parmenian for the dissidents. The former, 
who had been one of the leaders of the Council of Ariminum, 
had had no small share in the backsliding of that assembly. 
It would seem that even under the orthodox emperors he 
maintained his unhappy attitude. St Athanasius was obliged 
to bring pressure to bear on the Africans to make them 
abandon the Creed of Ariminum and attach themselves to 
that of Nicaea. 2 This fact, in combination with the ecclesiastical 

11 Ammianus, xxvii. 9. 

2 Vol. II., pp. 238, 374, 375. The Africans took but a small share in the 
great conflicts that arose out of Arianism. In 343 the "Eastern" Council 
of Sardica had addressed its circular letter (cf. Vol. II., p. 173) to Donatus 
of Carthage. The latter, if we are to believe St Jerome, seems to have 
written a book on the Holy Spirit in an Arian sense ("Ariano dogmati 
congruens," De Viris, 93). St Augustine (Ep. clxxxv. i), on the whole, 
exonerates the Donatists and Donatus himself from any compromise with 
Arianism. Gratus, Bishop of Carthage, seems to have attended the Council 



p, 110-12] CONDITION OF AFRICA 79 

isolation which followed, was ill-calculated to strengthen the 
position of orthodoxy in Africa in face of resuscitated Donatism. 
And this was the more to be regretted because the dissidents 
had given to their illustrious chief Donatus, who had died in 
exile, a successor who was himself a man of high distinction : 
Parmenian did not confine himself to ruling his sect ; he wrote 
in its defence. 

It was as a reply to one of his writings that Optatus, the 
Bishop of Milevis (Mileu) in Numidia, published about 370 
a treatise in six books 1 in which he relates the early history 
of the schism, combats the principles on which it was 
endeavoured to support it, removes the reproaches which were 
wont to be made to the Catholics on the score of the coercive 
measures which had been enacted and executed by the 
Government, and finally censures his opponents for their 
rebaptisms and for the uncompromising aversion which they 
showed for religious tranquillity. 

Nothing of any special importance seems to have resulted 
from this controversy between the two bishops. The Donatists 
were irreconcilable. There was no way of persuading them 
to oral debates whether in private or in public. Certain 
differences of attitude may, however, be discerned in their 
ranks. About the time at which we have arrived, one of them, 
Tychonius, who was deeply versed in the study of the Bible 2 
and had a considerable bent for controversy, published among 
other works a treatise 3 entitled "Intestine Warfare," in which 

of Sardica, of which he speaks in one of his canons (c. 5, cf. Vol. II., p. 194). 
The heretical formula of 357 was condemned in Africa (Hilary, Contra 
Const. 76) ; the bishops responsible for this open step were persecuted. 
In 358 there were four African bishops at Sirmium who signed the formulas 
put forward by the Homoiousians against the Anomceans (Sozomen, H. R. 
iv. 15 ; cf. Vol. II., p. 232). The large number of bishops collected at 
Ariminum in the following year is a reason for thinking that an appeal had 
been extensively made to the African body. 

1 Some fifteen years later Optatus revised his book and completed it 
with a view to a second edition which does not seem to have been reached. 
What is known as the Seventh Book belongs to this corrected work. 

2 We still possess a treatise of Tychonius on Seven Rules of Inter 
pretation, which was highly esteemed by St Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. 
iii. 30 ff.). His commentary on the Apocalypse is lost ; but we can 
reconstruct it for the most part by the aid of the Catholic authors who 
have made use of it, such as Primasius, Cassiodorus, Bede, and Beatus. 

3 De Bello Intestine, a lost work. 



80 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

he enunciated principles which had very little Donatism about 
them. He admitted that the true Church is that which is 
spread throughout the whole world, and that it does not 
lose its character as the Church in the true sense from the 
fact that it contains an admixture of sinners with the righteous. 
With such views Tychonius might have been expected to 
abandon his sect. The inconsistency in which he was involved 
by remaining in it was pointed out to him by a reply from the 
principal leader, Parmenian himself. 1 Others, without however 
grounding themselves on the principles of Tychonius, went 
further than he did and formed a body apart. Hence there 
arose schisms within the ranks the Claudianists in Proconsular 
Africa, the Urbanists of Numidia, the Rogatists of Mauritania. 
The last named were headed by the Bishop of Cartenna 
(Te"nes); they formed a section of some importance, 2 dis 
tinguished from the general body of Donatists by an inferior 
degree of ferocity. There were no Circumcellions among 
them. 

In 372 the country in which they lived was the scene of 
sanguinary conflicts. 3 Nubel, one of the great Moorish chiefs 
who were subject to the Empire, chanced to die, leaving a 
large but disunited family. One of his sons, Namma, a protege 
of Count Romanus, was assassinated by Firmus, his own 
brother. Pursued by Romanus, Firmus deemed that he could 
best secure his safety by revolting and setting himself up as a 
Pretender. He succeeded in seducing from their allegiance a 
body of Roman troops, and a tribune of the regular army 
took off his collar and made him a crown. Mauritania, which 
had been exasperated by the exactions of Romanus, rose 
almost to a man ; while the peoples of the Atlas who had 
been more or less subdued took part in the revolt. Romanus 
was unsuccessful in curbing the movement, and even in 
preventing Firmus from burning to ashes the town of 
Caesarea, the capital of the country. In some aspects it was 

1 A lost letter, which can be reconstructed in part from a refutation 
devoted to it later by St Augustine (Contra Ep. Parmeniani^ libri iii.). 

2 In his letter (Ep. 93) to Vincentius, the successor of Rogatus, which 
was written about 408, St Augustine speaks of ten or eleven Rogatist 
bishops. But in the forty years which had elapsed since its origin, this 
little church had passed through evil days and no doubt had had many 
losses. 

3 Ammianus, xxviii. ff. 



p. 112-5] SCHISMS IN DONATISM 81 

a war of religion : the Donatists had taken the side of the 
usurper. Whilst he was master, Catholics and Rogatists l had 
to endure evil times. 

But Valentinian intervened. A distinguished general, 
Theodosius, the father of the future Emperor, landed in 
Africa with troops that could be relied upon. Romanus was 
immediately arrested and sent to the Court, and the insurrection 
which had assumed enormous proportions was in the end put 
down. Firmus, driven to despair, hanged himself at the 
moment when he was about to be handed over to Theodosius. 
When these passions had been allayed, things returned to their 
former condition. The Government, of course, could not fail 
to be more unfavourably disposed to the Donatists who had 
been compromised in the rebellion. It is for this reason, no 
doubt, that we find, in 373, 377, and 379, laws against the 
practice of Rebaptism. 2 Little was done to put them into 
execution, at any Fate in places where the Donatists were 
the masters, and especially in Numidia. The Circumcellions 
reappeared, making havoc of the country districts : in the 
towns very strange scenes were to be witnessed. One day the 
Donatist Bishop of Hippo forbade the bakers to bake bread 
for the Catholics, of whom there were but few in the place. 
One of their deacons had a Donatist baker as a lodger : he 
could not induce him to put his dough in the oven. 3 
Everywhere that they could, the sectaries devoted themselves 
to harassing the Catholics. The least that they did was to 
shun all communication with them, all conversation, especially 
on the subject of the schism. 

It was in these conditions conditions generally speaking 
of extreme misery that the African Church lived or vegetated 
during the thirty years which followed the death of Constantius 
and the return of the proscribed Donatists. Optatus is the only 
Catholic writer of whom we find mention : of councils, of the 
Bishop of Carthage, we hear nothing further. It is only in 
390 that we meet with a successor of St Cyprian a certain 

1 Aug. Ep. 93 ; Contra Lift. Petiliam, ii. 83. 

2 Cod. Theod. xvi. 6, i, 2 ; 5, 5, One of them was addressed (Vol. 
II., p. 505, note 2) to the Vicarius Nicomachus Flavianus, a Pagan by 
conviction, and so favourable to the Donatists that they considered him 
one of themselves. 

3 Aug. Contra Lift. Petti, ii. 83. 



82 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

Genethlius who is known as having brought together two 
provincial councils, one in an official residence (in praetorio)<> 
the other in the basilica called " Perpetua Restituta." Of the 
latter there remain a dozen canons, all dealing with ordinary 
discipline and devoid of interest for the history of local disputes. 
Relations were always maintained with the Apostolic See. 
Pope Siricius sent to Africa about this time the ordinances of 
a Roman council held in 386, in which he strongly enjoins the 
observance of ecclesiastical celibacy. The Church of Africa 
was doubtless represented, in 391, at the Council of Capua, for 
in subsequent years we find it exhibiting the utmost respect 
for the decisions of that assembly. 

This year 391 marks an epoch in the history of African 
Christianity. It was then that there appear on the scene 
the three men who were for long to play the principal parts 
upon it Augustine, who in this very year became a priest 
at Hippo ; Aurelius and Primianus, who at Carthage replaced 
Genethlius and Parmenian respectively at the head of the 
two rival communions. It was then too that crises occurred 
in the bosom of Donatism which were destined to reduce it to 
weakness, while on the Catholic side there begins to develop a 
course of action marked by intelligence and perseverance 
which was destined in the long run to put an end to this 
lamentable division. 

Africa was now subject to a native ruler, Gildo, another 
son of Nubel, who was invested with even more extensive 
powers 1 than the previous Counts of Africa. He had been 
established in 387, and held his position for nearly twelve years. 
In the time of Romanus and the elder Theodosius he had 
borne arms against his brother Firmus, and had found the 
Donatists among his adversaries. Now he showed them 
favour. It was in the neighbourhood of Mt. Aurasius, a military 
district, that the schism had always had its strongest positions : 
Bagai and Thamugad for the Donatists were like Holy Cities. 
Just at this time the see of Thamugad was filled by a regular 
bandit named Optatus. Strong through the friendship of 
Gildo, which caused him to be dubbed Optatus the Gildonian, 
he was to be found everywhere where there was an ill deed to 
be done in his own interest or in that of his sect. He soon 

1 Comes et maspster utriusque militiae per Africam (Cod. Theod. ix. 
7,9). 



p. 115-18] THAMUGAD AND CARTHAGE 83 

became the terror of Numidia: the fear of him extended as 
far as Carthage and to the recesses of Mauritania, where he 
went periodically to harry the Rogatists. This Episcopal 
scourge was able in some respects to promote the interests of 
the Donatists ; but on the whole and before the public opinion 
of Africa he compromised them. 

A scandal of another kind arose from broils between some 
members of the Donatist clergy of Carthage and their new 
bishop, Primianus. 1 The latter, for reasons of which we are 
imperfectly informed, set some of his deacons against him, 
notably a certain Maximian who belonged to the family of 
the great Donatus. Maximian was deprived by a very 
summary procedure. He resisted. On his side, as in earlier 
days on the side of Majorinus, there appeared a grande dame 
possessed of influence and a turn for intrigue, who set herself 
to organize a party in his interest and invoked the assistance 
of the episcopate. Forty-three bishops assembled themselves 
at Carthage in defiance of Primianus, who refused to see them 
and to appear before them. They adjourned themselves to 
another council which took place towards the end of June 393, 
at Cabarsussi in Byzacena. About a hundred bishops were 
present. Primianus refrained from appearing: he was sentenced 
per contumaciam and deposed on various grounds, 2 principally 
because he had shown himself too easy in admitting the 
Claudianists to communion. Maximian took his place : he 
was elected and consecrated at Carthage in the usual form by 
a dozen of the neighbouring bishops ; but Primianus had not 
relinquished his post. The Donatists who had deposed him 
belonged to the eastern provinces, Africa Proconsularis, 
Byzacena, and Tripolitana. He appealed from them to the 
episcopate of Numidia, who still formed as they had done at 
the beginning the principal strength of the party. Three 
hundred and ten bishops met together after Easter (April 24, 
394) in the following year in the church of Bagai. Affecting 
to ignore the Council of Cabarsussi and its sentence, the 
assembly 3 admitted Primianus among its members; then, 

1 St Augustine refers to this business again and again : see especially 
Contra Cresconium, lib. iv. 

2 The sentence has been preserved by St Augustine, Sermon 2 on 
Psalm xxxvi. c. 20 (Opera, vol. xi., p. 1 185). 

3 Ibid. p. 1189. 

III. G 



84 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

without even troubling itself to confirm the deprivation of 
Maximian, it proceeded against his twelve consecrators and 
they were deposed. As for the bishops who had given their 
adhesion to his intrusion, they were given till Christmas for 
repentance. 

They did not all return to a better mind far from it : 
Maximian s schism reached deep down. The dissidents had to 
suffer considerably. On one side Optatus and his fierce Circum- 
cellions waged a merciless war against them and struck them 
down without ceremony. On the other Primianus and his 
supporters invoked the laws against dissenters laws of which 
they themselves complained so strongly and which had been 
directed against them. The magistrates, daunted by their bold 
ness and by the authority of the great Council of BagaY, allowed 
sentences of expulsion to be extorted from them. One of 
Maximian s consecrators, Salvius, Bishop of Membressa, was 
subjected to shameful indignities. Since his own flock could 
not be relied upon to put him out, an appeal was made to the 
people of Abitina, a neighbouring town. These hastened to 
the spot with exultation, seized hold of the old bishop, and 
after making him a necklace of dead dogs, proceeded to dance 
round him like savages to the accompaniment of obscene 
songs. 

These occurrences had been followed with attention by 
the Catholics. They saw reproduced in the very bosom of 
Donatism all the details of the schisms of 313 a Bishop of 
Carthage repudiated by a section of his clergy ; the bishops 
of the province called to take cognizance of the affair, and 
ending by siding against the bishop, by deposing him ; one 
of his clergy ordained in opposition to him ; the former bishop 
extricating himself from this position by decisions given at 
a distance, and by the help of the public authority. That no 
point of resemblance might be wanting, now as in former 
days there was a woman in the case, a matron of Carthage who 
filled the part of her ancestress, Lucilla. With what grace, 
men said to the supporters of Primianus, with what grace do 
you reproach us with Caecilian, Miltiades, and the magistrates 
of Constantine ? You have just repeated their story. 

However, Gildo adopted in politics an attitude which was 
open to suspicion. It is true that he had not recognized the 
"usurper" Eugenius ; but he had not aided Theodosius to 



p. 118-21] PRIMIANUS, GILDO, AUGUSTINE 85 

put him down. When the Emperor was dead, he was seen 
opposing Stilicho and intriguing with Eutropius. There were 
times when he put obstacles in the way of the despatch of 
corn-supplies, on which depended the feeding of Rome. " Our 
bread is at the mercy of the Moor," said the poet Claudian. 1 
In 397 he threw off the mask entirely and joined Africa to 
the empire of Arcadius. The senate, adopting the language 
of olden days, declared him a public enemy. At the beginning 
of the year 398 a fleet crossed to Africa. The army which 
disembarked from it was under the leadership of Mascezel, 
Gildo s own brother, who had quarrelled with him shortly 
before and had passed into the service of Stilicho. The 
campaign did not last more than a few days. Defeated at 
Ammaedara (Haidra) Gildo took to flight, reached the sea and 
took ship : a mishap in navigating it brought him back to 
Tabraca, where he was arrested and strangled himself as his 
brother Firmus had done, twenty-five years before. Optatus of 
Thamugad, who was deeply involved in the rebellion, was also 
arrested and died in prison. 

However the Catholics had not waited to help themselves 
till Heaven should rid them of their enemies. Whilst the 
Donatists hostile to Primianus were gathering at Cabarsussi 
(393), the Catholic bishops were assembling at Hippo under 
the presidency of Aurelius of Carthage. The Church of Hippo, 
inconsiderable in numbers, and swamped as it were in the 
midst of a dissenting population, had at its head at this time 
an old bishop of Greek origin whose name was Valerius. A 
place in his entourage had been occupied for the last two years 
as a priest by Augustine of Thagaste, not so long ago a 
renowned rhetor, celebrated at Carthage, at Rome, and at 
Milan, but for some years withdrawn from the world. In the 
past he had led a lax life, which was tormented, however, by 
the goadings of religion. For a time he had been a Manichean : 
later he joined the school of the Neo-Platonists. 2 In the end 

1 De Bella Gildonico, v. 70 : " Pascimur arbitrio Mauri." 

2 It was in the translations of C. Marius Victorinus that St Augustine 
had made the acquaintance of Plato and the Platonists. Victorinus became 
a Christian in the early years of Pope Liberius (352-366) ; he undertook 
with zest the defence of orthodoxy against Arianism, but he had been 
converted late in the day ; his controversial writings and some others of 
his which remain to us present a curious combination of Christianity and 
the Neo-Platonist philosophy. On his conversion see Aug. Conf. viii. 5 ; 



86 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

he attached himself to St Ambrose and attended his instructions. 
It was then that he heard the call of God, and received baptism 
from the hands of the illustrious bishop. Since that time he 
had been living in Africa, aloof from any kind of worldly 
preoccupation, absorbed in religious studies and in good works. 
When he found himself on a casual journey at Hippo, the 
populace, who knew his worth, acclaimed him as a priest. 
Valerius, all the more glad to have such an assistant because 
he found some difficulty in speaking in Latin, soon wished to 
make sure of having him as his successor. He caused him to 
be consecrated bishop (395), a rather irregular proceeding 1 ; 
however, he died a few months later, and Augustine by him 
self ruled the Church of Hippo. 

From the days of St Cyprian and even earlier, Councils had 
had great prominence as an institution in Africa. 2 In the 4th 

on his writings, Schanz, Geschichte der row. Litt.^ iv. p. 137 flf. The 
influence of Victorinus on Augustine has been greatly exaggerated ; 
Augustine did not come into personal contact with the celebrated rhetor ; 
he owes to him only his acquaintance with the Platonist writings and also 
the example of his conversion. Victorinus must have ceased his functions 
as a teacher in consequence of the edicts of Julian (Vol. II., p. 263-4) ; he 
no doubt died shortly after. 

1 The eighth canon of Nicsea, which was cited in this connexion, bears 
no reference to this case, except in the revision of Rufinus (c. 10). It is 
true that, quite apart from any written enactment, it was an immemorial 
rule that there ought to be but one bishop in each place ; but it is no less 
clear that the inconveniences for which this traditional law was a remedy 
were not to be feared in the case of Valerius and Augustine. 

2 The literary tradition of the African Councils goes back in the last 
resort to a Liber canonum preserved in the archives of the Church of 
Carthage : it was read at the Council of 525. After the canons of Nicaea 
it contained the African canons, council by council, following the order of 
succession of the Bishops of Carthage, with short prefaces. From this lost 
work are derived: (i) the Breviatio canonum of Fuigentius Ferrandus 
(Migne, Patrologia Lat., torn. Ixvii., p. 949), a compilation in order of 
subjects, drawn up at Carthage before the middle of the 6th century ; (2) 
the African collection inserted in the Hispana (Maassen, Quellen, vol. i., 
p. 772) : this contains the Councils of 348, 390, 397, 401, 419, and various 
canons of other Councils (402-8) the Concilium Carthaginiense IV. of this 
collection has nothing to do with Africa : it is the Code of Aries, Statuta 
Ecclesiae anfiqua ; (3) the Council of 419. To this Council, assembled in 
reference to an appeal to Rome (vide infra, c. vii.), are to be found 
annexed, at least in some MSS., two collections of canons (1-33, 34-127), 
or rather a collection of canons (1-33) and a selection from the councils 
held down to that time under AureUus. The collection of canons, except 



P. 121-4] AFRICAN COUNCILS 87 

century Donatists and Catholics held several of them, though 
they do not seem to have been assembled at the regular 
intervals characteristic of the middle of the previous one. In 
the matter of Catholic Councils, we only know of that of Gratus, 
which was due to quite special circumstances, and the two of 
Genethlius. The bishops assembled at Hippo, convinced that 
" L union fait la force," resolved to restore this institution and 
enacted * that in future there should be a council every year. 
To make the holding of it easier, it was laid down that besides 
the bishops of the province in which the council sho uld be 
summoned, there should be present two legates of the other 
provinces, invested with the powers of their colleagues. 

The instrument was created, but everything depended on 
putting it to regular use. It was to this that Archbishop 
Aurelius devoted himself. The new head of the Church of 
Africa assuredly did not possess the culture of Augustine ; but 
his lofty character, his resolute and conciliatory temper, his 
strong common sense, his imperturbability, all qualified him to 
preside at the helm of a Church which had been woefully 
crippled. Between Augustine and him there was always 
complete agreement. Aurelius was not the man to be even 
tempted to blind jealousy of the radiant glory of his illustrious 

for the last five, is made up of canons taken from previous councils : the 
names of the bishops proposing the canons have been changed. In the 
second part (34-127) the series of councils laid under contribution extends 
from the Council of Hippo in 393 down to the Council of Carthage of 
May i, 418 ; many things have been omitted in the process of selection. 
The collection ends with some added documents relating to the matter of 
the appeals ; the last belongs to 421. Looked at as a whole it has the 
appearance of a dossier^ drawn up with a view to supporting the African 
contention in regard to appeals to Rome, rather than of a collection of 
disciplinary enactments. This collection, known under the name of Codex 
Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae^ was translated into Greek and inserted in the 
books of Byzantine Canon Law. In Latin we possess it in the collection of 
Dionysius Exiguus (P. Z., torn. Ixvii., p. 181), and in many others which 
seem all to have borrowed it from Dionysius. Apart from this tradition 
should be mentioned here the Breviarium Hipponense^ an abridgement of 
the Canons of Hippo (393), drawn up four years after the Council, at the 
instigation of Aurelius of Carthage and Musonius, the Primate of Byzacena. 
It is often to be found in collections of canons along with the Council of 
Telepte (418), which is a Byzacene Council. 

1 Canon 18. I cite it according to the Conciliar Code of 419, as it is 
inserted in the collection of Dionysius Exiguus (Migne, P. Z,., torn. Ixvii., 
p. 181 f.) 



88 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

colleague any more than Augustine, on the other hand, would 
have entertained the remotest idea of putting himself in the 
place of his chief in the general management of the Church. 
In certain respects Aurelius and Augustine were each the 
complement of the other : they present to us an Ambrose in 
two persons the governor and the teacher. Augustine, it is 
plain, to a great extent inspired Aurelius : Aurelius gave to 
Augustine s views the authority of his see, of his person, and of 
his councils. 

The bishops assembled at Hippo seem to have said to 
themselves that before waging war on the dissidents, they 
must first render themselves free from possibility of reproach. 
The greater part of their decisions are directed to the restoration 
of discipline. The Council of Hippo is a Reforming Council. 
There is scarcely any mention of the schism, and then only 
to settle the position of certain classes of Donatists who had 
been reconciled to the Church. Gildo was reigning at this 
time, and Optatus of Thamugad was his prophet : it was not 
the moment to take steps against Primianus. Still, councils 
were held in the years that followed ; but it seems that 
difficulties were interposed in the way of communications 
with the ecclesiastical authorities of Italy and the Imperial 
Court of the West. The pol[cy of Gildo was hardly favourable 
to relations of this kind. The Council of Capua, in 391, had 
imposed very hard terms on the Donatist clergy who asked for 
union. This ordinance, which was contrary to their old custom, 
was a source of embarrassment to the Africans ; they may well 
have been anxious to secure some mitigation. At Hippo they 
determined to consult the Church beyond the sea. 1 But in 
397 the consultation had still to be made. 2 It was decided 
upon for the second time this year, at the General Council of 
Carthage. This Council asked in addition that persons who 
had been baptized, before attaining years of discretion, in the 
Donatist Church, should not be treated as incapable of entering 

1 Brev. Hipp. 37. The Council of Capua had decided that no Donatist 
should be received cum suo honore. The Council of Hippo asked for the 
exemption of those who had not practised Rebaptism, or priests and bishops 
who came into union with the whole of their flock. The ranks of the clergy 
were being manned with difficulty. 

2 We have information, in 394, of a Provincial Council at Carthage, and 
of a General Council at Hadrumetum in Byzacena. 



P. 124-7] AURELIUS AND THE DONATISTS 89 

Holy Orders. 1 The request seems to have been addressed to 
Pope Siricius and to Simplician, the Bishop of Milan. 

We must suppose that the revolt of Gildo and the repression 
which followed stayed for some time longer the renewal of 
communications, for they were re-established only under the 
successors of Siricius and Simplician, Anastasius and Venerius. 
The Council held at Carthage on June 16, 401, sent delegates 
to Italy to these two prelates and to the Emperor, with a view 
to obtaining from the former the dispensations necessitated by 
the scarcity of men ; and from the sovereign an energetic 
course of action against paganism and the repression of certain 
abuses more or less connected with it. In the month of 
September at another meeting of bishops, Aurelius was able 
to communicate very kindly letters from Pope Anastasius, but 
no concessions had yet been obtained, at any rate in respect to 
the priests or bishops who were returning to the Church with 
their flocks. Further representations had to be made and were 
no doubt successful, for without much delay we see the desired 
admissions taking place on a very large scale. 

To open wide the door to those who came over was a good 
thing ; but now a more direct procedure had become possible. 
In this year, 401, Africa had passed into the hands of a 
powerful Count, Bathanarius, brother-in-law of Stilicho, who 
governed it until 408. The Donatists had been too deeply 
involved with Gildo for the government of Honorius to be 
inclined to forget their transgressions, old or new . 

However, an attempt was made first of all to proceed by 
kindness. The officials were bidden to hold an enquiry in all 
the places where the supporters of Maximian had possessed 
churches, as to what had occurred at the time when they had 
split off from the other Donatists : formal records were to be 
drawn up ; then delegates from the. Council were to be sent to 
the Donatist bishops and parishes to shew them that they had 
no longer ground of complaint against the Catholics that the 

1 Persons baptized in schism were admitted into the Catholic Church 
not by a new baptism, their own being considered valid, but by a ceremony 
analogous or identical with Confirmation, but not unrelated to the Recon 
ciliation of Penitents. The imposition of hands which formed part of it 
was doubtless ad accipiendum Spirituui sanctum but also in poenitentiam. 
As the condition of a Penitent was a bar to Orders, the convert found 
himself, from this point of view, rendered incapable. ^ was this incapacity 
that the African bishops were seeking to remove. 



90 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. TV. 

latter had only treated them as they had themselves treated the 
supporters of Maximian. 

In addition to these measures of the Council, each bishop 
was required to take in his neighbourhood all the steps likely to 
establish if not an entente, at any rate overtures and discussions 
of some kind. Augustine devoted himself to this task. Hardly 
had he been installed at Hippo when he composed a sort of 
ballad in vers libres summing up the whole of the anti-Donatist 
argument. It had a refrain 

Omnes gut gaudetis de pace 
Modo verum indicate. 

The Catholic children sang it in the streets and thus 
rendered familiar the policy of union. If some Donatist 
bishop seemed less bigoted than the rest, Augustine seized 
opportunities of meeting him, or at any rate of writing to him, 
and endeavoured to pave the way for discussion. If he found 
a Donatist book in circulation, he made haste to refute it. 1 
Petilian, Bishop of Constantina, one of the wise-heads of the 
party, for some time conducted the controversy with him. 
It was a controversy of an extremely monotonous character. 
On either side the same ideas, the same arguments of principle 
and of fact were served up endlessly. Augustine handled them 
with an unwearying patience, perfect dexterity, and above all, 
imperturbable good temper. In particular he made great play 
with the advantage afforded him by the quite recent story of 
the supporters of Maximian. It was he no doubt who had 
suggested to the Council of Carthage the idea of making the 
use of this that it did. 

But neither controversies nor the intervention of the 
magistrates seem to have produced very appreciable results. 
At its meeting in 403 (August 25) the Council resolved on a 
more direct procedure and to invite the Donatists to a con 
ference at which the two bodies of bishops might discuss the 
questions which divided them and set themselves to find a 
solution. 

It was undoubtedly a good idea, but in order to call the 
Donatists to a meeting, it would have been necessary to be 

1 Contra epistolam Parmeniani, De baptismo contra Donatistas, Contra 
litteras Petiliani, De unitate Ecclesiae^ Contra Cresconium grammaticum, De 
unico baptismo \ cf. the works lost but enumerated in the Retractationes, 
i. 21 ; ii. 5, 19, 27, 28, 29, 35 ; and the Letters relating to these matters. 



p. 127-30] CATHOLICS AND DONATISTS 91 

able to approach them, and this was very difficult to do in view 
of the horror that they had of any kind of intercourse with 
the Catholics. With these irreconcilable folk all direct com 
munication was impossible : recourse was had to the mediation 
of the municipal councils. Each bishop presented himself 
before the local magistrates, furnished with a letter from the 
Proconsul or the Vicarius. He secured the insertion of this 
letter in the minutes of the municipality and with it a form of 
exhortation and invitation to a meeting. This done and the 
Catholic bishop having retired, the formal record was read by 
the magistrate to the heads of the Donatist clergy. A formal 
record of their replies was similarly drawn up. 

The officials lent themselves to this curious form of 
mediation : it achieved no further result. We still possess 1 
a few phrases of the reply which was entered, in the name of 
Primianus, in the municipal registers of Carthage : " It would be 
shameful for the sons of the Martyrs to assemble themselves 
together with the race of the Traditors. . . . They brandish 
against us letters of the Emperor ; on our side we have only 
the Gospels. . . . The true Church is the Church which endures 
persecution, not that which persecutes." They had not changed 
since Donatus not even in style. The bishops of Numidia 
met together to deliberate, and their deliberation ended in a 
collective refusal. 

As for the Donatist proletariat its anger was kindled, and 
in many places it gave itself up to terrible acts of violence 
against persons and against churches. The Circumcellions 
had perfected their equipment : the bludgeons of former days 
had been supplemented or replaced by slings, lances, and 
swords ; they had even adopted a plan of throwing quicklime 
and vinegar at people s heads with the object of blinding them. 
The countryside in Numidia was in their power, and even in the 
towns there was risk of danger. Augustine, who was a special 
mark for their rage, was tracked by them on the roads ; they 
spoke of killing him like a wild beast. His friend Possidius, 
Bishop of Calama (Guelma), was besieged in a farm, stripped, 
insulted, and beaten. 

The Catholic Bishop of Bagai, against whom they had a 
special grudge, was seized in a church, stricken down with 
broken pieces of the altar to which he clung, riddled with 
1 Aug. Ad Donatistas post coll. i. 31. 



92 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

wounds and left for dead, so that his own people came to bury 
him. At this moment the Donatists perceived that he was still 
breathing : they dragged him to the top of a tower, and after 
further ill-treatment threw him down from it. Happily he fell 
on to a heap of litter ; he was found again, tended with care and 
finally recovered. 

Pushed to extremity, the Catholic episcopate called to mind 
the existence of laws against the supporters of schism, and that 
in fine this whole Donatist Church represented an unlimited 
infringement of them. At the Council of 404 (June 16) it was 
decided to send two delegates to the Emperor with written 
instructions, the text of which we still possess. The bishops 
demanded in the first place protection for the Catholics against 
the violent acts of the dissidents ; secondly, the application, 
not to all the Donatists but to those who by their acts of 
violence should give ground for complaint, of the law of 
Theodosius, 1 by which persons who in the heretical sects confer 
or receive ordination, are liable to a penalty of ten pounds of 
gold, without prejudice to the confiscation of the places in which 
the ceremony took place ; finally, the application also of the 
law which deprived heretics of the right of receiving gifts or 
legacies. 

It would have been too rigorous a proceeding if the persons 
affected had been peaceful heretics ; but in view of the temper 
of the Donatists and the excesses which they allowed them 
selves under the eyes of not unfavourable officials, it was not 
severe enough. So at any rate thought a number of the 
bishops ; but the Council had adopted the view of Augustine, 
who was always inclined to lenient measures. It was in vain 
that they cited to him the good effects obtained in more than 
one quarter, notably at Thagaste, his native place, by a 
somewhat rigorous enforcement of the Compelle intrare. The 
people of Thagaste, who had been brought back to the Church 
in the days of Macarius, had not left it since. Augustine held 
firm : no one, according to him, ought to be forced to enter 
the Church. 

In the course of these proceedings and whilst the envoys of 

the Council were sailing for Italy, an intervention took place 

on which neither Augustine nor Aurelius had calculated. The 

Bishop of Bagai, only half healed, went straight to the Court, 

1 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 21 (June 15, 392). 



p. 130-3] THE CIRCUMCELLIONS 93 

to show his scars and tell the tale of his adventures. He was 
not the only one : others besides him were wearying of being 
brutally assaulted under the mask of toleration. The impression 
produced was profound and decisive. A law was immediately 
despatched to Africa, ordering the suppression of the Donatist 
sect, the exile of their bishops and their assistants. 1 This 
involved the closing of the dissenting churches and their 
restoratioa to the Catholic clergy. It was an enforced union 
like that in 347, in the days of Macarius. Other laws speedily 
followed, dealing with various details. 2 

The imperial decree was at once put into execution at 
Carthage, and it would seem without any great difficulty. 
The plenary Council, held on August 23, according to custom, 
took note of the fact and passed a vote of thanks to the 
Emperor ; it also decided that the officials should be requested 
to apply the law in the provinces with the same zeal as they 
had shown in the metropolis. 

It is impossible to deny that the application of official 
pressure entailed serious consequences. The fanaticism of 
the Circumcellions was not the act of all the Donatists. There 
were not wanting among them men of intelligence who 
recognized the foolishness of their schism and were only 
seeking for a pretext to detach themselves from it. Many 
were Donatists by force of habit, by family tradition, without 
knowing why, without even thinking seriously about it ; others 
were retained in the sect only by the terror inspired in them 
by the violent members. On the whole, the intervention of 
the State tended much less to disturb their consciences than 
to deliver them from an intolerable- oppression. 3 

1 The law is lost, but it is presupposed by laws of a slightly later date 
(Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 38; xvi. n, 2), and summarized by Augustine 
Ep. 185, 26 : " Lexfu^rat promulgata, ut . . . haeresis Donatistarum . . . 
non tantum violenta esse sed omnino esse non sineretur impune ; non tamen 
supplicio capitali, propter servandam etiam circa indignos mansuetudinem 
christianam, sed pecuniariis damnis propositis et in episcopos vel ministros 
eorum exilio constitute." 

2 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 37, 38 ; xvi. 6, 3, 4, 5, all belonging to February 12, 
405 ; xvi. 5, 39 (December 8). The first orders the posting everywhere of 
the Rescript obtained from Julian by the Donatists, with the Acta wherein the 
hatefulness of this concession was shown. Cf. Const. Sz rm. 12, and Cod. 
Theod. xvi. 5, 40, 41, 43. 

3 Aug. Ep. 185, 29, 30 ; Ep. 93. 



94 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

However, in many quarters resistance was offered, and the 
Catholics in spite of all the imperial edicts continued to be 
maltreated. A year after the Law of Union, the clergy of 
Hippo were reduced to making an appeal to the Donatist 
episcopate for protection against unendurable acts of violence. 1 
At Bagai the Donatists burnt the Catholic church 2 ; at 
Constantina, at Sitifis, and in a number of places similar 
acts are reported ; a Donatist bishop boasted of having, to 
his own account alone, destroyed four Catholic churches. 
We can readily understand that in these broils, and the acts 
of repression to which they gave rise, a certain number of 
Donatists were left on the field. However, reprisals were not 
pushed very far ; the dissenting clergy were not deported. 

Some years passed, years prolific in disasters for the 
Western Empire : the assassination of Stilicho (August 23, 408), 
the campaigns of Alaric in Italy, the pretensions of Attalus, the 
various sieges of Rome, and finally the capture and sack of the 
old metropolis of the world (August 24, 410). These events 
made themselves heard in the discords of Africa. Count 
Bathanarius having been assassinated shortly after his brother- 
in-law Stilicho, the Donatists thought themselves saved ; but 
the position of guardian and favourite fell to Olympius, the 
Master of the Offices, an official of great piety, the friend of 
St Augustine : the earlier laws were confirmed in express 
terms. 3 However, in the following year, Olympius having 
been replaced by the pagan Jovius, an edict of toleration 
was obtained. 4 All the work accomplished in the course of 
five years found itself threatened. 

The Council of Africa did not give way to despair. Already 
in 408, immediately after the fall of Stilicho, it had sent envoys 
to the Emperor. Fresh delegates set out for Italy, and on 
August 25, 410, whilst Alaric was entering Rome, there was 
handed to them at Ravenna a new edict 5 by which matters were 
restored to their former footing. 

In the midst of these crises the idea of a conference between 

1 Aug. Ep. 88 ; cf. Ep. 86. The high official to whom this last letter is 
addressed, Caecilian, may well have been a special commissioner sent to 
Africa to superintend the execution of the Law of Union. 

2 Aug. Brev. Coll. iii. 23 ; Coll. i. 133, 139, 189. 

3 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 44, 46. 

4 Cod. can. Eccl. Afric., c. 108. 5 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 51. 



p. 133-6] MEASURES OF CONCILIATION 95 

the two bodies of bishops was several times brought forward 
again. It suggested itself to all the men of sense on either 
side. The Catholics had made an attempt, in 403, to bring it 
about : the Donatists had rejected it ; but in 406 some of 
them rinding themselves at Ravenna had asked l the Praetorian 
Prefect to arrange a conference for them with a Catholic bishop 
who was paying a visit to the Court. The latter, not having 
any instructions for this, was obliged to hold aloof. However 
when, in 410, Aurelius Council sent to ask for the recall of 
the measures of toleration inaugurated in the previous year, 
it instructed its delegates to request at the same time the 
assembling of a conference. To this Honorius consented. 
By a decree dated October I4, 2 he appointed Marcellinus, 
tribune and notary, one of the high officials of his Chancery, 
to make the preparations for this meeting, and to preside over 
it, and delegated to him the most ample powers. 

Marcellinus came to Africa. He began by a study of the 
position; and then (in February 411) he published the 
imperial rescript with an edict in explanation. 3 There is 
a marked difference of tone between the two documents. 
The Emperor adopts the strictly legal attitude, and treats 
the Donatists as dissenters ; the Commissioner, on his part, 
endeavours to hold the balance even between the two parties. 
He orders the provincial and municipal magistrates to put them 
selves into communication with the bishops, and to summon all 
of them to Carthage. No constraint is to be exercised ; but the 
Donatist prelates are to know that, if they agree to come to the 
conference, the churches from which they have been driven out 
will be immediately restored to them, with their property ; that 
a safe-conduct will be granted to them both in going and 
returning; and finally, that if they distrust the arbitrator by 
reason of his being a Catholic, they can provide him with 
an assessor of their own faith. 

The Donatist bishops accepted the conference : they came 
to Carthage; they even made, on May 18, 411, a collective and 
solemn entry. 4 The Catholics arrived in their turn. When 
everyone was assembled, Marcellinus fixed the day and the 
place of the meeting. It was to open on June I in the Baths of 
Gargilius, a spacious and airy building, situated in the middle 

1 Act of Jan. 30, Coll. iii. 141. 2 Coll. i. 4- 3 Coll. i. 5-10. 
4 Coll. i. 14 ; cf. Aug. Post Coll. 25. 



96 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. TV. 

of the town. All the bishops were not admitted to take part 
there : it was feared that if they assembled in too great numbers 
they would not be able to hold a discussion without disorder. 
Each side was to choose seven speakers, to whom were to be 
joined seven counsellors without the right of speaking, and four 
commissioners who were deputed to watch over the making of 
the minutes of proceedings. These minutes were to be drawn 
up by the record-clerks of the principal government offices in 
Carthage, with the aid of two ecclesiastical notaries on either 
side. No speech, no interruption, no single word could be 
uttered without the speaker certifying its -tenour on the 
transcript en clair, after it had been checked by the short 
hand notes. Each of the two bodies of bishops was to notify 
the High Commissioner, before the opening of the conference, 
of their acceptance of the rules of procedure. 

On the appointed day Marcellinus and the officials of the 
Chancery took their place in the great hall of the Baths : the 
bishops were ushered in. The Catholics numbered eighteen, 
according to the prescribed rule. Their orators were Aurelius, 
Augustine, two of Augustine s intimate friends Alypius of 
Thagaste and Possidius of Calama, and then the Bishops of 
Constantina, Sicca, and Culusi. As for the Donatists, they 
presented themselves en masse. They, too, had already chosen 
their orators, but they were unwilling to name them at the 
outset : they were Primianus of Carthage, Petilian of 
Constantina, Emeritus of Caesarea in Mauritania, Gaudentius 
of Thamugad, and three others. 

Never would they consent to sit down, no matter what effort 
the Commissioner made to induce them : the righteous, they 
said, could not sit with sinners. Seeing this, Marcellinus 
resolved to remain standing, and the Catholic delegates did 
the same. So they remained until the evening, for a space of 
eleven hours, and it was the same on the other days. 

From the very outset the Donatists defined their attitude. 
What they wanted was to hinder the discussion by entangling it 
in inextricable subtleties, or obstructing it by useless speeches. 
Their two principal orators, Emeritus and Petilian, dis 
tinguished themselves, the one by a pretentious and woolly 
loquacity which would have wearied the patience of an angel, 
the other by his vehemence > his passion, his pitiless logic, 
and his obstinacy which prevented him from yielding any- 



p. 136-9] CONFERENCE AT CARTHAGE 97 

thing whatsoever, and led him into endless repetition of the 
same objections. 1 

The first day was employed, or rather wasted, in debating 
incredible niceties of procedure. However, they succeeded in 
reading, first the Imperial Rescript and the Commissioner s 
edict, and then the reply of each of the two parties. The 
Donatists in theirs declared that they insisted on appearing 
in a body in order that no one should suppose that they were 
few in number. The Catholics accepted the edict uncondi 
tionally. Further they gave, formally and of their own motion, 
the following undertaking : that should their opponents be 
able to establish that their Church was the sole representative 
of all that remained of Christianity, they would descend from 
their episcopal thrones and place themselves under the 
authority of their colleagues. In the event of the debate 
resulting in their own favour, each of them would admit his 
Donatist colleague to share with himself the dignity of the 
episcopate and the government of his Church. 

Finally, there was read the mandate which the Catholic 
delegates had received from their colleagues who were 
present at Carthage but were absent from the conference. 
This document was of a somewhat elaborate character : it 
contained a citation of all the texts of Scripture on which the 
Catholics based the theory of their position, and a reference to 
all the evidences in favour of the contention that the question 
of fact had been settled once for all in the days of Constantine. 
It bore the signatures of all the Catholic bishops present at 
Carthage. The Donatists fell at once on these signatures, 
claiming to verify them one by one. For this purpose they 
demanded the appearance of the signatories. This whim was 
conceded to them. All the Catholic bishops were summoned 
to the meeting place. Each of them answered to the call of 
his name, and then his Donatist colleague stated that he 
identified him. There were 266 Catholic bishops : we can 
judge of the time that was lost in this formality. 

Then the Donatists consented to present their delegates 
and the text of the mandate which they had given them. The 
signatures were also read : they were made to be confirmed by 

1 P. Monceaux has reconstructed the list of his literary works 
("Les ouvrages de Petilianus" in the Revue de Philologie^ vol. xxxi. 
[1907], p. 218). 



98 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

their authors ; there were 279 of them ; some of the signatures 
were disputed. 1 

Night had come ; the continuation of the debate was 
adjourned to the next day but one (June 3). At the second 
session the Donatists, after various quibbles, asked for a fresh 
postponement. It was only on June 8 that the conference was 
resumed. There was a renewal of obstruction. The Donatists 
insisted flatly on knowing which of themselves or their 
opponents was plaintiff, which defendant. A great deal of 
time was lost over that. In the course of the discussion the 
dissidents produced a document which had been framed by 
themselves during the previous days as a reply to the mandate 
of the Catholics. Augustine, who on the first two days had 
hardly opened his mouth, proceeded to speak and set himself to 
sustain the debate on this document. In this he succeeded, 
though the Donatists, dismayed at seeing the matter dealt 
with in earnest, made countless attempts to rush off into 
details. They were forced to endure the production of 
Biblical arguments for the conclusion that the Church was not 
founded as a tiny society of saints, but as one which must 
include, until the final Judgement, all men whatever their 
character sinners mingled with the righteous. In these 
circumstances, whatever might be the character of Caecilian and 
Felix and the other persons in question, their culpability, if 
there were any, affected only themselves and did not prevent 
the Church being the Church. They passed next to the 
question of fact : what was actually the case as to the accusa 
tions brought against Caecilian ? The documents on which the 
defence of the Catholics had been based since the days of 
Constantine were read and discussed, together with those 
which the Donatists thought that they could set against them : 
these were few in number and calculated rather to tell against 
themselves. It was conclusively shown that Caecilian and 
Felix had undergone various trials which had left nothing 

1 On the Catholic side, to the 266 signatories of the mandate there 
arrived 20 belated additions : there were 120 absentees and 64 sees vacant. 
This gives a total of 470 bishoprics. On the Donatist side the figures are 
not so precise ; but allowing for absences, for vacancies, which were very 
numerous since the Law of Union (405), and for the fact that in many 
places the Donatist bishop had joined the official church, one would arrive 
at a total which was very nearly the same. 



p. 139-42] RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE 99 

standing of the accusations against them, and that such had 
been the definitive judgement of Constantine. 

The Commissioner then pronounced the discussion closed 
and bade the bishops withdraw while he drew up his decision. 
Night had fallen. It was by the light of candles that, on the 
return of the delegates to session, Marcellinus delivered his 
judgement, which was in favour of the Catholics on all points. 
On June 26 l he published an edict, this time no longer in the 
capacity of judge but as charged to give effect to the result of 
the arbitration. In it he invited the Donatists to enter into 
union and take advantage of the generous offers made to them 
by their opponents offers which the latter intended to fulfil. 
Otherwise, they must give up the churches which had been 
temporarily restored to them and abstain from any kind of 
schismatical gathering. The municipal councils, landowners, 
administrators or stewards, were warned not to allow any 
meeting of this sort on their estates. In the event of the law, 
which had so often been broken, being violated again, severe 
measures of repression were indicated. 

The Donatist leaders appealed from the decision to the 
Emperor. The response was a law, 2 dated January 30, 412, 
which visited them with pecuniary penalties and inflicted on 
clergy who were recalcitrant the punishment of deportation 
from Africa. 

The Count of Africa since 409 had been Heraclian, the 
murderer of Stilicho. During the attempted usurpation of 
Attalus he remained faithful to Honorius. When the Goths, 
after the death of Alaric (412), transferred themselves to Gaul, 
Heraclian quarrelled with the government at Ravenna, revolted 
and ended by landing in Italy with an army. Defeated at 
Otriculum by Count Marinus he fled to Carthage, but was 
overtaken and executed (July 413): Marinus, his conqueror, 
succeeded him. A very strong reaction followed. The friends 
of Heraclian found themselves under a cloud, and among their 
number were MarceHinus, the arbitrator at the Conference, and 
his brother the former Proconsul, Apringius. The two latter 

1 This document is usually printed at the end of the record of the 
Conference under the erroneous title of "Sententia cognitoris" (Aug. 
Opera, torn, xi., p. 1418). Its date by itself not to speak of its contents- 
is at variance with this description. 

" Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 52. 

III. H 



100 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

were the objects of the enmity of an influential personage, 
Caecilian, a former Praetorian Prefect. They were arrested, 
to the deep despair of the bishops and especially of Augustine, 
whose close friend Marcellinus was, while all of them were 
grateful to him for his services to the Church of Africa. 
Caecilian gave them fair words and even encouraged them to 
address themselves to the Court. They did so, and their 
delegates returned with the order for the liberation of the 
accused. But Marinus had anticipated them : some days 
before., after a summary trial, he had executed his prisoners 
(September 13, 41 3). 1 

It was a crushing blow for the Catholics. For a short time 
the Donatists triumphed. But Marinus was speedily deprived, 
and new rescripts arrived to confirm the decisions of the 
Government with regard to the schismatics. 2 Another 
Commissioner, Dulcitius, was appointed to superintend their 
application. 

The work of union which had been begun in 405 progressed 
steadily. Whilst the magistrates, under the direction of 
Marcellinus and Dulcitius, were taking measures in their own 
domain, the widest publicity was given to the Acts of the 
Conference. From the outset they had been posted up at 
Carthage : complete copies of them were distributed. 3 In some 
places they were read in church during Lent. But their length 
soon necessitated abridged editions. One of these is still 
extant, the Breviculus collationtsf from the hand of St Augustine. 

1 On this business see Aug. Ep. 151. 

2 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 54, dated June 17, 414 a confirmation of the 
measures of repression ; ibid. 55, belonging to the following August 30 
a confirmation of the official character of the records of the conference. 

3 The text had come down to us in a 9th century MS. which 
originally belonged to Lyons Cathedral (Parisin. 1546). It opens with a 
preface in which a certain Marcellus, memorialis, who had been adviser 
of the arbitrator Marcellinus, explains that he has thought it advisable 
to divide it into sections, and to collect in a table of contents the titles 
of all the sections which thus form, as it were, an abridgement of the 
whole text. For the first two sessions our information is complete, text 
and table having been preserved ; but for the third the most important 
we possess no more than the table and the first 281 sections out of 587, 
From No. 282 onwards we must content ourselves with the table or have 
recourse to the Breviculus of St Augustine. 

4 Aug. Opera, torn, ix , p. 613. St Augustine says that the Donatists 
who had done everything they could to hinder the conference, and then 



p. 142-5] AUGUSTINE AND EMERITUS 101 

In yet other forms, in controversial works, local addresses, 
sermons, and letters, the bishops used every effort to set forth 
the truth and bring it to the knowledge of the Donatist public. 1 
The war of controversy lasted long, but in the end common sense 
gained the day, if not everywhere, at any rate with the majority. 
The plenary Councils of 407 and 418 legislated on the division 
of the converted parishes. St Augustine in his discourses 
and in his correspondence bears testimony to the success 
encountered by the work of union. Two curious incidents call 
for mention. 

In 418 Augustine and some of his colleagues happened to 
find themselves at Caesarea in Mauritania, when they were 
informed that the former Donatist bishop, Emeritus, was there. 
At the Conference Emeritus had been the principal orator, or, 
as he might more properly be called, the principal obstructionist 
of his party. He was a man of culture and endowed with a 
remarkable facility of language. His flock had almost all of 
them passed over to the Catholic Church ; some, however, 
remained doggedly in schism, through attachment to their 
bishop. 

The latter, though officially proscribed, went about his 
business in freedom. Augustine met him in the public square, 
and they greeted each other. Emeritus even allowed himself 
to be led to the church where the discussion continued in the 
presence of the people who were highly interested, as we can 
imagine, by the meeting of the two great champions. There 
was not one session only but two. 2 However, Augustine was 
unsuccessful in his efforts to draw into debate the man who 
at the Conference had had so ready and so subtle a tongue. 
All that could be extracted from him was a protest against 
the use that the Catholics were making of the Conference : 
" The Acts," he said, " show whether I was conquered or 
conqueror ; whether I was conquered by the truth or over 
whelmed by force." Then he subsided into silence. At this 

to prevent their business being dealt with, had succeeded by giving cause for 
an endless series of minutes in preventing anyone reading what had taken 
place. 

1 Letter of the Council of Numidia to the Donatists (Aug. Ep. 141) ; 
St Augustine Ad Donatistas, post collationcm (Opera, torn, ix., p. 651) ; a 
letter to Emeritus not extant (Retractationes, ii. 46). 

- The formal records are extant : Aug. Scrmo ad Ccesarcensis ccclcsice 
plebem and De Gestis cum Emerito (Opera, torn, ix., pp. 689, 697). 



102 THE END OF DONATISM [CH. iv. 

meeting he lost a few more adherents, but he was not otherwise 
disturbed. 

In the following year another case presented itself one 
which gives a very fair idea of the fanaticism which prevailed 
among the vanquished Donatists. The Commissioner Dulcitius 
had presented himself at Thamugad with the purpose of 
carrying out the Edict of Union. Thamugad, like Bagai, was 
one of the strongholds of Donatism. Situated in the middle 
of the district round Mount Aurasius, in the true home of the 
Circumcellions, it could not fail to offer a special resistance. 
Its bishop, Gaudentius, proscribed in the eyes of the law but 
in fact unhampered in his coming and going, dwelt in the 
suburbs. At the news of the promulgation, which had been 
facilitated by his absence, he made haste to appear again, and, 
surrounded by determined fanatics, shut himself up in the 
church. From thence he sent word to the Commissioner that 
if any intention were shewn of advancing on the building, 
he would set it on fire and burn himself with all his people. 
The Donatists, and more particularly the Circumcellions, did not 
shrink, as was known, either from precipices or from any mode 
of suicide. In the latter days the stake had been very much 
in fashion in this curious world. But one could hardly expect 
such a proceeding on the part of Gaudentius, a man of education 
and one of the orators of his party at the famous Conference. 

The Commissioner, dismayed at this attitude, communicated 
to the Bishop of Hippo the two letters in which Gaudentius 
informed him of his resolve. We still possess them in the 
detailed refutation which St Augustine devoted to them. To 
this refutation Gaudentius replied and Augustine answered 
him. This is the subject of his two books, Contra Gaudentium, 
a controversy of no humdrum kind between a peace-loving 
bishop and an infuriated fanatic who had taken up his position 
at the stake and was holding in his hand the fuse that would 
fire it. However, I am obliged to say that the discussion does 
not convey the impression of these tragical circumstances, and 
that on either side the everlasting arguments of this conflict 
are set out and hashed up again with the utmost calmness. 

The documents do not tell us the conclusion of these stories. 
We should find it impossible to say whether or no Emeritus 
remained a Donatist to his last breath, or even if Gaudentius 
ended by setting light to his stake. One thing is certain, 



P. 145-6] AUGUSTINE AND GAUDENTIUS 103 

namely, that Donatism, though exhibiting a progressive decline 
still retained a measure of vitality. 

Twenty years after the Conference the Vandals became, 
masters of Africa, and the laws of the Roman Empire ceased 
to coerce the remnant of the fanatics. We still find some of 
them in Numidia down to the time of St Gregory the Great 
and to the eve of the Arab invasion. 



CHAPTER V 

ALARIC 

THE Roman Empire did not die in a moment. From the time 
of the terrible crisis witnessed by the contemporaries of the 
Emperor Decius down to the day when Mahomet II. entered 
as conqueror into St Sophia, there stretches step by step a long 
series of partial catastrophes. One of the darkest hours in this 
mournful story is the beginning of the $th century. It was 
then that the Latin frontier was broken on all sides, that the 
Western Empire was reduced to nothing, that the sanctuary of 
Rome was violated, and that the bewildered Christians mourned 
over the Babylon of the Seven Hills as Jeremiah had wept over 
Jerusalem : Facta est quasi vidita domino, gentium ! Princeps 
provinciarum facta est sub tributo ! 

And it was a pitiful fall. A few legions of bygone days, 
commanded, I do not say by Scipio or by Caesar but by a 
leader of moderate calibre, would have disposed without much 
difficulty of the disordered bands before whom trembled the 
subjects of Honorius. But within the borders of the ancient 
empire there was now to be found nothing but weakness. We 
look in vain for a focus of national energy, a centre of action 
and of military control. A few mandarins in solemn gradation 
around a seraglio, a collection of lay-figures busied in paltry 
intrigues or running after sordid gains such was the character 
of the Court of Ravenna. The recruiting of the army, greatly 
reduced by the general depopulation, still brought to it some 
conscripts, furnished by the landed estates : but it produced 
but little fruit except amongst the barbarian immigrants who 
had been introduced and planted more or less peaceably on the 
soil of the Empire in the neighbourhood of the frontiers. The 
Germanic element, half-Romanized, took a predominant part 
in the defence of its territory. Now that the aristocracy held 
aloof from the army, the command was often entrusted to men 

104 



p. 147-50] BARBARIANS IN THE ARMY 105 

who in origin were barbarians. They attained to the highest 
rank, to the most important positions. The Fasti consulares of 
the 4th century are filled with barbarian names such as Bauto, 
Merobaudes, Ricomer, or Arbogast. Now these personages 
were officers of the Roman service : they owed their promotion 
in no way to the position which they or their families might 
have enjoyed in their Germanic nation, but simply and solely 
to the services rendered by themselves to the Emperor, to 
advancement in the official hierarchy. The soldiers whom they 
commanded, whatever the race from which they came, were 
armed after the Roman fashion and enrolled in the ancient 
Roman corps. The time came when the authorities had to 
deal with Germanic hosts of one sort or another, massed either 
in tribal regiments or as hordes of adventurers, commanded 
by their national leaders. Such was the case of the Goths 
whether those of the East under Gainas and Trebigild, or those 
of the West under Alaric. Such was also the case with the 
Franks, the Alamanni, and the Burgundians, when, despite all 
the victories of Julian, Valentinian, and Gratian, the attempt 
was abandoned to keep them beyond the Rhine. To these 
latter, at any rate, we can only attribute the progressive invasion 
of the provinces situated within their reach or further transitory 
expeditions into the interior of Gaul. From the lower Rhine 
and the lower Meuse the Franks, thenceforward established 
at Cologne and as far as Tongres, descended little by little 
towards the south. From the middle Rhine the Alamanni 
often crossed the Jura and the Vosges. A slow invasion or a 
hasty foray, but always in their own immediate neighbourhood, 
such were their exploits witnessed without much power of 
opposing them. They did not launch out on distant expedi 
tions, and they did not seek to play great parts in the politics 
of the Empire. 

Alaric had more extensive projects. Circumstances had 
given him the position of leader of the Goths who were 
established in Illyricum : it was in that capacity that he had 
commanded the advance-guard of Theodosius at the Battle 
of the Frigidus. In that encounter he had been not a little 
unlucky. On the death of Theodosius, Stilicho sent him back 
to Illyria and then endeavoured to get rid of him, without 
succeeding in doing more than driving him into Greece, where 
he ravaged Athens and Corinth. The government of Arcadius 



106 ALARIC [CH. v. 

sought to impede the operations of the Regent of the West. 
It went so far on this course as to confer on the barbarian chief 
the rank of Magister Militum, with pay for his host. For 
some years Alaric remained quiet. Towards the end of 401 x 
we find him making his way towards Italy, crossing the Julian 
Alps and investing Aquileia. For the first time since the 
Cimbri and the Teutons the soil of Italy was desecrated by 
the invader. Rome trembled. Alaric gave vent to strange 
threatenings against it ; the fortifications of Aurelian had to 
be put in a state of defence. Stilicho, however, succeeded in 
checking this first expedition. Vanquished at Pollentia (April 
6, 402) and then at Verona, Alaric was obliged to evacuate 
Italy, and returned to his own Illyria. 

This time they had got rid of him ; but clearly for the 
future the leader of the Goths would have to be reckoned with. 
Stilicho formed a plan of making use of him in order to bring 
the southern provinces of Illyricum (Dacia, Macedonia, Greece) 
once more under the authority of the Emperor of the West. 
They entered into negotiations on the subject. 

But it was really a question of conquests. Central Germania 
was setting itself in motion. Following Alaric s example, 
Radagaisus, another barbarian, descended from the Alps with 
an enormous host of at least 200,000 men (406). Once again 
Stilicho got the better of the invasion. The barbarians had 
advanced as far as Florence ; he confined them to the hills 
of Fiesole, cut off supplies, and compelled them to surrender. 2 
But at the same moment the frontier gave way at another 
point. On the last day of the year 406 three peoples of further 
Germania the Suevi, the Alans, and the Vandals sweeping 
aside the Franks who bordered on the Rhine, crossed the river 
and poured into Gaul. The cities on the banks Mayence, 

1 As to this date and the next, see the discussion by O. Seeck in the 
Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, vol. xxiv., p. 1756*. 

2 An arch of triumph, now destroyed, was erected at Rome near the 
Bridge of Hadrian (Ponte di S. Angelo), with an inscription commemorating 
the victory of the Emperors : quod Getarum nationem in omne aevum 
docuere extingui (Corpus Inscript. Lat. vi. 1196 ; cf Jordan-Hulsen, Topogr. 
I 3 , p. 599; in line i read "Fiesole," instead of "Pollentia"). This monu 
ment on which was celebrated the decisive extermination of the Goths 
was still quite new when the victorious Alaric passed beneath it. Stilicho 
also, as a consequence of the same victory, received a statue in the Forum 
(C. /. L. vi. 31, 987). 



P. 150-2] STILICHO AND ALARIC 107 

Worms, Spires, Strasbourg were carried away by the torrent, 
and then the principal towns of Belgica. The scourge reached 
out still further, and in the two following years, 407 and 408, 
the whole of Gaul from the Rhine to the Pyrenees was a prey 
to the barbarians. 1 

Amid this confusion a usurper landed from Britain, as 
Maximus had done in 383. The army of the island, being 
in rebellion against Honorius, appointed emperors of its own. 
The first two who were elected perished, being butchered 
by those who had acclaimed them : the third, Constantine 
(Constantine III.), succeeded in holding his position, crossed 
the Channel, and after various changes of fortune proceeded 
to install himself at Aries. This was a serious embarrassment 
for Stilicho, more especially since Alaric, who was tired of 
waiting in Illyria, was once more assuming a threatening 
attitude. The Regent, whose reputation, in spite of the 
services he had rendered, was beginning to suffer from Court 
intrigues, did not abandon his ambitious schemes. He pro 
posed to despatch Alaric to Gaul against Constantine whilst 
he himself marched on the Bosphorus, where the death of 
Arcadius and the extreme youth of his son, Theodosius II., 
made it possible for the Empire to fall on the distaff side. 
These projects were thwart by a catastrophe. The husband 
of Serena, the niece of Theodosius, twice father-in-law of the 
Emperor Honorius, to whom he had given in succession his 
daughters Maria and Thermantia, guardian and protector 
of the Empire of the West, Stilicho had been carried too 
high by the tide of fortune. He was credited with the 
supreme ambition, not for himself but for his son Eucherius, 
for whom it was said he destined the Empire of the East. 
Again, had he only been a Roman! But his Vandal descent 
was not forgotten ; his alliances with Alaric shocked certain 
sentimental prejudices. Was the Empire to be governed 
and defended by barbarians? In a military rising his chief 
friends were massacred : then came his own turn. It was 
in vain that he sought refuge in a church at Ravenna ; 
they succeeded in getting him out of it, and he was put to 
death by order of the Emperor (August 23, 408). His son 
Eucherius, who was arrested at Rome, by a similar violation 
of religious asylum, met with the same fate. The reaction 
1 Jerome, Ep. cxxiii. 16. 



108 ALARIC [CH. v. 

against the Barbarians was so strong that in their garrisons 
the Roman soldiers massacred the wives and children of the 
Germanic auxiliaries. 

These were useless atrocities ! Alaric remained at the 
gates of Italy with his famished horde, demanding to be 
employed, or at any rate to be granted an official title and 
pay for his people. He was under urgent necessity of 
replacing the similar advantages which his friendship with 
Stilicho had caused him to lose in the East. Not seeing 
anything coming his way he crossed the Alps, and traversing 
a country which was destitute of defence, presented himself 
under the walls of Rome. Feeling there was very hostile to 
the Barbarians. The ill-starred Serena who had taken refuge 
in the city, found herself held responsible for the invasion : 
she was butchered. However, famine made itself felt, and 
the old metropolis of the world was glad to buy itself back 
at the price of gold (autumn 408). It would have been well 
content then that the Court should conclude some arrangement 
with the Goths. But the Court, secure among the marshes 
of Ravenna, held out and refused to treat. Alaric returned 
towards Rome. He did not enter it ; with the complicity of 
the Senate he proclaimed as emperor the Prefect Attalus, 
a rhetor of some note, and from him he obtained what he 
desired. 

In order to live in Italy, a land of desolation, it was 
necessary to hold the key of the granaries of Africa. Alaric 
and the Senate, to whom the necessaries of life were a 
consideration which dominated all else, wished to send the 
Goths there. Attalus, like Honorius, showed scruples : it was 
repugnant to him to entrust this mission to the Barbarians. 
As he took no step forward in any other direction, Alaric 
deposed him (410) and resumed his negotiations with Honorius. 
They came to nothing. For the third time the leader of the 
Goths marched on Rome. This time, after many days of 
terrible famine, the gates were opened to him on August 24, 
410. Since the almost legendary days of the Gallic invasion 
the sanctuary of the Roman power had remained inviolate. 
This time it experienced the fire kindled by a victorious 
enemy, pillage, massacre, and every kind of horror. For 
three days Rome was delivered over to the starving horde, 
which the senseless government at Ravenna had not known 



p. 152.5] THE SACK OF ROME 109 

how to divert from it. Fortunately Alaric and his Goths 
were Christians : orders were given to kill as little as possible, 
and to allow full access to the hallowed asylum of the two 
sanctuaries of the Apostles. Both were outside the walls 
and had long been in the power of the besiegers. On their 
approach the precious vessels of the Basilica of St Peter had 
been hidden in the city. A Gothic soldier found them in the 
house of an old woman ; and Alaric, on being informed of 
this, caused them to be carried back under an adequate escort 
to the tomb of the Apostle, whither they were followed by a 
number of Romans. 1 

At last, like the ebbing of a flood, the barbarians set out 
on the roads to the south, with their chariots filled with booty, 
and followed by a large number of prisoners. Among the 
latter figured Placidia, daughter of Theodosius, own sister 
of the Emperor Honorius. Across Campania and Lucania 
Alaric led his host as far as the Strait of Messina, which he 
proposed to cross in order to go to Sicily, and thence to 
Africa ; but his transports had been sunk or scattered by 
an imperial fleet and he was obliged to retrace his steps. 
He was carried of? by illness in the neighbourhood of 
Cosenza. 

However, the usurper of Gaul, Constantine III., found 
himself just as much as Honorius in difficulties with barbarians 
and rivals. Spain, which had at first accepted him, speedily 
witnessed a hostile rising under the direction of two kinsmen of 
Theodosius Didymus and Verenianus : after a few successes 
they fell into the hands of the Emperor of Aries and were 
put to death. But Gerontius, the general who had defeated 
them, revolted in his turn, and proclaimed a new emperor 
Maximus. Confusion was at its height. The Barbarians 
who for two years had been roaming about Gaul succeeded 
in crossing the Pyrenees (409). At the same time Britain, 
which had been left to itself, separated itself from the Empire. 
To the north of the Loire the cities of Armorica did the 
same. Who would have dreamed that at such a moment 
Constantine could entertain the idea of conquering Italy, and 
substituting himself forthwith for the son of Theodosius ? Yet 
that is what he attempted. He was to be seen crossing the 
Alps and advancing as far as Verona, whilst his son Constans, 
1 Orosius, Hist. vii. 39 ; cf. Sozomen, H. E. ix. 10. 



110 ALARIC [CH. v. 

whom he had associated with him in the Empire, confronted 
the difficulties in Spain. But the sources of information which 
he had at Ravenna suddenly failed him. At this moment 
Gerontius, taking the offensive, crossed the Pyrenees and 
reached Vienne when Constans fell into his power and was 
put to death. Constantine, who had returned to Gaul, was 
speedily besieged in Aries. His only hope lay in some 
contingents of barbarians, which an attempt was being made 
to raise for him beyond the Rhine. While he was waiting 
for these, an army arrived on the scene from Italy under 
the command of Constantius, a general of Honorius, an officer 
marked out for brilliant victories and a most exalted destiny. 
Constantius fell first upon the besiegers. Gerontius, deserted 
by his troops, fled to Spain. Constantius prosecuted the siege 
in his stead. When the expected reinforcements arrived, the 
forces of Honorius received them with vigour and put them 
to rout, and the unhappy Constantine found himself compelled 
to surrender. He took refuge in a church, where Heros, the 
bishop, as an additional safeguard, ordained him priest ; but 
Constantius paid no heed to such proceedings, and making 
himself master of the person of the fallen Emperor, sent him 
to Honorius with his second son, Julian. They were executed 
before reaching Ravenna (summer 411). 

Aries was in the hands of Honorius ; but the end of the 
difficulties had not yet been reached. Even before the 
conclusion of the siege a new rival, Jovinus, had declared 
himself on the banks of the Rhine, and was supported by the 
Alamanni and the Burgundians. Meanwhile, Alaric s brother- 
in-law, Athaulf, who had been proclaimed King of the Goths, 
was wandering about Italy with his barbarians, for ever urging 
the same requirement a command and bread and offering 
in return to serve the Emperor and restore to him his sister 
Placidia. As no heed was paid to him, he passed over into 
Gaul (412) under the pretext of offering his services to Jovinus, 
established himself at Bordeaux and later at Narbonne, and 
after coming to a slightly better understanding with Honorius, 
relieved him of Sebastian, the brother of Jovinus, who had 
taken him as a partner in the Empire, and then of Jovinus 
himself (413). Finally, as they could not make up their 
minds at Ravenna to satisfy his demands, he decided to marry 
Placidia (January 414). Narbonne witnessed these curious 



p. 155-8] THE FIGHT FOR EMPIRE 111 

nuptials in which fifty young men in rich silken robes 
presented to the daughter of Theodosius the spoils of Old 
Rome, whilst the former emperor, Attalus, who had returned 
to literary pursuits, recited an Epithalamium. Athaulf, seated 
by the side of Placidia, wore the dress of a Roman, a symbol 
of the secret feelings of these honest Goths who wished no ill 
to the Empire, and asked no more than to defend it and even 
to become Romans themselves, provided they were given food. 
But their appetite was just the point in the game that the 
policy of Ravenna, which had no use for them, was seeking to 
profit by. Matters reached a state of still worse confusion, and 
Attalus became emperor once more, a few months after the 
marriage of Placidia. Whilst he was roaming about Aquitaine, 
Constantius, who was established at Aries, redoubled his efforts 
against the Goths, dislodged them from Narbonne, and finally 
drove them into Spain. Placidia, while these events were 
happening, gave birth to a son whom his father, who retained 
his attachment to the reigning dynasty, wished to call 
Theodosius. The child died after a few days and was buried 
at Barcelona : shortly afterwards Athaulf perished by assassina 
tion. A reaction set in : during the ephemeral reign of 
Sigeric, which lasted only seven days, Placidia was subjected 
to ill-usage. Wallia, who replaced Sigeric, at last came to 
terms with the Court of Ravenna. He was given a supply of 
corn, and pledged himself to fight against the other barbarians, 
who, since 409, were continually ravaging unhappy Spain. 
Placidia was given back, and shortly afterwards (on January I, 
417) married the General Constantius, the man of the hour, 
the Roman saviour of the Roman Empire. After having thus 
rewarded his lieutenant, Honorius came himself to celebrate 
a triumph at Rome (417). Attalus figured in the procession. 
At the moment when the Goths were crossing the Pyrenees, 
the unfortunate man had allowed himself to be captured 
by the forces of Constantius. Rome beheld the passing, behind 
the car of the son of Theodosius, of the ill-starred Emperor 
of Alaric and the Goths. 1 The old capital experienced a new 
birth after so many days of misfortune : its inhabitants 

1 Although at certain times he had shown himself extremely overbearing, 
he was granted his life. After two of his fingers had been cut off he was 
sent to the island of Lipari, where he ended his extraordinary career in 
peace. 



112 ALARIC [CH. v. 

returned to it from exile or from captivity : the damages 
caused by the invasion were repaired as well as circumstances 
allowed : men began again to live. Once more the House of 
Theodosius presided over the destinies of the West. Britain 
no doubt was lost ; and on the Rhine, Franks, Burgundians, 
and Alamanni did more and more as they liked with the 
frontier ; but the people of Armorica had returned to sub 
mission ; except for Spain, where the barbarians squabbled 
among themselves, Peace, the Pax Romana, reigned once 
more. 

At the time when the Germanic peoples were so cruelly 
ill-using the Empire of the West, the Church there was leading 
a life of comparative tranquillity. The Priscillianist agitation 
was gradually confining itself to the distant province of 
Galicia : the Episcopal dissensions which had followed it, in 
Gaul and in Spain, were tending to sink to rest. Paganism 
was dying everywhere, officially proscribed in relation to its 
outward manifestations, and no longer defending itself except 
in the heart of the country districts and in certain aristocratic 
circles. The Christ reigned now without a rival over the 
Court and over the towns : a complete conquest was nigh at 
hand : it was only a matter of a small number of years. 

It was just there in this definite success that there lay 
the germ of certain internal difficulties. Everyone was 
becoming a convert : that was well, but to what? To another 
form of worship, or to another kind of life ? Was it only 
a matter of substituting Christ for Jupiter, the Eucharistic 
Liturgy for the ancient sacrifices, Baptism for the Taurobolium, 
and in other respects living as in the past, according to 
conventional ethics and the custom of the world ? Many, we 
must frankly admit, went no further. Among the clergy 
themselves there were not wanting persons who interpreted 
the Gospel after this fashion. Others raised protests against 
such an enervation and demanded of Christians a complete 
break with the spirit of the age. Neither passages of Holy 
Writ nor memories of bygone days were wanting in support 
of their contention : they cited the examples of the monks of 
the East and of their Western disciples, Melania, Paula, Jerome, 
and the rest ; they pointed to the figure nearer home of 
Martin, the monk-bishop, whose miraculous life was the boast 
of the whole of Gaul. It was the eternal struggle between 



p. 158-61] PRISCILLIANISM 113 

laxity and severity ! Ausomus and St Martin had lived at 
the same time, in the same country : each was a Christian, but 
what a difference ! 

Between these two extremes there was room for a great 
variety of shades. The type of sanctity represented to us by 
men like Ambrose and Augustine differs markedly from that 
of the fathers of the desert, or even of bishops like St Martin. 
On the other hand it would have been easy to meet in the 
world, in public offices, even at Court, with Christians who 
betrayed rather more traces of their baptism than did the 
illustrious rhetor of Bordeaux. In a general way the conflict 
between the two ideas of the Christian life tended to the 
promotion of asceticism. We find it now exhibiting itself 
everywhere, with a quite novel intensity. 

In Spain the Priscillianists had brought it into much 
disrepute. However it still continued, with its ancient forms 
and even its ancient abuses. 1 There were groups of holy 
women living and mortifying themselves together. It was 
from a convent of this sort, situated in the heart of Galicia, 2 
that the Virgin Etheria (or Eucheria) set out to accomplish 
that long pilgrimage in the East of which she has left us so 
curious an account. The poet Prudentius presents to us 
another type, that of a. man of the world who, on arriving at 
a certain point in his career, gives himself to reflection, to 
questioning his religious consciousness, then makes a sharp 
turn, renounces the world, converts himself to use the 
Seventeenth-century phrase. We know the works in which 
he employed the leisure hours of his pious retirement, and 
how Christianity had in him its first great poet. 

At the time that we have now reached, Christian literature 
which, in the Latin world, had lived for long on Tertullian and 
Cyprian, began to exhibit a certain brilliancy. In succession 
to Lactantius and St Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and 
Sulpicius Severus discoursed of religion with considerable 
elegance of style. In regard to poetry matters were somewhat 
backward. A few attempts at hymns, proceeding from the 
pen of Hilary and of Ambrose, represented all that could be 

1 Council of Toledo, A.u. 400 (Cone. Told. /.) c. 6, 9, 16, 18, 19. 

2 Ferotin (Revue dcs Questions historiques, vol. Ixxiv. [1903], p. 387, 
note 2). The author of the Itinerary to which the name of Silvia was at 
first assigned. 



114 ALARIC [CH. v. 

mentioned. 1 With Prudentius the Church possessed a true 
poet, a kind of Pindar, whose sacred odes were for long 
centuries to give expression to the piety of the faithful. His 
Muse prays at the various hours of the Christian day ; it 
celebrates the martyrs on their anniversaries, it wars against 
the heretics of the past or against the remaining representatives 
of Paganism. Cautiously restrained in his poetical inspiration, 
Prudentius avoids with care all burning questions. In his 
pages there is not the smallest trace of the Prisctllianism which 
all around him was stirring the religious world. He does not 
even mention the Arians. In other respects also he was very 
much a man apart : his contemporaries do not seem to have 
noticed him. If he had not told us a little himself, in the 
preface that he wrote in 405 for the collection of his poems, we 
should have nothing to say about his personal history. 

Paulinus, his contemporary, is known in a very different 
fashion. Sprung from a great family of Bordeaux, where he 
was born in 353, he had received in the famous schools of that 
town the lessons of Ausonius, with whom he was bound in ties 
of close friendship. Side by side with the career of letters, 
they each followed that of public offices and attained to the 
consulship, Ausonius late in life, Paulinus in his prime. 2 But 
soon their ways divided. Whilst the old litterateur, with a 
bare tincture of Christianity, dallied over worldly pursuits, 
formal discourses, and little trivial poems, Paulinus, at the 
bidding of the Voice within, set himself to abandon all this. 
Bishop Delphinus gave him baptism (390) ; it was soon 
reported that he was departing for Spain, and, in company 
with his wife Theresa, embracing a life of poverty and mortifi 
cation. Having been ordained priest at Barcelona (Christmas 
393), he set out in the following year for Italy. In the course 
of his official career he had been the Consularis of Campania ; 
his attention had been attracted at that time by a local saint, 
a former priest of Nola named Felix, who had edified that 
town about the middle of the 3rd century. He determined 

1 I may be allowed to neglect here such inferior productions as those of 
Juvencus, who in the days of Constantine turned the Gospels into verse, of 
the poetess Proba, of Pope Damasus, of the anonymous writer against 
Marcion, etc. 

2 Ausonius was consul in 379, Paulinus shortly before him : he was 
therefore at most twenty-five at the time of his consulship. 



p. 161-4] PAULINUS OF NOLA 115 

to settle near his tomb and to promote his cultus. Paulinus 
and Theresa were known throughout the whole of the 
West : their " conversion " made a great sensation. People in 
Society were highly scandalized at it and gave vent to loud 
protests. Ausonius, wounded to the heart, made vain efforts to 
restrain his former pupil. St Ambrose, on the other hand, was 
delighted at it, as also were all the friends of asceticism Martin, 
Augustine, Jerome, and the rest. Ambrose gave Paulinus a 
most hearty welcome at Milan. In Rome he met with some 
opposition among the clergy : Pope Siricius did not display 
any warmth in his treatment of him. 1 On his arrival at Nola, 
Paulinus made the requisite arrangements for his new mode of 
life, living with Theresa as brother and sister, following a 
regime of the most abstemious kind, and entirely devoted to the 
care of the poor and the cult of his beloved St Felix, to whom 
he dedicated every year a new poem. It was a time when the 
Court of Ravenna was filled with admiration of the fine verses 
of Claudian on official celebrations and the victories of Stilicho. 
From these literary pomps Paulinus, like Prudentius, turned 
away his eyes. It was not for them but for the glory of an 
obscure priest, dead for more than a century and neglected by 
everyone, that Ausonius had trained his most brilliant pupil. 
Paulinus escaped completely from his influence. The old 
master must have died about the time of his retirement, for 
he does not appear among the convert s correspondents. The 
latter wrote readily enough, but to other holy men like Sulpicius 
Severus, Delphinus, Amandus, Augustine, Rufinus, and Jerome. 
In his new style, which is saturated with Biblical reminiscences, 
echoes of secular antiquity are very infrequently heard. As 
kindly as Augustine and less worried than the Bishop of Hippo 
to take part in ecclesiastical affairs, he lived a peaceful life in 
his Campanian retreat, loved and revered by everyone and 
avoiding taking any side in disputes. His propaganda on 
behalf of St Felix was crowned with success. People flocked 
to Nola from all quarters of the West, from Gaul and Spain and 
Africa, and even from the regions of the Danube and from the 
East. But St Felix was plainly only an excuse : what attracted 
them was his two servants, Paulinus and Theresa, the living 
flowers of Christian virtue. 

Among the foremost of the friends of Paulinus we find 

1 Ep. v. 13, 14, "urbici papae superba discretio." 
III. I 



116 ALARTC [CH. v. 

Sulpicius Severus, like him a native of Aquitaine, and also a 
man of good family and ample fortune. Together they 
renounced the world. Sulpicius was a widower: the two 
friends formed a plan of being together again, and when 
Paulinus had established himself at Nola he tried every kind 
of persuasion to induce Sulpicius to come there too. But the 
latter was detained in Gaul by his devotion for Martin, whose 
acquaintance he made about 392 and who showed him from 
that time forward the greatest friendship. The still-living saint 
of Tours was for Sulpicius what Felix of Nola was for Paulinus. 
He constituted himself his biographer, and that without waiting 
until his career was ended. Martin was still alive when his 
Life was sent to Nola. Everyone knows the success of this 
remarkable book and of the supplements which the author gave 
it in his Letters and his Dialogues. We feel as we read these 
writings how utterly disgusted the author is, not only with the 
world but with the Church itself and especially with the clergy. 
It is to recall them to the Christian ideal from which men have 
so sadly fallen that he sets himself to depict the radiant figure 
of the holy bishop, so austere, so full of zeal and of charity, so 
potent in miracle and in edification. Sulpicius would that all 
bishops should be so many St Martins. It was not very easy 
of accomplishment, nor even perhaps greatly to be wished, for 
men of God of so marked a type are not always perfect 
administrators. Their vocation is to produce at a given 
moment a deep and effective impression. Before Martin 
Christianity hardly existed in the western regions of Gaul. 
His contagious fervour had caused apostles to multiply and 
their preaching to bear fruit. But already in his latter days 
there is to be seen developing around him a form of opposition 
to his methods. Britius, one of his disciples, advocates a less 
summary rule, a less intolerant austerity. And it is quite clear 
that his views found supporters, for it was he who was elected 
Martin s successor. Martin s strict disciples waged against him 
a war to the death : the whole of the writings of Sulpicius 
Severus bears reference to this controversy. 1 The resistance 
went further still. At Tours itself it was not long before 
Britius encountered a violent opposition which compelled him 
for a considerable time to remain at a distance from his Church. 

1 This history repeated itself in the I3th century in relation to 
St Francis and after him. Brother Elias is a copy of St Brice. 



p. 164-7] SULPICIUS SEVERUS 117 

One of the principal figures in the ranks of his accusers is 
that of a certain Lazarus who pursued him from council to 
council, and notably before a council of the bishops of 
Northern Italy, assembled at Turin. 1 The views of Sulpicius 
Severus and of Lazarus had representatives in Provence : 
Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, soon set Britius accuser on 
the Episcopal throne of Aix ; on that of Aries was seated 
Heros, another disciple of Martin. Politics in the end came 
to be concerned in this dispute : Heros, Lazarus, and Proculus 
committed themselves with the "usurper" Constantine III.; 
when the authority of Honorius was re-established in these 
districts, they had to pass through evil times. 

Sulpicius assuredly goes too far in his bitter statements. 
There were, in his time and in his own country, a number of 
good bishops, men like Delphinus and Amandus of Bordeaux, 
Exuperius of Toulouse, Simplicius of Vienne, Alithius of 
Cahors, Diogenianus of Albi, Dynamius of Angouleme, 
Venerandus of Auvergne, Pegasius of Perigueux, Victricius 
of Rouen, friends and correspondents of Paulinus of Nola 
or favourably mentioned by him. 2 St Jerome was acquainted 
with some of them 3 : he highly extols the worth of Exuperius 
of Toulouse. Victricius of Rouen, a friend of St Martin, had 
come like him from the ranks of the army. 4 On becoming a 
bishop, he had distinguished himself by his zeal, not only in his 
diocese but in far distant regions such as the land of the Morini 
and the seaboard of the Nervii, 5 countries which had scarcely 
been evangelized and whither he went to preach the Faith, 
and to establish Christian settlements. The bishops of the 
island of Britain begged him (c. 395) to come over to them to 
settle some disputes, and he did so successfully. However, he 
found critics of his teaching, and it was no doubt on this account 
that he made the journey to Rome. Shortly after his return, 

1 Jaflfe, Regesta^ 330, 331. The date of the Council of Turin remains 
uncertain, somewhere about the year 400. 

2 See his Letters 10, 14, 19, 20, 35, to Delphinus (cf. Carm. xix., 1. 154) ; 
10, 12, 15, 21, 36, to Amandus; 33, to Alethius ; 18, 37, to Victricius. Cf. 
Fragment 48 preserved in Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. ii. 13. 

3 Letter 55 ad Amanduin ; as to Exuperius, Epp. 123 (c. 16), 125 (c. 20), 
and the preface of his Commentary on Zechariah, which he dedicated to 
him ; on Alethius, Ep. 121. 

4 Paulinus, Ep. 18, c. 7, tells the story with some admixture of legend. 

5 Corresponding very nearly to the present Flanders. 



118 ALARIC [CH. v. 

Pope Innocent sent him (404) at his request a little book of 
canonical rules which has found a place among the Decretals. 1 
Exuperius also addressed himself to Rome (405) for the 
elucidation of certain disciplinary problems, and .received from 
the same Pope Innocent a formal opinion of a similar kind. 

Victricius was known to Sulpicius Severus, who places in 
the lips of St Martin a remark which redounds greatly to his 
honour as well as to that of Valentinus, the Bishop of Chartres. 2 
And does he not himself say 3 of Felix of Treves that he was a 
man of great holiness and truly worthy to be a bishop ? 

Unfortunately, the ordination of this holy man, which had 
taken place in the middle of the Ithacian crisis, 4 had been the 
starting-point of a schism among the bishops of Gaul : fifteen 
years at least elapsed without a reconciliation being arrived at. 
The case was carried before the Council of Turin to which we 
have already referred. But the Italian prelates were bound 
by the decisions of St Ambrose and of Pope Siricius : they 
could but uphold these and advise the abandonment of Felix. 
Only the death of the latter could allay this discord. 

It will be seen that the whole of the Episcopate was not in 
need of conversion, and that if the wry temper of Sulpicius 
Severus discovered so many points in it for criticism, the kindly 
Paulinus on his part succeeded in deriving edification. 

Sulpicius lived in retirement near Toulouse, surrounded by 
a few disciples who made expeditions from time to time, either 
for the requirements of his correspondence with Nola, or to 
visit the holy places and the holy persons of the East. 
Postumianus, one of their number, made a long journey in 
Egypt and the Holy Land : at Alexandria he witnessed the 
quarrel between Theophilus and his monks ; at Bethlehem he 
was filled with admiration both of St Jerome and of his 
entourage. In his "Dialogues" Sulpicius Severus assigns to 
Postumianus a role of considerable importance : in fact, it was 
by his means that he was able to enforce the idea which was 
very dear to his heart, that, whatever might be said of the 
illustrious solitaries of Egypt, Martin was superior to them in 
all respects. Another of his disciples, Vigilantius, had also 

1 Of Victricius we possess a homily entitled De laude sanctorum, com 
posed on the occasion of the arrival of some relics (Migne, Pair. Lat. 
torn, xx., p. 443). 

2 Dial. iii. 2. 3 Ibid. iii. 13. 4 Vol. II., p. 425. 



P. 167-70] VIGILANTIUS 119 

made, a few years before, the journey to Nola 1 and that to 
Palestine. He was a somewhat restless spirit. At Bethlehem 
he conceived the unhappy idea of engaging in a dispute 
with Jerome. The latter was then in a state of passionate 
indignation against Rufinus : it was the very time when he 
himself had just abandoned Origen and allied himself with the 
campaign of Epiphanius against the Bishop of Jerusalem. The 
moment was ill-chosen for interference and especially for 
making observations, as Vigilantius did, on the Origenist 
past of the irascible Doctor. However, they parted almost 
peaceably. 2 But soon Jerome learnt that Vigilantius was 
criticizing him in Gaul. 3 He wrote him a letter in his best ink. 
On a later occasion still, he had to devote his attention to him 
and no longer in reference to Origen. Vigilantius, who was 
already a priest at the time of his journey in Palestine (396), 
had returned to his own country, the city of the Conwnaef 
where he had some position among the clergy. He seems to 
have changed ground, for the ideas which before very long were 
attributed to him, bear small trace of his relations with Severus 
and Paulinus, He showed himself now strongly opposed to 
the cultiis of relics, or rather, as it seems to me, to certain 
exaggerations of this cultus. He did not approve of the 
wasting of candles, the multiplication of nocturnal vigils, which, 
in his eyes, were a danger to morality. Finally he held that it 
was wrong to leave the world for solitude. The proof that his 
statements had nothing very heinous about them is the fact 
that he enjoyed the favour of the bishops of his district. All 
this would have passed without notice, had not some priests 
who were neighbours of Vigilantius, and did not share his 
views, denounced them to Jerome. Jerome was a man who 
cherished resentment long, and he rushed headlong upon the 
opportunity. In two successive writings, he abandoned himself 
to expressions of the most extraordinary violence against the 
rash man who had presumed to find motes in his orthodoxy. 6 
Bishops who shared Vigilantius opinions he treated as 

1 Paulinus, Ep. v. u. 2 Jerome, Ep. 58. 

3 Jerome, Ep. 61 ; cf. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 9, where Jerome is de 
fended against certain imputations : " Qui eum haereticum esse arbitrantur, 
insani sunt." 

4 Later the diocese of Saint- Bertrand de Comminges ; cf. my Pastes 
tyisc. de Fancienne Gaule^ vol. ii., p. 3. 

u Ep. 109 ad Riparium presb. ; Contra Vigilantiiim. 



120 ALARIC [CH. v. 

unworthy of the title ; they are the kind of people, he said, 
who would like only to ordain deacons who were married. 1 
This detail, which must have a foundation of some sort, proves 
at any rate that the law of ecclesiastical celibacy had not as 
yet, in the south of Gaul, the full extension that it received later. 

These invectives of Jerome have done the greatest wrong to 
the reputation of Vigilantius : from the next generation onwards 
he passed as a heretic. At bottom we need see in this con 
troversy only a manifestation of the feelings of repugnance 
excited by the exaggerations of the popular worship. Jerome 
himself was compelled to recognize that everything is not 
unquestionably correct in devotions used without consideration 
by simpletons and women. 2 There are some things which he 
upholds rather than approves. On the whole no question of 
principle is here involved, and if Jerome had not had old scores 
to settle with Vigilantius, we may well believe that he would 
have left him in peace. 

Such was the condition of people s minds, in Spain and in 
Gaul, on the eve of the great invasion. In the Danube provinces, 
Rhaetia, Noricum, the Pannonias, Mcesias and Dacias, it was 
no longer simply the eve: the Goths and other Germanic 
peoples possessed a sufficient number of settlements and 
sufficient influence there to make it possible to ask, in many 
places, whether they were not the real masters of the country. 

In these regions in which Arianism had achieved so great 
a success it still lingered, but only in the heart of the barbarian 
colonies. There was no longer any place in the ranks of 
the official clergy for Arian bishops. In the time of Gratian 
and of Theodosius, Auxentius of Dorostorum had been 
compelled to take refuge at the Court of the Empress 
Justina, who was still an Arian. Later still we find among 
the Goths of Thrace a bishop named Selenas, 3 who seems to 

1 According to Jerome, Contra Vigil. 2, these bishops had required of 
intending deacons a proof of their capacity for wedlock. This is a piece of 
invective. We infer merely that certain bishops sometimes preferred, for 
the diaconate, candidates who were married to candidates who were 
celibate, but of whose celibacy there was small guarantee. 

2 " Quod si aliqui per imperitiam et simplicitatem saecularium hominum 
vel certe religiosarumfeminarum, de quibus vere possumus dicere, " Confiteor, 
zelum Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam," hoc pro honore martyrum 
faciunt, quid inde perdis?" (Contra Vigil. 7). 

3 Socrates, H. E. v. 23 ; Sozomen, //. E. vii. 16. 



p. 170-3] MAXIMIN AND AUGUSTINE 121 

have been the successor of Ulfilas. Alaric had one in his 
army Sigisharius ; he baptized Attalus in 409, and made 
an effort, but in vain, after the assassination of Athaulf, to 
save from massacre the children of that unfortunate prince. 1 
Maximin, the same, no doubt, as he who about 383 had 
engaged in a conflict against St Ambrose, 2 became a bishop ; 
in 427 we find him landing at Carthage with Count Sigisvult 
and a corps of Gothic auxiliaries. He was a learned man, 
of ready speech, and an ardent controversialist. Immediately 
on his arrival he made enquiries as to Augustine, and pre 
sented himself at Hippo to hold debate with the great 
Doctor of the West. In the midst of his controversies against 
the Donatists, the Manicheans and the Pelagians, Augustine had 
found time to meditate on the mystery of the Trinity. He 
had even written upon the subject a considerable work, his 
De Trinitate, the fruit of the labour of fifteen years. But it 
was a study of a purely theoretical type, a composition of the 
library, elaborated without reference to anything save the 
data of tradition and the exigencies or conventions of Reason. 
Arians in flesh and blood were very rare in Africa : Augustine 
had scarcely seen one since his stay at Milan at the time of his 
conversion. It was a new experience 3 for him to find himself 
engaged in public and formal debate with a convinced Arian, 
with a bishop who was also a theologian, as well equipped as 
himself in regard to the Biblical material for this controversy, 
making use of words with facility and of disputation with 
dexterity. We still possess the formal record of the encounter 4 
in which, thanks to the volubility of Maximin, the aged Bishop 
of Hippo was not able to marshal all his resources. Hence he 

1 Olympiodorus in Photius, Bibliotheca^ cod. 80, p. 60. 

2 Vol. II., p. 452, note 2. This involves, however, a very long career: 
we should perhaps divide it between the two Maximins. 

3 The Count Pascentius, with whom he had a discussion in 406 (Epp. 
238-241), was not a serious opponent. A dozen years later Augustine 
refuted in writing an Arian sermon which had been sent to him (Ofara, 
torn. viii. Contra sermonem Arianoruui). About the same time he had 
occasion to write to a certain Helpidius, an Arian, who had an idea of 
converting him, and had even transmitted to him a treatise by a bishop of 
his sect (Ep. 242). Finally by the aid of Alypius he converted a physician 
of the town of Thenae in Byzacena : this physician, who was called Maximus, 
seems to have been a Eunomian who had strayed to Africa (Epp. 170, 171). 

4 Collatio cum Maximino Arianontm episcopo in the eighth volume of 
St Augustine s works. 



122 ALARIC [CH. v. 

thought it his duty to take up the subject again in a special 
treatise 1 ; Maximin, who had been informed of the intention 
of his antagonist, had promised a reply, the text of which has 
not been preserved. However, he must speedily have left Africa 
with Sigisvult and his Goths. Some years afterwards we come 
across him again in Sicily, where he drew on himself a formal 
condemnation from the bishops of that country. He took his 
revenge when Genseric invaded Sicily (440) by advising the 
Vandal king to persecute. 2 

Auxentius and Maximin were undoubtedly not the only 
leaders of their sect who were capable of controversial writing. 3 
Hence we cannot attribute to either the one or the other with 
complete certainty some Latin fragments of Arian literature 
which have been recovered in some very ancient Bobbio MSS., 4 
and which must be added, as specimens of Danubian theology, 
to the famous commentary on St Matthew, known in the Middle 
Ages under the name of St John Chrysostom. 5 

It fairly often happens that in these books the polemic is 
directed not only against the orthodox (Homoousians) and the 
Macedonians (Homoiousians) but also against the Photinians. 
The former Bishop of Sirmium, just as Arius had done, 
had retained disciples in the Illyrian provinces, and even 
elsewhere. 6 

At the Council of Capua (391) the question was raised of 

1 Contra Maximinum haereticum Arianorum episcopum (Jbid.}. 

2 Hydatius, Chronicle, an. 440. 

3 We may note the writing by an Arian bishop mentioned in St Augustine s 
letter to Helpidius (Ep. 242) and the two " Doctors," Bonosus and Jason, 
to whom Helpidius refers him. This Bonosus is certainly a different person 
from the one we are about to deal with. 

4 Published by Cardinal Mai, Scriptorum Veterum nova collectio^ 
torn, iii. 2 , p. 191 ff. ( = Migne, P. L. torn, xiii., p. 593 ft".). We may rule 
out altogether Fragments 21 and 22, which belong to the Ascensio Isaiae. 
The remainder comprises a homiletical commentary on St Luke, and 
extracts from various polemical discourses. Cf. Mercati, Studi e Testi y 
fasc. 7, p. 47. 

5 This is the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (Migne, Pair. Grae& 
torn. Ivi., p. 611). St Thomas Aquinas held it in high esteem, so much 
so that between this book and the town of Paris he would, he said, have 
chosen the book. 

6 A letter of Pope Innocent (Jaffe, Regesta^ 318) speaks of a Photinian 
named Mark who, when driven from Romej had gone to conduct 
propaganda in the diocese of Sienna. 



p. 173-6] BONOSIACI 123 

Bonosus, the Bishop of Naissus (Nisch), 1 and his inaccurate 
teaching. The Council referred the complaints to the Bishop 
of Thessalonica and his brethren of Illyria. These began by 
suspending Bonosus from his Episcopal functions, ard then, as 
he did not come to a wiser mind, deposed him altogether. He 
resisted and organized a schism. What exactly was his 
doctrine? The different papal letters in which his case is 
dealt with 2 do not give us complete information. In one of 
them, written by Pope Siricius at a time when the suit brought 
against Bonosus had not yet been decided, we see that, like 
Helvidius and Jovinian, 3 the Bishop of Naissus maintained 
that Mary had had children by Joseph after the birth of the 
Saviour. But it seems an established fact 4 that he did not stop 
there but put into circulation again the doctrine of the Christ 
having become Son of God by adoption a doctrine already 
condemned in the cases of Theodotus, Paul of Samosata, and 
Photinus. This theology travelled like Arianism in the baggage 
of the Goths when they set out on their march towards the 
West. From the latter part of the 5th century down to the 
7th the ecclesiastical documents of Gaul and Spain make 
fairly frequent mention of heretics who are called Bonosiaci 

1 Others say of Sardica. They base themselves on a passage of Marius 
Mercator (Migne, P. L. torn, xlviii., p. 928), but it is only an obiter dictum and 
one by an author whose accuracy is often at fault. Pope Innocent Qaffe, 299), 
in his letter to Marcian, the Bishop of Naissus (Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pont., 
p. 820), clearly supposes that Bonosus had been, before Marcian, bishop 
of this place. Coustant in vain adduces the argument that Bonosus had 
conducted many irregular ordinations : these irregularities only took place 
after he had made a schism, whilst the ordinations at Naissus go back to 
his Catholic period. 

2 Siricius (Jaffe, 261); Innocent (Ibid. 299, 303), the latter belonging to 
December 14, 414. 

3 Vol. II, pp. 383, 443- 

4 This is the view taken by Marius Mercator (supra, p. 123, note i). 
Gennadius, De viris, 14 (cf. De Eccl. D^m. 52) mentions a Bishop Audentius 
who seems to have refuted Photinianism, perhaps already under the name 
of Bonosianism, which Gennadius himself employs. On the Bonosiaci see 
the collection entitled "The Second Council of Aries," c. 17 ; Avitus of 
Vienne, Contra Arianos 19, Contra Eutych. haer. 2 ; Council of Orleans of 538, 
c - 34 (3 1 ) 5 Council of Clichy of 627, c. 5 ; Justinian, Bishop of Valentia in 
Spain, according to Isidore De viris, 33 (cf. Isidore himself, Etym. viii. 5 ; 
De Haeres., 53) ; Deere turn Gclasianum 10 (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont., p. 470) ; 
Vigilius, Jaffe Regesta 931 and 932 ; Gregory the Great, Jaffe op. cit. 1844. 
On this subject see the article " Bonosus " by Loofs in Hauck s Encyclopddie. 



124 ALARIC [CH. v. 

and are identified with the followers of Photinus. In the 
country in which it arose the schism of Bonosus occupied the 
attention of the ecclesiastical authorities for some time, and 
gave rise to debates on the value of the ordinations conferred 
by the heresiarch. 1 

This dispute is hardly known to us except from the corre 
spondence of the Popes. Illyricum, Eastern and Western alike, 
was considered at that date as belonging more especially to 
their jurisdiction. At the time when the see of Constantinople, 
at length delivered up to orthodoxy, was beginning to become 
an important centre of ecclesiastical relations, Pope Damasus 
felt the need to strengthen the ties, somewhat slight ones 
hitherto, which attached to his see the provinces lying between 
Italy and Thrace. Those of the North and West Noricum, 
Pannonia, and Dalmatia 2 had not ceased to belong to the 
Empire of the West. With the exception of Dalmatia they 
were not slow to fall as a matter of fact into the hands of the 
barbarians. The remnants of their ecclesiastical organization 
were grouped more or less around Aquileia as the metropolis. 
Dalmatia better secured against invasions, remained or 
returned within the orbit of Rome. It would seem likely 
that in the reign of the Emperor Constantius, the Bishop of 
Salona, the metropolis, inspired some measure of confidence 
in the Arianizing party, for the " Eastern " Council of Sardica 
sent to him its circular letter. 3 This bishop was named 
Maximus. In the days of the Emperor Gratian his see was 
occupied by a certain Leontius who, for some reason that we 
do not know, was deposed by Ambrose and the bishops of 
Upper Italy but restored by Pope Damasus. On the strength 
of this last decision he presented himself at the Council of 
Aquileia, which upheld his deposition but without in any way 
coming into conflict with the Pope. Damasus was shown, 
I imagine, that Leontius was less innocent than he had 
supposed. 4 

1 See the Papal Letters cited, p. 123, note 2. 

2 Together they constitute the " Diocese " of the Pannonias and represent 
seven provinces Noricum by the river bank (ripense\ Inner Noricum 
(mediterraneum\ Pannonia Prima, Pannonia Secunda, Valeria, Savia, 
Dalmatia. 

3 Vol. 1 1., p. 173. 

4 Our knowledge of this business is derived solely from what Maximin 
says of it (ed. Kauffmann, p. 87). 



p. 176-9] ROME AND THE PROVINCES 125 

Forty years later 1 a letter of Pope Zosimus to Hesychius 
of Salona, in regard to the usurpation of ecclesiastical functions 
by the monks, shows us the metropolitan of Dalmatia anxious 
to protect himself with the authority of the Holy See. These 
relations subsisted down to the Avaro-Slav invasion at the end 
of the 6th century. 

The other provinces of Illyricum situated to the east of 
Dalmatia and of the Adriatic formed, in their civil aspect, 
two " Dioceses," those of Dacia and Macedonia. This division 
corresponded in the main to the distribution of languages, 
Latin being the prevailing language in the " Diocese " of 
Dacia, Greek in that of Macedonia. 2 The latter extended 
southward to the extremity of the Peloponnese and even 
included the Cyclades and Crete. Sardica seems to have 
been the capital of the first " Diocese," as Thessalonica was 
that of the second. 

After the catastrophe of Valens (378) these provinces had 
been entrusted to Theodosius by the Emperor Gratian : the 
operations against the Goths required that the whole Balkan 
peninsula should be subject to the same military command. 
After the death of Theodosius they remained to the Empire of 
the East, despite the efforts of Stilicho to recover them. But the 
former connexions held firm in the ecclesiastical domain. The 
Popes were more fortunate than Stilicho. We have scarcely 
any information in regard to these churches, and especially as 
to their relations with the Holy See before the closing years 
of the 4th century. However, it follows from Councils held in 
381 at Constantinople and at Aquileia" that the bishops of 
Eastern Illyricum attached themselves to the episcopal body 
of the West. Pope Siricius took that as his basis in delegating 
his powers to the one of their number who was best qualified 
by the importance 4 and the position of his see the Bishop of 

1 Jaffe, Rcgesta, 339 (February 21, 418), 

2 Provinces of the "Diocese" of Dacia: Moesia Superior, capital 
Viminacium ; Dacia Ripensis, Ratiaria ; Dacia Mediterranea, Sardica ; 
Dardania, Scupi ; Praevalitana, Scodra. Provinces of the "Diocese" 
of Macedonia : Macedonia, Thessalonica ; Thessaly, Larissa ; Epirus 
Nova, Dyrrachium ; Epirus Vetus, Nicopolis ; Achaia, Corinth ; Crete, 
Gortyna. 

3 Vol. II., pp. 375-6. 

4 The Council of Sardica (c. 20) recognizes the importance of Thes 
salonica : Non ignoratis quanta et qualis sit Thessalonicensium civitas. 



126 ALARIC [CH. v. 

Thessalonica. 1 Already Acholius, the head of that church, 
had been charged in 381 by Pope Damasus with the 
task of opposing at Constantinople the election of Gregory 
Nazianzen. 2 His successor Anysius, who was elected in 
383, received from Siricius letters containing a definite 
delegation : these letters were renewed to him by Anastasius 
and Innocent. 3 

For such a system to yield appreciable results it would 
have been necessary in the first place that it should corre 
spond to the traditions of the country, and secondly that 
it should have the support of the Emperor of the East. 
But on the one hand the bishops of Illyricum were in no 
wise accustomed to recognize as their head the metropolitan 
of Thessalonica ; on the other hand, it was scarcely to be 
hoped that the Eastern Emperor, often at variance with 
his colleague of the West, would consent to uphold, against 
his own subjects, a jurisdiction which emanated from an 
ecclesiastical power which he did not hold under his own 
control. Besides, the Bishop of Constantinople was at Hand 
to suggest to him an attitude of disfavour. Hence the 
delicate organization conceived by the mind of Pope Siricius 
had considerable difficulty in working. 

However, the " Vicariate " of Thessalonica was one thing : 
quite another was the traditional orientation in the direction 
not of the New but of the Old Rome. This orientation 
continued : in particular, we often find in the Papal Letters the 

1 Before Acholius we know, in the 4th century, of the following 
bishops : Alexander, who was present at the Councils of Nicaea and 
of Tyre ; at the latter he undertook the defence of Athanasius ; Aetius, 
his successor, who had to triumph over two rivals, with the sequel 
that his Church was divided by schism (Council of Sardica, c. 18, 19, 
in the Greek) ; his contemporary, Protogenes of Sardica, did not love 
him and sharply criticized his morals : of this, however, nothing 
appeared at the Council : it was perhaps only an Arian slander (Hil, 
Frag. iii. 20) ; Heremius, who came after Aetius and figured at first among 
the defenders of Athanasius but in the end abandoned him (Athanasius, 
Apol. ad Const.}. 

2 Vol. II., p. 346. It is this which justifies the mention of Acholius and 
of Damasus in the letter of Pope Innocent (Jaffe, Regesta, 300). That it 
was Siricius who began the practice follows from the letter (Jaffe, op. cit. 
404) of Pope Leo (Migne, P. Z., torn, liv., p. 6l6) t [Stricius] qui . . . Anysio 
certa turn primum ratione commisit. 

3 Jaffe, op. cit. 257* 259 (Siricius) ; 275* (Anastasius) ; 285 (Innocent). 



p. 179-81] NICETAS OF REMESIANA 127 

Pope dealing directly with points of dispute l referred to him 
from Illyria. 2 

Relations in the same sense but of a different character are 
represented by the journeys to Rome of Bishop Nicetas. This 
prelate, whose personality has been recovered by the learning 
of our own day, was Bishop of Remesiana, a little place situated 
to the east of Naissus, in the same province of Dacia 
mediterranea. He made the journey to Italy on two 
occasions, in 398 and in 402 ; each time he made a stay 
at Nola, where he received from Paulinus the warmest of 
welcomes. In 402 he met Melania in his house. Nicetas was 
a holy man, of great missionary zeal and some literary ability. 
It seems likely that there is ground for attributing to him the 
composition of the Te Deum. If so, this famous hymn which 
the whole of Latin Christendom chants in hours of. deep emotion 
must have first resounded in a forgotten corner of the ancient 
Moesia. 3 It is the fairest relic of the churches which flourished 
there in Roman times. Nicetas 4 saw them engaged in conflict 
with Germanic barbarism and Arian heresy. Yet they held 
their ground. It was only two centuries later that another 
barbarism overwhelmed them completely the barbarism of 
the pagan Slavs. The latter was much more difficult of 
assimilation : it was only effected after protracted efforts. 

In Upper Italy men lived long on the tradition of Ambrose. 
His episcopal see was first occupied by the aged Simplicianus, 

1 The affair of Bonosus and the clergy ordained by him (Jaffe, op. cit. 
261, 299, 303) ; of the Bishop Photinus, condemned by Pope Anastasius on 
false evidence, restored by Innocent (ibid. 303) ; of the Deacon Eustathius, 
whom Innocent refused to condemn (ibid,} ; of the Cretans Bubalius and 
Taurianus condemned by him (ibid. 304). We have here clearly only 
samples which have survived the loss of the papal correspondence. 

2 On the Vicariate, see my memoir "L lllyricum ecclesiastique " in the 
Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1892), reprinted in my Eglises separces, c. vi. 

3 The portion of Dacia inediterranea in which are situated Naissus 
(Nisch) and Remesiana (Ak Palanka) had been torn from the ancient 
province of Mcesia Superior. 

4 On Nicetas see Paulinus, Cann. 17 and 27 ; Ep. xxix. 14 ; Gennadius 
De viris, 22. On the remnants of his writing s recently recovered or 
identified, see the works noted by Schanz, Gcsch. der roniischcn Littcratur, 
PP- 367 ff. We possess some didactic writings by him for the use of candi 
dates for baptism, a letter to a married virgin (G. Morin, Revue Benedictine, 
vol. xiv. [1897], p. 198), a treatise on Psalmody and another on Vigils 
(ibid. p. 390). 



128 ALARTC [CH. v. 

who had had a share in more than one famous conversion, 
notably those of Marius Victorinus, of Augustine, and of 
Ambrose himself. 1 In 401 he was replaced by Venerius, a 
former deacon of Ambrose, who some ten years later had as his 
successor a certain Marolus, who came from the distant banks 
of the Tigris. The Syrians at that time were widely scattered 
throughout the whole Empire ; in the principal commercial 
centres they had colonies of merchants comparable to, those 
of the Jews. This fact explains certain instances of the 
diffusion of doctrines and customs. At this time there was 
still much to be done in the valley of the Po for the spreading 
of the Gospel : it is not surprising that workers were accepted 
from any quarter. 

Bishoprics were multiplying there. Towards the middle of 
the 4th century the episcopal jurisdiction of Milan still 
extended to west and north as far as the Alps: the famous 
Eusebius of Vercellae was the first bishop of that see. 2 St 
Ambrose founded the Bishopric of Como 3 ; Simplicianus that 
of Novara 4 ; that of Turin, the jurisdiction of which long 
extended over a vast area, dates back to the same time. 5 
Felix, Gaudentius, Maximus, head the lists of bishops for 
these dioceses. Maximus of Turin has left us an interesting 
collection of homilies. More ancient were the churches of 
Brescia and Verona. The first had had for its bishop, in 
the days of St Ambrose, a certain Philastrius who seems to 
have led at first a wandering and troubled life, always and 
everywhere at strife with pagans, Jews, and heretics. In 364 
he had taken part at Milan in the tumults excited by St Hilary 
against Bishop Auxentius : in these he received some blows of 
which his back long bore the marks. After becoming Bishop 
of Brescia he continued to struggle against the heretics, but by 
less violent means. He has left us a catalogue of 156 heresies, 
a work of a very unequal character, but derived from interesting 
sources. At Brescia he left a memory which was held in high 
esteem an esteem which was fostered by his disciple and 
successor Gaudentius, a preacher of repute, of whom several 

1 Aug. Conf, viii. 5. 

- Corpus Inscript. Lat. torn, v., No. 6722. 3 Ambrose, Ep. 4. 
4 Life of St Gaudentius of Novara, Ada Sanctorum, January 22. 

* F. Savio, Gli antichl vcscovi (Pltalia^ pp. 283 ff. 

G This catalogue was drawn up between 386 and 391. 






p. 181-4] NORTHERN ITALY 129 

discourses survive. At Verona, too, there were preserved the 
lucubrations of a somewhat bizarre kind of its bishop, 
Zeno. Trent, which was farther advanced into the Alps, 
was a centre of difficult missions 1 in which the Bishop 
Vigilius was actively engaged. According to a somewhat 
doubtful tradition, he would seem to have compassed his own 
death there. 

The Bishop of Milan, as Bishop of the Imperial Court of 
the West, found himself led by circumstances to take, in 
ecclesiastical affairs, a position of preponderance analogous 
to that which, in the Eastern Empire, fell to the lot of his 
colleague of Constantinople. St Ambrose executes official 
acts, without hesitation as to his competence and without 
challenge, in the provinces of Venetia and ^Emilia equally 
with that of Liguria, in which his episcopal city was situated. 2 
However, Aquileia was a considerable town : its bishop also 
enjoyed as such special consideration. If the Eastern prelates 
had recourse, in some case of necessity, to the Italian 
episcopate, their letters were addressed, not only to the Pope 
and to the Bishop of Milan, but also to the Bishop of Aquileia. 
When the Emperor Honorius (c. 404) had transferred his 
residence to Ravenna*, Milan, which had fallen from its rank as 
capital, lost some of its prestige in Northern Italy. It was at 
that time that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Aquileia was 
definitely fixed and that that of Ravenna, to which it was 
necessary also to assign its share, was organized. But it is 
very clear, from the most ancient documents that remain to us 
with regard to these boundaries, that they were fixed without 
regard to the delimitation of the civil provinces. 3 

1 Vol. II., p. 512. 

2 At the Council of Sardica the bishops of Northern Italy those of 
Verona, Aquileia, Ravenna, Brescia, and Milan all describe themselves 
in their signatures as ab Italia, without mention of their provinces : on the 
other hand those of peninsular Italy expressly indicate them : a Campania, 
a Tuscia, ab Apulia. 

3 The jurisdiction of Milan, as attested by the Synodal Letter of 451 
(Leonis Magni Ep. 97), comprised at that time Bergamo, Brescia, and 
Cremona, cities of which the last two at any rate belonged to the province 
of Venetia ; then Piacenza, Reggio, and Brescello which were in ^Emilia. 
On the side of Aquileia the boundaries continued : at the end of the 6th 
century the province of Aquileia did not extend beyond Verona. But 
Ravenna succeeded gradually in annexing to itself absolutely the whole of 
./Emilia, as far as and including Piacenza. 



130 ALARIC [CH. v. 

The new establishment of these metropolitical cities of 
the North limited to some extent the authority of the Pope 
over the churches of these regions. However they seem to 
have been set up peaceably enough l ; the Pope allowed him 
self to be relieved of the immediate care of the bishoprics of 
the North, and confined his solicitude to peninsular and insular 
Italy. From Luni on the Tyrrhenian Sea and Ravenna on the 
Adriatic all the bishops held directly from him, without the 
intermediation of metropolitans. Even the Bishop of Ravenna 2 
who exercised, in respect of his colleagues in ^Emilia, metro 
political authority, was considered at Rome as a suffragan. 
The Pope examined the validity of his election and consecrated 
him himself. This was in fact the procedure adopted through 
out the whole of the papal province for the control of 
nominations to bishoprics. Siricius laid down the principle 
that no consecration of a bishop ought to take place apart from 
the Apostolic See. His successors after him applied this rule 
with great strictness, and inculcated its observance in distant 
parts, substituting of course for the intervention of the Holy 
See that of the metropolitical or quasi-metropolitical authorities 
established in the particular regions. 3 

Christianity succeeded in achieving the conquest of Rome. 
The temples still standing, still adorned with fine statues and 
ornaments of bronze and of gold which they retained down to 

1 The Roman Council of 378 (Vol. II., p. 372) protests against a Bishop 
of Parma who defies a sentence of condemnation which he has incurred. 
But is it really of Parma that this recalcitrant was bishop? In his reply 
the Emperoi Gratian would seem to say that his resistance challenges the 
responsibility of the Vicarius of Rome, who did not possess jurisdiction in 
^Emilia (ColL Audi. No. 13 ; Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pont. pp. 526, 531 ; 
Tillemont, vol. viii., pp. 410 and 776). On the affair of Leontius of Salona, 
vide supra^ p. 124, 

2 Ravenna, in its civil aspect, was outside the province over which it 
exercised its ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was the position of Massilia 
(Marseilles) in relation to the province of Narbonensis Secunda. Cf. infra, 
Chap. VII. 

3 Cf. the Roman Council of 386, c. I, "Ut extra conscientiam scdis 
apostolicae nemo audeat ordinare." In the Council of the province of 
Byzacena (Mansi, Concilia^ vol. iv., p. 379), to which this decree was com 
municated, the words sedis apostolicae are explained by the gloss hoc cst 
primatis, the primate or "dean "being in Africa the equivalent of the metro 
politan in other countries. In the Liber Regnlaruni sent by Pope Innocent 
to Victricius of Rouen (supra, p. 118), in place of scdis apostolicae we find 
metropolitans cpiscopi. 



p. 184.7] ROMAN CHRISTIANITY 131 

the time of the sack by Alaric, were closed by authority and 
abandoned by their worshippers. These might be seen throng 
ing to the Lateran on the appointed days to receive baptism 
and the holy unction. 1 In Society pagans were still to be 
found : several of the personages whom Macrobius was soon 
to pourtray as engaged in discussion in his Saturnalia were 
contemporaries of Siricius and of Innocent. They became 
more and more rare. Doubtless there was no prohibition 
against being a pagan ; but there was nothing to be gained 
by not being of the religion of the Emperor, and this considera 
tion tended to undermine the strength of attachments. Those 
who held firm were, so far as can be judged, persons of 
substance whose virtues, both public and private, crowned with 
honour the end of the old religion. They stood comparison only 
too well with the Christians who claimed considerable latitude 
in their practice, with the great families in which baptism was 
customarily deferred till the death-bed, in which all the 
frivolities of the world and all the pursuits of luxury were 
reconciled with the Gospel, and scruples would have been felt 
at abandoning the pursuit of high public appointments as a 
career. Such families were very numerous. To people like 
the Anicii Probi, whose luxurious mansion stretched along the 
Pincian Hill and whose mausoleum behind the apse of St 
Peter s rose to the proportions of a small basilica, Christianity 
was a light yoke. The clergy made small effort to render it 
heavier : these grands seigneurs were very liberal. They 
built churches and supported the various forms of ecclesiastical 
charity. But there were Christians of a different type. On 
the Aventine Marcella continued without interruption her life 
of austerity in company with her ward Principia. At the foot 
|j of the Caslian, near the temple of Claudius, dwelt the senator 
Pammachius with his wife Paulina, the daughter of Paula the 
famous friend of Jerome, and the house of these godly people 
i was the meeting-place of many others who likewise took 
: Christianity seriously. Among the number was the Marcellinus 
who in 410 had been sent to Africa to bring about the reunion 
of the Donatists with the Catholics ; besides him, the priests 
Domnio and Oceanus, both of them correspondents of 
Jerome ; Rufinus, a Syrian priest who had settled in Rome ; 
the British monk, Pelagius ; the matron Fabiola, renowned 

1 Prudentius, Contra Symmachuin, I. 1. 587. 
III. K 



132 ALARIC [CH. v. 

throughout the whole city of Rome for her penitence and her 
charity. This great lady, who was one of the descendants of 
Fabius Maximus, had married again after a divorce occasioned 
by the irregular life of her first husband. After the death of 
her second she was seen in the Lateran basilica amid the 
celebrations of Easter, taking her place in the ranks of penitent 
sinners and submitting herself to all the severities of the 
penitential discipline. At the end of her penance she sold her 
property and devoted herself to the relief of the monks and 
the poor. For these she founded in Rome a hospital for the 
sick, the first to be seen there. At Portus also she desired to 
establish a Home for the poor travellers brought to that place 
by the course of their sea voyage. She made an agreement 
with Pammachius and the foundation was established at their 
joint charges. 1 In 395 Oceanus took her to the Holy Land : 
she would have remained there, but the dread of the Huns who 
were said to be on the point of invading Palestine brought her 
back to Italy. There she had found war kindled between 
Jerome and Rufinus ; like Oceanus she inclined rather to the 
side of Jerome from whom she derived learned explanations in 
regard to the difficulties of the Bible. 2 When she died, in 399, 
he wrote her funeral oration. 3 

On the Caelian, too, but higher up and not very far from the 
Lateran, rose the magnificent mansion of the Valerii Maximi. 
It was from there that Melania had set out, in 372, when she 
fled from Rome and the world for exile in the Holy Places. 
The child whom she had left behind, Valerius Publicola, had 
grown up and married ; his wife Albina was daughter of 
Caeionius Albinus, one of the most distinguished remaining 
representatives of Paganism. She was a Christian, like her 
husband, but not specially given to austerity. Her sister Laeta 
had married Toxotius, own son of St Paula, and so found 
herself the sister-in-law of Pammachius. The old Pontifex 
Albinus had become the founder of a line of Christians ; 
perched on their grandfather s knees his granddaughters sang 
to him their Alleluia. These were Paula, the daughter of 
Laeta, and Melania, the daughter of Albina, both of them 

1 De Rossi, Bull. (1866), p. 99. 2 Epp. 64, 78. 

3 Ep. 77. He had already written those of Blaesilla (Ep. 39), of 
Nepotianus, nephew of his friend Heliodorus of Altinum (Ep. 60), and of 
Paulina, the wife of Pammachius (Ep. 66). 



p. 187-90] THE FRIENDS OF JEROME 133 

destined to follow in the steps of their two grandmothers and 
to die like them on the far-off soil of Palestine. 

Jerome took a keen interest in the posterity of the venerable 
Paula, who had died before his eyes in 404. He sent to Laeta 
a complete course of education l for the little Paula, offering to 
carry it out himself, in conjunction with Eustochium, if they 
would consent to send the child to him. Melania on her side, 
in her convent at Jerusalem, kept a watchful eye over her 
family. Publicola, her son, good Christian 2 as he was, said 
nothing about renouncing the world, in which he was detained 
among other ties by the care of an enormous fortune. Her 
granddaughter Melania 3 had married, though it is true against 
her inclination, for she would have preferred to follow in her 
grandmother s footsteps. But that was four or five years ago : 
her first two children having died one after the other, the young 
wife returned to her plans of devotion and did her best 
thenceforward to win for them the support of her husband 
Pinianus, who was a scion of another branch of the Gens 
Valeria the Valerii Seven. Such dispositions presented, in 
the eyes of the austere matron, possibilities of cultivation ; and 
besides there still remained in the family several members who 
lingered in paganism. Melania made up her mind that her 
presence might be of service. 

In the spring of 402 she was to be seen landing at Naples, 
severe in attire, always grande dame, always a little formid 
able. Her family was waiting for her on the shore, and 
without delay escorted her to Nola. The party represented the 
flower of Roman aristocracy : the good Paulinus gave them all 
hospitality, and then they set out on their journey to Rome. 

1 Ep. 107. 

2 See his correspondence with St Augustine in regard to certain " Cases 
of Conscience " raised by the administration of his African properties, at 
any rate those which involved contact with the pagan barbarians of the 
Libyan frontier. (Aug. Epp. 46, 47.) 

3 On St Melania the Younger, and even on the Elder, and also on the 
whole Roman world of this time, see the important work of Cardinal 
Rampolla, Santa Melania giuniore (Rome, 1905) ; cf. Goyau, Sainte Mttanie 
(Paris : Lecoffre, 1908). Cardinal Rampolla has published the Latin and 
Greek texts (on their relation cf. Adhemar d Ales in Analecta Bollandiana^ 
vol. xxv., p. 401 if.) which remain to us of a life of Melania the Younger, 
written by her close friend the priest Gerontius, and has accompanied 
them by full and learned dissertations on all the points of interest. 



134 ALARIC [CH. v. 

Among the reasons which induced Melania to undertake 
this expedition must be reckoned, I suspect, a desire to come 
to the aid of Rufinus, her director, who had found himself 
for some time in an awkward position. However, the death 
of Pope Anastasius (December 19, 401), of which she had 
doubtless not received the news before her departure from 
Palestine, smoothed away the most serious of the difficulties. 
Innocent, the new Pope, a man like Siricius of a peace- 
loving temperament, showed himself like Siricius little disposed 
to espouse the quarrels of Jerome and his friends. Rufinus 
returned from Aquileia to Rome. It is probable that he 
established himself in the house of Publicola on the Caelian 
Hill : from this time forward we find him constantly with 
this family. 

Melania caused a sensation in Rome. Times had greatly 
changed since her departure. Then, in the days of Valentinian, 
people were living in comparative prosperity, and above all 
in complete security. The barbarians were on the other 
side of the Danube; the frontier of the river was strongly 
guarded. Now the Goths r almost masters of Illyricum, were 
crossing the Alps, overrunning Italy, and threatening Rome. 
To Melania it represented the approach of the end. What 
availed it to linger among the vanities of the world? But 
Stilicho succeeded in that same year (402) in ridding Italy 
of the hordes of Alaric. Men began to live again, and the 
patrician dame was a preacher in the wilderness. However, 
she succeeded in converting the Senator Apronianus, husband 
of her niece Avita, and in company with his whole household 
he adopted the practice of the strictest religious observance. 
Pinianus and the younger Melania gave themselves up to it 
more and more ; but the objections of Publicola had still to 
be reckoned with. He held his ground to the end against 
his mother s reproaches, and only sanctioned on his death-bed 
(404) the plans of renunciation which were being formed 
by his daughter and his son-in-law. The aged matron had 
already set out on her return to Palestine, which she reached 
safely after a sojourn in Africa. She died some weeks after 
having set her convent in order (405). 

The death of Publicola left the young couple s hands free. 
They took advantage of the fact to put in practice the precept 
of the Gospel, " Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor." 



p. 190-3] MELANIA AND MARCELLA 135 

Their fortune was so large, their estates so extensive and 
so numerous in all parts of the Empire, that this renunciation 
caused enormous difficulties. Little by little they carried it 
out, thanks to the support of Serena, the wife of Stilicho. 
Retiring at first to a villa in the suburbs, very probably the 
same as the famous villa of the Quintilii, of which the 
striking ruins are still to be seen at the fifth milestone on 
the Appian Way, they entertained there in 405 the Greek 
bishops on the side of Chrysostom, who had been driven from 
their country by persecution. 1 Rufinus was with them. In 
408, at the moment when, Stilicho being dead, Alaric was at 
hand to lay siege to Rome, they set out for the south, stayed 
for some time at Nola and then went to live in another of 
their villas, in Sicily, on the Strait of Messina. From there, 
no doubt, they purposed to proceed to the East, whither 
Rufinus was to accompany them. With them he stayed 
with Paulinus who loved and revered him : with them he 
crossed the Strait and took up his residence in the Sicilian 
villa. 

While this was happening the mournful destinies of Old 
Rome were in process of accomplishment. Pammachius died 
shortly before the last siege. 2 Marcella was to be a witness 
of its horrors; when the Goths became masters of the city 
soldiers penetrated to her house. To make her deliver up 
pretended treasures, they beat the illustrious and venerable 
matron with whips. So far as treasures were concerned, the 
most precious to her, the only one about which she was 
i anxious, was the honour of Principia, her young companion. 
This was respected. The two women were taken to the 
church of St Paul and found protection in the Apostolic 
sanctuary. But the ordeal had been too severe : Marcella 
did not survive it. 3 

It was not Rome only that was ravaged. The Goths 
had speedily succeeded in reaching Campania. Paulinus, 
who had just been elected Bishop of Nola, had to put up with 
the discomfort of a visit. They pushed on further still, and 

1 Supra, pp. 72, 74. 

2 His house was converted into a church. Remains of it have been 
found under and in the buildings of the church of St John and 
St Paul. 

3 Jerome, Ep. cxxvii. 13, 14. 



136 ALARIC [CH. v. 

passing through Lucania and Bruttium reached the Strait 
of Messina. From the villa which sheltered them Rufinus 
and his friends witnessed the burning of Rhegium, and might 
well fear that the Strait would not protect them against the 
enemy. However the danger passed away from them. While 
those around him were congratulating themselves on the 
fact, Rufinus last hours came. He died in the arms of 
Pinianus and Melania. 

These terrible crises from which the old Empire emerged 
still more enfeebled do not seem, apart from this enfeeblement 
itself, to have had consequences of extreme seriousness. The 
principal achievement, the capture of Rome, did not represent 
the final disaster, the fall of the central redoubt of the Empire ; 
it was a chance blow, the unmeditated exploit of a body of 
adventurers in search of supplies, a monstrous insult rather 
than a decisive overthrow. But Rome was so hallowed that 
the shock of this insult resounded far and wide. Groans were 
heard from one end of the world to the other. In his distant 
solitude, Jerome felt himself smitten to the earth. 1 It seemed 
to him that all was over, that the universe was swallowed up 
in darkness. The catastrophes of earlier days recalled them 
selves to his soul: mid his groans of anguish there jostle in 
confusion the names of Troy, of Moab, of Jerusalem, the verses 
of Vergil, the lamentations of Isaiah, and the imprecations of 
the Psalms. With the general disaster there were mingled 
for him personal sorrows: his two best friends, Pammachius 
and Marcella, had been taken from him, and many others 
with them. More numerous still were those who had fled 
before the scourge. Some of them reached Palestine : their 
pitiable condition engaged his charity and that of Eustochium. 
In Africa, too, refugees abounded : besides their miseries 
they carried thither their quarrels and their recriminations. 
" Behold," said the pagans, " behold the vengeance of the 
gods ! Rome which they had so often saved had deserted 
their altars. In the hour of peril their succour had failed 
it." 2 Even among the Christians many avowed themselves 

1 In Ezec.h. i. and iii., pref. ; Ep. cxxvii. 11-14. 

2 During one of the two sieges proposals had been made to re-open the 
temples and offer sacrifices : so we are told by Sozomen, H. E. ix. 6, and 
Zosimus, H. E. v. 41. Both of them seem to be based upon Olympiodorus 
(Photius, Cod. 80). Zosimus stands alone in giving the story of the 



p. 193-6] ROME AND THE "CITY OF GOD" 137 

disturbed ; it seemed to them that the true God now 
recognized at Rome owed it to Himself and to it to protect 
it. What had it gained by becoming Christian ? What aid 
had been given to its defence by the Apostles and martyrs 
whose tombs surrounded its walls ? 

Augustine was greatly concerned at all these complaints. 
He attempted a reply in his sermons 1 ; but the occasion of 
disturbance was felt beyond the circle of his hearers. He 
resolved to supply an antidote by a book dealing with the 
subject. This was the famous City of God. He worked at 
it for more than twelve years, publishing it in successive 
instalments. And even that did not content him. It seemed 
to him that the whole of history must be summoned to show 
that catastrophes like that of Rome had been much more 
frequent and more serious before Christianity than since it 
appeared. For this purpose he had recourse to the learning 
of others. A Spanish pupil, Orosius, whom circumstances had 
brought to him, was entrusted with the development of this 
thesis. He accomplished it in the seven books of his History 
against the Pagans , the contents of which exactly correspond 
to the title. The position adopted by Augustine and Orosius 
compelled them to minimize as much as possible the disaster 
of 410, Hence they speak of it with an optimism on which 
too much reliance must not be placed. 

One thing is certain : Rome had suffered greatly. A 
number of dwellings, both of patricians and others, were in 
ashes ; if the precious vessels of St Peter s had been spared, the 
churches of the city seem to have been systematically sacked. 2 
The sea, the islands, the shores of Africa, of Egypt, and of 
Syria were covered with fugitives who told stories of lamentable 

proposal addressed by the Prefect Pompeianus to Pope Innocent, who 
is represented as having promised to shut his eyes provided that every 
thing was done secretly. Zosimus is a pagan : he writes nearly a century 
after the event, and the fact, unlikely in itself, would have been highly 
secret and difficult to verify. Anyhow the sacrifices did not take place. 

1 Serm. 81, 105, 296. 

2 The Liber Pontificalis relates that the ciborium of the Basilica of the 
Lateran had been carried off by the barbarians and was only replaced 
under Xystus III. Similarly Pope Celestine had to renew the sacred 
furniture of the Julian Basilica in Transtevere. These are isolated pieces 
of information : it is clear that all the churches were treated after the same 
fashion. 



138 ALARIC [CH. v. 

events and displayed to all the world misfortunes only too 
real. 1 

From this disaster at Rome, in regard to which we possess 
a certain amount of information, we can judge of the evils of 
the invasion in the provinces in which it raged at that time 
that is to say, throughout the whole of the West with the 
exception of Africa, which still remained for a season immune. 
The country-sides, open villages, and rich villas were first of 
all overwhelmed : fortified towns were taken by famine, by 
treachery, sometimes by main force. 2 This was the occasion 
of an orgy of murder, pillage, and burning. Then the scourge 
was transferred elsewhere. The survivors recovered them 
selves, repaired as best they could anything that remained of 
their habitations, and resumed so far as it was possible their 
former life. 

From a moral point of view these terrible lessons do not 
seem to have succeeded in producing much effect. Augustine 
laments the frivolous temper of the emigres from Rome, who, 
though on disembarking they were in a most wretched 
condition, found no more urgent occupation than flocking to 
the theatres. A poet of Southern Gaul 3 who was writing at 
the time of the invasion of the Alani and the Vandals has 
drawn for us a curious picture of these early days following 
disaster : " We are always the same, always in the power of 
the same vices. Here is one who used to remain at table till 
nightfall : he finds a means of banqueting by the light of 
lamps just as well as by that of the sun. Pedius was an 
adulterer ; an adulterer he remains : his Furies have not 
deserted him. Podion was of an envious mood : jealousy still 
holds him fast. Albus dreamed only of honours and dignities : 
ambition still gnaws him on the ruins of his city." 

The case of the Empire was the same as that of individuals. 
Once the moments of alarm had passed, the Court, the official 
classes, the whole worn-out machinery was set in motion again, 
without even a thought on the part of any one of its reformation. 

1 Pope Innocent was absent at the time of the last siege. He happened 
to be at Ravenna with other prominent men of Rome for the purpose of 
negotiating an arrangement between the Emperor, Alaric, and the Senate. 

2 On the invasion in Gaul see Paulinus of Pella, Eucharisticon, w. 226 ff. 

3 5". Paulini Epigramma in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum laiinorum^ 
vol. xvi., p. 504. 



p. 196-8] AUGUSTINE AND OROSIUS 139 

However, the Barbarians who had entered into the Empire 
formed a class within it, increasingly numerous and increasingly 
influential. When they had ceased to ravage and had settled 
down to some extent, with or without the assent of the 
imperial authorities, it was imperative to come to terms with 
them and to become accustomed to their presence. This was 
achieved : gradually people schooled themselves to regarding 
them as possible heirs of the dying Empire. 

Religiously-minded persons, who, even before the final 
disasters, had acquired a distaste for the world, found themselves 
less disposed than the rest to demonstrations of sorrow for 
its downfall. But what they viewed without regret was the 
disappearance of the futility of the age in general rather than 
the loss of the prestige of Old Rome. The Res Romana was 
ever dear to the heart of people like Jerome, Augustine, and 
Paulinus. They would have loved it better when illustrated by 
the severity of ancient virtues and ruled by men of the type of 
Fabricius and Cincinnatus. But even in the state in which 
they saw it, with its impoverished senate, its pinchbeck court, 
and its decayed hierarchy, they loved it still. They belonged 
to it too closely, both by education and in every fibre of their 
being, to dream for a moment of separating themselves from 
it. Besides, the men I have just named had had little or no 
contact with the barbarians. It was in Gaul and in Spain 
that the latter, when viewed at close quarters and at a more 
auspicious time, began to be regarded with a favourable 
judgement. Salvian was soon to contrast them with the 
Romans, and to do so to their advantage. But even at this 
moment, on the morrow of the invasion, the literary works of 
the invaded countries show some marks of goodwill. Orosius 
already sees the good side of the barbarians. 



CHAPTER VI 

PELAGIUS 

THE dread inspired by Alaric had begun to denude Rome of 
inhabitants well before the catastrophe of 410. Many patrician 
families were possessed of estates of considerable value in 
Africa ; all hoped to find there a secure retreat, the sea being 
the best of all barriers to the progress of the barbarians. 
Africa had the character of an asylum towards which people 
betook themselves in haste, despite the discomforts of the 
passage. It was in these circumstances that there landed at 
the port of Carthage the illustrious family of the Anicii Probi, 
conducted by Anicia Faltonia Proba, the widow of the great 
Probus. Of her three sons of consular rank, the two younger 
seem to have remained in Italy : the eldest, Olybrius, had died 
at the time of their departure, 1 but his widow, Juliana, and his 
daughter, Demetrias, had accompanied Proba. Heraclian, the 
Count of Africa, gave the fugitives from Rome a very 
unfavourable reception. He imposed a tax on them upon 
their arrival, and if they did not pay they were exposed, 
especially the women, to the worst hardships. 2 Proba paid, and 
extricated from their difficulty a number of her companions in 
misfortune. 

Demetrias was still very young, but she was approaching 
a marriageable age. It was soon made known that she would 
not marry and would dedicate her virginity to God. This was 
a source of great joy to religiously-minded persons. The 
Probi were renowned throughout the whole world : it was the 

1 Proba, it seems most probable, had left Rome before the month of 
August 410. Olybrius, indeed, non vidit patriam corruenfem (Jerome, 
Ep. cxxx. 3), that is he died before the taking of the city, and on the other 
hand Proba had already sought refuge from the barbarians when she 
received the news of her son s unexpected death (Ibid. 7). 

2 Jerome, Ep. cxxx. 7, with allowance for his exaggerations. Cf. Pallu 
de Lessert, Pastes des provinces africaines y vol. ii., p. 270. 

140 



p. 199-201] PROBA, PINIANUS, MELANIA 141 

great Christian family of Rome. All the distinguished men of 
the age, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Pope Innocent, had 
long been singing the praises of the illustrious widow of Probus 
and of her daughter-in-law Juliana. To the merits acquired by 
her inexhaustible charity was now to be added the supreme act 
of dedication. In the noble house where Christianity had so 
long reigned was now to be seen the unfolding of the virgin 
flower of asceticism. Claudian had hymned the princely 
marriages of Ravenna ; Proba desired that the mystic nuptials 
of her granddaughter should also have their epithalamium. 
At her instigation practised pens set themselves to work : this 
taking of the veil was the occasion of quite a large literary 
output, of which we still possess two specimens, both sent from 
Palestine by the solitary of Bethlehem and by the monk 
Pelagius, 1 a new celebrity, some of whose ideas were beginning 
to be discussed, especially in Africa. The Bishop of Carthage, 
Aurelius, presided at the oeremony and conferred on Demetrias 
the veil of the consecrated virgins (414). 

Pinianus and Melania had also crossed the sea but, having 
little relish for the society of large towns, had not made a stay 
at Carthage. Hippo itself seemed to them too noisy, and in 
spite of the attraction of Augustine, who had long been the 
friend and correspondent of their family, they preferred to 
settle themselves at Thagaste, where the good bishop Alypius 
with whom they were also acquainted, gave them the kindliest 
of welcomes. Aurelius, Alypius, and Augustine gave them 
guidance in the disposal of the fortune of which they were 
stripping themselves. Their presence in Africa was a blessing 
for the monks, the monasteries, and charitable enterprises 
The people of Thagaste rated very high the privilege which 
they enjoyed in possessing them, and this privilege excited the 
envy of other towns. One day 2 they adventured themselves 
at Hippo. The members of St Augustine s flock seized the 
opportunity and demanded, with tumultuous violence, that 
Pinianus should be ordained priest. A promotion thus imposed 
by the multitude was not an unheard-of thing : it was in such 
circumstances that Paulinus had been ordained at Barcelona, 
and that Augustine himself had become a priest of Hippo. 

1 Jerome, Ep. cxxx. ; Pelagius in Migne Patrologia Latina, torn, xxx., 
p. 15, or torn, xxxiii., p. 1099. 

2 On this matter see Augustine, Epp. 125, 126. 



142 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

Hence Pinianus had taken precautions : he had secured a 
promise from Augustine that he would not ordain him nor allow 
him to be- ordained. But the mob would listen to nothing : it 
gave vent to scandalous outcries against the Bishop of Thagaste, 
who had accompanied the young couple to Hippo and was in 
the church in company with Augustine. Threats were uttered 
of doing him injury. Pinianus was obliged to swear to take up 
his abode at Hippo, and that, if ever he allowed himself to be 
ordained, it should be for this Church. On these terms the 
ceremony was allowed to be brought to an end. Alypius and 
his two friends returned for the time to Thagaste. Albina for 
her part greatly resented this adventure, and Alypius also was 
highly incensed against the people of Hippo. They both of 
them wrote to the bishop, inveighing against the greed of his 
flock and disputing the validity of promises extorted by tumult. 
Augustine did not share their view : according to him, if the 
populace of Hippo was so greatly attached to Pinianus, it was 
because of his virtues and not for his money ; besides, oaths 
were made to be kept. 

The matter settled itself on its own account. Pinianus and 
Melania at last saw the bottom of their purse : the spectacle of 
their life of austerity seemed less indispensable to the people 
of Hippo, who were able to contemplate at close quarters the 
virtues of St Augustine. They restored no doubt to Pinianus 
the pledge that he had given them, for after a stay of seven 
years in Africa the Roman noble, who had become in the 
fullest sense the poor man of Jesus Christ, set out for the East 
in company with his wife and his mother-in-law. When they 
arrived at Jerusalem the state of their finances was such that 
they were obliged to inscribe their names on the register of the 
Relief Committee of the Church among the number of the 
needy. 

Some time before their departure, the Probi had taken up 
their abode again in Rome : Demetrias with her veil as a 
virgin had returned to the Domus Pinciana. 

But it was not merely the representatives of the great 
families of Rome who had temporarily made at once a sojourn 
and a sensation in Africa. Among the number of refugees 
who had arrived from Rome had been seen also the monk 
Pelagius and his disciple Celestius, two persons who were about 
to give rise to much talk and to be the cause of great storms. 



p. 201-4] AUGUSTINE AND PELAGIUS 143 

Serious Christians in the West, those at any rate who 
devoted themselves to thinking and writing, had for some 
time been divided by a grave conflict of opinions. While all 
were agreed as to the necessity of the practice of virtue and 
even of advancing oneself as far as possible along the paths to 
perfection, they were not at one as to what might be called the 
theory of sanctity. Here Augustine and Pelagius represent 
two opposed systems. Augustine who had arrived at virtue 
by passing through vice and who had only come forth from his 
evil courses as the result of feeling himself seized very firmly 
by the hand of God Augustine owed to his own experience 
a profound sense of human weakness and of divine succour. 
According to him, a man is virtuous, he does that which is 
good, because God gives us the will and the power thereto, in 
other wordb succours us by His grace ; from ourselves we can 
extract only sin. And why are we so made ? By the fault of 
Adam, from which proceed all our frailties, all our weaknesses 
physical and moral, sicknesses, death, and that interior disloca 
tion which sets at perpetual strife within us the consciousness 
of the Law and the promptings of concupiscence. Adam 
sinned : his whole posterity sinned in him, for what is here 
involved is not merely some sort of falling away, but a falling 
away which is culpable, 1 which entitles God to avenge on each 
of us the fault committed by our first father. In the sight of 
God, the human race is a sinful mass, massa peccati, massa 
perditionis, from which the Author of all Justice could not 
extract any other good save what He puts into it Himself. 

For Pelagius, and in this respect he represents to us a 
considerable body of his contemporaries, things present them 
selves under quite a different aspect. A man is virtuous 
because he wills it strongly and because he gives himself 
the trouble to be so. God helps him in this, no doubt, but 
as it were from without, by means of the free will with which 
He has provided us, by means of His Law which enlightens 
and commands us, by means of the example and the exhorta 
tions of the saints, and especially of Christ, and by means of the 

1 St Augustine is here emphasizing the famous passage of St Paul 
(Romans v. 12 ff.) : it is right to note that the words f0 y iravrfs ij^aprov 
on which he lays great stress are badly rendered in the Latin Vulgate by 
in quo omnes peccaverunt, and mean not " in whom all have sinned " but 
"because all have sinned." 



144 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

purifying grace of Baptism. In other respects, the good that 
we do is attributable to us. This good we are under obligation 
to do, for it would not be commanded us if it were not in our 
pow^r to attain it. God enjoins the avoidance of all sin : a 
man can, then, be without sin; and in Pelagius thought, sin 
means not only grave and external faults but interior defects 
which occur in the secret recesses of the soul. This austere 
and heroic morality fitted in well enough with the conception 
of virtue held in the ancient schools, with the sort of popular 
Stoicism on which the life of good people was ordinarily based. 
Pelagius admitted neither Original Sin nor Original Fall. 
What talk is this of sin transmitted by heredity? was a 
question in Pelagian circles. A sin is an act of will ; he only 
who has committed it is responsible for it. It has no con 
sequence which affects his descendants. If we feel within us 
the assaults of concupiscence, if our body is frail and subject 
to the law of death, that means that such is the nature of 
man. Thus, Adam was created by God in the state in which 
we ourselves come to the world ; what we derive from our first 
father are the original conditions of human nature, not the 
consequences of an initial fault. 

Between these two conceptions of virtue the difference or, as 
it may better be called, the opposition is manifest. Augustine s 
is the expression of a profound religion, that of Pelagius is 
but conventional popular morality adapted, however, to the 
general outlines of Christian tradition. 

I say to the general outlines. On the other hand, two 
points must at once be noted on which the teaching of Pelagius 
was in conflict with ordinary Christian modes of thought. His 
conception of grace to a large extent excluded prayer. What 
is the good of asking God to defend us against temptation, 
to help us to be virtuous, when once it is a concern of our own. 

The baptism of small children was, as will soon be made 
clear, a second stone of stumbling. 

As for the testimony to the tradition of the Church which 
might be derived on this point from authors earlier than the 
5th century, it was undoubtedly more weighty than Pelagius 
seems to have thought; but it would not admit of being 
uniformly invoked for all the details of the Augustinian 
teaching. The idea of the Original Fall, flatly rejected by 
Pelagius, had been often and clearly expressed before his 



p. 204-7] THE DOCTRINE QF GRACE 145 

time ; but that this fall must be conceived of as an hereditary 
sin and that this hereditary sin must be identified 1 with 
concupiscence are theories to which little reflexion had as yet 
been given. 

St Augustine is the first who studied the question deeply. 
Among the views which he expressed on the subject, a certain 
selection must be made and it must be recognized that for 
some of them the responsibility of the great Doctor is more 
closely involved than that of the Church. In following him in 
his struggle against Pelagius, the Church has followed the 
defender of the common Faith as to the necessity of grace and 
the original lapse. She has even retained his idea of hereditary 
sin, but with reserves and explanations which to some small 
extent have modified it. In the further stages of theological 
reflexion, St Augustine has remained always and with just 
title the Doctor of Grace ; but it has been necessary to 
abandon more than one detail of his line of argument and 
even of his teaching. 2 

Pelagius was a native of the Island of Britain. 3 He was a 
man of considerable stature and of robust appearance. By 
profession a monk, he seems to have travelled in the East. 
In any case he knew Greek and spoke it with ease. He had 
established himself at Rome since the time 4 of Pope Anastasius 
(c. 400), perhaps earlier still, 5 and lived there in the society of 
persons of the deepest piety, among whom he enjoyed great 
repute. 6 In these circles he made the acquaintance of a priest 

1 On this point, the doctrine actually received in the Catholic Church 
differs from that of St Augustine, still followed by Bossuet. Original sin is 
now conceived as the privation of an original righteousness, conferred on 
the first man over and above the requirements of his nature. 

2 See on the whole subject O. Rottmanner, Der Augustinismus (Munich, 
1892). The position is a little like that of St Cyril of Alexandria, but with 
this difference that we have ended by going back to Cyril, while we seem 
rather to have departed from Augustine. 

3 St Jerome designates him a Scot (Irishman) in order to be able to 
attach to him the legendary tales then current about the Scots, their 
barbarism, their cannibalism, etc. (Injeremiam^ prefaces to Books I. and III.). 

4 Marius Mercator, Liber Subnotationum^ 2. 

6 " In urbe Roma, ubi diutissime vitam duxerat " (Aug. De gratia 
Christi^ ii. 24.) 

Aug. De peccatorum meritis, iii. : "Pelagii scripta, viri, ut audio, sancti 
et non parvo provectu christiani " ; ibid. 5, " bonum ac praedicandum 
virum"; cf. Retractationes, ii. 33, "Vita ejus a multis praedicabatur." It 



146 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

of Syrian origin who was called Rufinus like Jerome s famous 
adversary, but must not be confused with him, for he was the 
companion of Pammachius. 1 It was held in later times that, 
whether through this Rufinus of Syria or through travels in 
the East, Pelagius became acquainted with the ideas of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, who on the subject of the original 
Fall professed opinions akin to his own. It may be so, but it 
would be extending simplification beyond due limits to consider 
Pelagius a disciple of Theodore 2 and even to attach to 
Pelagius own teaching all the Pelagians soon to be numbered 
in the West. Not only in Britain and in Gaul, but in Northern 
and Southern Italy, in Africa, in Rome itself, a large number of 
persons and those not merely nominal Christians but people of 
piety and strict in their observance, took exactly the same 
view as Pelagius of the relationship of morality and religion. 
Pelagius must be regarded as the representative of a tendency 
rather than as an originator. 

At Rome he discoursed freely on the most serious subjects, 
laying special stress on austerity and preaching by example 
as much as by what he said. He published a treatise on the 
Trinity and a Liber Capitulorum, a collection of texts similar 
to those of Cyprian and of Priscillian. The first of these works 
is lost ; the second is extant only in fragments ; and in them 
were found later various subjects for censure. We still possess, 

should be noted that Augustine is here addressing himself to Marcellinus, 
who, being a Roman and in touch with pious circles, would know Pelagius 
personally. Paulinus regarded him with affection and counted him among 
his correspondents (Aug. Ep. 1 86, i ; DC gratia Christi, i. 38). 

1 Aug. De gratia Christi, ii. 3. It is impossible to suppose that Rufinus 7 
of Aquileia lived with Pammachius, the intimate friend of Jerome and his 
own opponent. Besides, Rufinus had friends at Rome and on the Caelian 
Hill who would not have allowed him to stay anywhere but with them. It 
is perhaps to this Rufinus of Syria or to his circle that we ought to refer the 
Confession of Faith, at once Pelagianizing and Nestorianizing, which was 
published by Sirmond in 1650 (Migne, P. L. xlviii., p. 451, Haec nostra fides 
est\ cf. torn, xxi., p. 273) under the name of a Rufinus "of Palestine." 

2 Theodore teaches that God wills that His creatures should pass from 
the state of imperfection, of mutability and of mortality, to the state of 
perfection, of immutability and of immortality. These are the two states or 
tc catastases." But God wills also that His creatures should merit the 
change ; and, since they are incapable of this of themselves, Jesus Christ 
performs the meritorious work and applies its effect to men. It is in this 
sense that He is the second Adam. 



p. 207-10] ORIGIN OF PELAGIANISM 147 

complete, a commentary of his on the Epistles of St Paul, a 
work in which his doctrines are even less concealed than " i the 
former but which does not seem to have given greater offeact.* 
Conflict only arose when the thought of the British monk 
clashed with that of Augustine. The latter in his Confessions 
addresses himself to God in these terms : " O Lord, give what 
thou commandest and command what thou wilt. Da quod tubes 
et iube quod vis ! " Pelagius, it was said later, showed himself 
much disturbed by this language. However, no written 
controversy resulted. 2 An oral discussion might have taken 
place when Pelagius landed at Hippo, after his escape from 
Rome in 410. But Augustine was away. Pelagius scarcely 
saw him at Carthage, whither he immediately betook himself. 
The Bishop of Hippo was absorbed at this moment in the 
conference with the Donatists. The monk departed for 
Palestine without any incident having occurred. 

Among the people^ who shared Pelagius opinions was 
speedily distinguished a former advocate named Celestius, a 
celibate by necessity 3 and perhaps by conviction, a man of 

1 Marius Mercator (Couim. 2} indeed tells us that Pelagius had put it out 
for his friends his . . . de quorum amicitia confidebat. It would be rash to 
infer from this statement of an opponent that Pelagius commentary was an 
esoteric work. St Augustine, who often quotes it, never represents it as 
such, and in any case the circle of "friends" of Pelagius was too wide for a 
book intended for them not to be a book for the public of course a special 
public interested in these matters. By a singular chance Pelagius com 
mentary came to us first under the name of St Jerome : we find it printed 
at the end of his works (P. L. torn, xxx., p. 645); but it also circulated, 
especially in Ireland, under the name of the real author, as is shown by the 
texts collected by H. /immer in his book Pelagius in Irland (1901). In 
particular there will be found there the variants of a St Gall MS. (No. 73, 
saec. ix.) which formerly bore, without any disguise, the name of Pelagius, and 
which presents a text void of certain corrections introduced by the pseudo- 
Jerome. Since Zimmer s publication Mr A. Souter has made a notable 
addition to the documentary authority for the Commentary of Pelagius. 
(The Commentary of Pelagius on the Epistles of Paul in vol. ii. of the 
Proceedings of the Britisli Academy, 1907.) 

2 In the Revue Benedictine, vol. xxvi. (1909), p. 163, Dom. G. Morin gives 
a detailed account of a Pelagian treatise, De induratione cordis Phuraonis, 
recovered by himself from the MSS. and intended to be published in the 
Anecdota Marcdsolana. It is possible, as Dom. Morin seems to think, that 
this writing is attributable to Pelagius himself and to the time with which 
we are dealing. Like the Commentary on St Paul, this treatise has been 
preserved to us under the name of St Jerome. 

3 " Eunuchus matris utero editus" (Marius Mercator, Comm, i). 

III. L 



148 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

ardent and adventurous spirit, very ready to put himself 
forward and exceedingly talkative. He lived for some time in 
Rome, in the circle of Pelagius. In the system of Pelagian 
doctrine the part to which he paid more particular attention 
was the question of the original downfall : he expounded it in 
various writings, one of which bearing the name " Against the 
transmission of sin, Contra traducem peccati" or some very 
similar title, is already mentioned by Pelagius in his 
commentary on St Paul. Pelagius, on hrs own part, insisted 
less readily on this point in the common doctrine. Like his 
master, Celestius crossed to Africa about the year 411; but, 
instead of following Pelagius to the East, he settled at Carthage 
and even took some steps to secure his own admission among 
the priests of that Church. Then was the time that he found 
his progress checked. There was living at Carthage, as 
administrator of the African property of the Church of Milan, 1 
a former deacon of St Ambrose, named Paulinus. He had 
little taste for Celestius views, formulated a charge of heresy 
against him, and gained the support of Bishop Aurelius. 
The matter was tried at a local Council in which Augustine 
was not present. 2 Several propositions, 3 drawn more or less 
verbatim from the books of the accused and in any case 
reproducing the genuine basis of his teaching, were decided to 
be inadmissible and heretical, and Celestius was requested to 
retract them. This might have been expected ; for anyone 
who admitted the incriminated propositions directly denied 

1 Praedestinatus, i. 88 (P. L. liii., p. 617). 

2 Of the official record of this Council a fragment only remains to us, in 
St Augustine s De gratia Christi^ ii. 3. 

3 Aug. De Gestis Pelagii, c. 21 ; Marius Mercator, Comm. I. I quote 
the latter, as its order is more natural : 

1. Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, 

moriturus fuisset. 

2. Quoniam peccatum Adae ipsum solum laesit et non genus 

humanum. 

3. Quoniam parvuli qui nascuntur in eo statu sunt in quo fuit Adam 

ante praevaricationem. 

4. Quoniam neque per mortem vel praevaricationem Adae omne genus 

hominum moritur neque per resurrectionem Christi omne hominum 
genus resurgit. 

5. Quoniam lex sic mittit ad regnum caelorum quomodo et Evangelium. 

6. Quoniam et ante adventum Domini fuerunt homines impeccabiles, id 

est sine peccato. 



p. 210-13] VIEWS OF CELESTIUS 149 

the reality of the original Fall and indirectly the necessity 
of Redemption. The special question of sin transmitted by 
heredity was not raised in these propositions, but it formed 
none the less part of the discussion ; for the first time, 1 as it 
would seem, the innovators found themselves confronted with 
an ecclesiastical argument which they had not thought of at 
first and which was to give check to their whole teaching the 
Baptism of Infants. Against this practice, immemorial and 
traditional as it was, there was nothing to urge. But the 
baptism of infants, like that of adults, was considered as involv 
ing remission of sin, in remissionem peccatorum. The sin of 
the new-born not being capable of being a sin of will, must 
necessarily be a sin of nature. This very simple reasoning, 
based on the Symbolum Fidei and on the institutions of the 
Church, established, as against Celestius and his party, not 
only the original downfall, but original sin. Here we can 
eliminate Augustine and his exegesis : had Augustine never 
existed, Pelagianism, once drawn into the light, would have 
been stopped short. 2 

Celestius, without disputing the necessity of Baptism for 
little children, 3 nevertheless refused the retraction which was 
demanded of him. The question of Original Sin was, according 
to him, a question open to controversy and one on which 
people might differ in opinion. The Council excommunicated 
him. He protested and appealed to the Holy See ; and then, 
without following up the appeal, set sail for Ephesus, where 
he succeeded in securing a place for himself in the body of 
priests. 4 

1 Dr Loofs in his learned article "Pelagius und der pelagianisches 
Streit" in Hauck s EncyclopCidie^ xv., p. 754, remarks that in his Commentary 
on St Paul where all his errors have found expression Pelagius says not a 
word about the Baptism of Infants. 

2 This does not mean that obscure points were wanting. What is clear 
is that the institutions of the Church presuppose Original Sin : what is not 
clear is wherein exactly Original Sin consists and what body of evidence 
can be furnished for it by Scripture and the reasoning of theologians. On 
these points the Council of Carthage left a place for a great task which St 
Augustine did but begin and which pursued its course for long centuries. 

3 According to him, without Baptism children could not attain to " the 
Kingdom of Heaven " ; but Baptism did not remit them any sin, nor did 
the omission of it deprive them of " eternal life." 

4 This seems fairly to imply that, like Pelagius, he was well acquainted 
with the Greek language. 



150 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

The leaders of the movement had been transplanted to the 
East; but in the West their ideas had supporters enough to 
make it impossible to consider the matter done with. Even 
at Carthage the Pelagians, to give them at once a name which 
did not become customary till a little later, were a fairly large 
body and exceedingly active. Augustine when apprised of 
the position, entered into the controversy by discussions, by 
sermons, and by writings. 1 Replies were made to him ; the 
authority of the Church of the East was set against that of the 
Council of Carthage ; he was even treated as himself a heretic. 
From Sicily he received grave reports. Doctrines were being 
taught at Syracuse of a similar kind to those which had caused 
disturbance at Carthage. 2 These doctrines presented them 
selves in the guise of edifying discourses, some specimens of 
which have been recovered in recent times. 3 The adversaries 
of Grace and of Original Sin were recruited, as I have already 
said, from the most distinguished ranks of Christian asceticism; 
hence Augustine omits no formality in refuting them. He 
scarcely mentions Celestius by name ; Pelagius and he were 
still in correspondence. 4 It was at this time (c. 414) that 
Pelagius addressed his famous letter to Demetrias. 

Though opposed in Africa, Celestius and Pelagius made 
progress in the East. The one was a member of the clergy 
of Ephesus ; the other, while still remaining a monk, occupied 
at Jerusalem a considerable position. Bishop John, the former 
protector of Rufinus, was still there ; he showed much favour 
to the new-comer, around whom there gathered no doubt some 
who were faithful to the memory of Melania. All this was 
little calculated to give pleasure at Bethlehem. From Jerome s 
point of view it was Rufinus come to life again : a Latin 
confrere established at Jerusalem, powerful through his good 
relations with the Bishop, influential in the Latin society of 
the Holy Places and even in that of Rome, as was shown by 

1 Serin. 170, 174, 176, 290, 294 ; DC Peccatorum Mentis and the De 
Spiritu et Littera, addressed to Marcellinus, the mediator in the conference 
with the Donatists. 

2 Aug. Ep. 156, a letter of Hilary, with Augustine s reply, Ep. 157. 

3 The six letters edited by Caspari, Brief e, Abhandlungen und Predigten 
aus den ziuci letzten Jahrhunderten der kirchlichen Alterthums (Christian ia, 
1890). Cf. supra.) p. 147, note 2. 

4 Ep. 146. 



P. 213-6] JEROME AND OROSIUS 151 

his correspondence- with Demetrias. 1 Rumblings soon began 
to make themselves heard. Pelagius troubled himself little 
about them, and devoted himself to turning with zest the pages 
of the books that Jerome had written in bygone days, before 
his breach with Origen. Jerome now spoke of the Scoti and 
their heavy-lying porridge, of Grunnius and his clumsy 
pupils. 2 Then came his letter to Ctesiphon 3 in which he 
takes Pelagius to task not exactly on the fundamental basis 
of his teaching, but on the assertion that a man can be without 
sin an assertion to which Augustine did not attach any very 
great importance. But it was important in Jerome s eyes, for 
in his view it was allied to the pretension of certain monks like 
the " Origenist " Evagrius who believed that they could arrive 
through asceticism at a state superior to the passions (a-TraOeia). 
Ctesiphon seems to have been the medium of communication 
with a devout and illustrious family (the Probi ?) into which 
Jerome did not wish to see heresy find its way. 

We have now reached the year 415. Jerome was deter 
mined not to confine himself to his letter to Ctesiphon : he was 
working at a second polemical treatise couched in the form of 
a dialogue, though he refrained from mentioning his adversaries 
by name. The position of Pelagius was still strong enough to 
make anyone hesitate to make him personally the object of 
attack. 

In the course of these proceedings there arrived from 
Africa a young Spanish priest, named Orosius, 4 who had 
come to Hippo to consult Augustine about the heresies of his 
own country and had been sent by him to Palestine. The 
ostensible reason was that Orosius might obtain fuller infor 
mation from the learned monk of Bethlehem, and take the 
opportunity at the same time of propounding to him problems 
of theology 5 ; at bottom, as I suspect, it was an effort to 
dislodge Pelagius from a position which made him a source of 
considerable annoyance. 

Augustine at this time was on good terms with Jerome. 

1 See also his letter to Livania (Juliana ?), if it is really his which one 
may doubt (Jerome, Dial. adv. Pelag. iii. 14 f. ; Marius Mercator, Comviem. 
iv. 3 ; Aug. De Gestis Pelagii, 14, 19). 

2 In Jeremiaui) prefaces. 3 Ep. 133. 4 Supra, p. 137. 

5 On the subject of the origin of the soul and on the inequality of sins 
(Jerome, Epp. 131, 132 ; Aug. Epp. 166, 167). 



152 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

He had not always been so. The African Master had early 
felt a desire to enter into communication with the learned 
monk of Palestine. Mishaps to correspondence, letters which 
went astray and then were opened and cast before the eyes of 
the public, at first put Jerome on the defensive. It was in the 
thick of the Origenist quarrel. Augustine, without suspecting 
it, had hit sensitive spots and raised inopportune questions. 1 
He showed too vivid a recollection of the enthusiasm which 
Jerome had displayed for Origen. He did not see why any 
one should be translating the Bible from Hebrew into Latin 
when the faithful were accustomed to the version of the Seventy 
a version invested with such high authority. 2 Such conten 
tions and the round-about ways in which they reached him were 
calculated to irritate Jerome. He thought that Augustine 
was trying (by a method which has not been lost) to make a 
reputation for himself by assailing veteran teachers. Hence 
he began by answering him with extreme brusqueness. But 
Augustine exerted so much good grace in soothing him that 
in the end he succeeded and thenceforward their friendship 
underwent no further change. 3 

At the time of Orosius departure Augustine was engaged 
in the refutation 4 of a new book by the British monk the 
De Natura. This work had been presented to him by two 
young men, Timasius and James, at first pupils of Pelagius, to 
whom they owed their "conversion," and then detached from 
Pelagianism by the counsels of the Bishop of Hippo. In this 
treatise Pelagius had thought fit to adduce in support of 
himself certain ecclesiastical authors : he was to be seen citing 
Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, and an unexpected touch 
Jerome and Augustine himself. It is always tempting to bring 

1 Jerome, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, following 
Origen and other Greek doctors, had offered a curious explanation of the 
remonstrances made by St Paul to St Peter. According to him, the two 
Apostles had made use of dissimulation, played a sort of comedy, when 
they were both fundamentally in agreement. Augustine, who was extremely 
scrupulous on the subject of lying, had no kind of taste for this exegesis and 
made no attempt to conceal the fact from Jerome. 

2 Augustine, of course, believed the legend of the seventy versions made 
in isolation and identical. 

3 Jerome, Epp. 67, 101-105, 110-112, 115, 116. 

4 By his De Natura et Gratia. To this same time belongs the De 
Perfectione Justitia. 



p. 216-9] OROSIUS AND PELAGIUS 153 

up against one s opponents their own opinions of former days 
and thus to put them in contradiction with themselves : there is 
nothing they dislike more. But it is a dangerous game. 

Augustine s emissary was more zealous than adroit. 
Stimulated no doubt by the aged Jerome, he set himself to 
attack Pelagius with so much vigour and to make such a noise 
about the African decisions as to secure a summons from the 
Bishop to a meeting of the clergy. 1 There he repeated his 
contentions, and invoked the authority of Jerome, Augustine, 
and the Council of Carthage. Pelagius when invited to defend 
himself declared and in this he was upheld by Bishop John 
that these African controversies were no concern of his. As 
he was pressed on the possibility of living without sin, he 
declared that one could not attain to this " without the aid of 
God." 2 This discussion led to no practical result a conclusion 
rendered the more certain by the fact that Orosius, not under 
standing Greek, was obliged to avail himself of an interpreter, 
and an interpreter whom he had ground for regarding with 
distrust. The Bishop asked him if he offered himself as accuser 
of Pelagius. He refused to do so : John seemed to him a judge 
on whom little reliance was to be placed. It was agreed that 
as the dispute was between Latins the best thing to do was 
to carry it before Pope Innocent, to abide by his decision, 
and for both parties meanwhile to abstain from any kind of 
invective. 

This undertaking was not respected. At the Dedication 
Festival (September 14), Orosius on being admitted to the 
Bishop s presence to offer congratulations found himself the 
object of reproaches for making incorrect statements. Unable 
to restrain himself he drew up, clearly with Jerome s assistance, 
a long protest addressed to the priests of Jerusalem in which 
John and Pelagius were taken to task with a good deal 

1 For this assembly, which took place on July 29 or 30, 415, see the 
Liber Apologeticus of Orosius, a much biassed work, naturally ; cf. Aug. 
De Gestis Pelagii, 37. 

- In all this Pelagius was much lacking in sincerity. Undoubtedly the 
sentence of the Council of Carthage referred directly only to Celestfus, and 
he himself had not yet been attacked by name by Augustine. But it is 
abundantly clear that he had been hit both by the Council and by the 
arguments of the Bishop of Hippo. As for his recognition of "the aid of 
God" it was already known that by that he meant something quite different 
from the meaning of the general body of Christians. 



154 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

of spirit. In the course of these proceedings two bishops of 
Southern Gaul, Heros of Aries and Lazarus of Aix, who had 
been driven from their sees by political revolutions 1 and had 
sought refuge in the Eastern Empire arrived in Palestine. 
There they came into contact with Orosius and above all with 
Jerome, for it is no rash conjecture that this whole campaign 
against Pelagius was directed from Bethlehem. They were 
persuaded to lay a formal complaint, not before the Bishop of 
Jerusalem but before the Metropolitan 2 and his Council, a 
higher court and one less open to the suspicion of partiality. 
The complaint was received and the Council met at Diospolis 
(Lydda) in the month of December 415. But, as one of the 
two bishops was ill, neither of them appeared. The case was 
tried without them, the controversy being waged between the 
accused and the bill of accusation. 3 The course of the 
proceedings closely resembled those at Jerusalem. There 
were cited against Pelagius various assertions drawn in some 
cases from his works, in others from those of Celestius. To the 
one set he returned explanations of a subtle kind, calculated 
to impose upon prelates who had little familiarity with this 
controversy ; for the other he declined all responsibility. 
However an avowal was obtained from him that he anathema 
tized those who should maintain or had maintained the 
propositions condemned at Carthage. 4 If this did not involve 
a repudiation of the doctrines of Celestius and of his own, it 
was an inexcusable prevarication, a lie. 5 

The Council was satisfied with these explanations and 
declared Pelagius acquitted. It is plain that to the ears of 
this assembly the questions of Grace and of the original Fall were 
subjects of some novelty. Besides, the side of the accusers 
having made default, it was not possible for Pelagius to 
be closely pressed as he would have been by people versed 
in the subject. If Jerome, instead of remaining in the back- 

1 Supra, pp. no, 117. 2 Eulogius, Bishop of Caesarea. 

3 St Augustine, through his De Gestis Pelagii, gives us very copious 
information as to the course of this affair. 

4 " Ad satisfactionem sanctae synodi anathematizo eos qui sic tenent aut 
aliquando tenuerunt." 

5 There is no substance in the contention that as the propositions 
condemned at Carthage did not perhaps reproduce in terms the text of 
Celestius (Loofs, op. cit.^ p. 764), Pelagius could repudiate them without 
disavowing his disciple. This would be altogether too great a refinement. 



p. 219-22] THE COUNCIL OF DIOSPOLIS 155 

ground and pushing others to the front, had taken up the 
accusation abandoned by the two bishops, there is reason to 
think that the matter would have taken a different turn. From 
the acquittal of Pelagius one could not, it is true, infer that 
the episcopate of Palestine accepted his views. But it is not 
less plain that the decision of Diospolis was of a kind to 
produce a considerable effect and to give serious cause of 
annoyance alike to the African bishops and to the other 
opponents of Pelagius. 

Jerome had published, shortly before the Council, his 
dialogue against the Pelagians, an evidence of his aversion to 
Pelagius and his doctrine and at the same time of his lack of 
acquaintance with the theology of Augustine. His commen 
taries on Ezekiel and on Jeremiah, on which he was at that 
time engaged and which he was publishing in instalments, are 
filled with observations disagreeable to his new opponents and 
to Bishop John. Against the latter he brought up stories half 
a century old his compromises (in company with Cyril) with 
the "Arians": he alleges that if John had abandoned these 
people it was in opposition to his inclination, in order to be 
able to become a bishop and to roll in luxury ; if from the 
eminence of his episcopal throne he opens his mouth, it is 
to give vent to absurd remarks couched in an impossible 
style. 1 

A method of polemic which had risen to those heights 
was liable to provoke unpleasant consequences for the author 
of so many invectives. John was tired of being insulted. 
After all it was he who was at Jerusalem the lawful authority : 
no one could call in question his right of repressing the 
excesses of the monks established in his diocese. The worst 
of it is that the measures adopted for the purpose were 
associated with considerable disturbances. It would be 
impossible to say exactly how far the Bishop s responsibility 
was concerned in this. But the fact remains that the Latin 
monasteries of Bethlehem found themselves assailed by a band 
of disorderly persons ; the monks and nuns were violently 
beaten ; the buildings were set on fire ; Jerome, Eustochium, 
and the youthful Paula found refuge only with great difficulty 

1 In Ezech. xiv. (xlviii. 10). It was perhaps at this time that the book 
written against John in 399 (supra, p. 34) emerged from Jerome s drawers 
and was put in circulation. 



156 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

in a tower : it was a grave blow. I do not know whether 
in his hour of trouble Jerome called to mind the formal 
eulogies which he had passed a little while before on the 
Patriarch Theophilus for having treated the monks of Nitria 
as he had just been treated himself. This time it was on 
him that the blows fell ; instead of applauding he uttered 
complaints. 

But to whom should he address his complaint? To the 
Pope that was the natural course. But Pope Innocent, the 
unyielding defender of Chrysostom, could not have forgotten 
with what unbridled vehemence of expression Jerome had 
espoused against the poor Bishop of Constantinople the 
campaign of his persecutor Theophilus. The aged recluse 
made up his mind that the two patrician virgins, Eustochium 
and Paula, should write at the same time as himself and that 
the letters should be conveyed through the hands of the 
Bishop of Carthage. By the same medium Innocent replied 
that he was quite ready to undertake his defence provided 
that he laid a formal accusation and named the authors of the 
outrage. As a further measure of precaution he wrote to 
John of Jerusalem a letter of considerable severity, reproaching 
him for a lack, to put it at the lowest, of vigilance. 1 While this 
exchange of letters was going on, Jerome and Pelagius were 
compelled to remove to a distance from one another, no doubt 
by the advice, backed by authority, of persons who were 
concerned in the restoration of order. Jerome lost no time 
in comparing the departure of Pelagius to the flight of 
Catiline : as for his own he explained it by the difficulty of 
sustaining a controversy with people whose reply to cutting 
speeches was a cutting blade, and also by the horror with 
which he regarded Bishop John and communion with him. 2 
The separation of the two adversaries did not long continue : 
we shall soon find them again, the one in his restored 
monastery, the other in the entourage of the Bishop of 
Jerusalem. 

However, Augustine and his friends were in a great state 
of anxiety. Orosius brought news from Palestine, letters of 
Heros and Lazarus, and information as to the Council of 

1 Jaffa, Regesia, 325-32? (Jerome, Epp. 135-13?). 

2 Ep. 138 Ad Riparium y a letter difficult of interpretation ; I give here 
what I take it to mean. 



p. 222-5] APPEAL TO POPE INNOCENT 157 

Diospolis. The East, to which such frequent appeal was 
made at Carthage by Pelagius supporters, was in fact declaring 
itself on their side, no longer merely by allowing complete 
liberty to the leaders of the movement but by a conciliar 
decision arrived at after an examination of their statements. 
There> whatever one might say at Carthage or at Hippo, Pelagius 
was not regarded as a heretic. Orosius had no doubt reported 
the view taken by Jerome, who, in unceremonious language, 
treated 1 the assembly of the Bishops of Palestine as a 
" miserable synod." But the great name of Jerusalem was 
likely to make an impression upon the public. It was 
important to set another in opposition to it, and thoughts at 
once turned in the direction of Rome. 

Hitherto the idea had not been entertained. It was well 
known that Pelagius possessed a number of supporters at 
Rome, and that even among the highest ranks of the clergy. 
Two dignitaries, Zosimus the future successor of Innocent, 
and the priest Xystus, who himself also became Pope, were 
according to report well disposed towards the British monk. 
People even went so far as to allege that Pope Innocent had 
allowed himself to be won over. 2 In spite of these reports 
the Africans were not without hope of getting the Roman 
Church on their side. Two provincial Councils, one held at 
Carthage for Proconsular Africa, the other at Milevum for 
Numidia, wrote to the Pope urging that the new doctrines 
were in contradiction with the use of prayer and that of the 
baptism of infants. To the letter of the Council of Carthage 
was attached the one just received from Heros and Lazarus, and 
also the official record of the trial of Celestius in 411. A 
third letter of much greater length, written in the name of 
Aurelius, Augustine, and three other bishops personally known 
to the Pope, explained to him the principal heads of the 
dispute, and showed him the necessity of a condemnation. 

Innocent replied to these three letters, congratulating the 
Africans on having addressed themselves to the Apostolic See 
and accepting their doctrinal judgement on the necessity of 
Grace. 3 So far as persons were concerned he held that 
Pelagius and Celestius were sufficiently compromised by their 

1 Ep. 143. 

2 Possidius, Vita Augustini^ 18 ; cf. Aug. Ep. 177, 2. 

3 Original Sin is not dealt with in this correspondence. 



158 PELAGIUS [CH. vi. 

teaching to deserve exclusion from communion till they came 
to a better mind. 1 

Innocent s letters are dated January 27, 417. Their arrival 
caused great joy in Africa. In Augustine s eyes the whole 
question was already settled. " In regard to this matter," 
he says in one of his sermons, 2 "two Councils have been 
referred to the Apostolic See : the replies have arrived. The 
cause is finished, may the same be equally true of the error." 
The error was not nearly eradicated, and as for the matter it 
was to take quite a different turn from that which the Bishop 
of Hippo had wished. 

All these proceedings had taken place without any very 
clear information in the West as to the Synod of Diospolis. 
No one had at first troubled himself to procure its Acts. 
Pelagius, it is true, had addressed a summary of them to 
Augustine and to the Pope, 3 but without a covering letter. 
Augustine wrote to the Bishop of Jerusalem, and either 
through him or in some other way succeeded in procuring the 
complete text, which enabled him to ascertain that if the 
Palestinian prelates had acquitted Pelagius, they had in no 
sense approved of his teaching but rather had condemned it. 
It was to enforce this view that he wrote his De Gestis Pelagii. 

1 All these letters appear in the correspondence of St Augustine, the 
African letters under the numbers 175, 176, 177 ; the Roman ones (Jaffe, 
Regesta, 321, 322, 323) under the numbers 181, 182, 183. 

2 Serm. 131, 10. Such is the authentic form of the maxim Roma locuta 
est, causa finita esf. 

3 This is, I think, the text mentioned by Innocent in his letter to the 
five bishops, c. 3. 



CHAPTER VII 

POPE ZOSIMUS 

INNOCENT S replies preceded by only a short interval in Africa 
the news of his death (March 12, 417) and of his replacement 
by Zosimus (March 18). This change of persons was big with 
difficulties. 

For a considerable period the Roman Church had been 
living at peace under the direction of pontiffs of moderate 
and equable views. The great conflict of the day the 
struggle between the religion of the ordinary man and the 
strict observance does not seem to have troubled it unduly. 
Monks were not lacking in Rome nor, as we have already 
seen, persons of austere life. But the traditional practice 
was, that while favour was shown to individual efforts after 
a higher degree of perfection, neither the attainment of this 
perfection nor the quest of it was regarded as a special title to 
the government of the Church. Professed monks were even 
excluded from the clergy : the highest ranks of the army of the 
Church were recruited from those below, and these in turn from 
noviciates of a more or less professional type. The result of 
this was a hierarchy representing a progressive career, a system 
calculated in a marked degree to maintain uniformity in 
government. The Pope changed, the guiding power remained 
the same. Of course some differences were inevitable : Pope 
Anastasius had exhibited, in regard to Rufinus, less goodwill 
than his predecessor Siricius and his successor Innocent. But 
that was a matter of no moment. Zosimus, on his part, 
represents a real anomaly. The impression derived from his 
short pontificate is that of a series of undertakings of scanty 
wisdom and of efforts which failed. 

Of the antecedents of this Pope we know absolutely nothing 1 ; 

1 We do not know whether before his election he was priest or deacon. 
The Liber Pontificalis makes him a Greek, and assigns to him as father a 

159 



160 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vii. 

but it is not without regret that we find him from the outset in 
intimate relations with a personage who lay open to considerable 
suspicion, and subject to his influence. This was Patroclus, the 
new Bishop of Aries. At Aries he occupied the see of a bishop 
who was still alive, who had not been removed by any ecclesi 
astical sentence, and could not be so removed because the only 
reproach that could be brought against him was his endeavours 
to save the life of the unfortunate Constantine III. But in 
attempting to snatch this victim from his hands Heros had 
incurred the enmity of the victorious general, Constantius ; 
and Constantius had got rid of him without the formality 
of a trial. In accepting a succession of this kind Patroclus 
gave an indication of his moral worth. 1 

It must be admitted that the position of Bishop of Aries in 
the circumstances in which it presented itself to him was one of 
the most attractive kind. Aries had conquered its conqueror : 
he never ceased to load it with privileges. He had made it the 
base of the operations of the Empire on the far side of the Alps, 
the headquarters of a kind of lieutenancy with which he had 
been invested by the confidence of Honorius. Constantius 
himself gained in importance every day, and it was no slight 
advantage to be in his good graces. His successes against 
the Goths and against the usurpers Constantine, Jovinus, and 
Attalus gave him the character of Saviour of the Empire. On 
January i of this year 417, at the same time that he inaugurated 
his second consulate, he celebrated his nuptials with Galla 
Placidia, who had been at last surrendered by the Goths. He 
was plainly on the road to the highest rank of all : already with 
such a sovereign as his brother-in-law he possessed all the 
reality of power. 

certain Abraham, a name that has very little that is Hellenic about it. In 
spite of the remarks of Harnack {Sitzungsbcrichte of the Berlin Academy, 
1904, p. 1044) I could not regard as available for use, for the time with 
which we are dealing, the indications given by the Liber Pontificalis as to 
the family and country of the Popes. 

1 In regard to this and to what follows see my Pastes fyiscopaux de 
Pancienne Gaule, vol. i., pp. 95 fif. It appears that in those times when a 
bishop was removed from his see by a capital sentence (death, exile, 
relegation), or by an equivalent measure emanating from the secular authority, 
the see was considered as vacant. It was in these circumstances that the 
Roman Church replaced in the 3rd century Pontianus by Anteros, in the 
6th century Silverius by Vigilius, in the 7th Martin by Eugenius. 



p. 228-31] PATROCLUS OF ARLES 161 

Patroclus, his favourite, was at Rome at the time of the 
election of Zosimus. Had he some influence in the choice of 
the new Pope? We do not know. However that may be, 
Zosimus immediately on his election hastened to heap favours 
upon him, and to satisfy all his desires. The solemnities of the 
Easter festival were beginning. Patroclus, one would suppose, 
might have waited for their close. He did not do so. On 
Holy Thursday, March 22, there was handed to him a pontifical 
letter by which the highest privileges were assigned to the 
Bishop of Aries. In the first place he was provided with 
a metropolitical jurisdiction which, without regard to 
established rights, comprised all the provinces of the ancient 
Narbonensis and the Maritime Alps, from Toulouse to 
Embrun, from Lake Leman to the Mediterranean. Further 
he was constituted Vicar of the Pope throughout the whole 
extent of the Gauls, a position corresponding almost exactly 
to that occupied by the Bishop of Thessalonica in Illyricum, 
and was entrusted with the delivery to the bishops of these 
countries of the letters without which they could not present 
themselves in Rome. 

These innovations, for there is no doubt that they were 
innovations, were grounded on the merits of Patroclus, on the 
allegation of an earlier tradition, and on the assumption not 
less open to dispute that the Church of Aries, founded by 
Trophimus an emissary of the Holy See, was the Mother- 
Church from which Christianity had spread throughout the 
whole of Gaul. 

Notified in an imperious tone to the bishops concerned, 
these decisions of Pope Zosimus did not fail to evoke protests. 
The system of ecclesiastical metropolises had scarcely introduced 
itself into Gaul. There were, however, some established posi 
tions : the Bishops of Vienne l and of Narbonne whose cities 
were civil metropolises, the Bishop of Marseilles to whom custom 
assigned a pre-eminence over the Bishops of Narbonensis 
Secunda, saw themselves disturbed in their possession. Their 
protests were ill-received : Hilary of Narbonne, who wrote to 
Rome, was roughly repelled 2 ; Proculus of Marseilles, who 

1 Already at the Council of Turin (c. 400 A.D.) the Bishops of Vienne 
and of Aries are in conflict for the metropolitical jurisdiction over the 
Provincia Viennensis. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 332. 



162 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vn. 

seems to have troubled himself neither about Patroclus nor his 
privileges, at length received a sentence of deposition which, 
however, was not carried into effect 1 Zosimus saw only with 
the eyes of the Bishop of Aries ; anything which could oppose 
the schemes of Patroclus was ruled out, and according to him 
was inspired by the most serious insubordination. 

Being thus infatuated with Patroclus, Zosimus could not 
entertain any very kindly feelings for Heros, his evicted pre 
decessor : he had also been set against Lazarus. 2 In the 
religious conflicts and in the political vicissitudes of Gaul 
the two former Bishops of Aix and of Aries had always 
acted in common. Exile had separated them neither in 
body nor in spirit. Together they had come to Palestine ; 
together they had taken action against Pelagius. Patroclus 
alleged that they had voluntarily abandoned their churches, 
and secured their exclusion from communion with Rome. 
In such circumstances these personages were scarcely 
suited to commend to the new Pope the doctrines of 
St Augustine. It was not long before the fact was 
perceived. 

The condemnations pronounced by Innocent placed 
Celestius and Pelagius in an awkward position. However 
they did not regard the situation as desperate. Celestius 
seems, just recently, to have had difficulties at Ephesus. He 
betook himself to Constantinople, where Atticus the Bishop 3 
did not allow him to remain. Reassured no doubt by the 
death of Pope Innocent and by the estimate he could form of 
his successor, he had speedily taken steps to present himself 
in person and to hand to the new Pope a profession of faith 
in which he had not failed to declare his complete submission 
to the judgement of the Holy See. Zosimus interested himself 
on his behalf. In the course of the summer he held in San 
Clemente a solemn hearing at which Celestius appeared, and 
was examined. 4 When asked to condemn the assertions for 

1 Jafife, Rcgcsta, 340, 341. 

2 Op.cit. 329, 330, 331. 

3 Marius Mercator, Comm. i. 3, adduces on this subject letters sent by 
Atticus to Asia (Ephesus), to Thessalonica and to Carthage. There was 
no question of Rome : relations, ruptured on the subject of Chrysostom, 
had not yet been re-established. 

4 We no longer possess the formal record of this hearing. It is known 
from what the Pope says of it in the letter which he sent immediately 



p. 231-4] CELESTIUS AT ROME 163 

which Paulinus had accused him at Carthage in 411, he refused. 
However he accepted the teaching expressed in the letters of 
Pope Innocent, and nothing but what was worthy of praise was 
found in his profession of faith as well as in a declaration by 
which, at Carthage in 411, he had recognized the necessity of 
baptism for infants. 1 As for the accusations of Heros and 
Lazarus he declared that those persons had not even known him 
by sight at the time when they were writing to denounce him ; 
Heros, subsequently, had made him apologies. The impression 
made by all this upon the Pope and those about him was 
that the Africans had been precipitate in their action, that 
the same was true of his predecessor Innocent, and that they 
had certainly given too much credence to people like Heros 
and Lazarus. He wrote forthwith to Africa 2 to communicate 
his impression and to invite those who might have anything to 
say against Celestius to present themselves two months later. 3 

At Jerusalem Bishop John had died almost at the same 
time as Pope Innocent. The death of the latter was not 
yet known in Palestine when the new bishop, Praylius, and 
Pelagius, both it would seem aware of the condemnation 
passed upon Pelagius, thought it advisable to write to Rome. 
Their correspondence, addressed to Innocent, only came into 
the hands of Zosimus after the meeting in San Clemente. 
Besides a profession of faith 4 it contained the four books of 
a treatise on Free Will which had only just been composed 
by Pelagius. 5 Zosimus called another meeting of the clergy 
and caused the two letters as well as the other writings to 
be read. The treatise on Free Will, without disguising the 
doctrine of Pelagius, at any rate for practised eyes, tempered 
it by concessions which were only apparently such and 

afterwards to Africa (Jaffe, op. cit. 329), from the libelhts of the deacon 
Paulinus (P. L. xlv., p. 1724), and from various writings of St Augustine, 
especially the De Peccato Originate^ 5-8 ; cf. P. L. xlviii., p. 498. 

1 Aug. Ep. 157, 22. 

2 Jaffe, op. cit. 329 ; Coll. AvclL 45. 

:; Towards the end of this letter the Pope censures indiscreet enquiries 
and discussions, and recalls without mention of name the mishap which 
had recently befallen Origen and his writings. I am much afraid that 
here there was an indirect warning addressed to Augustine. 

4 The text is in the Supplement to St Augustine, vol. x. (P. L. xlv., 
p. 1716 ; cf. torn, xlviii., p. 488). 

5 Aug. DC Gratia Christi, 45 ; cf. 32, 35, 36 ; DC Peccato Orig. 19, 24. 

III. M 



164 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vii. 

purely formal. The author had well calculated his effects : 
the Roman Synod manifested its joy at hearing statements 
so orthodox, and almost shed tears at the thought that such 
people could have been maligned. This, at any rate, is what 
Zosimus told the Africans in a new letter 1 in which Pelagius 
is the subject of high encomiums, whilst his opponents, Heros 
and Lazarus, Timasius and James, meet with very rough 
treatment. 

This sudden change in feelings at Rome seems to have 
been foreseen by the Africans. Alarming reports had reached 
them in regard to the new Pope, and this caused them to 
be anxious. They communicated on the subject with the 
saint of Nola, a friend of Pelagius, and endeavoured by an 
urgent appeal to retain him on their side. 2 This move was 
not ill-timed, for already there was talk of the Pelagians of 
Nola Pelagians of so determined a kind that they declared 
themselves ready to abandon Pelagius, if he should chance to 
retract his teaching. 

At the beginning of November there arrived at Carthage 
the letter in which Zosimus showed himself inclined to 
pronounce the innocence of Celestius. By the messenger, 
a sub-deacon named Basiliscus, the Pope had sent a summons 
to the deacon Paulinus, 3 Celestius former accuser, to appear 
and sustain his accusation before the Roman tribunal. Paulinus 
declined this invitation, declaring that from the official account 
of the hearing at San Clemente it seemed to him to follow 
that the Pope was entirely of the same opinion as himself, 
and that as Celestius had allowed so much time to elapse 
since his appeal, the proceedings no longer concerned his 
opponent of 411. This refusal was more adroit than respectful: 
Paulinus obviously mistrusted a judge so strongly prejudiced 
in favour of his adversary. 

Archbishop Aurelius, on his side, quickly collected a certain 
number of bishops to deal with the situation. From this 
council Zosimus n ^ived in the course of the winter a very 

1 Jaffe, op. cit. 330, of September 21 (Coll. Avell. 46). 

2 Ep. 1 86. The concluding phrase, Quae autem et de quibus audiverimtts, 
can scarcely refer to anyone but the Pope and his entourage. One could 
not explain such mysteriousness in reference to Julian of Eclanum or some 
other person of minor importance. 

3 The notice of summons reached Paulinus on November 2, 417 : his 
reply is dated November 8 (Coll. Avell. 47). 



p. 234-6] THE POPE AND CELESTIUS 165 

long letter 1 in which he was reproached with having allowed 
himself to be deceived by heretics, with having accepted 
without qualification the formulary of Celestius, and with 
having thought that a vague adhesion to the letters of 
Innocent was sufficient to relieve from proceedings defendants 
of deeply subtle minds. This document, in combination no 
doubt with other pieces of information, gave pause to the 
Pope: in a letter, 2 dated March 21, he replied to the Africans 
in quite a different tone from that in which he had written 
to them six months earlier. After a long exordium on the 
authority of his see, he said that as regarded a final decision 
he had not desired to do anything without consultation with 
the bishops of Africa, as was proved by his letter in reference 
to Celestius ; that he could not repel without a hearing a man 
who was appealing to his justice; and lastly that matters 
were still in the same position, no sentence having been 
pronounced. 3 

The Pope s reply arrived at Carthage on April 29, 418, 
on the eve of a great Council summoned for May i. Its 
meeting, which had no doubt been announced to Zosimus, 
may well have deterred him from taking any precipitate action. 
All the African provinces and even Spain, by which is meant, 
I suppose, Mauritania Tingitana, sent representatives. The 
attendance was more numerous than in ordinary general 
councils : to those, provinces in which the meeting was not 
being held sent only two or three delegates; in 418 as 
many bishops came as could be gathered together ; they 
reached the number of 214. The Council began by formulating 
in nine canons 4 the Catholic doctrine on Original Sin and 

1 This is lost ; but it is described in the Pope s reply, and also in 
Augustine, Contra duas Rpp. Pelagianorwn, ii. 5. 

2 In this letter, and it would seem in that to which it was a reply, there 
is no question of any one except Celestius. The matter of Pelagius must 
have given rise to another correspondence of which we only possess a 
single item, Zosimus letter of September 21, 417. 

3 Jaffe, op. cit. 342 ; Coll. A-uell. 50. 

4 See Quesnel s Collection (ed. Ballerini) in Migne, P. L. Ivi., 
p. 486. One of these canons, the third, in which the opinion is censured 
that infants dying without Baptism occupy in the other world a place 
intermediate between Heaven and Hell, is wanting in several of the 
collections of canons in which the text of this Council has come down 
to us. This suppression is a deliberate one, for the canon is certainly 
authentic. 



166 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vn. 

the necessity of Grace ; these canons were despatched to the 
Pope with a letter 1 in which the question of persons was 
set on one side. 2 

After this the Council broke up, not however without 
establishing a permanent committee, with a view evidently of 
waiting for the effect of the manifesto and of dealing with 
difficulties which might arise. In this delegacy Alypius and 
Augustine represented Numidia : the Bishop of Hippo, it is 
plain, was the soul of the whole movement. 

But it was not only the result of their Council that the 
Africans were awaiting. The unhappy Zosimus was checked 
from another quarter. Letters written to Ravenna had secured 3 
the intervention of the Government in this theological matter. 
On April 30, at the moment when the Council was assembling, 

1 Fragments in Prosper, Contra Collatorern 5, noting that the two phrases 
Rrraverunt africana episcoporuin concilia . . . and Erraverunt ccxiv. 
sacerdotes relate to the same Council and that the one in question. 

2 In his Epistle 215 Augustine enumerates the documents thus : "Quod 
papae Zosimo de Africano concilio scriptum est, eiusque rescriptum ad 
universes totius orbis episcopos, et quod posteriori concilio plenario totius 
Africae contra ipsum errorem breviter constituimus." I think that the 
word " posteriori " refers only to the order of the two councils here 
mentioned, the first simply African (of Proconsular Africa) that of the 
winter 417-418; the other the plenary council of all Africa, that of 
May i, 418 ; and that the Tractoria of Zosimus here mentioned between 
the two is not in its chronological order. Augustine in enumerating the 
two definitive documents puts first the more authoritative that of 
the Pope. 

3 The Pelagians did not lose the opportunity, subsequently, of com 
menting upon the means employed : Matronaruui oblatis haereditatibus 
potestates saeculi corrupistis (Aug. Opus linperfectuui, iii. 35). That the 
rescript had been procured by Aurelius and his party admits of no doubt. 
Honorius himself recalls the fact to Aurelius in a letter belonging to the 
following year (P. /,. Ivi., p. 493) ; cf. the title of the rescript of 418 in 
Quesnel s Collection (ibid. p. 490), Rescriptum acccptis synodi suprascriptae 
(Africanae) gestis. But it is plain that here we must understand a different 
assembly from that of May I no doubt the one referred to above, to which 
Zosimus replied on March 21. Perhaps what is meant is simply a step 
taken by Aurelius, apart from any meeting of a council, in the name of the 
group (sy nodus) of his colleagues. 

Some astonishment might be felt that the influence of the Patrician 
Constantius should not have done more effectual service to Pelagius and 
Zosimus ; but this influence was not the only one which made itself felt on 
Honorius. His sister, Galla Placidia, counted for something : I should be 
inclined to think that use was made of her in this business. 



P. 237-9] THE STATE AND PELAGIANISM 167 

there appeared an imperial rescript addressed to the Praetorian 
Prefects, together with an edict from the latter, 1 setting forth 
that false doctrines on the origin of man were propagated at 
Rome and elsewhere by Pelagius 2 and Celestius, that the peace 
of the Eternal City was disturbed 3 by the disputes which had 
been caused on this subject, and that it was necessary to deal 
with the matter. In consequence, Pelagius and Celestius must 
be expelled from Rome ; as for people who should uphold their 
views any one might accuse them and invoke against them 
confiscation and exile. 

It was too harsh a step. The African Episcopate might 
well have acted with less precipitation, have permitted religious 
arguments to acton Pope Zosimus instead of hurling gendarmerie 
across the deliberations of the Roman Church. This brought 
them unpopularity, and with reason. 

For the moment there was nothing to be done but to 
comply. Zosimus had a long document drawn up and 
addressed to all the bishops. In it he pronounced the 
condemnation of Pelagius, of Celestius and of their doctrines. 4 
This is what is called his Tractoria. It has not been preserved, 
so that we cannot judge of the touches by which he did not fail 
to harmonize his two successive attitudes, nor and this would 
be more interesting of the extent to which he adopted 
the opinions of Augustine. The latter, when once success had 
been attained and the Pope brought over more or less willingly 
and more or less completely to his views, devoted himself in 
his discourses and in his books to toning down any disturbing 
features that there might have been at certain moments in the 
attitude of Rome. We find him even pressed into the Pope s 
service. It was in execution of a commission received from 

1 These two documents are known to us from Quesnel s Collection, c. 14, 
1 5 (P. L. Ivi., p. 490, 492). 

2 Pelagius was only in Rome from the point of view of the Executive : 
he had not left the East. 

3 In his Chronicle (ad ann. 418) Prosper speaks of a Constantius Scruus 
Christi, a former vicarius, who had retired to Rome where he had suffered 
a good deal from attacks by the Pelagians. Cf. Prczdestinatus, i. 88 
(Migne, P. L. liii., p. 618). 

4 The proper order of the official documents, Imperial letters, Pontifical 
letters, African Councils in this phase of the affair has given rise to much 
discussion. See especially Quesnel s Thirteenth Dissertation with the 
Ballerini s apologetic comments (Migne, P. L. Ivi., p. 959). 



168 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vii. 

Zosimus that he went, in this same year 418, to the Mauritanian 
Csesarea, where he had so remarkable a meeting with the 
Donatist bishop, Emeritus. 1 But the task was not finished 
when he had set the Pope on his own side and had obtained for 
orthodoxy thus established the protection of the laws : it was 
still necessary to convince men s minds. To this Augustine 
gave himself with zest. His correspondence at this time is 
packed with explanations on Grace, Free Will, and Original 
Sin. We have seen what pains he had taken to furnish 
information to St Paulinus of Nola. He did the same with 
Dardanus, the Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, with Optatus, 
the Bishop of Biskra, with Pelagius 1 former friends, Anicia 
Juliana and her daughter Demetrias, and finally with the pious 
family of the Caelian Hill, who were now transplanted to 
Palestine Albina, Pinianus, and the younger Melania. 
Pelagius had crossed the path of these devout people: they 
had conversed together : the monk had talked to them in the 
most edifying way, veiling as was his wont under the ordinary 
language of the Church anything in his opinions that might 
have given offence. His friends, in astonishment at the 
opposition he encountered, had addressed themselves to 
Augustine who, in order to explain to them the situation, 
wrote his books on " The Grace of Christ" and on "Original 
Sin." The letter of Pinianus preceded the catastrophe : the 
reply only came afterwards. During this time Pelagius, 
brought before a new Council, on this occasion held under 
the presidency of Theodotus, the Bishop of Antioch, was 
definitely excluded from the Holy Places. Theodotus and 
Praylius, his brother of Jerusalem, communicated the fact to 
the Pope. 2 This is the last that we hear of the British 
monk. 

Celestius was still at Rome at the moment when the 
storm burst. When Zosimus, having turned round and 
made up his mind to condemn him, wished to secure his 
appearance, Celestius had already vanished. His supporters 
among the laity offered some resistance; but the clergy 
followed the Pope in his change of attitude. There had 
been much talk about the priest Xystus who seems to have 
occupied a very prominent position in the guidance of the 
1 Supra, p. 101. 2 Marius Mercator, Comm. iii. 5. 



P. 239-42] PELAGIUS, CELESTIUS, APIARIUS 169 

party. 1 He made haste to reassure the Africans, wrote to 
the Bishops of Carthage and of Hippo, and gave them the 
most satisfactory assurances. 2 

We can imagine whether such proceedings were pleasant to 
the dignitaries of Rome and the feelings that they must have 
entertained towards this African Episcopate from which they 
received such painful affronts. Besides we are not reduced to 
conjecture. The ill humour of Zosimus expressed itself in 
measures of much significance. A Council of Byzacena having 
to try a bishop in regard to matters in which the public 
finances were concerned, thought fit to take as assessors, in the 
capacity of experts, some Receivers of Taxes : the case was 
tried before them and the bishop was condemned. Tne latter, 
instead of appealing from them to the plenary Council of 
Africa as the legislation of the country required, betook himself 
to Rome with his complaint and obtained a letter in which 
the bishops of Byzacena are soundly trounced. 3 We do not 
know what came of this business. But immediately after 
wards another cropped up which was to make a widespread 
sensation. 

There was at Sicca Veneria (El Kef) a priest called 
Apiarius, a man of very indifferent character, who was a 
source of much trouble to his bishop. The latter, Urbanus, 
had been a priest at Hippo : he was one of Augustine s best 
pupils. It had been necessary to excommunicate Apiarius. 
He did not accept this sentence; but, like the Byzacene bishop, 
instead of appealing to the African jurisdictions went straight 
to Rome to lay a complaint against Bishop Urbanus. 

African Canon Law did not allow these references to 
transmarine jurisdictions. 4 This does not mean that judicial 
guarantees were lacking in it. For the trial of a grave charge 
against a bishop it was necessary to collect twelve of his 
colleagues ; six were required if a priest were involved ; three in 
the case of a deacon. 5 From this first tribunal an appeal was 
allowed to the council of the province presided over by the 

" Qui eorumdem inimicorum magni momenti patronus ante iactabatur " 
(Aug. Ep. 91). 

2 Aug. Epp. or, 94. 

3 Jaffe, op. cit. 346 (November 16, 418), the only document that we 
possess in regard to this dispute. 

* Cod. Can. 105, of the Council of 407. 5 Cod. Can, 12. 



170 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vn. 

senior bishop (doyen] or primate ; from the provincial to the 
plenary council presided over by the Bishop of Carthage. This 
was ample enough, except for pleaders in bad causes who, being 
too well k^own at home, were certain to deem all the jurisdic 
tions there hostile to them. These preferred to cross the sea 
and make their way to Rome to give an account of things 
from their own standpoint, and to solicit acquittals based 
on imperfect information. Wisdom would have prompted 
recognition of this state of affairs in Rome, respect for the 
African organization, and the remission of plaintiffs from 
over-seas to their home tribunals. 

But Zosimus was too highly incensed against the Africans 
not to seize an opportunity of being disagreeable to them. He 
admitted the plea of Apiarius and sent him back to Carthage 
with an extraordinary display of legates Faustinus, Bishop of 
Potentia in Picenum, and two Roman priests, Philip and Asellus. 
If their business had been to preside over an CEcumenical 
Council 1 there would not have been a greater display of forces. 
Having small confidence as to the reception that awaited 
his legates, Zosimus had furnished them with credentials of 
such a kind that they were authorized to demand the assist 
ance of the civil power. Faustinus, the head of the legation, 
was a man of domineering and petty disposition, fitted to deal 
shortly with the Africans ; and he did not fail to do so. He had 
instructions both oral and in writing ; the text of the latter has 
been preserved to us. The legates were to require that bishops 
should be allowed to appeal to Rome ; that they should not go 
too often to Court 2 ; that priests and deacons excommunicated 
by their bishops should be allowed to appeal to neighbouring 
bishops ; and lastly, that Urbanus of Sicca should be ex 
communicated or even sent to Rome if he did not correct 
what was defective in his proceedings against Apiarius. On 
the two points relating to appeals the Pope invoked certain 
canons of Nicaea, the text of which was annexed to the 
instructions of the legates. 

The legates from the time of their arrival adopted the most 
lofty tone in dealing with the Bishop of Carthage and his 

1 The priest Philip was one of the legates of Pope Celestine to the 
CEcumenical Council of Ephesus (431). 

2 Zosimus seems to have cherished resentment at the steps recently 
taken at Ravenna for the proscription of the Pelagians. 



242-5] CANONS OFNIC^EA OR SARDICA? 171 

colleagues, threatening them in case of resistance with an 
appeal to the civil power. Aurelius felt that they wanted to do 
him an ill turn and that, if he wished to avoid unpleasant 
incidents, he must play a cautious game. The African Councils 
had long ago forbidden bishops to betake themselves un 
necessarily to Court. Bishop Urbanus was ready to put right 
anything that might be open to criticism in his proceedings. 
There remained the question of the appeals overseas, which 
was all the more a burning one because in the Council of 
May i, 1 the prohibition of them had been defined in the most 
formal manner. But the Pope had organized his business 
very badly. In the first place what was demanded for priests 
and the inferior clergy had long been granted by African 
usage. And further, the canons of Nicsea which he adduced 
were not canons of Nicaea but canons of Sardica. In the 
Roman books they appeared at the end of the true canons of 
Nicaea, and under the same rubric. 2 This was no doubt the 
source of the mistake a mistake which ought not to have 
been made. 

The African bishops had no knowledge of the canons of 
Sardica. Of this council, which the Donatists sometimes threw 
at their heads, they were only acquainted with the letter 
addressed by the dissentient Easterns to Donatus 3 ; hence, 

1 Cod. Can. 125. 

2 Vol. II., p. 1 80. The authenticity of the canons of Sardica has been 
frequently disputed without valid reasons and principally from the desire, 
more or less avowed, to deprive the Roman Church of the benefit of certain 
of these decrees a benefit to which it has, so far as I know, hardly 
attached any importance. The last attempt of this kind is that of Dr 
Friedrich in the Proceedings of the Munich Academy, Die Undchtheit der 
Kanones von Sardica (1901-1902) and Die Sardicensischen A kten stiicke der 
Sammlung der Theodosius diaconus (1903) ; Mr Turner (Journal of Theo 
logical Studies, vol. iii.) and I (Bessarione, vol. iii., p. 129) have given a critical 
estimate of this work. I had thought at first with Mr Turner (cf. The 
Guardian, Dec. II, 1895) that the text of the canons of Sardica, which 
figures in the collection of the Deacon Theodosius, might be derived from a 
dossier sent to Carthage by Cyril of Alexandria with the canons of Nicaea ; 
Dr Friedrich has succeeded, I think, in eliminating this theory. But his 
own thesis does not gain far from it. Recent studies on the collection of 
Theodosius and its Alexandrian sections (see Vol. II., p. 132, note 2, with 
references to the works of BatifTol and Schwartz) lead to the conclusion that 
the canons of Sardica already figured in an historico-apologetic dossier 
drawn up at Alexandria in 368, under the eye of St Athanasius. 

3 Vol. 1 1, p. 173. 



172 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vn. 

they were commonly wont to say that the Council of Sardica 
had been a Council of Arians. 1 But the legates were in no 
way talking about Sardica : they were alleging certain texts of 
Nicaea, and those texts were not to be found in the African 
copies derived from that which Caecilian of Carthage, who had 
been present at the famous Council, had brought back from it. 
From this side the Africans had a hold on Roman diplomacy. 
They protested their respect for the authority of the Council 
of Nicaea, but maintained that the canons alleged did not 
figure in all the copies ; that consequently they were doubtful. 
It was incumbent to establish their authenticity. However, 
as a testimony of their good intentions they consented to 
apply them provisionally. 2 They wrote in this sense to Pope 
Zosimus. 

While these events were taking place, news was received at 
Carthage that Zosimus had just died and that a schism had 
broken out when his tomb was scarcely closed. There was 
much evidence that his restless character and his domineering 
actions had created for him among those immediately about 
him as many difficulties as in Africa and in Gaul. The Roman 
clergy was divided ; a complaint against the Pope had been 
carried to the Court of Ravenna ; between those who denounced 
him and himself letters passed of a very acrimonious character. 
Matters went so far that he sent them a sentence of excom 
munication, reserving to himself the right to take speedy 
proceedings against their delegates. 3 He would undoubtedly 
have done so, had he not fallen seriously ill of an inter 
mittent malady which sometimes put him in agony, sometimes 
allowed him to recover life. 4 At last he died on December 
27 of this year 418 which for him had been so filled with 
mortifications. 

1 Aug. Ep. 44, 6 ; Contra Cresconium, iv. 52. Gratus of Carthage had 
been present at the orthodox Council, or at any rate had corresponded with 
it (Cone. Sard. c. 8) ; he speaks of it in one of the canons of the Council of 
Carthage in 348 (c. 5), but from memory without citing a text. 

2 One cannot see, besides, in what respect the texts alleged could 
authorize the appeal of Apiarius ; he was not a bishop and the first of the 
two canons did not concern him ; as for the other, in order to make it 
applicable, one would have to consider the diocese of Rome as adjacent 
in its boundary (finitimus) to that of Sicca Veneria which was not the 
case. 

3 Jaffe, op. tit. 345 (October 3, 418). 4 Coll. Avell. 14. 



p. 245-8] SCHISM AT ROME 173 

Whilst he was being buried at San Lorenzo, his archdeacon 
Eulalius was taking steps to succeed him. Before the funeral 
ceremony had ended he returned to the Lateran, escorted by 
his colleagues in the diaconate and by some priests. His 
supporters were already in possession of the church ;, they 
barricaded themselves there and acclaimed the candidate of 
their choice. The other priests, to the number of about 
seventy, with the section of the populace which did not desire 
Eulalius, waited till the next day and assembled in the church 
of Theodora. 1 Their votes fell on the priest Boniface, a man 
of learning and wisdom, to whom Pope Innocent had more 
than once entrusted important missions to Constantinople. 2 
He was of advanced age and needed much persuasion to accept. 
On the following Sunday (December 29) each of the two 
parties proceeded to the ordination of its candidate : Eulalius 
was consecrated at the Lateran, Boniface at the Church of 
Marcellus; Boniface after the ceremony was conducted to 
St Peter s. 

The Prefect of Rome, Symmachus, had just entered on his 
office. He was the nephew of that Symmachus who, under 
Theodosius, had been in conflict with St Ambrose; like him 
he had remained a pagan. He took the side of Eulalius and 
wrote in this sense to Ravenna, whence he speedily received a 
reply that he was right and that Boniface must be removed 
from Rome. The reply arrived on the day of the Epiphany. 
On this day the Eulalians were assembled at St Peter s, the 
party of Boniface at St Paul s. Symmachus communicated to 
them the Emperor s decision and Boniface did not succeed in 
re-entering the city. The Prefect thought the affair at an 
end ; but the Bonifacians protested to Ravenna where Galla 
Placidia lent them strong support. On better information the 
Government admitted that the election was doubtful, summoned 
the two parties to Ravenna and referred the matter to the 
examination of a certain number of bishops called together for 
this purpose. But opinions were divided, and it was impossible 
to get to the bottom of the matter. The Emperor then 
determined to convoke a great council to which the bishops 

1 Not to be identified. No doubt one of the basilicas which we are 
acquainted with, but under a different name. 

2 Palladius, Dial. 4 ; Jaffe, Regesta, 309. 



174 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vit. 

of Gaul and Africa were to be invited. This assembly was 
appointed for June 13; and was to take place at Spoleto. 
Meanwhile, Eulalius and Boniface were to be excluded from 
Rome ; if they attempted to re-enter it, their election would 
be considered as not having taken place. 

The Easter festival was approaching 1 : it was regarded as 
important that at Rome the ceremonies should be presided 
over by a bishop; the Court made choice of the Bishop of 
Spoleto, Achilleus. At this news Eulalius broke his ban and 
entered the city (March 18); Achilleus, after having sent to 
the Prefect his letters of commission, presented himself two 
days later (March 20). Then arose disputes without end and 
commotions which disturbed the populace during the last 
days of Lent. The Prefect veered round and demanded 
instructions. He received them and in a very precise form ; 
Eulalius was to be removed from Rome. Symmachus signified 
this order to him on the evening of Good Friday (March 28). 
As his sole reply Eulalius made himself master on the 
following night of the Lateran basilica and prepared to 
celebrate in it the ceremonies of the Easter baptism. This 
was too much : the Prefect set his people in motion, recovered 
the church and handed it over to the Bishop of Spoleto, who 
officiated on the following days under the protection of the 
authorities. Eulalius had been escorted out of Rome and 
placed under a strong guard. 

His rash adventure greatly simplified the matter. The 
conditions had been violated by him : his candidature was 
thenceforth ruled out, without the need of holding a council. 
The Court informed the bishops that there was no need for 
them to put themselves to the trouble, recognized Boniface, 
and gave the Prefect orders accordingly. A few days later 
Symmachus despatched to Ravenna a report in which he 
stated with what unanimous joy the Romans had received 
their new Pope. 

The official documents z from which our information on this 
affair is derived do not indicate clearly the origin and the 
precise meaning of this division of parties. In particular, we 
do not see to what extent it was connected with the recent 
controversies on Pelagius and Celestius. It cannot be without 
relation to the conflicts with which in the last months of 

1 Easter Sunday fell in 419 on March 30. 2 Coll. Avell. 14-36. 



p. 248-51] EULALIUS AND BONIFACE 175 

Zosimus the Roman clergy was torn. Boniface, it is quite 
certain, was not a friend of Patroclus : he did not continue 
towards him the favour passing all belief which Patroclus had 
enjoyed under his predecessor. On the other hand, it is plain 
that Placidia supported Boniface and did so with much energy. 
In her eyes Eulalius represented vice and Boniface virtue. She 
expressed her view very directly in three letters l addressed on 
the subject of the council to the Bishops Paulinus, Aurelius, 
Augustine, and others on whose presence she laid much stress. 
Paulinus especially, whom she regarded as the president of the 
future assembly, seemed to her qualified to lead the triumph of 
holiness over ambition and immorality. It is possible that 
the feelings of the pious princess were not, on this point, in 
accord with those of her husband. The menage was not an 
altogether united one ; it was not without reluctance that the 
daughter of Theodosius had made up her mind to espouse 
the conqueror of Aries. He had been proclaimed Augustus 
on February 8, 421, by his brother-in-law Honorius : this 
promotion, which was regarded with disfavour in the East, 
would have embroiled the two Empires had not the new 
Emperor died (September 2) a few months after his elevation. 
During the conflict between Eulalius and Boniface the 
legates of Zosimus had remained at Carthage. The affair of 
Apiarius was not entirely settled ; at any rate it had not been 
examined in a plenary Council, with the result that the reply 
sent to Zosimus was neither complete nor invested with 
adequate authority. The plenary Council met in May, 419. 
At the session on the 25th, Faustinus, Philip, and Asellus 
presented once more the text of their instructions. The 
Africans demanded that the canons alleged should be collated 
with the copies of the Council of Nicaea which must be preserved 
at Constantinople, at Antioch, and at Alexandria ; the legates 
would have wished that the enquiry should be made at Rome 
itself with the means at disposal there. But the Africans held 
firm. 2 They secured the presence of the legates at the reading 

1 These letters appear in the dossier (Coll. Avcll. 25, 27, 28) under 
the name of the Emperor Honorius. Dr W. Meyer (Index Scholarum, 
Gb ttingen 1888-89, P- IO ) hid already recognized that Letters 27 and 28 
are those of Placidia and not of Honorius : this is no less clear as to 
Letter 25. 

- As a matter of fact they confined themselves to questioning the Bishops 



176 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vii. 

of their former councils a reading which was customary : the 
Roman envoys could gather that the Church of Africa possessed 
a code of considerable completeness, such as was unknown in 
Italy. Then they were sent away with the formal records of 
the assemblies in which their business had been dealt with and 
a letter for Pope Boniface. Bishop Urbanus made amends 
for the errors of form which had been charged against him ; 
Apiarius, after having asked pardon for his fault, was relieved 
of his excommunication ; but as it was impossible to retain him 
at Sicca he was given letters which would secure his reception 
elsewhere. It was announced that the alleged canons would 
be verified in the East, and the Pope was desired to verify 
them on his side at the same sources. In the meantime they 
agreed to observe them. But even if they should chance to 
be recognized as authentic, and if it should be settled that the 
Pope, not content with demanding their observance in Africa, 
should cause them to be applied in his own neighbourhood, a 
strong hope was expressed that they would not again be 
compelled to submit to treatment such as that which they had 
experienced and which they would rather not recall. " We 
believe," the bishops add, " that by the mercy of God with your 
Holiness presiding over the Roman Church we shall not have 
to suffer any more from arrogance of this kind, and that 
methods of procedure will henceforward be observed in dealing 
with us of which we shall not feel under obligation to complain." 
It is clear that bishops like Aurelius, Augustine, Alypius, and 
others did not use language of this kind without grounds, and 
that all the statements and proceedings of the legates of 
Zosimus do not appear in the official records of the Council. 
Little gratification must have been felt in Rome at the result 
of their mission. 

This did not prevent a new beginning on the first oppor 
tunity, and this time it caused St Augustine himself the most 
serious annoyance. There was in his diocese a town, at a 
considerable distance from Hippo, called Fussala. Its inhabi 
tants were all Donatists : Augustine was obliged to give 
himself a great deal of trouble in order to bring them into 
union. The priests whom he sent to them at first were stripped, 

of Alexandria and of Constantinople : their replies have been preserved 
(Cod. Can. 135, 136). These were transmitted from Carthage to Pope 
Boniface (Ibid. 138). 



p. 251-4] POPE BONIFACE AND FUSSALA 177 

beaten, to the loss of limbs and even of life. However the 
resistance was at last overcome ; and Augustine then judged 
that a bishop living on the spot was indispensable for the 
maintenance of peace. To this end he invoked the co-operation 
of the presiding bishop (doyen] of Numidia who transported 
himself from a great distance to Fussala. Augustine presented 
to him one of his priests to receive the imposition of hands. 
At the last moment the candidate took off his robes and 
declined absolutely to allow himself to be consecrated. Greatly 
put out, especially by the fruitless trouble thus caused to the 
venerable presiding bishop, Augustine chose in haste one of 
the clergy who had accompanied him to Fussala. This was 
a certain Antony who was undoubtedly far too young but 
who knew Punic an indispensable requisite for the exercise 
of the ministry in this district. The presiding bishop conse 
crated him. 

At the end of some months a chorus of complaints arrived 
from Fussala. The young bishop was showing himself more 
ready to shear his sheep than to keep them in the pastures of 
orthodoxy. Apart from his exactions he was charged with 
certain irregularities, which however were not established. 
Augustine did not judge that he had done enough to warrant 
deposition : he was allowed to retain his episcopal rank, but 
was compelled to redress the wrongs he had done and deprived 
of temporal administration. Antony discontented resolved to 
lay a complaint at Rome, and to this end obtained from the 
presiding bishop, of whose piety he took advantage, a letter of 
commendation for Pope Boniface. The Pope received him and 
gave him letters of restoration in which, however, he reserved 
the truth of the facts alleged to him. Antony returned to 
Africa, flourishing this document of revenge and uttering 
threats as to the secular authority. Augustine in distress 
consulted with the presiding bishop of Numidia. They 
despatched to Pope Celestine, who had just succeeded Boniface, 
a complete dossier on the subject and explanatory letters. We 
still possess that of St Augustine. It is as urgent as it is 
respectful. The Bishop of Hippo does not disguise from the 
Pope that if the civil police come to take action at Fussala in 
the name of the Roman Church he will resign his episcopal 
office. 1 

1 Aug. Ep. 209. 



178 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vn. 

Pope Celestine had succeeded peacefully 1 to Boniface (422). 
The latter at the time of his election was old and of weak 
health. Hardly a year had elapsed since his consecration 
before he fell seriously ill. Parties at once formed themselves 
again. If the Pope had died then, the schism would have 
begun again. He recovered. As soon as he entered on con 
valescence he hastened to write 2 to the Emperor and to inform 
him of the danger of the situation. Honorius replied with the 
decision that should the succession to the Pope happen to come 
up again and a double election take place the persons elected 
should both of them be eliminated. The Government would 
only recognize an election morally unanimous. 

It might have been thought that after the two affairs of 
Apiarius and Antony of Fussala, which had turned out so badly 
for the Holy See, it would have made up its mind to leave the 
Africans undisturbed and not to interfere on every pretext in 
the details of their affairs. Nothing of the sort happened. 
Apiarius, removed from Sicca Veneria, had succeeded in 
securing acceptance by the people of Tabraca. In this new 
position he behaved himself even worse than in the former, to 
such an extent that he had to be excommunicated again. 
Apiarius knew the road to Rome : he set sail and went to seek 
Pope Celestine, then newly elected. 3 The latter sent him back 
with a letter to the bishops of Africa, and a step which truly 
passes belief in company with the legate Faustinus of whom 
Aurelius and his colleagues had had so much cause for 
complaint some years before. They both of them presented 
themselves before the plenary Council. Faustinus took up the 
defence of his client, asserting that he had made an appeal to 
Rome and that, the Pope having restored him, it was necessary 
to carry out his sentence, making injurious reflexions on the 
bishops and using very lofty language about what he described 
as the privileges of the Roman Church. At the end of three 
days of quibbling a dramatic episode occurred. Apiarius 
being closely pressed, at last admitted his misdeeds which 

1 However the Eulalian party had not disappeared. It appears that it 
profited by the death of Honorius and the usurpation of John (423) to thrust 
itself forward again. 

2 Jaffe, op. cit. 353 ; Coustant, Epistolae Romanoruni Pontificutn^ p. 1021, 
where we find also the Emperor s reply. 

3 September 10, 422. 



p. 254-7] FAUSTINUS AND APIAKIUS 179 

were enormous, passing belief and unpardonable. The legate, 
covered with confusion, saw himself compelled to abandon his 
deplorable prottgt. He returned to Rome, the bearer of a 
letter 1 in which the Pope was exhorted not to admit with so 
much readiness complainants who came from Africa, all the 
more since the decrees of Nicaea enjoined bishops to respect 
the sentences of their colleagues and desired that ecclesiastical 
proceedings should be settled in the places where they arose. 
Was it held perchance that the illuminations of the Holy Spirit 
had been reserved for a single person and denied to great 
assemblies of bishops? No authentic council 2 authorized 
the Pope to send legates as he had done ; the canons alleged 
to this end were not canons of Nicaea, the enquiries had clearly 
shown that. As for the clergy 3 delegated to secure the 
execution by the public authorities of sentences delivered 
at Rome, they entreated the Pope not to grant the position 
indiscriminately. In the Church of Christ one ought to act 
with simplicity and humility, without having recourse to the 
arrogant methods of the world. Lastly, now that Apiarius is 
definitely excommunicated for his infamous deeds they 
count on the wisdom and goodness of the Pope not 
to compel Africa to endure any longer the presence of 
Faustinus. 

Faustinus in fact did not return any more, and we do not 
find that the Roman Church persevered in this campaign of 
trivial irritations. An organization like that of the Church 
of Africa, elaborated by men like Aurelius, Alypius, and 
Augustine, hallowed by the great service that it had just 
rendered in the elimination of the Donatist defection, ought 
not to have been attacked by petty means. If -it was considered 
that it presented some danger to ecclesiastical unity, this ought 
to have been stated plainly, and an understanding arrived at 
with the African bishops for the removal of this obstacle. 
To receive complainants of any and every kind, to transform 
them into proteges, to exert all one s forces in their defence 
that was a system which the old Roman republic had used 

1 Cod. Can. 138. 

2 If the Pope had alleged the Council of Sardica in place of the 
Council of Nicaea this observation of the Africans would have been of 
no value. 

3 These are the defensores ecclesiac. 

III. N 



180 POPE ZOSIMUS [CH. vit. 

and abused in order to interfere in the affairs of its neighbours. 
But, as the Council of Carthage said, this typhus saeculi was 
not a seemly feature in the Church of Christ. The episcopate 
over which Aurelius and Augustine presided was not an 
enemy which had to be subdued, but a force to be upheld, 
and in case of need directed. Zosimus, in this as in other 
things, had taken the wrong road: it would have been more 
profitable not to follow him. 



CHAPTER VIII 

AUGUSTINIANISiM 

THE secular arm did not let the Pelagians go. Pelagius 
himself had disappeared ; Celestius, without making himself 
too prominent, seems to have remained at Rome or in Italy. 
The imperial police was active in pursuit of him. 1 But the 
movement soon had other leaders. They were given to it by 
persecution. The Tractoria of Zosimus had been despatched 
to the principal churches of the Eastern Empire, to Antioch, 
Egypt, Constantinople, Thessalonica, and Jerusalem. 2 It was 
sent also to Africa 3 and to the metropolises of the West. The 
Government of Ravenna compelled all bishops to sign the 
condemnation of the two heretics. We still possess the letter 
by which it invited Aurelius, the Bishop of Carthage, to secure 
the adhesion of all his subordinates, and that which Aurelius 
despatched to them in consequence. 4 It does not appear that 
in Africa there was any open opposition. 5 In Italy it was 
otherwise. The injunctions of the Metropolitan of Aquileia 6 
provoked a reply emanating from a group of his suffragans 
and their clergy. They refused decisively to condemn the 
absent ; in the matter of doctrine they presented a formulary 7 

1 Quesnel s Collection, c. 16 (P. L. Ivi., p. 493), an imperial edict of June 
9, 419, which mentions another edict earlier than this one but later than that 
of April 30, 418 ; letter of the Emperor Constantius to Volusianus, Prefect of 
Rome, edict of the Prefect in conformity (c. 19, 20, P. L. Ivi., pp. 499, 500). 

2 Marius Mercator, Comm. i. 5. 

3 Letter of thanks mentioned by Prosper, Contra Collatorem, 5 ; cf. 
Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, p. 1191. 

4 Quesnel s Collection, 16, 17 (P. L. Ivi., pp. 493, 495) ; cf. P. L. xlviii., 
pp. 394, 400. 

r> See, however, Possidius, Vita Augustini, 18. It is not certain that the 
reference is to Pelagians of Africa. 

He bore the name of Augustine, like the Bishop of Hippo. 
7 P. L. xlviii., p. 509, under the name of Julian of Eclanum. 

181 



182 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vin. 

in which the principal articles of Pelagian doctrine were 
repudiated in the equivocal terms of which Pelagius himself 
did not hesitate to make use, while various ideas, rightly or 
wrongly attributed to St Augustine, were ruled out with a 
decision quite as definite. 

It was in the Pope s immediate sphere of jurisdiction in 
particular that the scandal was notorious. In Rome itself the 
opposing party hid themselves, abandoned by their leaders 
and terrified by the attitude of the secular authority. But 
in Italy and in Sicily were to be found eighteen bishops firmly 
determined to repudiate "African dogma" and to renounce 
their sees rather than sign an acceptance of it. The most 
prominent among them, Julian, was Bishop of Eclanum, a 
place- situated to the south-east of Beneventum. 1 He was 
not a mere nobody. His father, Bishop Memor, was united 
by ties of friendship with St Augustine, who wrote to him 
and readily sent him his books, and his African colleagues 2 ; with 
Paulinus of Nola ; with yEmilius, the Bishop of Beneventum, 
an ecclesiastical personage of considerable reputation/ 5 Julian 
was destined at first for a secular career. He married young : 
it was Bishop yEmilius who took the chief part in the 
ceremony, for which the good Paulinus was kind enough to 
compose an epithalamium. 4 The young wife seems to have 
died early, for we do not hear of her later and Julian was still 
very young (adolescens) when we find him in 408 executing 
under his father the office of a deacon. Augustine seems to 
have desired Memor to send Julian to him. He did as a 
matter of fact spend some time at Carthage ; but soon he 
was raised to the episcopate, perhaps 5 in succession to his 
father: Pope Innocent consecrated him Bishop of Eclanum. 

Despite the relations of his family with the Bishop of 
Hippo, Julian, when the conflict occurred, did not hesitate for 

1 The modern Mirabella. The former name Eclano is coming into use 
again. The bishopric disappeared with the town after the Lombard con 
quest : it was re-established in the loth century under the name of 
Quintodecimum and then of Frequentum : the see was at Frigento. 
To-day Mirabella and Frigento are included in the diocese of Avellino. 

2 Ep. 101. 

u It was he who was in charge, in 405, of the mission sent by Pope 
Innocent to Constantinople to support the cause of St John Chrysostom. 

4 Car tn. 25. 

5 It is not certain that Memor had been Bishop of Eclanum. 



p. 259-62] JULIAN OF ECLANUM 183 

a moment to take sides against him. His education had been 
highly cultivated ; he knew Greek and handled v/ith ease the 
dialectic of Aristotle. That indeed was his strong point : 
the mysticism of Augustine found no entrance into a brain 
which subjected everything to reason: on the contrary he 
lent himself to Pelagian stoicism. He was not an ascetic 
like Pelagius and many of his earliest adherents. From the 
time of Zosimus onwards we find him becoming prominent. 
It was no doubt to his influence that Alypius and Augustine 
disputed so energetically possession 1 of the venerable Bishop 
of Nola. After the condemnation he wrote to Pope Zosimus, 2 
adopting towards him almost the same language that the 
opposition in the province of Aquileia made use of, before or 
after him, in their dealing with their metropolitan. But the 
Pope s orders were precise, and since in his own metropolitical 
area he was himself responsible for their execution, the refusal 
to sign the condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius entailed 
for Julian and the bishops who followed him in his attitude 
a sentence of deposition. This was pronounced by Zosimus 
himself 3 in 418; eighteen 4 bishops were thus deprived of 
their sees, excluded from the Church and even exiled, for 
imperial rescripts arrived forthwith to lend support to the 
ecclesiastical decisions. They formed themselves into a group, 
not however round Pelagius who was perhaps already dead, 
and in any case little desirous of continuing the dispute, nor 
round Celestius who was not averse to doing so but who 
was rather a spent force. The spokesman henceforward is 
Julian, who was better qualified by his position as a bishop 
and by his literary gifts. He multiplied his activities. We 
find him writing to the Count Valerius, 6 . who was very 
influential at Court, a man of great piety and much interested 

1 Supra, p. 164. 

2 Two letters (Aug. Op. iinperf. i. 18) ; Marius Mercator has preserved 
to us (Liber Subnotationmn, vi. 10-13) some passages of one of them. 

3 Augustine, addressing himself to Julian (Contra JuL i. 13) says 
explicitly that he had been condemned by Zosimus himself; cf. Marius 
Mercator, Conitn. iii. i. 

1 It is not quite certain that the eighteen bishops were all of them 
immediate suffragans of the Pope. There were perhaps among them some 
of the opposition party of Aquileia. 

5 If it is really he who is the author of the writing referred to by St 
Augustine in his De Nuptiis^ i. 2. 



184 AUGUSTINIANISM [en. vin. 

in all these questions; to his friends in Rome; to Rufus, the 
Bishop of Thessalonica ; protesting against the condemnation 
of people in their absence, demanding instead of signatures 
extorted at one s home the publicity and other safeguards of a 
great conciliar assembly ; then turning round on the promoters 
of the condemnation, treating them as Manicheans, as enemies 
of marriage, accusing them of referring to the devil one portion 
of the creation. 

After the decisions, in conformity at last, of the Roman 
Church, of that of Africa and of the Government of Ravenna, 
Augustine might have thought that this time the cause was at 
an end. It was so actually at bottom ; but his own task was 
not far from it. It was no longer with heretics cautious and 
timid like Pelagius, or clumsy like Celestius, that he was now 
to deal. Julian s predecessors had sought by all means to 
secure their acceptance or toleration by the ecclesiastical 
authorities. It was with this end in view that they had made 
use of artifices, of apparent concessions, of dissimulation. 
Julian, deposed and exiled, had no longer anything to lose : 
besides, it was too late for dissimulation. The only part that 
remained for him to take was to represent himself as the 
defender of the Truth momentarily overcome, to take up again 
in the face of Councils, of the Pope and of the Emperor, the 
attitude of St Athanasius, and like him to invoke the witness of 
Providence which would bring everything to a successful ending 
by giving its revenge to the rightful cause. 

Such a campaign could not be a defensive one like that of 
Pelagius and Celestius. To prove that one was on the side of 
Truth it was necessary to show that the others were in error, 
and it was to this that Julian set himself. The positions dealt 
with in the Roman decisions represented the long-standing 
tradition of the Church ; but in Augustine s system there was 
something quite different, and it was possible to foresee that 
religious opinion would not accept everything that the illustrious 
bishop set before it. Julian would have had a strong case if, 
accepting without reserves the defeat of Pelagius and of 
Celestius, the necessity of Grace, and Original Sin, he had 
assumed the role in other respects of the champion of orthodoxy 
against African novelties. This attitude was soon to be adopted 
by others. But he himself essayed to discredit the traditional 
basis of the Augustinian teaching by any adventitious and 



p. 262-5] JULIAN IN EXILE 185 

disputable features that it presented. It was an impossible 
task. Opinion underwent no change. Julian and his friends 
took refuge in the East, but found no support there. 1 The 
Bishop of Constantinople, Atticus, gave them no more of a 
welcome than his colleague of Thessalonica. 2 At Alexandria, 3 
too, at Jerusalem and at Antioch, the doors remained closed ; 
the Bishop of Mopsuestia, Theodore, was alone in showing them 
favour. He shared in reality their view ; he had even written 
quite recently against natural sinfulness, a treatise directly 
aimed at St Jerome and attacking the teaching of St 
Augustine. 4 They made their way to him in the heart of 
Cilicia, and took up their quarters with him. But the group 

1 Marius Mercator (Comm. i. 5 ; iii. i) seems fully under the impression 
that the Tractoria of Zosimus encountered opposition in none of the great 
churches to which it was sent. See, however, note 3, infra. 

2 Atticus sent to Rome official notes in which his attitude is defined 
(Jaffe, op. cit. 374). 

3 Cyril of Alexandria seems to have been in no hurry for a personal 
censure of Pelagius and Celestius. A letter in the Collectio Avellana 
(No. 49) gives clear enough evidence of this. It is addressed to Cyril by a 
certain Eusebius, apparently a bishop in Italy, who had already written to 
him a year earlier on this subject. Eusebius expresses astonishment that 
the Church of Alexandria, always in accord with those of Italy, should 
receive into its communion two heretics, condemned not only by the late 
Pope Innocent but by all the Eastern Churches. He attributes this 
difference of attitude to a certain Valerian, a hanger-on of the Count 
Valerius, who has managed to insinuate himself a,mong the clergy of 
Alexandria and gives bad advice to the Patriarch. The fact that Pelagius 
and Celestius are represented as already condemned by "all the Eastern 
Churches" implies that they had all been informed of the condemnation 
pronounced at Rome : the letter seems then to be later than the Tractoria 
of Zosimus, although it does not mention it. Later, but how much later ? 
If Cyril had declared himself a supporter of Pelagianisnv, it would have been 
at Alexandria without a doubt and not at Mopsuestia that Julian would have 
taken refuge. But it is notorious that Cyril s teaching is irreconcilable with 
Pelagianism, and Julian s mistrust in regard to him thus finds a perfectly 
natural explanation. The most reasonable assumption seems to me to be 
that, so far as concerned Pelagius and Celestius personally^ Cyril showed 
himself as little regardful of the Roman decisions as he had been and still 
was in relation to St John Chrysostom. St Augustine wrote about this time 
to Alexandria (Opus imperf. iv. 88) ; if we still possessed his letter we should 
no doubt be better informed on this particular point. 

4 ttp&s TOUI \4yovras 0v(ret ou yvuny Trrafeiv rote avOpwirovs : Fragments in 
Marius Mercator (Symbolum Theodori Mopsuestini, P. L. xlviii., p. 213 fT.) 
and in Photius (Cod. 177), who analyzes it at length and expresses greater 
approval of it than it deserves. 



186 AUGUSTINIANISM [en. vm. 

was not long in splitting up ; among the earliest dissidents 
several rejoined the Church. In the end the movement failed 
and the Athanasius of Eclanum never saw the looked-for day 
of the Revanche. 

At any rate he had the melancholy satisfaction of annoying 
the Bishop of Hippo to the very end. During the twelve 
remaining years of the illustrious Master s life he had unceasing 
trouble with Julian. The controversy opened with the first 
protests of the opponents. Accused by them to Count 
Valerius of defaming matrimony, Augustine replied by his 
first book, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia. Julian answered im 
mediately in four books dedicated to his colleague Turbantius, 
who had been proscribed like himself, but who subsequently 
deserted him. Of these four books an epitome, very badly 
made, fell into the hands of Augustine; he refuted it in his 
second book, De Nuptiis. The two letters sent to Rome and 
Thessalonica he countered with four books addressed to Pope 
Boniface. When at last he obtained the complete text of the 
treatise Ad Turbnntium he assailed it in his six books " Against 
Julian." The latter, already in retirement at Mopsuestia, 
became acquainted with the second book of the De Nuptiis : 
he replied in eight books, dedicated once more to one of his 
companions in exile Florus. Augustine got hold of this reply 
and devoted to it the leisure of his last years : when death 
overtook him in 430, he had not completed his refutation. 1 
His aim was to leave not a particle standing of the objections 
made to him by his opponent, and he combated him with a 
splendid fairness, reproducing from one end to the other 
Julian s actual words. It was, for a man of his age and moral 
position, a highly disagreeable undertaking. Julian, a con 
troversialist through and through, adroitly laid bare the weak 
points of his adversary and pressed him vigorously, undeterred 
by any scruple of respect, inveighing at every opportunity 
against "the Traducian," 2 " the Manichean," with a wearisome 

1 It is his Opus imperfectum contra Julianum. 

* Traducianism is the doctrine according to which souls like bodies 
propagate themselves by generation. It is opposed to Creationism, which 
holds that souls are created directly at each generation. Augustine, accord 
ing to whom Original Sin is represented by the concupiscence which 
accompanies generation, was inclined by the requirements of his system to 
the Traducianist doctrine. However, Creationism seemed to him to have a 



P. 265-8] DEATH OF HONORIUS 187 

iteration as people of this sort know well how to do. Augustine 
swallowed the insults, defended his teaching, put forward the 
texts of Scripture and ancient authors, met him face to face on 
all sides; but it must certainly have needed his strength of 
character to keep his patience. 

Whilst he was expending his resources in this controversy, 
the Popes who succeeded Zosimus were watching over the 
application of the imperial laws. The Emperor Honorius 
died in 423 (August 27). His sister Galla Placidia, who had 
been for some little time on bad terms with him, was then at 
Constantinople, where she had taken refuge with the two 
children that Constantius had left her Honoria and 
Valentinian. A high dignitary of the Western Empire, John, 
was proclaimed in Rome with the support of the magister 
militum^ Castinus. Theodosius II. would have wished to be 
his uncle s heir, and to restore the unity of the Empire for 
his own advantage ; but Placidia succeeded in persuading him 
to send her back to the West and to recognize the rights of her 
son, Valentinian III. After two years of " usurpation " John 
was removed, and the daughter of Theodosius installed herself 
once more at Ravenna with her children (425). 

We may suppose that the Pelagians took advantage of this 
temporary interruption of the Theodosian dynasty for an 
attempt to re-establish their own affairs. It is at this moment, 
I think, that we ought to place a step by Celestius with a view 
to a revision of his case. Pope Celestine succeeded in getting 
rid of him. 1 The usurper seems to have shown some dislike 
to the clergy. One of the first acts of Placidia after her 
restoration was a decree by which various ecclesiastical 
privileges, temporarily suppressed, were again put in force. 
This decree, 2 addressed to the Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, 
has most direct reference to certain bishops of that land who 
still supported the errors of Pelagius and Celestius, Patroclus, 
Bishop of Aries, is commissioned to inform them that if they 
do not amend themselves within twenty days they will be 

better philosophical foundation. The result in him is a grave perplexity 
from which he never completely escapes. 

1 Prosper, Contra Collatorem^ 21. One does not see how such a step 
could have been ventured under Honorius, or with still greater reason under 
Placidia. 

2 Const. Sirmondt 6 t dated from Aquileia, July 9, 425. 



188 AUGUSTINIANISM [OH. vm. 

removed from Gaul and their successors appointed. Sulpicius 
Severus, in his old age, had allowed himself to be beguiled by 
the ideas of Pelagius, and had defended them with the zeal 
which was customary to him. He recognized that he had gone 
astray, and thenceforward confined himself to complete silence. 1 
There is no doubt that it is to the moment at which we have 
arrived that we ought to assign this resolution. 

But there were countries where orthodoxy could not count 
on the support of the laws of the Empire and the severity of its 
police. For some years the Britons beyond the Channel, 
abandoned by Rome, had been living in independence. 
The ideas of Pelagius had, it may be, old roots among them : 
they spread themselves there also from abroad, in spite of all 
condemnations. A bishop named Fastidius, a certain Agricola, 
son of a Pelagian bishop named Severianus, were prominent 
in this propaganda. 2 Of the first of these personages we 
possess some writings. He was a man of character, genuinely 
and austerely a Christian. In the course of an expedition 
undertaken with his daughter and another companion he 
met in Sicily a great Roman lady who initiated him into 
the teaching of Pelagius. It was, no doubt, on his return from 
this expedition that he was elevated to the episcopate. With 
the support of persons of such respectability the new ideas could 
not fail to find a welcome. Pope Celestine was troubled about 
it. Acting on the information and advice of a deacon named 
Palladius, who seems to have had special ties with the 
churches of Britain, he made up his mind to counteract these 
virtuous folk by the influence of a bishop highly revered for 
the holiness of his life, Germanus of Auxerre. Germanus 
crossed the sea, accompanied by his colleague of Troyes 

1 Gennadius, De Viris, c. 19. 

2 Gennadius, De Viris ///., 57 ; Prosper Chron. ad ann. 429. Fastidius, 
according to Gennadius, is the author of a book, De Vita Christiana, 
dedicated to a certain Fatalis. This book is usually recognized in a treatise 
bearing the same title which is attributed to St Augustine (P. L. xl., p. 1031). 
However, Dom. G. Morin has given reasons for identifying it with the first 
of the six documents published by Caspari (supra, p. 150, note 3); as all 
these documents are undoubtedly by the same author, it follows that they 
must all be attributed to Fastidius. As for the treatise of the pseudo- 
Augustine, Dom. G. Morin would attribute it to Pelagius himself: it is 
addressed to a widow who might well be Livania, one of the correspondents 
of the famous monk (Revue Benedictine, xv. [1898], pp. 481 ff.). 



p. 268-71] GERMANUS AND LUPUS 189 

Lupus (St Loup) and commended, besides the Pope s 
commission, by the bishops of Gaul. His mission had good 
results ; but it did not produce a final settlement. He was 
obliged to return some years later, 1 accompanied this time 
by Severus, Bishop of Treves. 

Pelagius, however, retained adherents in the land of his 
birth. When the neighbouring island, Ireland, was converted 
to Christianity, the British missionaries carried thither some of 
the doctrines censured in the Roman Empire ; the name even 
of Pelagius appears with honour in the ecclesiastical literature 
and in the canon law of that country. 2 But these are belated 
revivals and a subject of interest only for the curious writer. 
In reality and immediately St Germanus gained the upper 
hand. The name of Pelagius may be preserved in a few 
manuscripts; that of the Bishop of Auxerre remained in the 
heart of the people. The Britons of the island attached poetical 
legends to it. They loved to represent themselves as having 
been defended by the holy man of Gaul against the Saxon 
invaders ; they made of him a great prophet after the order 
of Samuel and of Elijah, able to speak to the mighty, and to 
call down upon their vices the chastisements of heaven. Thanks 
to the insular legend of St Germanus, the story of Roman 
Britain closes in the same atmosphere of the marvellous as that 
which marks the beginning of the story of Britain under the 
Anglo-Saxons. 3 

Germanus as the Pope s lieutenant in Britain secured the 
victory there of the tradition of the Church over the doctrines 
of Pelagius and Celestius. He had no more intention than 
the Pope whose commissioner he was of promulgating as a 
whole and in detail the Augustinian theory of the work of 
salvation. I have already made this distinction on several 
occasions : it is of more particular importance here in 

1 Prosper is witness only for the mission from the Pope at the instigation 
of Palladius and does not mention either a companion or a second journey. 
These details are derived from the Life of St Germanus, by Constantius, a 
priest of Lyons, written about 480. On this document see Levison in the 
Neues Archiv. xxix. (1904), pp. 97 rT. 

2 Letter of the representatives of the Holy See in 640 (Jaffe, op. cit. 2040). 
See also the quotations from Pelagius in the Collcctio Hibcrnica and the 
other documents cited by Zimmer, Pelagius in Irland, pp. 24 ff. 

3 See my articles " Nennius retractatus " and " L Historia Britonum"in 
the Revue critique, xv., p. 187 ; xvii., p. i. 



190 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vin. 

connexion with a member of the Gallican Episcopate, that 
is to say of a body in which the doctrines taught from Hippo 
were subjected freely to examination, some being accepted, 
others repudiated. 

At the time with which we are dealing, religious thought 
radiated in Gaul from two principal centres, from two asylums 
opened to piety on the coast of Provence, at Lerins, and at 
Marseilles. 

To the west of the peninsula of Antibes and exactly facing 
Cannes, two islands rise from the blue depths of the sea. The 
more distant from the shore, Lermum t had been laid out at 
the beginning of the 5th century for a colony of monks. This 
was conducted by Honoratus, a man of the type of Sulpicius 
Severus and of Paulinus, a great noble who had retired from 
the world, and lived a life of austerity in company with a 
few friends and servants. He had early bidden farewell to 
his family, and in company with his brother Venantius and 
with Caprasius, a friend of riper age, had set sail for the 
Peloponnese, the condition of which had become such, owing 
to the evilness of the times, that it was a place of resort for 
its solitudes. Venantius died there and was buried at Modon 
(Methone) : the others returned to Latin shores. The bishops 
of Tuscany tried in vain to retain them : they met with no 
more success in this than had Proculus of Marseilles at the 
outset. The islands of the Tuscan coast were at that time 
greatly frequented by solitaries. 1 Honoratus gave the preference 
to those of his own land and installed himself at Lerins, to 
which he was attracted by the proximity of the saintly bishop 
Leontius of Frejus. Such is the origin of the famous com 
munity of Lerins which was, for a great part of Gaul, a veritable 
nursery of bishops and of saints. 

The community of Marseilles, somewhat later in date, is 
connected with the name of Cassian, a personage from the 
East, whom the persecution against Chrysostom had brought 
to Italy, and whom Proculus had succeeded in establishing 
in his own neighbourhood. Cassian was a native of Latin 
Scythia, 2 a distant province situated at the mouths of the 

1 Rutilius Numatianus, De Reditu, i., vv. 440-452. 

2 Natione Scytha, says Gennadius {De Viris ill. c. 62). Some ill-advised 
authors reject this testimony on the ground that Cassian wrote in a Latin 
which is more correct than could be expected of a Scythian. But there is 



r. 271-4] Ll^RINS AND MARSEILLES 191 

Danube. He had lived a long time at Bethlehem, no doubt 
before the arrival of Jerome, and then in the monasteries of 
the Egyptian Delta, and of the desert of Nitria. Shortly before 
the crisis which removed Chrysostom he had attached himself 
to the saintly Bishop of Constantinople. Exiled like him from 
the imperial city, but in another direction, he finally established 
himself at Marseilles at the tomb of a local martyr, St Victor. 
Patronized in its first beginnings by Bishop Proculus, this 
foundation was called to lofty destinies. From its earliest 
years the virtue of Cassian, his religious knowledge, and 
above all his experience of the ascetic life marked him out 
for attention. Cassian was speedily regarded as the legislator 
of the monks of the West. It was for them that he wrote, 
before 426, his treatise De Institutis Ccenobiorum, addressed to 
Bishop Castor of Apt, and then his Addresses (Collationes\ 
the twenty-four books of which were dedicated in groups to 
the notabilities of the episcopate and of solitude Leontius of 
Frejus, Helladius, Honoratus, Eucherius, Jovinian, Minervius, 
another Leontius, and Theodosius. The last four were living 
in retirement in the Islands of Hyeres (Stoechadae), whilst 
Eucherius was mortifying himself in the Island of Lero (Sainte- 
Marguerite), quite close to Lerins. Eucherius was a nobleman 
of Lyons, married, and the father of a family : his wife followed 
him to his island whilst his two sons, Salonius and Veranus, 
were brought up in Honoratus monastery. 

Cassian s dedications would suffice to show how close were 
the relations which united this whole aristocracy of Provencal 
piety. The populace heard tales of the holy retreats and of their 
inhabitants. They called them to mind at the time of the elec 
tion of bishops. When Patroclus died (426), the people of Aries 
demanded as their bishop the founder of Lerins, Honoratus; 
shortly afterwards (428), for he lasted only for two years, they 
gave him as successor one of his disciples, Hilarius. Helladius, 
Eu.cherius, and a number of others also attained the episcopate. 

It was inevitable that in such a circle * conflicts of opinion 

no question of a Scythian (were there still any ScythiansT) ; it is a question 
of a citizen of a Latin town of the Province of Scythia. 

1 Characterized in our day by the epithet "semi-pelagian." This term, 
however, ought not to be employed here. Unknown to antiquity and even 
to the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, it is with difficulty to be found 
earlier than the i;th century. 



192 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vin. 

in regard to the conditions of salvation, to Grace, Free Will, 
and Original Sin, should excite the liveliest interest. We do 
not know what talk was held there before the condemnation 
of Pelagius: when that had been definitively pronounced, 
they gave it their adhesion. No one seems to have felt any 
difficulty in recognizing the great service that Augustine had 
rendered to the common Faith by interposing so energetically 
in this matter. All the same they did not feel themselves 
bound to follow him in all his deductions. The Bishop of 
Hippo went beyond the positions taken by the African 
Councils and by the Pontifical Letters. According to him, 
Free Will had no initiative in the work of Salvation ; even 
the first movement of resort to God, the initial aspiration 
for faith, must be referred to Divine action. It was in vain 
that any one opposed to him the objection that if the Bible 
tells of startling conversions like that of St Paul, we find in 
it also stories like that of Zacchaeus where grace follows as 
the sequel of a good motion, even though it be one of simple 
and pious curiosity. This first good motion Augustine claimed 
for grace exactly in the same way as that which might follow. 
In this he was following out the logic of his system. The 
human race is justly devoted to eternal condemnation. In this 
mass of persons under condemnation God chooses whom it 
pleases Him, and that without regard to merits acquired or 
possible. These elect persons are predestined to salvation ; 
whatever they do or do not do, they will be saved by the 
power of grace, a grace admitting neither of failure (infaillible) 
nor resistance (irresistible). " Help yourself and Heaven will 
help you," says the wisdom of the nations. " Whether you 
help yourself or do not help yourself," says Augustine, " Heaven 
will help you if you are predestined; if you are not, anything 
that you can do is useless." It is hardly necessary to say 
that in such a system God could not be considered as willing 
the salvation of all men. This conception to which Augustine 
had not been opposed in his youth was subsequently got 
rid of by him and with a decision that is remarkable. The 
text, I Tim. ii. 4, in which it is distinctly inculcated, is sub 
mitted by him to an exegesis so subtle and so strained, that 
if we were not dealing with St Augustine one would be tempted 
to utter the word "juggling" (escamotage). 

That a system so pitiless should have been able to be 



p. 274-7] AUGUSTINE AND CASSIAN 193 

patronized by such a man is a thing which, at first sight, seems 
inexplicable. But in that day people, were familiar with the 
ideas of Damnation, of Election, of free Predestination. They 
are the ground of Biblical history : Israel had always lived, was 
still living, under the feeling of its Predestination as a nation. 
The Christians, to some extent, had inherited this mental 
attitude. Though exaggerated and carried to extremity 
among the Gnostics and the Manicheans, it had in no way 
been detrimental to their success. Rare in the spirits of people 
of that time were those humanitarian conceptions which among 
ourselves revolt at such rigour. 

Augustine, 1 for his own part, moved about his system quite 
unconstrained ; all opportunities were good ones in his eyes 
for expounding it. The Roman priest, Xystus, had scarcely 
completed the evolution by which he transformed himself from 
patron of Pelagius into an opponent of the British monk, when 
he received (418) from the Bishop of Hippo a long letter 2 on 
prevenient grace and free-will. A little later Augustine was 
discussing the same question with a certain Vitalis, a notable of 
Carthage. 3 In 426 or 427 he was told that the monks of 
Hadrumetum were disputing among themselves on the subject 
of his doctrines. He interposed both by letters 4 and by the 
sending of two consecutive treatises, " Grace and Free Will " 
and " Punishment and Grace." In the latter he replied to the 
objection of certain monks : " Why does anyone rebuke us 
when we are in fault ? It is Grace that has failed us." He 
also explains in it, more clearly than he had hitherto done, his 
ideas on Predestination. 

Already, in the second part of his Collationes published 
about 425, Cassian had put into the mouth of a solitary of 
Egypt a theory of Free Will and of its part in the origin of 
Conversion, and this theory was in complete contrast with that 
of Augustine. When the book Of Punishment and Grace> in 

1 On what follows see the work of Pure M. Jacquin, " La Question de 
la Predestination aux V et vi* Siecles" in the Revue (fHistoire Ecclesi- 
astique, Louvain, 1904 and 1906. 

2 Ep. 194. 3 Ep. 217. 

4 Epp. 214-216. A letter of his friend, Evodius of Uzala, relative to this 
dispute, was published in 1896 by Dom. G. Morin, Revue Benedictine xiii., 
p. 482. It is distinguished from analogous writings of St Augustine not by 
the basis of the ideas, but by a greater preoccupation with religious practice 
and by a more marked resignation in the presence of mysteries. 



194 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vm. 

which the Augustinian system in regard to Predestination 
displayed itself in all its rigour became known in Provence, 
something like a scandal was caused. Hilary, the new Bishop 
of Aries, although he was on the whole a great admirer of 
Augustine, declared his intention of asking him for explana 
tions. While he had not gone further than intentions, two 
monks of Marseilles Prosper, an Aquitanian by birth, and 
another Hilary addressed themselves directly to Augustine 
and did so in a very different spirit. They were Augustinians, 
without reserve or condition. Almost alone in their opinion in 
the circle in which Cassian and Hilary of Aries shone, they 
only employed the greater zeal in maintaining their ideas. 
Augustine, whom they invoked, came to the rescue and sent 
them his treatises Of the Predestination of the Saints and Of 
the Gift of Perseverance, two books very little calculated to 
allay the criticisms excited by their predecessors. 

These are almost the last writings of St Augustine. Whilst 
he was plunging himself into these subtle questions, the world 
was crumbling around him. The barbarians, summoned by 
Roman discord, were invading Africa. Count Boniface, though 
a worthy man and friend of the Bishop of Hippo, adopted, 
thanks to Court intrigues, the attitude of a rebel. A first 
expedition sent against him met with no success ; a second 
of which the Count Sigisvult, with a band of Arian Goths, 1 
formed part, led him to invoke the support of the Vandals who 
were established in Spain. 2 Their king, Genseric, crossed the 
Strait of Gades (Gibraltar) in the spring of 429 with a large 
force. However, Boniface had ended by making his peace 
with Placidia 3 : he had been relieved of Sigisvult, on the 
assumption that he would rid himself of the Vandals. But 
they were in no mind to listen to the suggestion of re-crossing 
the sea. They were seen advancing from west to east across 
the Mauritania!! Provinces, spreading fire and sword on 
every side. The Roman inhabitants fled at their approach, 
and sought refuge in the mountains and other protected 

1 It was with these Goths that there landed the Arian bishop Maximin. 
Vide supra, p. 121 f. 

- In the Province of Baetica, to which their name remained (Andalusia). 

3 It was in connexion with these negotiations that St Augustine and the 
Count Darius as representative of Placidia exchanged some letters (Aug. 
Epp. 229-231). 



p. 277-80] THE VANDALS IN AFRICA 195 

posts. 1 Behind them remained nothing but ruins ; churches 
and cities, all were gone. The barbarians from Spain were 
joined by the barbarians of the country, the unvanquished 
Moors ; together they vented their fury against all that stood 
for Rome and leaped upon its fragments. 

Soon the scourge reached Numidia. Count Boniface was 
beaten in the outskirts of Hippo and shut himself up in 
the town where he underwent a siege of fourteen months. 
A small number of fortified positions, Hippo, Constantina, 
Carthage held out for some time, and afforded a refuge for 
those who could make their way there and a support for the 
attempts at resistance. 

At Hippo Possidius, Bishop of Calama, and some of his 
colleagues found themselves together once more in the society 
of Augustine. The illustrious bishop had reached the age of 
seventy-six. During the third month of the siege he felt his 
strength waning, and in the middle of the summer (August 28, 
430) death laid its hand upon him. His friend, Aurelius of 
Carthage, too, had just departed from this world (July 20). 
The Church of Africa was deprived of its head and shattered : 
it was obliged to resign itself to the brutal oppression of the 
barbarian followers of Arius. 

Beyond the sea this catastrophe put no check to the quarrels 
aroused by the sharp points of Augustinian teaching. The 
books on Predestination and on Perseverance had embittered 
men s minds. They let the fact clearly be seen, without 
however displaying any eagerness for written arguments in 
opposition to an author so highly respected. To oral 
objections and to those who adopted an attitude of reserve 
Prosper and Hilary replied with vigour pushed to the extreme. 
In prose and even in verse 2 Prosper proceeded to attack those 
whom he treated as opponents of Grace the " ingrates," to use 
his own expression. Later there fell into his hands some little 
books consisting of collections of propositions taken either from 
the last works of Augustine or from his own, with the object 
of representing in the most unfavourable light the teaching 
which it was designed to decry. Vincent, a monk of Lerins, 
was prominent in this kind of production. He was a 

1 See the letter of St Augustine to Bishop Honoratus on the duties of 
the clergy in face of these enforced emigrations (Aug. Ep. 228). 

2 Epistola ad Rufinum^ Carmen de ingratis, Epigrainmata. 

Ill O 



196 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vm. 

theologian of learning and not without literary attainments : 
his talents had attracted to him the attention of Eucherius who 
had entrusted him with the education of his sons. All along 
the coast as far as Genoa the doctrinal extravagances of 
Augustine were the theme of discussion. Prosper set himself 
to meet all comers, defending with undaunted courage, though 
not Without attempts at sweetening, the teaching of the Master 
of Hippo 1 which he endeavoured to identify with that of the 
Apostolic See. 

As a matter of fact, now that there was no longer Augustine, 
no longer any Councils of Africa, the only possible protection 
was that of the Roman pontiffs. But the latter were on the 
best of terms with the leaders at Marseilles. When disquiet 
began to be felt at Rome in regard to the heresy of Nestorius, 
it was not to Hippo invested by the Vandals that recourse was 
had for advice. It was to Marseilles, to Cassian, that the 
Roman archdeacon Leo addressed himself. 2 Marseilles was for 
the time being the home of the oracle of Western theology. 

Their knowledge of this position of affairs did not deter 
Prosper and Hilary from repairing to Rome and invoking the 
support of the Holy See against Augustine s detractors. A few 
years before, Pope Celestine, moved by certain reports he had 
received, had written to the bishops of the Provinces of Vienne 
and Nar bonne a letter of considerable asperity 3 which gave 
evidence of feelings of displeasure towards the monasteries of 
Provence and the custom which was beginning to arise of 
recruiting the ranks of the episcopal body from among their 
members. At the request of Prosper and Hilary he wrote 4 to 
a group of bishops of the Gauls, chief among whom figures the 
Bishop of Marseilles, Venerius the successor of Proculus. In 
this document he expresses himself vigorously against the 
practice of allowing priests to preach who abuse this faculty in 
order to enunciate errors and to trouble people s minds. As 

1 Pro Augustine, rcsponsiones ad capitula Gallorum ad capitula 
obiectionum Vincentianarum ad excerpta Gcnuensium. According to Pere 
Jacquin (Revue dHist. EccL 1906, p. 276) the third of these works appears 
to be the first in date, and it is only in the following ones that Prosper began 
to tone down the Augustinian doctrine. 

2 Cassian, De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium^ libri vii., a work 
earlier in date than the Council of Ephesus. 

;; Cuperemus quidem (Jaffe, op. cit. 369), July 26, 428. 
4 Apostolici vcrba (Jaffe, op. cit. 381). 



p. 280-2] PROSPER AND HILARY 197 

for Augustine he declares that this man of blessed memory has 
always been,/<?r his life and his merits \ in communion with the 
Holy See ; never has the shadow of a suspicion robbed his 
reputation of its radiance ; his knowledge was such that the 
Popes who were Celestine s predecessors and Celestine himself 
had always ranked him among the best of masters. 1 

This document 2 was far from representing any sort of 
canonization of St Augustine s specific teachings. Cassian 
would have signed it with zest : Prosper was obliged to content 
himself with an oracle in ambiguous terms. Celestine, who was 
a very strong opponent of Pelagianism which we have seen 
him pursuing as far as Britain and the condemnation of which 
he had just secured from the Council of Ephesus, was minded 
to confine himself to what his predecessors had laid down 
without engaging in a campaign on behalf of the particular 
ideas of the Doctor of Hippo. 

On July 27, 432, Celestine died and was immediately 
replaced by Xystus, the former protector of the Pelagians. 
The latter must have been a man of a very taking kind, for 
Prosper notes in his Chronicle that he was elected amidst the 
greatest calm and with a wonderful unanimity. 3 Such an 
election was not calculated to awaken hopes in the followers 
of Augustine. Prosper none the less continued his campaign. 
He even ventured to attack Cassian and his " Conferences " 
point-blank, setting himself to prove that anyone who reflects 
upon the teaching of Augustine is only a Pelagian in disguise. 
He would have been very glad to involve the Pope in his 
campaign. " The Divine protection," he says, " which operated 
in Innocent, in Zosimus, in Boniface, in Celestine, will operate 
also in Xystus. The other shepherds have driven away wolves 
who are manifest as such : he for his part will have the glory 
of driving away those whose character is hidden." These hidden 
wolves are people like Cassian, Vincent, Hilary of Aries, and 

1 Augustinum sanctae recordationis virum pro vita sua atque mentis 
in nostra communione semper habuimus, nee umquam hunc sinistrae 
suspicionis saltern rumor adspersit ; quem tantae scientiae olim fuisse 
meminimus ut inter magistros optimos etiam ante a meis semper 
decessoribus haberetur. 

J The letter Apostolici verba must be separated from an appendix which 
the MSS. usually present after it, the Auctoritatis di gnttia Dei, with which 
we shall have to deal presently. 

3 Totius urbis pace et consensione mirabili. 



198 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vm. 

Faustus, who had been treated from the outset as hypocrites 
and as mad dogs. 1 

The exhortation missed its mark. Pope Xystus took no 
part. Cassian, secure in his established reputation, did not 
deign to reply. At Lerins Vincent published in 434 his 
Commonitorium> one of the most famous books in Christian 
antiquity. Neither Prosper nor Augustine are mentioned in 
it by name ; but it is clearly as an attack on the Master at 
Hippo that such stress is laid -on the spirit of innovation, on 
the example of Origen and on the necessity of confining oneself 
to doctrines hallowed by a continuous and universal tradition. 
It is in this work that there appears the well-known adage, 
Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus > and it is against 
St Augustine that it is there directed. 

At Rome, too, people were to be met with who, while not 
unmindful of the recent condemnations, were trying to save 
what could be saved of Pelagianism and were very far indeed 
from following Augustine to the extreme limit of his theories. 
It is from this circle that there come down to us various 
writings, probably due to the same author 2 the Conflict of 
Arnobius and Serapion, a Commentary on the Psalms, a work 
entitled Praedestinalus all of them having very little that is 
Augustinian about them, although we find on occasion high 
eulogiums upon St Augustine. 1 * Predestination, handled very 
severely in the Commentary and ignored in the Dialogue of 
Arnobius and Serapion, is attacked in the Praedestinatus in an 
ingenious form. First we are given a list of ninety heresies 
plagiarized for the most part from a similar work of St 
Augustine s. The eighty-eighth is the heresy of Pelagius, 
then comes that of Nestorius, and last that of the Pracdcstinati. 

1 Contra Coll. 21. 

This is the opinion of Dom. G. Morin (Revue Benedictine, 1909, pp. 
419 ff.), and I am much inclined to think that he is right. The Dialogue of 
Arnobius and of Serapion belongs to the last years of Pope Leo, certainly 
later than 454 : the Praedestinatus is older, anterior to the affair of Eutyches, 
of the time of Xystus III. or the first years of Leo : the Commentary may 
go back to a still earlier date. 

a " Ea quae eius nunc profero, ac si sacratissima Apostolorum scripta sic 
credo et teneo et defendo :) (Arnobii Conftictus, ii. 30; Migne, Patrol. Lat. 
liii., p. 314). A passage of St Augustine follows in which is maintained the 
ordinary doctrine on the necessity of grace, without any feature specially 
"Augustinian." 



P. 282-5] ROMAN VIEWS 199 

In connexion with Pelagius and Celestius the story of their 
condemnation by Pope Innocent is told : the principal points 
of their doctrine are indicated, with the objections from the 
side of orthodoxy, all in a highly pacific tone. As for the 
heresy of the Praedestinati, it is represented by a sermon which 
was circulating, we are told, under the name of Augustine and 
which develops, while exaggerating them beyond all measure, 
the salient features of his teaching on Predestination. Then 
follows a formal refutation. This strange book 1 seems certainly 
to be the work of some one of these concealed Pelagians, 
a species which was far from having disappeared from Rome 
and from Italy. It is even possible that its appearance was 
not unconnected with a step taken about 439 by Julian of 
Eclanum in regard to Pope Xystus III. In spite of all the 
condemnations which had fallen upon him in the course of the 
last twenty years, Julian had not lost hope of recovering his 
bishopric. He addressed himself to the Pope with a pretence 
of having returned to orthodox views. There were signs of 
a willingness to listen to him ; the disciples of St Augustine 
were beginning to tremble, when the deacon Leo, an adviser 
who stood high in favour, intervened with Xystus III. and 
Julian was shelved. 2 

From all this no very clear indication could be gained as 
to the doctrinal attitude of the Holy See. Pelagius and 
Celestius, who had been condemned in the time of Innocent 
and of Zosimus, were now abandoned by everybody. But 
people who were at one in including them in the number of 
the heretics were far from agreeing among themselves on the 
details of their own orthodoxy. A document 3 of this period, 
which is Roman in origin and which we have every reason to 
attribute to the deacon Leo, gives us as it were a first attempt 
to define the position of the Roman Church. It is in the main 
that which will be maintained in the course of ensuing con 
troversies. In this it is stated first that certain persons who 
make no difficulty in anathematizing Pelagius and Celestius 
reproach "our masters" with having gone too far in refuting 

1 Hans von Schubert, Der sogenannte Praedestinatus in Tcxtc und 
Untersuchungen, vol. xxiv. 4. 

2 Prosper, Chron. ad ann. 439. 

3 Praeteritorum sedh apostolicae episcoporum auctoritates de gratia Dei^ 
printed at the end of Celestine s letter, Apostolici verba. 



200 AUGUSTINIANISM [CH. vm. 

these heretics and declare that they confine themselves to what 
the Apostolic Pontiffs have decided. The next step is to 
enquire what the latter have defined, and along with them 
the African Councils which have been approved by them. 
From the point of view of the insufficiency of Free Will, the 
necessity of Prevenient Grace and of the gift of Perseverance, 
the doctrine expounded is that of St Augustine and not that 
which was propagated in Provence. As for irresistible Grace 
and Predestination there is no mention of them. There is 
even expressed an unwillingness to enter upon certain questions 
which are specially profound and difficult. 1 

This composition was not, so far as we know, the subject 
of a formal promulgation : it remained in the position of a 
document of weight and authority. The Provencals cannot 
have been entirely satisfied with it : their views on Prevenient 
Grace were excluded rather than approved. However, the 
refusal to enter upon certain questions and the silence preserved 
in regard to Predestination were not likely to be displeasing 
to them. Prosper held his peace. His opponents, while still 
holding their own opinions, seemed to have moderated the 
expression of them. For the moment the controversy was 
lulled. 2 

1 Profundiores vero difficilioresque partes incurrentium quaestionum, 
quas latius pertractarunt qui haereticis restiterunt [sc. Augustine], sicut non 
audemus contemnere, ita non necesse habemus adstruere. 

2 This does not mean that people refrained from reflexion and writing on 
these questions. Two anonymous works belonging to this period have been 
preserved the De vocatione omnium gentium (Migne, P. L. torn, li., p. 
647) and the Hypomncsticon contra Pelagianos et Caelestianos (P. L. torn, 
xlv., p. 1611), which give us different attempts to resolve the problems of 
Predestination. In the first, often attributed to the deacon Leo, the starting 
point assumed as indisputable is the fact that God wills the salvation of 
all men an idea which has very little that is Augustinian about it and 
this is reconciled as best may be with the irresistible efficacy of grace 
(gratia spccialis) and the doctrine of Predestination. The other treatise 
explains Predestination by the aid of a distinction of great subtlety : it is not 
sinners who are predestined to punishment ; it is punishment which is 
predestined for sinners. 



CHAPTER IX 
ATTICUS AND CYRIL 

ARCADIUS died on May I, 408. He left a son of seven years 
old, Theodosius II., and three daughters, 1 Pulcheria, Arcadia, 
and Marina. The first was only two years older than her 
brother. From these nestlings born in the purple no governor 
was to be obtained for the State. And so Honorius, the uncle 
in the West, formed a project of intervention. His powerful 
minister,Stilicho,\vas already making preparations for the journey 
to Constantinople when differences arose between them ; before 
the month of August was ended Stilicho was no more. Shortly 
afterwards Alaric appeared in Italy and provided the Emperor 
Honorius with the most serious reasons for not going away. 
New Rome, besides, could do without the West. Over the 
young imperial family there kept guard a man of honour, alike 
intelligent and strong the Praetorian Prefect, Anthemius : 
he undertook the Regency and administered it with ability. 
In his counsels he had the sophist Troilus, a man of considerable 
repute, and the Archbishop Atticus, 2 one of the cleverest men of 
his time. The young Theodosius already 5 bore the title of 
Augustus : it was also conferred upon Pulcheria when she 
entered her sixteenth year 4 ; and from that time she was 
qualified to take part in the direction of affairs. She did not 
marry, nor did her sisters. They lived, all three of them, in the 

1 Another, the eldest, whose name was Flaccilla, had died before 
him. 

2 Atticus was a native of Sebaste in Armenia. He had lived there for 
a long time among the monks of the celebrated Eustathius (see Vol. II., 
p. 304 f.), monks who belonged to the "Macedonian" belief. He subse 
quently joined the Catholic Church (Sozomen, //. . viii. 27). 

3 He had been proclaimed on January 11, 402. 

4 July 4, 414. 

201 



202 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

imperial palace a life of austerity and piety, in as much retire 
ment as their position allowed. Brought up with them, and to 
some extent by them, Theodosius II. was a mild and religious 
prince, of highly cultivated mind and little inclined for warlike 
adventures. Under his rule the Empire of the East enjoyed 
a tranquillity both without and within which the West had 
every reason to envy. Ways of escape were found without the 
sacrifice of honour from the difficulties unceasingly recurring on 
the Persian frontier. As for the barbarians on the Danube 
they were kept at a distance successfully for the most part 
either by means of money or by the devices of diplomacy. 
Within the Empire the peoples seem to have profited, so far as 
their material prosperity was concerned, by the benefits of 
peace. Constantinople grew in size day by day. Anthemius 
carried out the enclosure of a whole series of suburbs which had 
grown up around the old town. This was the Theodosian 
enclosure which after many restorations still marks the bounds 
of Old Stamboul. The enclosure of Constantine was demolished, 
but its line remained indicated by columns. It was a religious 
frontier. Heretical dissenters, especially those who were 
Arians, could not have churches within the wall of Constantine : 
they were not thrust back beyond the Theodosian wall ; but 
they were compelled to remain outside the columns, and hence 
the name ExokionitaL 

The Patriarch Atticus seems to have been at bottom 
fairly tolerant of heretics, albeit he sometimes addressed 
to them resounding threats. The Novatians especially had 
reason to congratulate themselves on his administration. To 
the former sects there was now added the group of faithful 
supporters of Chrysostom the Johannites, as they were called. 
They Were very numerous, and the Patriarch observed with 
regret that his own churches were sparsely attended, whilst 
mysterious gatherings, held on the outskirts of the capital, 
collected veritable crowds. The enthusiasm of the dissenters 
was sustained by the steadfastness of so many bishops whom 
they knew to have been persecuted and exiled for the good 
cause, and also by the moral support of the Pope of Old Rome. 
After Chrysostom s death and undoubtedly on the accession of 
Theodosius II. the tension was relaxed. On the advice of 
Theophilus himself, Atticus showed himself more yielding and 
thus regained a large number of dissenters. But there remained 



P. 268-91] THEODOSIUS II., ATTICUS, SYNESIUS 203 

a large body who still refused all intercourse with him, and the 
schism continued equally in the populace of Constantinople 
and in the episcopate. 

Theophilus, contented with having destroyed his rival and 
asserted his own dominating influence in the religious affairs 
of the East, was in no way anxious to perpetuate ecclesiastical 
quarrels around himself. Origenism had ceased to interest 
him. It was with the utmost tranquillity of soul that he 
endured the interruption of his relations with the Roman 
Church. Being well assured that the protests of Rome and 
of Ravenna would have no effect at Constantinople, he enjoyed 
in peace his power in Egypt and his influence beyond its 
borders. 

Among the provinces immediately subject to his authority, 
Libya Cyrenaica, of which much had been heard in the 
3rd century in connexion with the heresy of Sabellius and in 
the 4th in connexion with Arianism, 1 provides us in the time 
of Theophilus with a figure as original as it is attractive, 
that of Bishop Synesius. 2 Scion of a noble family for whom 
his erudition traced a connexion with the Dorian kings the 
sons of Heracles, he had received in the schools of Alexandria 
an education of the most superior kind. In the first rank of 
his teachers figured the celebrated Hypatia, who was then the 
director of the Neoplatonist school and for whom he always 
retained, even after his elevation to the episcopate, the most 
tender and most grateful veneration. When barely twenty-five 
years old he was entrusted (c. 400 A.D.) with the conduct of a 
deputation of his fellow-citizens to Constantinople. During 
the long stay that he made in the capital he had an opportunity 
of seeing Chrysostom, Eutropius, and Gainas. On returning 
to Alexandria he married. Theophilus, with whom he was 
acquainted, blessed the union. Then he retired to his country 
side, holding himself as far as possible aloof from public affairs, 
devoting himself to bodily exercises, especially to the chase, and 
never ceasing to cultivate his mind. Poet, orator, philosopher, 
an astronomer at a pinch and a geometrician, he was interested 
in everything. We possess writings of his in these various 

1 Vol. I., p. 350 ; Vol. II., pp. 103, 122. 

2 On the chronology of Synesius see the memoir of Otto Seeck in 
Philologus ( 1 893), pp. 442 ff. 



204 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

fields, and notably letters in a style at once vivid and of con 
siderable refinement. In religion he was a Neoplatonist 
slightly tinged with Christianity. With the Pope Theophilus 
he maintained friendly relations, but his intellectual sympathies 
attached him by preference to the circle of Hypatia. 

In this way he was leading a life of pleasing tranquillity 
when about the year 410 1 the people of Ptolemais made up 
their minds to elect him Bishop. There was sufficient ground 
for dismay. Religion, and especially theology, had scarcely 
troubled his attention hitherto : he was a very tyro in it. What 
was more, to say nothing of religious ceremonies, a bishop was 
absorbed from morning till night in the care of his flock. He 
had to judge them, to administer them, to relieve their various 
miseries and to help them in everything. In short, Synesius 
saw himself compelled to live solely for others. What an 
upsetting! A picture rises before our minds of Ausonius 
invited to accept the episcopal office. Finally there were 
dogmas and canonical ordinances with which he would not 
easily come to terms. They would not secure from him a 
literal acceptance of the doctrine of the resurrection of bodies 
in the sense in which the common people understood it, nor 
the abandonment of his wife, nor his hope of still having 
children. In regard to all this he wrote an open letter 2 to his 
brother Euoptius, and in it the Patriarch Theophilus was 
strongly urged not to ratify the election. But Theophilus 
was easy-going at times. We do not know to what 
extent Synesius caused him to accept his programme : the 
fact remains that in the end he was consecrated Bishop of 
Ptolemais. In this unexpected position he had, luckily for 
himself, no dogmatic difficulty to settle : in the jurisdiction 
of the Patriarch of Alexandria, ordinary bishops had not to 
trouble themselves about these thing s. But Libya was not 
secure against the scourges, within and without, which were 
desolating all the provinces. It was suffering under bad 
officials and under barbarians. Synesius found himself at 

1 The chronology of Synesius and that of his letters is not very easy to 
fix. However, he was most probably ordained in 411, after more than seven 
months of hesitation (Epp. 13, 95). According to O. Seeck {Phihlogus, vol. 
lii., pp. 460 flf.) we should put this back to the year 407 ; but that is irrecon 
cilable with Letter 66. 

2 Ep. 105. 



p. 291-4] SYNESIUS, ISIDORE, NILUS 205 

close quarters with both, and the traces of it have remained 
in his picturesque correspondence. 

The children of the desert, Maketes and Ausurians, were 
beginning terrible forays in the coast region. 1 Synesius 
demanded adequate troops and experienced leaders : for 
his own part he mounted guard on the walls of his episcopal 
town. Almost as formidable as the brigands of the interior, 
the Governor Andronicus 2 was afflicting the province by his 
extortions and his cruelties. Synesius did not hesitate to 
excommunicate him : at the same time he exerted himself at 
Constantinople to get rid of this venal magistrate. He 
succeeded, and Andronicus fell into disgrace. Then we find 
the good-hearted Synesius, forgetful of his grievances and his 
excommunications, undertaking the defence of his luckless 
adversary. Synesius was not bishop for long: he must have 
died about the same time as Theophilus, for in his letters 3 he 
never mentions his successor Cyril. The faithful friend of 
Hypatia had not the sorrow of hearing of her tragic end. 
Outside his distant province and certain literary circles, 
Synesius does not seem to have been widely known. From 
the other side of the Delta, other voices secured a better 
hearing : they were, it is true, voices of authority, voices of men 
of God those of Isidore of Pelusium and of Nilus the Sinaite. 

The latter was a former official of Constantinople. He had 
retired with his son Theodulus to the rude solitudes of Sinai, 
and lived there for a long time protected from the world, but 
not from Saracen robbers. Theodulus was carried off by 
them, and it was only after many adventures that his father 
succeeded in finding him again. 4 Isidore was an Egyptian of 
good family who ruled over a monastery in the outskirts of 
Pelusium. Both of them were men of great culture : they 
had left behind them in the world a large number of ties ; their 
sanctity, which was eminent and celebrated, brought them 
many others. They were counsellors, spiritual directors, for 
the whole Empire of the East. Nilus left many ascetic 
writings for the special use of monks. Of each of them there 

1 He often speaks of them in his letters (59, 69, 88, 123), and especially 
in his discourse called " Catastasis." 

2 Epp* 57, 58, 72, 73, 79, 89. 

3 Ep. 12 is addressed to a Cyril ; but it is certainly not the Patriarch. 

4 Vol. II., p. 407, note 3. 



206 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

remains an enormous quantity of letters, for the most part 
preserved only in extracts. Nilus was a great admirer of 
Chrysostom : he Would not allow that anyone should be 
scandalized at his statements, even the most vehement of 
them. 1 Isidore, for whom the Bishop of Constantinople was 
the Master par excellence in exegesis and in theology, did 
not hesitate to side with him against Theophilus and to 
stigmatize energetically the proceedings of the Bishop of 
Alexandria : " Egypt, forever the enemy of Moses, forever 
attached to Pharaoh, has let loose against the saintly doctor 
this Theophilus, this man whose besetting passion is gems 
and gold : he has associated with himself four accomplices, 
four apostates like himself: 2 together they have downed 
Chrysostom." 3 It is surprising that, though adopting a style 
of this sort, Isidore had not had to suffer from the revengeful 
Patriarch. Cyril also received from him admonitions in severe 
terms. In short, if all those whom he taught their duty had 
risen against him, he would have had to go through some 
very unpleasant times. Priests, bishops, monks, provincial 
officials, great men of the Court, all were rebuked with the 
most complete freedom: the Emperor himself, the pious 
Theodosius II., did not escape the strictures of the saint of 
Egypt. But it was to the clergy of Pelusium especially, and 
in particular to their head, Bishop Eusebius, that his invectives 
were devoted. This Eusebius seems to have lived to a great age 
in spite of Isidore s hostility : we come across him again at the 
time of the Monophysite quarrel in which he played an evil part. 
At Bethlehem in his restored monastery Jerome was 
watching the approach of the end of his long career. The 
Pelagians, his last opponents, were stinging him still by their 
writings. A certain Annianus of Celeda, 4 who at the time of 
the Council of Diospolis had acted as a sort of secretary of 
Pelagius, was attacking the Letter to Ctesiphon and the 
Anti-Pelagian Dialogues. Jerome proposed to administer 
sound punishment to him; but he was prevented from doing 

1 Ep. i. 309. 

2 The three Syrians Acacius, Severian, and Antiochus and Cyrinus 
of Chalcedon. 

3 Ep. i. 152. 

4 Ceneda in Venetia? He translated into Latin several homilies of 
St John Chrysostom. 



p. 29-1-7] DEATH OF JEROME 207 

so by the death of Eustochium, which plunged him into 
sorrow both prolonged and deep. His prostration betrays 
itself in the last letter that he wrote to his friends in Africa, 
Alypius and Augustine. 1 From that time forward, too, it was 
on the Bishop of Hippo that he relied to continue the struggle 
and to secure the final defeat of the heretics. He himself was 
too old : he felt it. 

Eustochium did not leave him alone in the world. The 
young Paula remained with him, and also the devout family 
of the Caelian Hill Melania, her mother Albina, and the 
excellent Pinianus. Peace had been concluded between 
Bethlehem and the Mount of Olives: the grandchildren of 
the first Melania fraternized with those of the first Paula. 
Together they received the last roarings of the old lion : 
Jerome died on September 30, 420. 

At Antioch, so long as Porphyry lived, that is to say till 
about the year 414, Chrysostom s opponents waged against 
his memory the war that they had levied against his person. 
In succession to Porphyry there was elected a former monk, 
Alexander, a man of peaceful views. He showed these in 
the first instance in relation to the remnants of the Little 
Church, who, though deprived of a bishop after the death 
of Evagrius, continued none the less in their attitude of 
schism. It was indeed a bright day when Bishop Alexander 
went with his own people to fetch the old believers in their 
church at the Southern gate, and led them all to the great 
cathedral of Constantine, with their voices united at last in 
the same psalmody. 2 Alexander did not stop there : he 
replaced in the diptychs the name of Archbishop John, and 
thus regained all those who had taken sides at Antioch 
against Porphyry. The priests and other clergy of the two 
dissenting groups were received into the number of the 
conforming clergy. Two bishops, Helpidius of Laodicea and 
Pappus, who had been removed from their sees for their 
adherence to Chrysostom, were also restored. Finally, Alexander 
despatched to Rome and secured the presentation to Innocent 
of the records of these two reunions. The Pope was highly 

Rp. cxliii. We do not know if he was acquainted with the book written 
against him by Theodore of Mopsuestia (supra, p. 185). He nowhere 
mentions it. 

- Theodorel, H. E. v. 35. 



208 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

pleased with them, and communion was re-established between 
the two sees of St Peter. 1 

The Bishop of Antioch exhibited the greatest possible 
zeal. In the course of a journey that he made to Constantinople 
we find the people stirred up to demand the insertion of the 
name of John in the diptychs, in spite of the opposition of 
Atticus. The latter held his ground : for the moment nothing 
was changed. At Antioch, too, a reaction was not slow in 
taking place : Theodotus, Alexander s successor, effaced John s 
name once more. Opinion in Syria remained seriously divided. 
The aged Acacius of Bercea, tenacious in his hate but 
embarrassed by the fervour of John s followers, shuffled 
painfully between the two parties. Under Bishop Alexander 
he had submitted to a reconciliation with the Roman Pope 
and had taken the steps necessary to secure it. He would 
greatly have preferred that Theodotus should stand firm in 
his new attitude ; but the people of Antioch had had enough 
of these quarrels of bishops: they compelled their Patriarch 
to pronounce in the holy mysteries the name of the illustrious 
bishop, their fellow-countryman, the glory of their city. 

It only remained to secure the acceptance of this surrender 
alike at Constantinople and at Alexandria. Acacius under 
took the task and wrote to the two Archbishops. At 
Constantinople the letter which was disclosed to the populace 
threw it into a ferment. Atticus made up his mind to placate 
it. He negotiated matters with the Court, replaced John in 
the list of his predecessors, and everything was settled. 

Things did not move so quickly at Alexandria. Theophilus 
had died in 412. To his last hour he remained unbending, 
troubling himself very little about Roman protests. The 
Council of Africa made an attempt in 407 to intervene in 
this dispute and to reconcile Rome with Alexandria: it was 
sheer waste of energy. Isidore of Pelusium made his plaint 
in vain: no attention was paid to him. Synesius, who had 
small comprehension of these unbridled hatreds, was of opinion 
that since John s death at any rate they had no longer any 
ground for existence 2 : they let him talk. Even the death 
of the obstinate Patriarch brought no change. 

1 For the Papal letters relating to this business see Jafife, Regesta, 305- 
310 ; their date is about 415 A.D. 
* Ep. 66. 



p. 297-300] ANTIOCH AND ALEXANDRIA 209 

He was as a matter of fact replaced by his nephew Cyril, 
in whom there lived again all his own qualities, both bad 
and good. Like Theophilus Cyril was a man of great 
ecclesiastical learning and a spotless life : like him also he 
showed himself daring and hard. The terror which the 
Patriarch of Alexandria inspired around him and in the whole 
of the East was not relaxed for a moment. Cyril soon 
gained at Constantinople the reputation of being a formidable 
person. All that was heard of was his conflicts with the 
Augustal Prefect, Orestes. The reason of their estrangement 
we do not know. It was perhaps due to an attempt on the 
part of the imperial authorities 1 after the death of Theophilus 
to run a candidate in opposition to Cyril. Whatever may 
be the fact as to its causes, this resentment showed itself on 
all possible occasions. One day when the Prefect was settling 
some police business relating to the Jews and their continual 
tumults, the Jews recognized among the crowd present a 
schoolmaster named Hierax, a fanatical admirer of Cyril 
and leader of the " claque " at his sermons. 2 They proceeded 
to treat him as an agent provocateur \ a fosterer of disturbances. 
The Prefect suspected that Hierax had been sent to spy 
upon him and caused him to be publicly chastised. In anger, 
Cyril summoned the heads of the Jewish nation and uttered 
terrible threats in case their disturbances continued. The 
bishop did not, of course, possess any power capable legally 
of repression ; but he held the populace in his hand ; a 
sign from him could let loose a tumult. The Jews formed 
the shameful project of taking the initiative and organizing 
under pretext of a fire an affray by night. In this they killed 
a large number of Christians. At daybreak the secret plot 
was discovered by the latter. Cyril let them loose upon 
the synagogues, and this was the end of the Jewish colony at 
Alexandria : it was dispersed, and its possessions and those 
of its members were given over to pillage. 

We can imagine whether the Prefect Orestes was glad to 
live in contact and in conflict with this force of revolt. Cyril 

1 Socrates, //. E. vii. 7, mentions here not Orestes but the military 
commandant, Abundantius. 

2 The evil custom of applauding preachers was tolerated at that time. 
Naturally enough the applause came to be organized into a system under 
the direction of interested parties. 



210 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

became, in his eyes, more than a public enemy a personal 
opponent. It was in vain that attempts were made to reconcile 
them. Cyril, it was reported, lent himself to an advance : he 
appeared in the Prefect s presence with the Book of the Gospels 
in his hands. What has he to say to him as a commentary 
on this display? As a matter of fact the Prefect remained 
unyielding. 

In the number of Cyril s supporters there figured the 
solitaries of Nitria. The execution of the Origenists had 
put an end to their dissensions : the Patriarch now held 
them under his hand. One day the Prefect met in the street 
a band of five hundred monks who had lately arrived from the 
desert. Their intentions were hostile. They began to assail 
him with invectives and to treat him as a heathen. It was 
in vain that he protested that he had been baptized at 
Constantinople, by Archbishop Atticus. A monk named 
Ammonius threw a stone at him which made his head bleed. 
The monk was at once arrested and put to the torture, and 
so acutely that he gave up the ghost. Cyril provided him 
with solemn obsequies, pronounced a funeral oration upon 
him, and ordered that he should be regarded as a martyr. 

Among the people who enjoyed the favour of the Prefect 
figured the illustrious Hypatia, a woman of high literary dis 
tinction, as much renowned for her personal character as for 
her ability. She was still a heathen, and directed the Neo- 
platonist school. Orestes was not the only Christian of note who 
held her in esteem. We have seen above with what veneration 
Bishop Synesius regarded her. In Cyril s entourage she was 
regarded as the instigator of all the evil designs of the Prefect. 
It was .she, they asserted, who prevented him being on good 
terms with the Bishop. One day a band of fanatics led by a 
certain Peter, one of Cyril s Readers, laid wait for her, pulled 
her from her carriage and dragged her into the church of the 
Caesareum. There she was stripped of her garments and 
battered to death with tiles : she was then torn to pieces, and 
her poor remains were burnt in a cannibal-like orgy. This 
took place in the month of March 4I5. 1 

1 The accounts given above are told us by Socrates. They represent 
the reports credited at Constantinople and so admit a certain measure of 
exaggeration. However, the impression which results from them cannot 
be disregarded, for it agrees only too well with what other documents of a 



p. 300-3] MURDER OF HYPATIA 211 

Such was the milieu into which the wise-heads of Antioch 
and Constantinople had to endeavour to introduce counsels of 
moderation and readiness to forgive. They took a very humble 
tone. 1 Acacius adduced the disturbances at Antioch, Atticus 
those at Constantinople : one of them spoke of the reluctance 
of Theodotus, the other of his own. Atticus appealed to the 
feelings of the Court, and declared that John had been placed 
upon a list on which there were not only bishops but also clergy 
of lower rank and lay folk, both men and women : he said that 
after all the Arian Eudoxius rested in the same burial-place as 
the orthodox bishops of Constantinople. It was not easy to 
delude Cyril in the matter: he was an authority on diptychs, 
and had no difficulty in establishing that on those of 
Constantinople John occupied an honourable place in the 
number of the bishops and not among the laity. But John 
had been deposed from the episcopate : he was no longer a 
bishop. To restore him in this fashion, said the Bishop of 
Alexandria, was to replace Judas in the Apostolic College. It 
was his uncle, Theophilus, who had presided over the Council of 
the Oak : he himself was present at it 2 ; he knew at first hand 
what had taken place there. They would not obtain the 
concession either from him or from the Egyptian Episcopate 
which was behind him to a man. 

We do not know what was the result of this business. That 
Cyril ever replaced John in the diptychs of Alexandria is a con 
clusion for which there is no evidence whatever ; but whether he 
eventually made up his mind to it or they ceased to press for 
the step, the fact remains that relations were renewed between 
the great Churches. 

The Pelagian business which made a stir in Palestine 
about the time that Alexander, the Bishop of Antioch, was 
rehabilitating the memory of Chrysostom, did not affect their 
intercourse. The condemnations in the West were observed 
everywhere except at Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, as we have seen 
above. The Patriarch Atticus had no intention of allowing 

less questionable kind tell us with regard to the character and proceedings 
of the terror-inspiring Archbishop. 

1 The letter of Acacius is lost, but Cyril mentions it in his Ep. 76, by 
w.hich he replies to that of Atticus. (Ep. 75. Migne, Patrol. Latino, 
torn. Ixxvii., pp. 347-360.) 

2 Ep- 33- 

III. P 



212 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix 

himself to be drawn into this dispute. This does not mean 
that, even after he had been reconciled with the Popes, he 
showed any great deference towards them. We find him, on 
various occasions, setting himself in opposition to their claims 
relative to the higher control of the Episcopate of Illyria, 
which he was endeavouring to attract within his own orbit. 
This attitude, natural enough on the part of the Bishop of 
Constantinople, was in no way peculiar to Atticus. 

The Messalians continued to give the prelates of the East 
reasons for anxiety similar to those which the Priscillianists 
and the Manicheans aroused in their colleagues of the West. 
Atticus was compelled to devote his attention to these curious 
sectaries, who were always very popular in certain districts of 
Asia Minor. They did not cease to increase in numbers, and 
cared nothing either for ecclesiastical sentences or for the 
imperial laws which proscribed them. In Pamphylia, and in 
the neighbouring regions of Lycia and Lycaonia, and as far as 
Cappadocia, they made themselves heard of incessantly. It 
seems clear that they were strong enough to intimidate the 
bishops, for again and again the shepherds have to be recalled 
to the necessity of exercising severity against these intract 
able sheep. Atticus set himself to do so, 1 and so did his 
successors after him. The Bishops of Antioch were not less 
active. 2 Archelaus of Caesarea in Cappadocia condemned 
twenty-four propositions in which the Messalian teaching was 
summed up : his suffragan, Heraclidas of Nyssa, published two 
letters against the sectaries. Finally, the Council of Ephesus, 
at the request of the Bishops of Jconium and of Side, delivered 
a new decree against the heretics. 3 

For all that they were not rooted out. Some thirty years 
after the Council of Ephesus, one of them, a certain Lampetius, 
imposed upon the good nature of Alypius, the Archbishop of 
Caesarea, and secured ordination as priest. Prosecuted by an 

1 Letters to the Bishops of Pamphylia and to Amphilochius, Metro 
politan of Side (Photius, Cod. 52). 

2 Letter addressed to the Metropolitans of Perga [Beronician] and of 
Side [Amphilochius] by Sisinnius of Constantinople, Theodotus of Antioch, 
and the other bishops gathered together for the ordination of Sisinnius ; 
letter of John of Antioch to Nestorius (ibid.). 

3 Ibid. Of all this literary material which Photius had before him there 
remains only and that in a Latin version the decree of the Council of 
Ephesus (Act. vii., Mansi, Concilia, torn, iv., p. 1477). 



p. 303-6] THE MESSALIANS 

Archimandrite, Gerontius, he was deprived for offences against 
the ordinary law, but none the less retained considerable 
influence within his own circle. The Messalians, or at any 
rate a section of them, were called after him Lampetians. 
Even, as far as Egypt he found champions : Alfius, a Bishop of 
Rhinocorura, and a priest of the same name were deposed as 
partisans of Lampetius. He was the author of a book called 
Testament, which was refuted by Severus, the Monophysite 
Patriarch of Antioch, before his elevation to the episcopate. 1 

The sect diversified itself still further, under other leaders 
and other designations. The title of Marcianites, which we 
find from the close of the 6th century, came to it from a 
banker named Marcian, a contemporary of Justinian and of 
Justin II. 2 In Armenia, too, the Messalians caused scandal and 
incurred ecclesiastical condemnations. 3 They seem to have 
been absorbed in the 7th century by the sect of the 
Paulicians. 

Amongst the people upon whom the Messalians way of 
life and their constant prayer exercised a powerful attraction, 
we find in the early years of the 5th century a certain 
Alexander, a man of great reputation in the deserts of Syria 
and as far as Antioch. 4 He had many disciples to whom he 
gave a three-fold rule : absolute poverty, abstention from work, 
and incessant application to prayer. Some of them were 
collected in monasteries : with others, who formed sometimes 
bands of considerable numbers, he wandered about on pretext 
of evangelization in the solitudes which bordered on the 
Euphrates, as far as Palmyra and the Persian frontier. At 
Edessa he converted a magistrate of influence, Rabbula, who 
later became a bishop. Sometimes he appeared at Antioch 
where the authorities, both ecclesiastical and military, looked 
upon him with no favourable eye. In this way he came into 

1 Photius, ibid. 

* Timothy, a priest of Constantinople, llfpi rwr Trf>o<Tfpx*i*ew rg E*/cA?<n$ 
(Migne, Patrol. Graeca, torn. Ixxxvi. 1 , p. 45). 

g See on this Ter-Mkrttschian, Die Paulikicuicr (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 39 fif. 
It is possible that the Malpatus referred to in a letter of Isaac of Nineveh 
(Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, torn. viii. n , p. 184) is connected with an 
Edessene incident in the history of this sect. Malpatus has been 
connected with Lampetius. 

* Life of Alexander (Ac fa Sanctorum, January 15) ; Life of St Marcellus 
(Migne, P. G. torn, cxvi., p. 709). 



214 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

contact with Bishops Porphyry and Theodotus : the latter took 
steps to get rid of him, and Alexander fled in secret to 
Constantinople. 

There he established himself near the Church of St Menas, 
and his propaganda, to which he devoted himself without 
delay, had such success that more than three hundred monks 
abandoned their convents to put themselves under his direction. 
The superiors protested ; the populace rose ; an enquiry was 
instituted into the antecedents of the new-comer ; he was put 
on trial before a synod which seems to have been held in 426, 
in the presence of Theodotus of Antioch, a person who was 
at once hostile and well informed. To cut the story short, 
Alexander was recommended to return to Syria. Though 
roughly treated on the journey by the Bishop of Chalcedon 
he was well received on the other hand by Hypatius, the 
superior of the monastery of Rufinianae. Permission was 
obtained for him to remain in the neighbourhood. He with 
drew into retirement on the Asiatic side of the Strait in a 
solitude called Gomon, exactly at the point where the Bosphorus 
debouches into the Black Sea. The community formed itself 
once more in this asylum, and by relaxing its observances 
at length secured toleration. The old monks had very little 
liking for the abstention from work. From the height of his 
Sinai St Nilus fulminated [ resolutely against the idleness 
which was inculcated both by Adelphius the Mesopotamia!! 
and by " this Alexander who has lately troubled Constanti 
nople." Alexander is here in bad company, for Adelphius, 
who is mentioned with him, was one of the founders of the 
Messalian sect. 2 However he was able to die in peace in 
his convent at Gomon. After his death the Congregation 
transferred itself, keeping to the same shore of the Bosphorus, 
to a place called Irenaeon (Tchiboukli) which was nearer to 
Constantinople. This was the Monastery of the Akoimetoi* to 
which its second abbot, St Marcellus, gave high distinction. It 
played a part sometimes in great religious concerns. The 
name Akoimetoi (those who do not sleep) is derived from the 
fact that neither day nor night did prayer cease in the oratory 

1 De Paupertate (Migne, Patrol. Graeca^ torn. Ixxix., p. 997). 

2 Vol. II., p. 462. 

3 As to this see Pargoire, " Un Mot sur les Acemetes " (Echos ^Orient, 
vol. ii., pp. 304, 369)- 



p. 306-9] INFLUENCE OF MONASTERIES 215 

of the Irenaeon, the monks dividing themselves in groups by 
relays to keep up a perpetual chanting of psalms. Under this 
form, the fundamental observance of the Messalians succeeded 
in acclimatizing itself in the Church. The Akoimetoi soon 
became very popular : several monasteries of Constantinople 
adopted the laus perennis ; it even made its way to the 
West. 1 

Monasteries were multiplying themselves at Constantinople 
and in the suburbs. The first and the most ancient had been 
founded under Theodosius, round the hermitage of the famous 
monk, Isaac, 2 by Dalmatius, an officer who had been converted 
to the strict observance. Other monasteries, notably that of 
Dius, dated back almost to the same time. From the 
beginning of the 5th century these foundations became very 
numerous. Isaac, always alive and always active, displayed an 
extraordinary zeal in multiplying them. In all he was 
considered as a sort of common ancestor. Beyond the 
Bosphorus the most ancient colony of monks had been organized 
by the minister Rufinus at the church of his villa that 
renowned Villa of the Oak where several councils were held. 
Rufinus monks had come from Egypt: after some time they 
returned there. In the church there was to be seen besides the 
tomb of the founder that of one of the celebrated Tall Brothers, 
Ammonius Parotes. 3 In the time of Arcadius a Phrygian 
monk called Hypatius came to the place from the Thracian 
convent of Halmyrissos, 4 and after one or two tentative efforts 
established in it a community of importance. This Hypatius 
of whom we possess an adequate biography 5 was, like many of 
the solitaries, difficile enough in temperament. Quarrels often 
occurred between him and Eulalius, the Bishop of Chalcedon, 
as for example on the day when he gave shelter to Alexander 
the Akoimete, who had been cudgelled by the Bishop s people. 
A Prefect of Constantinople on one occasion formed a project 

1 We know that it was introduced into the monastery of St Maurice of 
Agannum (St Maurice). 

2 Vol. II., p. 332 \ supra, pp. 54, 63. On " Les Debuts du Monachisme a 
Constantinople," see Pargoire in Revue des questions historiqucs, vok Ixv. 
(1899), P- 67. 

3 Supra, p. 66. 

4 This owed its foundation to a certain Jonas who came from Roman 
Armenia : it is mentioned in the Life of Hypatius. 

5 By one of his disciples called Callinicus (Ada Sanctorum, June 17). 



216 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

of renewing at Chalcedon the festival of the Olympic Games. 
Despite the Bishop s explanations Hypatius declined to see in 
these games anything but pagan ceremonies : he roused all the 
monks in the neighbourhood, and in the end frightened the 
Prefect who was obliged to abandon his schemes and re-cross 
the Bosphorus. Some considerable time before the Council 
of Ephesus Hypatius had declared on his own account that 
Nestorius was a heretic and had erased his name from the 
diptychs. 

It was not only at Chalcedon that the monks showed them 
selves a source of annoyance to the clergy. For the Archbishop 
of Constantinople himself, the exalted pontiff of New Rome, 
they cared no more than for any casual bishop. Chrysostom 
reckoned them among his most determined opponents. If they 
were on friendly terms with Atticus who had been on the same 
side as themselves at the Council of the Oak, Nestorius soon 
had them against him, and so did Flavian and Anatolius. 
The GEcumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) had reason to 
complain of their insolence. 

Throughout the whole of the East the popularity of 
monasticism as an institution led to the multiplication of 
foundations and the complication of relations. Alexandria, 
Antioch, and Jerusalem surrounded themselves with colonies 
of ascetics. In ordinary times the result was a good deal of 
edification ; but there were moments of crisis, and then we 
shall speedily find the monastic element playing in them a 
more definitely pronounced part than hierarchical authority 
would have desired. In the suburbs of Antioch among several 
solitaries whose life has been described to us by Theodoret 1 
who knew them in most cases, the great celebrity was 
Simeon Stylites. Simeon 2 had at first been a shepherd and 
then a monk ig a monastery ; but his taste for austerities of the 
minutest kind pushed to inordinate extremes rendered him 
unsuitable for life in a community, and he made up his mind 
to live alone engaged in appalling exercises, passing whole 
Lents without eating or drinking, keeping himself erect for days 
and weeks, and at last caused himself to be attached by an iron 

1 " Hisroria Religiosa " (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, torn. Ixxxii.). 

2 Theodoret, op. cit. c. 22, an account written in the lifetime of Simeon, 
who indeed survived his biographer. On the other lives of St Simeon 
Stylites see the memoir cited in the next note. 



p. 309-11] EASTERN MONACHISM 217 

chain fixed in the face of a bare rock. At the suggestion of 
an ecclesiastical dignitary he finally gave up his chain ; but it 
was only to imprison himself in another way, for he caused a 
column of masonry to be built for himself, climbed to the top 
of it, 1 and took up his abode there. He justified this strange 
home on the ground of the impossibility that he had found of 
escaping from the importunity of the visitors whom the fame 
of his penance had caused to flock to his desert. The column 
was at first about ten feet high : in course of time it was 
gradually raised. Theodoret saw it when it had reached a 
height of about sixty feet. It was aloft on this that Simeon 
received visitors. 

The other monks began by taking offence at this unusual 
practice. From Nitria there came very energetic censures 2 of 
it. But Simeon was a man of such simplicity and goodness, 
of character so unalloyed, that they were really obliged to allow 
him his pillar. Besides it was protected by a popularity which 
knew no bounds. The saint was talked about not merely in 
the Roman East but as far as Rome itself, where his picture 
was in all the shops, as far as Gaul and Paris, to which 
commercial relations brought a large number of Syrians. 
Genevieve of Nanterre, the famous Virgin of Paris, exchanged 
compliments with the Saint of Antioch. Caravans carried his 
name to the Ethiopians, throughout the whole of the Persian 
Empire and farther still to the country of the Turks. 3 But it 
was in his immediate neighbourhood above all that his authority 
as an ascetic extended its influence in all directions. The 
Bedouins of Syria and of Mesopotamia flocked around him. 
Upon these children of the desert he produced the impression 
of a celestial Being. He used to make speeches to them in a 
style that they could understand. Theodoret was sometimes 
present at these extraordinary prophesyings. One day Simeon 
fixed on him as priest for his Arabs and told them to ask for 

1 On the Pillar Saints (Stylitae) see the admirable work of Pere H. 
Delehaye, Les Stylites^ in the "Compte-rendu" of the third Congres 
scientifique internationale des Catholiques, section v., p. 191. 

2 Theodore the Reader, ii. 41. In the collection of the letters of St 
Nilus there are two documents (ii. 114, 115) addressed to a Stylite called 
Nicander for whom he shows little consideration. There is difficulty in 
accepting the authenticity of these letters. In the time of St Nilus (J43o) 
Simeon seems most probably to have been the only one of his kind. 

3 Modern Turkestan. 



218 ATTICUS AND CYRIL [CH. ix. 

his blessing. They flung themselves upon him with such 
impetuosity that he would have been smothered, had not the 
saint from the top of his column checked them by his cries. 

The instructions which Simeon addressed to such hearers 
were, as one can well imagine, somewhat elementary in their 
theology. This did not hinder them from having recourse to 
his elucidations in difficult problems. Simeon and two of his 
brother ascetics were consulted, in 458, as to the advisability 
of upholding the definitions of Chalcedon. On this question 
all the provincial councils of the East had been invited to 
express their views. Simeon, simple man as he was, was 
treated as though he were a council. His death in 459 was 
an event of the most far-reaching effect. He was taken down 
from his pillar, and his body, after being solemnly transported 
to Antioch, was laid to rest in the principal church. The pillar 
was preserved : it was surrounded with an enormous octagonal 
piazza on the sides of which were built four great basilicas. 
The imposing ruins of these buildings and even the remains of 
the pillar can still be seen in the district of Kalaat-Semaan 
(Castle of Simeon) between Antioch l and Aleppo. 

1 Vogue, La Syrie centrale, p. 141, plates 139-151. The place was 
formerly called Telanissos, and this name is preserved in the modern one, 
Tell Neschin. Evagrius had seen this monument and describes it, Hist. 
Eccles. \. 13. Cf. Lebas and Waddington, Voyage archtologique^ vol. iii. 
2691, 2692. 



CHAPTER X 
THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS 

THE Patriarch Atticus died on October 8, 425. Save for his 
hostility towards St John Chrysostom we have little but good to 
say of his administration. He was a good ecclesiastical leader, 
pious, intelligent, and above all able to deal with a situation 
and conciliatory in temper. He had known how to settle the 
business of the Johannites and to steer clear of any kind of 
compromise with the Pelagians. His church lived in almost 
undisturbed peace and his relations with other churches outside 
it were not less satisfactory. He was favourably regarded at 
Rome, and even at Alexandria he was forgiven for having half 
rehabilitated John, and they refrained from taking any steps in 
opposition to him. Besides, to have done so would have been 
a rather dangerous enterprise, for Atticus as a cautious man, 
in favour at Court, and fertile in resource, was not an easy 
person to tackle. 

On his death the sympathies of the clergy were divided 
between two candidates two priests, Proclus and Philip. The 
former had been his secretary l and was an orator of distinction. 
The other, a native of Side in Pamphylia, was rather a man of 
learning, of the muddled kind. He was engaged upon a great 
History of Christianity which has not come down to us. 2 
Whilst these two candidates were being mooted, the voice ol 
the people made itself heard to demand an old priest of the 
suburbs, 3 Sisinnius, a man widely known for his piety and his 
charity, a person of simple character and average education. 
He was enthroned. Philip returned to his studies, and as for 
Proclus he was consecrated by the new Patriarch bishop for the 
metropolitical see of Cyzicus. The town of Cyzicus was in the 
" Diocese " of Asia, and the question might be asked whether 

1 Socrates, H. E. vii. 41. 2 Vol. II., p. viii, note I. 

3 The suburb of Elea, the modern Pera. 

219 



220 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

the Patriarch was really within his rights in sending it a bishop. 
The jurisdiction and privileges of the Bishops of Constantinople 
as regards the provinces on the other side of the Bosphorus had 
not yet been defined by Councils. An imperial law (i/o/xo?) had 
laid it down, so it would appear, that the people of Cyzicus 
could not elect their bishop without the advice of Atticus. 1 At 
Cyzicus people were convinced that this privilege, as being 
personal to Atticus, could not authorize his successors to 
interfere in their elections. When Proclus went to take 
possession of his see, he found it occupied by a certain 
Dalmatius, 2 who had been elected and consecrated without 
reference to the Bishop of Constantinople. The situation was 
such that he thought it advisable to take what had befallen 
him with patience : he returned to the capital where he found 
an occupation as a preacher. 

Sisinnius lasted only for two years : he died at the end of 
the year 427. Once more the supporters of Philip and Proclus 
loudly urged their claims. The Court did not think that the 
state of feeling was such as to justify it in upholding one of 
the parties against the other : it made up its mind to choose 
a new bishop outside the ranks of the clergy of Constantinople. 
There was much talk at Antioch about a priest called Nestorius 
who was superior of a monastery 3 close to the town. Com 
mended by the austerity of his life, he also enjoyed a reputation 
for eloquence : his sonorous and well-modulated voice and his 
easy elocution attracted hearers. 

When installed in the see of the capital he disclosed himself 
from the outset as a great slasher of heretics. In his inaugural 
sermon (April 10, 428) he promised heaven to the Emperor on 
condition that, by his agency, the earth were purged of all 
religious dissent 4 " With me, Sir, overthrow the heretics ; with 
you I will overthrow the Persians." So far as the heretics were 
concerned these were not empty words. The Arians had 
succeeded, in spite of the laws, in retaining a chapel in the 
old town of Constantinople. Nestorius discovered it : five days 

1 Socrates, H. E. vii. 28. 2 Vol. II., p. in, note i. 

3 In the 6th century it was called the monastery of Euprepius (Evagrius, 
H. E. \. 7). 

4 A statement related by Socrates, H. E. vii. 39, no doubt with a little 
exaggeration ; but at bottom it is nearly enough in the style both of the time 
and of the man. 



p. 314-17] SISINNIUS AND NESTORIUS 221 

only after his consecration the police went to close it The 
Arians in exasperation set it on fire, and the flames spread to 
the neighbouring houses. The Quarter was burnt, and people 
began to treat the bishop as an incendiary. The Government 
supported him in his campaign : at his request a law of 
great harshness 1 renewed the old prohibitions and made them 
more definite. Fortified by this new document the Patriarch 
set himself to take proceedings against the Novatians, the 
Quartodecimans, and the Macedonians. The Quartodecimans 
were numerous in Lydia and in Caria, and offered resistance. 
Sardis and Miletus were drenched in blood by risings. In the 
Province of the Hellespont there were still " Macedonian " 
communities who went back to the time now distant of 
Eleusius. 2 Nestorius harried them, aided upon the spot by the 
Bishop of Germa, a certain Antony. The victims of oppression 
took their revenge, and Antony was assassinated. This was 
the end of the Macedonian schism. An imperial decree 
deprived them of the church which they still possessed at 
the gate of Constantinople, of the one which they held at 
Cyzicus, and some others in the villages of the Hellespont. 

Nestorius did not meet with the same success in his 
measures against the Novatians. They succeeded m main 
taining themselves in the good graces of the Court ; and the 
Court defended them against the devouring zeal of the 
Patriarch. Besides, this scourge of the heretics was about to 
become a heretic himself. Here we have the beginning of a 
tragedy alike lamentable and involved. 3 

We have seen above 4 that at Antioch ever since the time of 
the Emperor Valens there had been considerable discussion as 
to the relations of the Divine element in Christ with His human 
element {forma Dei, forma servi). Apollinaris and his party 
endeavoured to establish between these two elements a unity 

1 Codex Theodos. xvi. 5, 65 (May 30, 428). 2 Vol. II., p. 343. 

3 The writings and fragments of Nestorius have been collected and 
edited with care by Loofs, Nestoriana (Halle, 1905), with the exception of 
the "Book of Heraclides," which is preserved in Syriac. For the latter 
see the end of the next chapter. As for the documents relating to this 
affair, they are annexed in the collections of Councils to the Acts of "the 
Council of Ephesus in 431. Upon the special collection entitled the 
Synodicon, see the note at the end of the present chapter. 

* Vol. 1 1., pp. 470 ff. 



222 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTOR1US [CH. x. 

of nature, in which one of the two the human element 
was partly sacrificed. According to this theory, the Person 
of the Divine Word had united to itself, not an individual 
man nor even all the components of humanity, but simply 
an animate body which it directed by fulfilling in it the 
functions of the Intellect. There were not two Persons but 
one only that of the Word : there were not two Natures 
but one only, the Divine Nature, conceived, however, as 
possessing human aptitudes corresponding to the functions 
of the body and of the living soul : " One is the Incarnate 
Nature of the Divine Word." x 

Apollinarianism had been repudiated from its first appearance 
at the close of the 4th century. Under Theodosius it was 
officially classed among the heresies, and the ecclesiastical 
associations attempted by its supporters were proscribed by 
law. At the same time as Apollinarianism, a system in an 
opposite sense had been condemned by Pope Damasus, 2 and 
this condemnation the Episcopate of the " Orient " had 
confirmed. From that time forward it was understood that 
one ought not to speak of " Two Sons," the Son of God and 
the Son of Man, as though one were speaking of two distinct 
individualities. Thus care was exercised upon this point. 

However, we must note that if the Council of Antioch in 
379 accepting en bloc the decisions of Pope Damasus had 
repudiated at the same time Apollinarianism and the doctrine 
of the Two Sons, Apollinarianism alone had been aimed at in 
the Council of 381, which was held under the direction of the 
Bishops of Syria. Diodore of Tarsus, one of its most prominent 
leaders, seems often to have left out of sight the criticism 
directed against the " Christ in two Persons," and the same 
held good of his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia. Men were 
still groping. On neither side did they hold the solution of 
the problem. From the one side equally with the other the 
quest was pursued, starting from imperfect conceptions, and, as 



1 Mia 0tf<ris roO 0eoO A6>ou o-eo-ap/cw/xeV?;, Una natura Dei Verbi incarnata. 
This celebrated formula, common to the Apollinarians and the Monophysites, 
was adopted also by the Church, but not without difficulty and with 
explanations which modified its original meaning. 

2 Anathematizamus eos qui duos Filios asserunt, unum ante saecula 
et alterum post assumptionem carnis ex virgine (Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pont.^ 
p. 512). Cf. Vol. II., p. 327, note 2. 



p. 317-20] APOLLINARIANISM 223 

always happens in polemical disputations, instead of making an 
attempt to correct its own system each cared for nothing so 
much as criticizing that of the others, and pushing it to 
ridiculous conclusions. 

The efforts which were being made to arrive at greater 
clarity were directed by the tradition of the New Testament, 
by the Gospel history in its entirety, and pre-eminently by the 
famous text of St John : " The Word was made flesh." They 
were inspired also by a mystical conception according to which 
the salvation, or even (according to some) the Apotheosis 
of humanity depends upon the extent to which this was 
penetrated in Jesus Christ by Divinity Incarnate. It was 
sought then so to constitute the Christ that the Man should 
enter into Him in absolute completeness, and also that in Him 
the Man should be joined in the closest possible union with the 
Divine element. But according as anyone concerned himself 
to a greater or less extent with one or other of these conditions 
he found himself led to different solutions. At Antioch the 
opponents of Apollinaris could not easily reach a conception 
of the human element in Christ as deprived of individuality ; 
not only did it imply body, soul and intellect, but it " was in 
itself" : it was a man, a human hypostasis. Since, on the other 
hand, the Word was a Divine hypostasis, it follows that in Christ 
there are two hypostases. The difficulty lay in defining the 
union of these two hypostases in such a way as to obtain a 
single Christ. 1 The result was secured as best they could, 
especially from Diodore and Theodore, for more and more 
the necessity was felt of getting rid not only of the idea of 
Two Sons but of two distinct subjects. The Divine Word is 
" the same " who is Man, the same and not another. Such, in 
spite of certain expressions and conceptions more or less un 
fortunate, was the underlying principle of the speculation of 
the theologians at Antioch at the moment when our narrative 
begins. 2 

1 A single Christ : this was at Antioch the most usual formula. With it 
they parried the argument drawn from the Creed of Nicaea according to 
which the Birth, Death, and Resurrection are attributed to the same Person 
who is God of God, etc. Yes, it was answered ; but this Person is from the 
outset described as Christ and as Son of God : we do not deny either the 
unity of Christ or that of the Son of God. 

2 The unfortunate term "Hypostasis," from which so many difficulties 
had already arisen in the Trinitarian controversies, still retained its 



224 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

The theologians of Cappadocia Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, 
and Gregory of Nyssa following in this the path laid open by 
St Athanasius, had leaned in the opposite direction. Pre 
occupied before everything else with the idea of the unity 
of Christ, they made it as intimate as possible, incorporating 
after a fashion in the Divine Hypostasis incarnate all the 
constituents of humanity, and in order to this incorporation 
sacrificing the human personality of Jesus Christ. In this way 
the " Hypostatic " union was reached ; and there was even a 
tendency towards the " physical " union, in the special sense of 
which these words are capable for us, for the distinction of 
"phusis" and "hypostasis" was not as yet well established. 1 
They had thus a Christ who was perfectly One, as in the 
system of Apollinaris, but more complete from the point of 
view of the human elements than the Doctor of Laodicea had 
conceived. The awkwardness of his system was, if not entirely 
removed, at any rate greatly diminished. To the Christology 
of the Cappadocians is allied that which we shall find 
propagated at Alexandria by Cyril and his disciples. 

In these two opposed schools the tools of debate were 
almost exclusively the metaphysical notions of Nature and 
Hypostasis. In the West there had already been introduced 
into the Trinitarian problem a notion of a different order that 
of Person a notion of an ethical and quasi-juridical kind. 
One and the same Divine Nature possessed by Three Persons 

ambiguity. At Antioch it did not signify much more than the Latin word 
"Substantia" its liberal representation, and scarcely differentiated itself from 
ovffia (essence) except that it excluded the idea of abstraction, and expressed 
that of concrete existence. It is necessary in our estimate of the documents 
of this period to avoid giving it the definite sense that it now has in the 
language of theology. 

1 On neither side was there a clear notion of the difference between 
a complete nature and an hypostasis. Cyril and his party objected to the 
employment of the term "Two Natures" which seemed to them identical 
with that of "Two Hypostases," and compromising to the unity of 
Christ. In this we have the beginning still orthodox of Monophysitism, 
The Easterns were " Diphysites," as was also the Council of Chalcedon ; 
but at the time with which we are dealing they were so with a touch of 
exaggeration, at any rate in expression. At bottom every one was in 
agreement as has several times been shown, and quite lately by Pcre 
Joseph Mahe (Revue cPHistoire Eccttsiastique, vol. vii., pp. 505-542). Bar- 
Hebraeus in the i4th century already took this view (Assemani, Bibliotheca 
Orientalis, torn, ii., p. 291). 



p. 320-3] NATURE AND HYPOSTASIS 225 

it was thus that they reduced to order the apparently 
contrary data of Three-foldness and Unity ; it was thus that 
a reconciliation was effected between the tradition of the Gospel 
and the Monotheism of Scripture and of philosophy. From 
this combination between notions of so different an order there 
did not flash forth any increase of light ; it was rather calculated 
to maintain, if not to increase, the judicious obscurity which is 
appropriate to these mysterious subjects. The service which it 
had thus rendered in relation to the Trinity, it rendered also in 
relation to the Incarnation. Two Natures, a Single Person : 
such was the Latin solution. And it was a solution inherited 
from tradition : from the time of Tertullian that was the 
current form of expression. 1 

By Nature was meant not at all the same thing as in the 
Schools of Alexandria or in those of Antioch. The human 
element in Christ as it was conceived in the West was more 
complete than in the sense given to it at Alexandria, less 
complete than what was admitted at Antioch. In the West 
it was a true Nature, capable of volition and of action accord 
ing to the method of its faculties : in Alexandrian usage it 
would rather produce the effect of a group of faculties without 
activity apart from the Divine nature to which they were 
attached : when the Antiochene party speak of it one is 
always led to fear that they have in their minds the idea of 
an individual man. 2 The Alexandrian formulas " Physical " 
union, "Hypostatic" union, "Single" nature of the Incarnate 
Word were scarcely in concord with those of the West : the 
latter agreed better with the language of Antioch Two 
Natures, One Person. However, we must not attach too much 

1 Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes^ vol. i., p. 343. 

- Between the Alexandrians and the Easterns of the $th century 
both of them orthodox but in a different fashion there was a relation 
analogous to that which we have noticed in the century before between 
St Athanasius and St Basil on the question of the Trinity. Athanasius 
knew quite well that though he spoke of Three hypostases Basil was at 
bottom of the same opinion as those who held but One. They came to 
an understanding. The difference between the two situations from the 
theoretical point of view negligible but important for the historian is that 
in the 5th century people who thought the same, though one side spoke of 
One Nature and the other of Two, did not succeed in tolerating each other 
and treated each other roughly. In the midst of their conflicts we seek in 
vain for a man capable of dominating and pacifying them : there is no 
longer an Athanasius. 



226 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

importance to this external agreement. The indefiniteness of 
the terms caused persons of little familiarity with the subject to 
pass easily from the Two Natures to the Two Persons, and the 
Eastern doctrine by this method of interpretation to assume 
discreditable resemblances to that of Photinus and of Paul of 
Samosata. They defended themselves against this, no doubt ; 
but the impression remained. 

It may be seen, from the little that it is possible for me 
to say here, how delicate and difficult these questions were. 
Since the curiosity of man whetted itself upon the mystery of 
Christ, since the unwisdom of the theologians kept upon the 
dissecting table the sweet Saviour who offered Himself for 
our love and our imitation far more than for our philosophical 
investigations, at the least it was requisite that these should 
be conducted in a peaceable manner by men of acknowledged 
competence and discretion, far aloof from the crowd and from 
bickerings. It was the contrary that happened. The un 
leashing of religious passions, conflicts between metropolitical 
sees, rivalries between ecclesiastical potentates, noisy councils, 
imperial laws, deprivations, sentences of exile, tumults, schisms 
such were the conditions under which the Greek theologians 
studied the dogma of the Incarnation. And if we look to 
the result of their quarrels, we see at the end of the vista, 
the Eastern Church irreparably divided, the Christian Empire 
dismembered, the lieutenants of Mahomet trampling under 
foot Syria and Egypt. Such was the price of these exercises 
in metaphysics. 

The general body of the faithful had lived up to that time, 
as it lives still in our own day, on the primitive idea of the 
Man-God : Jesus Christ is God ; He is Man also. In the 
Gospel history, according to its current interpretation, the 
miracles and other superhuman manifestations were attributed 
to His Divine power : the humiliations, the sufferings, the death 
to His human weakness. In all good faith expressions were 
used such as Homo dominions, Deus natus, Deus passus^ which 
involved a mixing, a fusion of the two elements, Divine and 
human, which in one sense or another would have gone somewhat 
beyond the lines, had they been already fixed, of the language 
of orthodoxy. It was one of these expressions that of 
" Mother of God " which let loose the storm. This designation, 
1 Qui natum passumque Deum . . . credit an inscription of Damasus. 



p. 323-6] THEOTOKOS 227 

employed earlier, without insistence and equally without hesita 
tion, by authors of widely different opinions, was tending to 
pass into the language of devotion. More and more the 
veneration of the faithful was directing itself towards the 
Mother of the Saviour. In the East the custom l arose of 
calling her " Theotokos " (Oeoro/co?), " Mother of God." Such 
language in no way offended either the ideas of the Alexandrians 
or those of the Latins. " Who (Quis) was born of Mary ? " they 
asked themselves. Clearly the Divine Word, that is to say 
God. This "that is to say" on which the legitimacy of the 
term Theotokos is based, was objected to by the Christology of 
Antioch and not without reason. The expression " Mother of 
God " is orthodox only if we understand it of God-Person : 
understood of God-Nature it is more than heretical, it is absurd. 
Mary, according to orthodox tradition, is Mother of One who is 
God ; she is His Mother, not that He owes her His Divinity 
but because He has taken from her His humanity. The term 
Theotokos, then, needed explanations. If it had been an 
unambiguous term it would not have given rise to so much 
conflict. 

It appears that even before the time of Nestorius there had 
already at Constantinople been disputes in this connexion. 
Apollinarians were not wanting in the capital, nor persons who, 
without being Apollinarians, whether avowedly or in secret, 
professed on the subject of the Incarnation views that were 
hostile to the theology of Antioch. Eutyches, who made so 
much stir later, was already a well-known personage, of great 
influence in the monastic world. The previous bishops had 
had the wisdom not to mix themselves up in these disputes. 
Nestorius with his fierce zeal for orthodoxy threw himself into 
them recklessly. According to him the term " Mother of God " 
went too far : it appeared to imply that the Divinity of Christ 
has its origin in Mary, and thus to make of a woman a being 
anterior to and, in a certain sense, superior to God. It would 
be better to adopt the designation " Mother of Christ" The 
term " Christ " denoted two elements at once one Divine, the 
other human ; the Motherhood of Mary attached itself naturally 

1 St Gregory of Nazianzus does not hesitate to launch an anathema 
against those who do not recognize Mary as Mother of God : Er $ ov 
QforbKOv TT]V ayiav M.apiav viroXa.fji.pdvet, X U P >1 * ^ffrc TTJS BebT-rjros {Ad Cledon. Ep. l) 
[Ep. 101]. 

III. Q 



228 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

to the human element It was answered that the danger he 
feared was absolutely chimerical, no one being such a fool as to 
believe that God qua God was born of a woman. It was further 
urged that the human element of Christ coming to belong 
to the Divine Word, it was certainly the Divine Word who, 
according to the flesh> was born of Mary. These disputa 
tions were endless and embarrassing : they were talked of 
everywhere. 

The new Patriarch had brought from Syria a certain number 
of clerics, 1 whom the native clergy only half liked. One of 
them, a priest Anastasius, set himself to preach 2 against the 
Theotokos and thus evoked protests. The Bishop intervened 
and in every connexion spoke in the same sense. It seemed 
that he had no longer any other subject for a sermon. The 
opposing party did not scruple about interrupting : they 
pretended to believe that Nestorius, a fellow-countryman of 
Paul of Samosata, had fallen into his heresy. A poster 3 was 
stuck upon the wall at St Sophia : on it the teaching of the 
new Bishop was compared to that which the Council of 
Antioch had condemned 160 years earlier. The author of 
this exaggerated and unjust manifesto was a pleader called 
Eusebius, who later became Bishop of Dorylaeum. The monks 
began to excite themselves and excited the people : the 
Patriarch was exposed to insults and avenged them with some 
brutality. One clay a deputation of monks betook themselves 
to him. Nestorius gave them a very bad reception. He 

1 Mansi, Concilia, torn, iv., p. 1109. 

2 Socrates, //. E. vii. 32. 

:{ Mansi, op. cit. torn, iv., p. 1008. The comparison of the theology of 
Nestorius to that of Paul of Samosata has found other expressions. Not 
to speak of Cassian and his De Incarnatione, it is worth while to mention 
a false letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Paul of Samosata (Mansi, op. 
cit. i., p. 1039; cf. Migne, Patrol. Graeca, torn, xxviii., pp. 1559, 1565) in 
which this distant predecessor of Cyril discusses in detail the theology of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Nestorius, deemed to be defended by the 
bygone Bishop of Antioch. The refutation is made from the Apollinarian 
or Monophysite standpoint. Bonwetsch, the latest to devote his attention 
to this document (Nachrichten of the Royal Society of Gottingen, 1909, 
pp. I23ff.), thinks that it is specially aimed at Nestorius. It would then 
be necessary to place it at the time at which we have arrived. But it 
seems to me that there is occasion for further study of it before accepting 
too definite solutions. The letter of the pseudo-Dionysius belongs to quite 
a collection of Monophysite forgeries which ought to be examined with it. 



p. 326-9] MONKS AND PELAGIANS 229 

himself also came from a monastery ; but at the present time 
he deemed himself the hierarchical authority : the protesters had 
reason to know it. Taken before his judgement seat, thrown 
into the prisons of the episcopal palace, delivered over to the 
scourge of the apparitors, the monks could appreciate the 
distance that separated them from their Patriarch and the 
inconvenience that attached to meddling with his theology. 
Holy men never pardon these things : Nestorius had been 
very unwise. 

He was so in all respects and on all occasions. Not content 
with preaching in every connexion the disturbing Christology of 
Antioch and with issuing Charges against the Theotokos, he gave 
the widest publicity to his sermons of the past and to those of 
the present. He sent them as far as Rome : at Alexandria, also, 
people were not slow in making their acquaintance. 

From the point of view of Rome 1 he made haste to commit 
the last of imprudences that of patronizing the Pelagians. 

After the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Julian of 
Eclanum, with three other Italian bishops, Florus, Urontius, 
and Fabius all that remained of the dissentient band of 418 
had taken refuge at Constantinople. Shortly after was seen the 
arrival of Celestius himself, one of the two original heresiarchs. 
They presented themselves to the Bishop in the guise of 
orthodox folk who were persecuted in their own country and 
compelled to make their way to the presence of the Emperor. 
Nestorius could not be ignorant of the identity of these 
well-known personages, nor of the reason why they had had 
difficulties with the religious authorities of the West. None 
the less he thought it incumbent on him to write to Pope 
Celestine letter after letter 2 asking for information on this 
matter. In this connexion he informed him of his conflicts 
with a local body of opponents who, so he said, attached 
themselves to the proscribed views of Apollinaris and of Arius. 
Such a comparison has just about as much value as that by 
which the adversaries of Nestorius were endeavouring to 
compromise himself with Paul of Samosata. 3 

1 At the time of his enthronement he had exchanged letters with 
Celestine (Jaffe, Regesta, 374 ; Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pont.) p. 1115). 

2 Coustant, op. cit. Caclestini Epp. vi., vii., pp. 1075, 1079. 

3 However, we must not forget that Eutyches and other persons of this 
shade of opinion were already figuring among- the opponents of the Patriarch. 



230 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

Celestine, disturbed by this business, felt the need of 
consulting with people acquainted with the facts. The war 
with the Vandals separated him from Augustine. The Roman 
deacon Leo addressed himself to Cassian of Marseilles, who 
lost no time in sending him a " Consultatio " in seven books, 
extremely unfavourable to the views of Nestorius. 

The theology of Antioch could not fail to be familiar to 
a man who had lived so long in the East. Cassian, however, 
had recently had an opportunity of refreshing his memory 
in regard to it. A monk of Treves, 1 named Leporius, had 
maintained in Provence views fairly closely resembling those 
which were exciting people s opposition at Constantinople. 
According to him the Divine Word was one [person], 2 the 
man Jesus another. The latter by his virtues had merited 
closer and closer union with the Divinity, and had in fact 
attained it. It was the old theory of Adoption, the theory 
of Christ becoming God by progression, but it was combined 
on the other hand with the doctrine of the Word as 
personal and divine, a doctrine which since the definitions 
of the 4th century could no longer be neglected. Leporius, 
condemned by the bishops of the Gauls, and notably by the 
Bishop of Marseilles, crossed over to Africa, where he found 
something better than condemnations: Aurelius and Augustine 
showed him that he had made a mistake and led him to 
sign a public retractation. 3 We can see from this document 
how little opinion in the West was disposed to follow Nestorius 
and other representatives of the theology of Antioch in the 
campaign which they were waging at Constantinople. The 
point in their theory which was fastened on above everything 
else, and which shocked people extremely, was the idea of 
the man Jesus as " other " in relation to the Divine Word, 
in relation to the subject of the Incarnation, and assuming 
from the fact of this distinction the appearance of the Christ 
of Paul of Samosata and of Photinus. 

Whilst Cassian was preparing his reply to the Pope s 

1 Ex maxima Belgarum urbe (Contra Nestorium^ i. 2). 

2 "AXXos, not d\Xo. These matters are so subtle that even in French one 
cannot succeed in stating them with clearness. Greek only is an adequate 
instrument for the purpose. 

3 Mansi, Concilia^ torn, iv., p. 519 : Fragments in Cassian, De Incarna- 
tione, i. 5. 



r. 329-32] CELESTINE, CASSIAN, CYRIL 231 

enquiry, a Latin who was settled at Constantinople Marius 
Mercator, a disciple and admirer of St Augustine, 1 was setting 
himself on the track of Julian and his supporters. A 
memorandum (Commonitorium)* sent by him to the Church 
of Constantinople, to the monasteries, and to the Emperor 
(429), was a timely reminder to these different authorities 
of the legal position of the appellants. They were expelled 
from Constantinople. The attitude of Nestorius in this matter 
is a highly equivocal one. He made enquiries of the Pope as 
to the culpability of Julian, he wrote to Celestius 3 to support 
him, and for all that he was to be found preaching in his 
church against Pelagianism. 4 

Marius Mercator had perhaps some commission from 
Pope Celestine to keep an eye upon matters of religion 
at Constantinople. But other eyes besides his were open to 
them : the secretaries of Cyril were following the smallest 
steps of the indiscreet Nestorius, and keeping the Pope of 
Alexandria informed. To him from the very first day the 
new Bishop of Constantinople had been suspect. Again a 
man of Antioch, another John ! Soon Cyril perceived the 
flaw in the harness. Nestorius, like his predecessor, was 
possessed of an eloquence which was copious, eager, and 
aggressive. But, more readily than he, Nestorius quitted the 
domain of ethics, for incautious and unskilful thrusts in the 
hazardous sphere of theology. His opinions displeased a 
great number of people and prejudiced them. It would 
not be long before they would gain points of attack upon 
him which they had not had against the two preceding 
bishops. Cyril, like his uncle Theophilus, was a finished 
theologian. A disciple of Athanasius and the Cappadocians, 
he was also a disciple of Apollinaris, but without realizing 
it. Like many other people he had read the Apollinarian 
books which were in circulation under names regarded 
with the highest respect. In this way he accepted, with 
complete good faith, as those of St Athanasius, Popes Felix 
and Julius, and St Gregory Thaumaturgus, methods of 
reasoning and Biblical interpretations which came direct 

1 Aug. Ep. 193. 

2 We still possess it (Migne, Patrol. Latina, torn, xlviii., pp. 63 flf.). 

3 Patrol. Latina, torn, xlviii., p. 181. 

4 Sermons preserved by Marius Mercator, ibid. pp. 189 ff. 



232 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

from Laodicea. Such, in particular, was the provenance of 
his famous formula : " One is the Incarnate Nature of the 
Divine Word." He adopted it, he clung to it, welded himself 
to it, with invincible obstinacy. And this was, for the peace 
of the Church, a grave misfortune. 1 

Anchored to a very narrow notion of the unity of Christ 
and moulded by deep reflexions upon theology, Cyril was 
further possessed of an enormous store of Biblical learning 
and of a facile pen one too facile, indeed, for he does not 
escape from verbosity. Such were his intellectual resources. As 
for his energy and his savoir-faire he had already given proofs 
of them. Nestorius had to deal with a formidable opponent. 

The rumours caused by the first sermons of the new 
bishop were transmitted forthwith to Alexandria. A collection 
of his Homilies was already being talked of. At the beginning 
of the year 429, Cyril was conscious of a certain disquietude 
on the subject in the solitudes of Nitria : without waiting 
any longer and affecting to believe that religious peace was 
threatened at home, he wrote 2 a long letter to the monks of 
the desert. This no doubt reached them, but it was for 
Constantinople that it was specially intended : the bishop s 
opponents turned it to their advantage. V/ounded at this 
interference, Nestorius preached against the letter and caused 
it to be refuted by one of his priests who was named Photius. 
Whilst these replies were on their way to Alexandria, Cyril, 
who had been informed of the resentment of Nestorius, wrote 
him the first of his letters. 3 In this he threw back upon him 
the responsibility for the difficulty introduced into their 
relations, and for the disturbance which was beginning to 
show itself at Constantinople and elsewhere. He knows 
already, and tells his brother-bishop so, that his Homilies are 
very unfavourably regarded at Rome. Let Nestorius cease 
to attack the Theotokos and peace might be made. 

1 There is reason for surprise that he should have delayed so long to 
write formally in opposition to the theology of Antioch. Instructed as he 
was and versed in the literature of these questions, he could not be in 
ignorance of the writings of the famous Diodore of Tarsus and certainly not 
of those of Theodore of Mopsuestia with whom he was on good terms and 
who even dedicated to him one of his works (his Commentary on Job). 
Theodore was only just dead (428). His ideas were known everywhere 
in the East. 

2 Cyril, Ep. i. 3 Ep. 2. 



p. 332-4] CYRIL AND NESTORIUS 233 

In spite of this exchange of unacceptable comments, 
relations were not yet such that it was impossible for Nestorius 
to reply to Cyril. He did so 1 ; but the situation was destined 
to become more strained. 

There were at Constantinople some Alexandrian clergy 
who had been deprived by Cyril for certain misdoings: they 
made strong complaints against him alike to the bishop and 
to the magistrates. Nestorius affected to interest himself on 
their behalf. A priest named Philip, 2 who held schismatic 
assemblies and whom Celestius had accused of Manicheanism, 
had been deposed after trial. 3 Cyril when informed of all this 
wrote a second time to Nestorius, 4 treating with contempt 
the accusations retailed against him and with seriousness the 
dogmatic question. Nestorius answered in a wry tone, but at 
the same time enforced his arguments. 

As to the proceedings with which he was threatened, Cyril 
was inwardly more concerned than he was willing to avow. 
He explains himself on the subject with greater freedom in 
a letter to his secretaries. He has no fear, he says, of exposing 
himself to inconvenience : he knows by experience that 
Councils sometimes have different results from those expected 
by the people who summon them. 5 Then, coming to Nestorius, 
he adds: "Let not this poor creature imagine that I shall 
allow myself to be tried by him, whatever may be the type 
of accusers that he will hire against me. The roles will be 
reversed: I shall refuse to recognize his jurisdiction, and I 
shall know well enough how to compel him to make his own 
defence." 6 

Despite this brave assurance he did not neglect to provide 
himself with means of support. He knew what an unfavourable 
impression had been made at Rome both by the writings of 

1 Cyril, Ep. 3. 

2 I think that Philip of Side is meant : the reason adduced to the 
contrary by Tillemont (Hist. Eccl. vol. xiv., p. 321) is worthless. 

3 For the first of the two misdoings, for Celestius did not present 
himself to support his accusation. Cyril, Epp. 5 and 11 (Migne, Patrol. 
Graeca, torn. Ixxvii., pp. 56 and 88). 

4 Ep. 4, the Epistola doginatica^ }Lara<f>\vapoO<n it.iv : we see from the 
Council of Chalcedon, Session 2, that it belonged to the month of Mechir 
(January 26 to February 24), 430. 

6 An allusion to the business of St John Chrysostom. 
Ep. 10. 



234 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

Nestorius and his attitude in regard to the Pelagian leaders. 
Hence he did not hesitate to write to Pope Celestine a letter 
of great humility and great adroitness 1 in which he designates 
him "Most holy Father," 2 and recalls the tradition according 
to which serious questions ought alv/ays to be submitted to 
the Holy See. 3 Starting from this consideration he depicts 
in the darkest colours the position of the Church of 
Constantinople, in which, except for a few flatterers, everyone 
monks, the faithful, senators refuses communion with the 
Bishop. Has not an accomplice of Nestorius, a bishop called 
Dorotheus, dared to declare in the open church, " Anathema 
to anyone who says that Mary is Mother of God," and that 
in the presence of Nestorius and without disavowal on his 
part? It means the condemnation of all the bishops of the 
East, 4 and specially of those of Macedonia. 5 Cyril has done 
all that he can : he has written against the errors of Nestorius : 
he has written to him personally without result. What is 
to be done ? Let Celestine give his advice and strengthen the 
resistance of the Eastern Episcopate. To assist him in 
making up his mind, Cyril communicates to him a whole 
dossier of documents 6 calculated to inform him on the subject 
of the unsound doctrines of the Bishop of Constantinople. 

Celestine s reply, which had been under discussion in a 
Council 7 held in Rome at the beginning of August (430), was 
such as Cyril certainly could not have dared to hope. The 
Roman Church declared the teaching of Nestorius impossible 
of acceptance, and the excommunications pronounced by him 
to be void : he himself must either retract formally and in 
writing or descend from his episcopal throne. A delay of 
only ten days, to count from the day when he should receive 
the Pope s letter, was given him to make up his mind. In 

1 Ep. ii. 

2 Cyril had been a Bishop ten years longer than Celestine. 

3 This tradition had been quite forgotten at Alexandria at the time of 
Chrysostom s affair. 

4 Of the Eastern Empire. 

5 Holding jurisdiction from the Pope a fact which in Cyril s form of 
argument gave them a certain prominence. 

6 Especially his five books, "Against the blasphemies of Nestorius," his 
two letters to Nestorius and some homilies of the latter. 

7 Fragments in Arnobius the younger, Conflictus^ ii. 13 (Migne, Patrol. 
Latina, torn, liii., p. 289). 



P. 334-7] ROME AND ALEXANDRIA 235 

place of his heresies he must profess, on the subject of Christ, 
the doctrine of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria that 
of the Universal Church. For the purpose of carrying this 
sentence into effect Cyril was commissioned as representative 
of the Roman Pope. 1 

A more decisive sentence it would be impossible to 
imagine, but two things were cause for regret : in the first 
place that the task of despatching the Archbishop of Constanti 
nople should have been entrusted to his traditional rival, the 
Patriarch of Alexandria, who in this case deemed himself 
a personal enemy ; and further, that the Pope had not laid 
down either what was exactly the doctrine that he rebuked 
in Nestorius 2 or in what consisted this teaching common 
to Rome, to Alexandria, and to the Universal Church to which 
the Patriarch of Constantinople was so severely recalled. 
Between what was taught at Alexandria, what was believed 
at Rome, and what was set forth at Antioch, there were 
notable differences. One might suspect the fact at that 
time and it was clearly seen later. It would have been worth 
while to state definitely both what was being condemned 
and what was being demanded. Cyril, left to himself and 
entrusted with drawing up the programme, found himself 
strongly tempted to introduce into it his own conceptions : 
he did not fail to do so. 

Being mindful of everything, he had thought also of the 

1 Jaffe, Regesta, 372, August u, 430. Similar letters to Nestorius 
(ibid. 374), to the clergy of Constantinople (ibid. 375), to John of Antioch, 
to Juvenal of Jerusalem, to Rufus of Thessalonica, arid to Flavian of Philippi 
(ibid. 373). 

2 At Rome it seems most likely that they saw in Nestorius a resurrec 
tion of Paul of Samosata with certain mitigations, somewhat like the 
Adoptionist theory of Leporius. It was thus that he was represented by 
the fanatics of Constantinople. Cassian adopts almost the same point of 
view in regard to it, and his report, drawn up for the Holy See and at its 
request, must have had great weight in Roman estimates. Nestorius 
(Mansi, Concilia, torn, v., p. 763) complains that Cyril by adroit cuts in the 
text of his homilies, has endeavoured to produce this impression at Rome. 
He speaks also of the simplicity of Celestine simpliciorem guam qui posset 
vim dogmatum subtilius penetrare. Celestine, as a matter of fact, so far as 
can be judged from the affair of Antony of Fussala and from his letter to 
the bishops of Provence, seems to have had some gaps. By a singular 
irony, this "simplicity" which Nestorius points to in him, he had himself 
pointed out in Sisinnius, the predecessor of Nestorius (Jaffe, op. cit. 372). 



236 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

Court, which up to this point had upheld the bishop of its 
choice. Cyril set himself, not openly but by an indirect 
attack, to detach it from Nestorius. To this end he drew 
up three letters of extreme prolixity, and addressed them, 
one to the Emperors as a matter of fact to Theodosius II., 
another to the virgins Arcadia and Marina, the third to the 
Empresses (Pulcheria and Eudocia). They made a bad 
impression. The Court, evidently yielding to the advice of 
Nestorius, was now toying with the plan of an (Ecumenical 
Council. Cyril was informed of this by an imperial letter 
(sacra) of great severity, 1 in which he was reproached with 
causing trouble in the Church, and by writing separately to 
the Emperor and to Pulcheria with assuming or provoking 
discords even in the reigning family. The questions of doctrine 
which serve as a pretext for these commotions will be 
discussed at the Council, and it will be absolutely necessary 
that he should present himself at it, on pain of incurring the 
displeasure of the Emperor. Nestorius also speaks of the 
Council in a letter 2 that he wrote to Rome before Celestine 
had taken his decision. The assembly, he says, will, among 
other things, have to give a ruling on the complaints laid 
against Cyril, complaints which Cyril was endeavouring to 
smother by his babbling on the subject of the Theotokos. 
At bottom the Bishop of Constantinople had no absolute 
objection to the use of this term, provided that there was not 
attached to it an Apollinarian or an Arian sense : he preferred, 
however, the expression, " Mother of Christ," which seemed 
to him more exact than those of "Mother of God" and 
" Mother of man," sometimes in conflict. The Council besides 
would have an opportunity of deciding this question too. 

Thus two solutions were in process of cutting across each 
other: the citation of Nestorius in the name of Pope Celestine, 
and the examination alike of his affair and of some others in 
an CEcumenical Council. Cyril, whom only the first suited, 
held resolutely to it and hastened to bring it about. For this 
purpose at the beginning of November 430 he collected his 
suffragans in council and caused them to adopt a letter, 3 by 

1 Mansi, Concilia, torn, iv., p. 1109. 

2 Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pont., p. 1147 ; cf. Evagrius, H. E. i. 7. 

3 Cyril, Ep. 17 : similar letters to the clergy and to the monks of 
Constantinople. 



p. 337-40] CYRIL AND ACACIUS 237 

which he formally cited the Bishop of Constantinople and 
notified to him his deprivation in case he should not within 
the ten days have submitted himself. And what he meant 
by submission was the acceptance of a long dogmatic 
formulary drawn up by him, Cyril, and summed up in twelve 
anathemas. Here the Bishop of Alexandria availed himself 
with small moderation of the latitude left him by the 
Roman instructions. What he proposed to Nestorius was 
not the common faith of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria 
as also of the Universal Church: it was a particular theology, 
received at Alexandria since it was that of the Bishop, but 
unknown at Rome and very unfavourably regarded in Syria. 
But Cyril was not a man to make a temperate use of 
victory. 

On December 6, 430, the Alexandrian citation was handed 
to Nestorius. It must have crossed en route the imperial 
letter of summons Jo the (Ecumenical Council. This letter 
was dated November 19, 430. The Council was to be held 
at Ephesus, at Whitsuntide of the following year. 

Up to this point, the quarrel, apart from the noise to which 
it had given rise at Constantinople, had remained circum 
scribed between Nestorius and Cyril. The " Eastern," i.e. Syrian 
bishops, had not yet taken part in it. Since the recent death 
of Theodotus (429), the see of Antioch had been occupied by 
an old friend of Nestorius John, a man of some theological 
learning and of amiable manners. But the most distinguished 
of the Syrian prelates was Acacius of Bercea, who had 
continued in the performance of his office from the time 
of Meletius and of Pope Damasus. He had been a bishop 
for more than fifty years and was at least 100 years old. 
In the time of Chrysostom, Theophilus of Alexandria had 
reckoned him as one of his best allies. Cyril thought that 
it would be useful to conciliate him, and after the indiscreet 
outburst by Dorotheus 1 wrote him a letter of a very pressing 
kind. The old bishop, though he had half entered the other 
world, distinguished very clearly the true feelings of his 
correspondent. He knew the nephew of Theophilus too 
well for it to be easy to " get any change " out of him. In 
reading his reply Cyril must have had the sensation of a 
cold douche thrown upon his enthusiasm. 2 

1 Supra, p. 234. 2 Epp. 14, 15. 



238 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [rn. x. 

Meantime he despatched to their address the letters that 
Celestine had sent him for Juvenal of Jerusalem and John 
of Antioch. 1 The first was a prelate of considerable fondness 
for intrigue, whose claims for pre-eminence threw him into 
the clientele of the Bishop of Alexandria. As for John he 
at once adopted the position of the man of good sense. He 
wrote to Nestorius both in his own name and in that of 
some other Syrian bishops 2 a letter of very affectionate tone 
in which he tried to persuade him to do what the Pope 
asked of him and to give up his opposition to the Theotokos? 
Nestorius answered him in the same tone, adopting his 
views, accepting the Theotokos without any holding back, 
while reserving to the Council the task of deciding what 
was exactly involved in this controverted expression. He 
even sent him a sermon in which he had approved of 
Theotokos, provided that it was not taken in the Arian or 
Apollinarian sense. 4 According to him the best way of 
removing this wrong sense was to join to the title of " Mother 
of God " that of " Mother of man." 5 

Thus, thanks to the good sense of the Easterns and to the 
concessions made by Nestorius, the dispute was in a fair way 
towards a peaceful settlement. Cyril s propositions of anathema 
came to disturb these favourable relations. John no sooner had 
them before his eyes than he discovered in them the influence 
of Apollinarianism. Without delay he communicated his 
opinion to Firmus, his colleague of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 6 

1 Epp. 13, 1 6. 2 Theodoret figures among them. 

3 Mansi, Concilia, torn, iv., p. 1061 : "Do not treat this business lightly, 
for it is by pride that the devil renders these dissensions incurable. Read 
them [the Pope s letters] with care, taking counsel at the same time with 
some persons to whom you will give complete liberty to state frankly their 
opinion without thought of flattering you." John is much concerned for 
the maintenance of ecclesiastical unity: "The West and Egypt, and no 
doubt Macedonia also, have made up their minds to break the union which 
has cost so much sweat and pain to such holy and illustrious bishops, in 
particular to our holy and common father the great Acacius [of Beroea]." 
He wrote also to some intimate friends of Nestorius the Count Irenaeus 
and the two bishops Musasus and Helladius (Mansi, Cone. torn, v., p. 753). 

4 Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 753, 754. 

5 See his two sermons subsequent to the receipt of the Anathemas of 
Cyril (Loofs, Nestoriana, pp. 297, 313): the second is identical with that 
which was communicated to John of Antioch. 

6 Mansi, Cone, v., p. 756. 



p. 340-3] NESTORIUS AND THE EASTERNS 239 

The Bishops of Cyrrhus and Samosata, Theodoret and Andrew, 
devoted to them, at his request, formal refutations. 1 As for 
Nestorius, he no doubt considered that the calling of the 
Council and the extravagant form given by Cyril to the 
Pope s summons dispensed him from the necessity of making 
any reply to it. He confined himself to setting forth in 
opposition to the Alexandrian anathemas a series of counter- 
anathemas in which, as Cyril had done, he censured the errors 
which he discovered in his opponent. The anathemas of 
Nestorius are orthodox in this sense that there is ground 
for condemning the doctrines which he condemns. The 
problem is to determine whether the two adversaries have 
observed the limits of fairness in pressing one another to 
the extreme consequences of their statements. 2 

These skirmishes occupied the winter and the spring, and 
the time was thus reached which had been appointed for the 
Council. Many hopes were being built upon its meeting. The 
first to ask for it had been the monks of Constantinople who 
had been ill-treated by Nestorius on account of their protests 3 : 
they formed the centre of the local opposition. However, 
it was not to show favour to people of this kind, taken as a 
whole insignificant enough, that the Government had resorted 
to so grave a step. If the Bishop of Alexandria had not 
intervened in the vociferous way that we have seen, one may 
believe that they would have left Nestorius to settle the affairs 
of his church for himself. But the Bishop of Alexandria was 
raising the cry of Heresy and summoning the whole world to 
the defence of the Faith : his appeal was echoed at Rome. The 
position, in the eyes of the world at large, had a strong re 
semblance to that in the 4th century, when Athanasius in 
alliance with the West had been seen defending Orthodoxy 
against the Bishops of Constantinople and Antioch. In 
matters of doctrine, the successor of Athanasius enjoyed, not 
only in Egypt but throughout the whole of the Greek Orient, 
an authority which, if it was ill-defined, was of considerable 
weight. To assemble the Council was, in such circumstances, 

1 Known from Cyril s replies (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, Ixxvii., pp. 316, 
385 ; cf. Ep. 44). 

2 The Greek text is lost : the best edition of the Latin version by 
Marius Mercator is that of Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 211. 

3 See their request to the Emperor, Mansi, Cone, iv., p. nor. 



240 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

to open a kind of appeal against his judgement. The situation 
became more definite still after the publication of the proposals 
for Anathema. It seemed that the parts had been interchanged, 
and that the Master of Theology who lectured others so readily 
was himself placed in an awkward corner. In fact the Council 
had been summoned against Cyril. 

Cyril, who was well aware of this, took his measures 
accordingly. The imperial summons demanded for each 
province a small number of bishops. The number which 
Cyril put on board was fifty l ; and to these he added a 
considerable number of inferior clergy, of Parabolani and other 
Church officials, and, above all, some monks. Among the 
last, the most prominent was the famous Schnoudi, almost a 
hundred years old, who had come down from his monastery 
on the upper Nile. 2 The whole throng was devoted body and 
soul to the Patriarch : the idea in the minds of all of them was 
that they were setting out, under his leadership, to slay the 
Dragon of Hell. 

The Egyptian squadron had a favourable passage to the 
island of Rhodes and from thence came to land at Ephesus, 3 
a few days before Pentecost. Nestorius was already there. 
He too had arrived with a considerable suite, if not of bishops, 
at any rate of supporters and dependents. 4 One of his 
most devoted friends, the Count Irenaeus, had been granted 
leave to accompany him but only in a private capacity : the 
Emperor had another representative. On June 12 arrived 
Juvenal of Jerusalem with some fifteen bishops of Palestine. 
This was a reinforcement for Cyril, since Juvenal seems to have 

1 Egypt at that time comprised six provinces Egypt proper, August- 
amnica, Arcadia, Thebais, Libya Superior, and Libya Inferior ; but there 
was no other episcopal metropolitan save the Bishop of Alexandria. 

2 So says his biographer ; but he is here so inexact in regard to details 
that even with regard to the chief fact the presence of Schnoudi at the 
Council of Ephesus it would be permissible to entertain doubts if Schnoudi 
himself had not mentioned it in some of his sermons (Leipoldt, Schcnutc^ 
pp. 42, 90 ; are these sermons really genuine?) In regard to Schnoudi, see 
Vol. II., p. 398. 

3 Letters of Cyril to the clergy of Alexandria, despatched from Rhodes 
and from Ephesus, Epp. 20, 21. 

4 There were also, among the attendants, a considerable number of 
people of the same social stratum as the sailors and parabolani of 
Alexandria. It was suggested that Nestorius had recruited them at the 
Baths of Zeuxippus, a place of very ill repute. 



p. 343-6] THE ALLIES OF CYRIL 241 

held the same opinions as he did. 1 This ambitious prelate 
was engaged at that time in trying to create a Patriarchate for 
himself at the expense of that of Antioch ; it was a matter of 
grave moment to him not to offend the ecclesiastical potentate 
of Alexandria. But the source from which Cyril could best 
swell his majority was the actual country in which the Council 
was meeting. The " Diocese " of Asia was, with the exception 
of the African provinces, the country richest in bishoprics : there 
were nearly 300 of them. They were not grouped, like those 
of Egypt, under the traditional authority of a recognized head. 
However, the importance of the town of Ephesus, which was 
the headquarters of the highest administrative authorities, and 
the memory of the Apostle John whose mysterious tomb was 
sheltered by a highly venerated basilica, united to give it a 
position of great prominence. It seemed on the way to 
become in the ecclesiastical order a centre after the pattern 
of Alexandria and of Antioch. The CEcumenical Council of 
381 had decided that each "Diocese" should concern itself 
with its own religious affairs. From this decree, which was 
directed at the time against the interference of Alexandria, the 
Bishops of Ephesus had for a long time deduced consequences 
favourable to their own authority. It seems likely that they 
would have secured acceptance for these if they had not 
clashed with a simultaneous pretension, that of the Bishops 
of Constantinople who were very anxious to attach to their 
own obedience the two "Dioceses" of Asia and Pontus. In 
these circumstances it was not difficult to turn against the 
Bishops of Constantinople the ambition of their colleagues 
of Ephesus. Already, in the days of Chrysostom, protests 
had been made in conjunction with them against the inter- 

1 One of his priests, Hesychius, wrote a History of the Council of 
Ephesus in four books. He was a friend of Eutyches, who found hospitality 
with him at the time of the Council of Chalcedon. This we learn from the 
work (still unedited) of the Roman deacon, Pelagius, against the condemna 
tion of the Three Chapters, Book II. : "Esychii presbiteri Hierosolymitani 
historia, quam in quatuor libellis de eis quae apud Ephesum sunt acta 
composuit . . . Constat eumdem Esychium Eutychis haeretici fuisse 
consortem, in tantum ut fugientem sanctae synodi Chalcedonensis examen 
apud se eumdem Eutychen in Hierosolymis libenter exceperit et libros 
contra sanctam synodum Chalcedonensem et contra epistolam beatae 
memoriae Leonis ad Flavianum Constantinopolitanum antistitem datam 
scripserit." 



242 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

ferences of the bishop of the capital. The reception given to 
Proclus by the people of Cyzicus, in the time of Sisinnius, 
shows that the " Asiatics " had not lost their particularist 
views, and the intervention of Nestorius in the business of 
the Macedonians and of the Quartodecimans must have 
helped to arouse them. In short, Cyril- found in the Bishop 
of Ephesus, Memnon, an auxiliary entirely devoted to him, 
and Memnon set himself to recruit supporters for him in the 
provinces in which his own influence made itself felt. A 
hundred "Asiatic" bishops at least came in this way to 
place themselves under the orders of the Pope of Alexandria. 

He had his majority. To keep it alive while waiting for 
the opening of the sessions of the Council, he engaged 
continually in the delivery of addresses and the discussion, in 
writing or orally, of the views of Nestorius. With the latter he 
had no communication : they made no effort to see one another. 
They might have been called the heads of two hostile camps. 
Discreditable stories were in circulation. It was the position of 
403 over again a renewal of the conflict of Theophilus and 
John. Each of the two Patriarchs pretended to consider the 
other as an accused person, suspected of heresy and destined to 
a speedy condemnation. These feelings of the leaders were 
translated in the inferior ranks of their supporters into brawls 
between Nestorius people and the sailors of Alexandria. 
Memnon the Bishop had openly taken sides with Cyril, and 
contrary to all law and all decency he kept his churches, even 
the Basilica of St John, closed to Nestorius and his followers. 

To represent him at the Council and to ensure the regularity 
of its proceedings, the Emperor had sent one of the high officials 
of his Court, the Count Candidian, Commander of the Guard 
(Comes domesticoruni). His instructions forbade him to be 
present at debates on doctrine, but he was to take care that 
they had been properly arranged at the outset, all the members 
of the Council being present and each having liberty to produce 
his reasons. He was further charged with keeping order 
outside. 

However, the time fixed (June 7) had passed by some days. 
The Bishops of Macedonia, under the leadership of Flavian of 
Philippi, had arrived. They were still waiting for the delegates 
whom the Pope had promised to send and who were on the 
road. St Augustine had been expressly summoned, for the 



p. 346-9] THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 243 

news of his death was slow in reaching Constantinople. The 
Bishop of Carthage, Capreolus, in view of the position in Africa, 
was unable either to collect his council or to find bishops 
to go to Ephesus. He contented himself with sending a 
deacon named Bessula, who arrived before the Roman legates. 
The Syrians, too, had still to be waited for. They were coming 
by land ; and their caravan, as always happens, had met with 
various accidents. It was composed of some thirty prelates 
under the leadership of the Patriarch, John. The old Bishop 
of Bercea had remained at home. It seemed natural to wait 
both for the Roman legates and for the Easterns: the latter 
were not now far away ; they sent excuses for their delay and 
asked for a further postponement for a few days. 

But Cyril was apprehensive that the presence of the 
Easterns would bring to Nestorius a powerful reinforcement, if 
not of numbers, at any rate of authority. Further, it was clear 
that when debate was joined upon the Faith, his proposals 
for Anathema would be challenged by people who had been 
engaged for some months in combating them as heretical. 
This mode of procedure laid him open to unpleasant reprisals. 
Hence he made up his mind to an audacious coup de force, 
closely resembling that which had proved so successful for 
his uncle Theophilus in the business of John Chrysostom : to 
avoid being in the position of the accused, he boldly assumed 
the role of judge. 

Of all the great prelates who found themselves at Ephesus, 
he was (with the exception of Nestorius) the one of highest 
rank from the place of his see. He considered himself also 
as representative of Pope Celestine this in virtue of the 
commission which he had received for it in the previous year. 1 
In this double capacity he put himself forward as the un 
questionable president of the Council, and on June 21 summoned 
it to meet on the following day. 

It was too much. On the same evening he received a 

1 Whether he had a real right to this position is a different matter. He 
had been charged to summon Nestorius and N to depose him in the name of 
the Holy See if within ten days satisfaction had not been given. Another 
method of procedure having been adopted, and Cyril having accepted it, 
since he had come to the Council, his commission seems clearly to have 
expired. Besides, the best proof that the Pope had no idea of causing- 
himself to be represented by him is the fact that he was sending legates. 
III. R 



244 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

protest signed by 68 bishops of whom 21 were metropolitans. 
Any one but Cyril would have hesitated ; but his choice was 
made. On Monday, June 22, 431, about 160 bishops 1 gathered 
in the principal church of Ephesus, which bore the name of 
Mary. 2 around Cyril of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and 
Memnon of Ephesus. Count Candidian hastened thither, 
protested, and implored the assembly and its presidents to 
wait for the arrival of the Easterns, declaring that this was 
what his instructions required. He was asked to show them. 
After a little hesitation, he complied and read them. Cyril 
took no notice of them. Some bishops on the side of Nestorius 
appeared and endeavoured to secure a hearing for the protest 
already sent on the previous evening. They were shown the 
door, together with Count Candidian himself, who complained 
of having been affronted and mishandled. 

This done, 3 Nestorius was sent a second 4 summons, which 

1 Others signed subsequently and this raised the number to nearly 
200. 

2 This name might in strictness be that of a Foundress. I consider, 
however, that it is much more probable that it is that of the mother of the 
Saviour, though such a dedication, at so early a date, has something surpris 
ing about it. We must notice further that the official form, that of the formal 
records of the Council, is not the Church of Mary but the Church Mary, 
the church called Mary. In these circumstances, one might conceive of a 
mystical conception, a sort of union of John and Mary, in which the 
memory of the mother of Christ and that of the Church of Ephesus were 
mutually intertwined. The Church of Ephesus, like Mary, had been 
entrusted to the Apostle John. John and Mary, the patron Apostle and 
Ephesian Christianity, the sanctuary of the Apostle and the Cathedral of 
Ephesus : the symmetry goes on from the historical personages to the 
religious conditions, and from these to the buildings which symbolize them. 
If there were apart from this name any tradition whatever of a sojourn of 
Mary at Ephesus or of her burial in that town, we might attach to it the 
explanation of this puzzle. Unhappily there is none, except for some 
alleged visions with which it is quite impossible for me to deal. Besides 
they are not connected with the town of Ephesus but with a place in the 
neighbourhood. 

3 From this point onward I follow the formal record of the first session, 
not without some misgiving, for it was only drawn up some days after 
wards, by the "chancery" of Alexandria, which had no exaggerated 
scruples. We may judge of this by noticing that the reading of Candidian s 
instructions and the formal protest of the sixty-eight bishops are passed 
over completely in silence, 

4 The first had been made the evening before to Nestorius as to all the 
bishops present at Ephesus. 



p. 349-52] CYRIL OPENS THE COUNCIL 245 

was refused, and then a third : the last was a real citation, 
as though addressed to an accused person. He did not accept 
it. The debates opened without him. Cyril caused the Creed 
of Nicaea to be read, then his second letter to Nestorius, 1 and 
asked for a vote which should proclaim the agreement of these 
documents and the orthodoxy of the second : he obtained it. 
They passed on to the reply of Nestorius, in regard to which 
an unfavourable vote was given. 2 Then was read, under the 
head of Documents and without any vote, the letter by which 
Pope Celestine commissioned Cyril to depose Nestorius and 
that by which Cyril had notified to the latter the clauses of the 
submission demanded of him, that is, the celebrated proposals 
for Anathema. Some statements were also produced which had 
been collected at Ephesus from Nestorius own lips 3 and some 
extracts from his published homilies. In opposition to them 
were quoted a certain number of passages 4 extracted from the 
holy Fathers down to Theophilus and Atticus. From this 
investigation the assembly 5 arrived at the conclusion that 
Nestorius was a heretic and deserved to be deposed. 

In the meantime Count Candidian was entering protest, by 
posting up formal notices, against the meeting in St Mary s and 
what was going on there. He made a further protest on the 

1 Epistola dogmatica, Kara<t>\vapovffi ptv. 

2 135 votes with reasons for Cyril s letter and 34 against that of 
Nestorius appear in the formal record ; but the votes thus given with 
reasons do not represent all the adhesions. The assembly was unanimous. 

3 Among others that one could not say of a child of two or three months 
that He is God (Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1181 ; cf. Socrates, H. E. vii. 34). This 
was reported to the Council by Theodotus, the Bishop of Ancyra. 
Nestorius explained later that he had been wrongly understood and that he 
had confined himself to saying that God could not have had the age of two 
or three months. See the texts cited by Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his 
Teaching^ 1908, chap. v. It is the constant confusion between Nature and 
Person. 

4 Two, borrowed from alleged writings of Popes Julius and Felix, are 
in reality extracts from Apollinarian works ; but that matters little. The 
others, quite authentic, are significant in another sense. 

6 In reality all these extracts are orthodox, provided that one judges 
them not according to the theology of Cyril, but according to that of 
St Leo and of the Council of Chalcedon. If there are here and there 
expressions which would be criticized at present, these modes of speech 
explain themselves by usages of language adopted at Antioch, before 
discussion and the definitions of Councils had given precision to the use 
of terms. 



246 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

following day. 1 He protested much, but he did not dare to act. 
We can well see why. Apart from this worthy official s hesitation 
to lay hands on the bishops, he felt them to be defended by 
popular enthusiasm. When the sitting which had continued all 
through a long June day was at last at an end, when the news 
was spread abroad of the condemnation of Nestorius, the 
enormous crowd which was besieging the Basilica broke into 
shouts of joy. The bishops were greeted with acclamation and 
escorted to their lodgings with lighted torches : the whole town 
was illuminated. 2 For these good people Christ had vanquished 
heresy, Mary had triumphed over Nestorius. 

It is under this simple aspect that the Council of Ephesus 
was speedily grasped by men s imaginations, especially in the 
West : it is this impression of it which remained. The reality 
is more complex. 

On the following day, if not the same evening, Cyril com 
municated to Nestorius his sentence of deposition, drawn up 
in language of scant amenity. " To Nestorius, new Judas. 
Know that by reason of thine impious preachings and of thy 
disobedience to the canons, on the 22nd of this month of June, 
in conformity with the rules of the Church, thou hast been 
deposed by the Holy Synod, and that thou hast now no longer 
any rank in the Church." 

Whilst the chief persons concerned, Nestorius, Cyril, 
Candidian, were writing to Constantinople and to Alexandria, 3 
Cyril and his friends were preaching vigorously in the churches 
of Ephesus. 4 The caravan of the Easterns arrived on the 26th, 5 
four days after the Synod. 

1 Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 770-772. 2 Cyril, Ep. 24. 

3 Nestorius to the Emperor (Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1232 ; Loofs, Ncstoriana, 
p. 186) ; Cyril (or his Synod) to the Church of Constantinople (Mansi, iv., 
p. 1228), to the Emperor (ibid. p. 1236), to the clergy and to the people of 
Constantinople (ibid. p. 1241), to the clergy and to the people of Alexandria 
(ibid.}. The report of Candidian has not been preserved : it is mentioned 
in the imperial reply to the Synod (ibid. p. 1377 ; cf. torn, v., p. 773). 

4 Mansi, Cone, iv., pp. 1245, 1248, 1252. 

5 This date is settled for the future, from the text of the Bibliotheca 
Casinensis, torn, i. -, p. 24. 

Cyril attempted at this time and later to explain this delay in a manner 
which has little likelihood. According to him they had waited sixteen days 
after the date fixed for the opening of the Council. With these sixteen days 



P. 352-5] CONDEMNATION AND REPRISAL 247 

The new-comers, who had already learnt fit route what had 
just taken place, had hardly descended from their mounts when 
they were met by Cyril s envoys who notified them, with some 
arrogance, as matters concluded and in the ordinary course, of 
the deposition of Nestorius and the prohibition to hold com 
munion with him. They held council forthwith at the lodging 
of the Patriarch John. Some of the bishops who had not been 
present at the meeting on the 22nd joined them, and they 
thus increased in number to forty-three. 1 Count Candidian 
presented himself and gave them officially an account of what 
had happened in despite of the Emperor s orders and of his own 
protests. With minds full of Cyril s proposals for Anathema, 
the Easterns judged that his bold stroke had no other object 
than that of saving himself from being put on trial for his 
doctrine : in this they were not much mistaken. Then, without 
waiting any longer, without citation, without discussion, they 
pronounced the deposition of the Patriarch of Alexandria and 
of the Bishop of Ephesus, as well as the excommunication of 
all their adherents until they should come to a better mind in 
other words, until they condemned the proposals for Anathema. 

We cannot imagine such utter lack of balance. Cyril was 
outdone. The unassailed and impressive position which John 
and his party might have taken was compromised by an act of 
headstrong folly. In the town of Ephesus disorder was carried 
to its height. Cyril and Memnon paid no regard to John s 
interdicts, and continued to officiate at services. The Bishop 
of Ephesus closed his churches to the Easterns. The latter 
made a definite display of putting their sentences into operation. 
The Bishop of Antioch attempted one day to enter the Basilica 
of St John for the purpose of consecrating a new bishop in place 

we should arrive at the 23rd ; but it was from the 2ist that the convocation 
took place. He pretended further that two bishops, Alexander of Apamea 
and Alexander of Hierapolis, who had been sent on ahead and had arrived 
after the sixteen days, had said, on John s behalf, that if he still delayed, 
they could begin without waiting for him. That this statement has been 
falsely reported or understood follows (i) from a letter of John to Cyril, 
written at five or six days distance from Ephesus (Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1121); 
(2) from the formal protest of the sixty-eight bishops in which appear the 
signatures of the two prelates in question ; (3) from the later attitude of 
the Easterns. 

1 This is the figure given in Cyril s Acts : in the Synod/con we frnd 
fifty-four signatures ; some seem to have been added after the event. 



248 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTOR1US [CH. x. 

of Memnon. Memnon s people opposed it, and the Patriarch 
was repulsed. 

Bewildered by these ecclesiastical storms Count Candidian 
sent to Constantinople report after report. On June 29, an 
imperial rescript was despatched to Ephesus, expressing 
explicit disapprobation of what had been done prematurely, 
and by a section only of the bishops, that is by Cyril s Council, 
the Council of June 22, forbidding the prelates to leave Ephesus, 
and announcing the sending of another imperial commissioner. 
Meanwhile the Roman legates were at last landing at Ephesus. 
They were three in number, two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, 
whose sees are not noted in the documents, and Philip, priest of 
"the Church of the Apostles" at Rome. 1 Their instructions 2 
enjoined them to refer themselves absolutely to Cyril : they put 
themselves at his disposal. Cyril s assembly met in their 
presence (July 10, u) and took cognizance of the letters which 
they brought for the Council. They asked that since proceed 
ings had taken place in their absence, 3 the formal record of the 
matter should be submitted to them. After hearing it read 
they approved of what had been done, and subscribed the 
deposition of Nestorius. 

Cyril, feeling himself reinforced by this new approbation 
from Rome, made up his mind to take proceedings against the 
Bishop of Antioch. Up to this point three depositions had 
been pronounced, those of Nestorius, of Cyril himself, and of 
Memnon. Nestorius had confined himself to a protest against 
the sentence which touched him : he had not acted in con 
travention of it by celebrating the Holy Mysteries ; besides, 
as to that, Memnon would have taken effective measures. As 
for Cyril and Memnon they had given evidence of the import 
ance which they attached to John s sentence by not observing 
it. In this they played a very risky game : it was on this same 
failure of observance that Theophilus had based himself in 
order finally to destroy Chrysostom. It was thus a matter 



p. 170. 2 Jaffe, Regesta^ 378. 

3 They do not seem to have been affronted by it : at any rate the Acts 
of Cyril have not preserved any trace of protest. Besides, the case had 
been provided for in their instructions. In a letter addressed to Cyril, 
(Jaffe , 377) Celestine, in answer to a question of the Bishop of Alexandria 
on this head, said that Nestorius, if he retracted, ought to be admitted by 
the Council, even though the delay of ten days should long have expired. 



p. 355-7] THE EMPEROR AND THE POPE 249 

of moment to them that John s authority and the competence 
of the Eastern Council should be solemnly set aside. It was to 
this that the 4th and 5th sessions of the Synod were devoted. 
They were held under the presidency of Cyril and the legates. 
John was cited, but without result. 1 They did not depose him : 
I am inclined to think that the Roman legates were not 
strangers to this moderation. It was only decreed that the 
Bishop of Antioch and his adherents should be excommunicated 
in this sense " that they should not be able, in virtue of their 
sacerdotal authority, to do anything which could harm or aid 
any one whatsoever." 2 By which we understand that they 
had not been able to depose Cyril and Memnon (this is explicitly 
stated) and that they would not be able to restore Nestorius. 
The sentence is to continue in force so long as they shall not 
have come to a better mind ; if they delay too long, recourse 
will be had to severer measures. 

All this was brought to the knowledge of the Emperor and 
of Pope Celestine. The letter addressed to the latter mentions 
the relations of certain Pelagians with the party of Antioch : 
it even says that the Council has had read to it the Acts of the 
deposition of the Pelagian leaders, Celestius, Pelagius, Julian, 
and others, and that it has expressly approved them. Nothing 
resembling this is to be read in the formal records of Ephesus. 
Of these matters no mention is made except to the Pope, with 
the evident intention of making a favourable impression. There 
is no mention of the proposals for Anathema, not even in relation 
to the sentence of the dissentient Council, of which they were 
the principal factor. John s delay is stated and explained 
in a way which is at least inaccurate. 3 Of the protest 

1 We find in this connexion Juvenal putting himself very much to the 
front and pretending that, according to tradition, the throne of Antioch 
ought to be judged and corrected by the Apostolic See of Jerusalem (Mansi, 
Cone, iv., p. 1312). He hesitated at nothing. 

2 Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1324. 

3 It is said that for the deposition of Cyril and Memnon John had with 
him only thirty bishops, of whom several were bishops without see, others 
had been long interdicted by their metropolitans ; others are Pelagians 
and Celestians ; others people driven out of Thessaly. But the deposition 
of Cyril and Memnon bears the signatures of over 40 bishops (43 in the text 
of the Acts, 54 in the Synodicon}, all of them furnished with a see ; the 
unattached had all come with their metropolitans ; there is no Pelagian 
bishop ; from Thessaly there is, in the list of the Acts, only the metropolitan, 
Basil of Larissa, whose position was canonically correct. In the list of the 



250 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

of the 68 bishops against the precipitated opening of the 
Council, not the least word is spoken. Celestine was admirably 
furnished with information. 

Two further sessions were held, one (6th, July 22) on the 
subject of a Creed of a " Nestorian " character l which was being 
used in the diocese of Philadelphia-: it was on this occasion 
that it was decided that in the matter of Creed people must 
confine themselves thenceforward to that of Nicaea. In the 
seventh and last session 3 an effort was made by the bishops 
of Cyprus to withdraw themselves from the authority of the 
Patriarch of Antioch. The moment was well chosen for such 
a proceeding : the Council yielded to the desires of the Cypriots 
and recognized their autonomy. 4 The Patriarchate of Antioch 
was open to the spoiler. Juvenal of Jerusalem, who had long 

Synodicon we find in addition Pausianus of Hypata, Maximus of Demetrias, 
and Theoctistus of Caesarea in Thessaly. The ordination of Maximus, 
which had been celebrated apart from the Bishop of Thessalonica, had 
been annulled by Pope Boniface, who had in addition separated from 
communion with himself the three consecrators, of whom Pausianus was 
one (Jaffe, 363, sub anno 422) ; of Theoctistus we know nothing. Affairs of 
this kind ended customarily in an accommodation. Basil the metropolitan 
was certainly, about 424, in communion with Pope Celestine (Jaffe, 366), 
and the fact that his suffragans sit and sign with him implies that their 
position was regular. That one or other of them may have been driven 
from Thessaly is possible ; but we should need to know by whom and why. 
It can be seen how disputable are Cyril s assertions (cf. p. 246, note 6 for 
inexactitudes in dates). According to him there were on the side of John 
of Antioch only some thirty persons of doubtful reputation. 

1 It is the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

2 The Bishop of Philadelphia, Theophanes, appears among the 
supporters of Nestorius. In the course of the campaign directed by the 
latter against the Novatians and the Quartodecimans, a priest named 
James arrived in Lydia from Constantinople with recommendations from 
two priests of Nestorius Anastasius and Photius (supra, pp. 228, 232) : he 
used to make the heretics whom he brought over to the Church sign the 
creed in question. This business was brought before Cyril s Council by 
the Steward of the Church of Philadelphia, a certain Charisius. 

3 The Latin text, the only one preserved, bears the date Prid. Kal. Sept. 
(August 31), which is certainly false. The true date must be in the month 
of July. 

4 The island of Cyprus certainly belonged to the "Diocese" of the 
Orient. The question which had been submitted about 415 to Pope 
Innocent by Alexander, the Bishop of Antioch, had been settled in favour 
of Antioch (Jaffe, 410). On this business see my article Saint Bamabtm 
the Melanges J. B. de Rossi, p. 45. 



p. 357-61] THE SEQUEL OF THE COUNCIL 251 

been making a considerable show of independence in regard 
to the metropolitan of Caesarea, and who permitted himself to 
consecrate bishops as far as Phoenicia Secunda (Damascus), 
and Arabia (Bostra), endeavoured to secure payment for his 
zeal by the express ratification of his pretensions. 1 

So passed the month of July. The Court was leisurely 
in its intervention. Its new delegate, the Count John, Comes 
sacrarum largitionum, the Minister of Finance as we should say, 
was delayed on the road and only arrived in the early days 
of August. By the official letter of which he was the bearer, 2 
the sovereigns declared that they accepted the sentences of 
deposition passed against Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon ; 
they endeavoured to bind the bishops to make peace and 
dismissed them to their respective churches again. John went 
to look for them and invited them to come to see him on the 
following day. It was a hard enough task to persuade them 
to do so, for being mutually excommunicated they refused 
every opportunity of meeting. However, the gathering took 
place. Memnon, it is true, refused to leave his episcopal 
residence, but Nestorius, Cyril, and John of Antioch obeyed 
the summons. However, when it came to reading the imperial 
letter, the Cyrillians protested that Nestorius and the Easterns 
must first be excluded as they had been condemned by their 
Council. Count John, on the ground that the letter was 
addressed neither to Nestorius nor to Cyril, made them both 
retire and compelled the rest to hear it read. The Easterns 
complied : since their arrival they had refrained from openly 
taking sides in favour of Nestorius ; their official letters never 
mention him. As for the others they protested anew. That 
very evening Count John declared the three deposed bishops 
to be under arrest and set guards over them. He devoted 
himself next to reconciling the Easterns and the party of 
Cyril, but without result. In such circumstances it was 

1 We do not know exactly how far he succeeded. His game was 
perceived by the Easterns (Synodicon^ c. 32 ; Mansi, Cone, v., p. 804). 
Cyril himself, when he had no longer need of Juvenal, set himself in 
opposition to his pretensions (Letter of St Leo to Maximus of Artioch, 
JafTe,495). 

2 Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1396. It is addressed to the bishops of the two 
parties without distinction and even without taking account of absences : 
the first named are Celestine of Rome and Rufus of Thessalonica, who 
were absent, and Augustine who was dead. 



252 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

impossible for him to pronounce the dissolution of the Council. 
He referred the matter to the Emperor. 

The Emperor alone, as a matter of fact, was in a position to 
put an end to this lamentable struggle. From both sides 
efforts were made to bias his decisions. The friends of Cyril 
employed the greatest activity. Two influences might be 
brought into play : first, that of his ordinary counsellors, 
eunuchs, chamberlains, and other persons in close proximity 
to the sovereign ; then the influence of religion, which, as the 
clergy of Constantinople found themselves divided, could only 
be monastic influence, interpreted when necessary, but with 
considerable caution, by Pulcheria and the other princesses. 
I have said "with considerable caution," because Theodosius II. 
regarded his sisters with distrust and was unwilling to appear 
to be swayed by them. Upon the members of the Court Cyril 
had means of influence which would be repellent to our notions 
of fitness : he knew that in the East one does nothing without 
baksheesh and had no scruple in employing the treasures of 
Egypt in the service of the "good" cause. His physician, a 
certain John, 1 who arrived at Constantinople at a moment when 
Count Irenaeus, who had been sent thither by the Easterns, 
thought himself certain of success, wrought miracles of 
persuasion. In an instant all the great personages of the 
Court were turned round. 

More honourable, at any rate, was the other method of 
procedure. There was at Constantinople, in the monastery 
of Isaac, a recluse named Dalmatius, 2 who was regarded with 
great reverence. From his place of retirement, this holy man 
exercised a moral sway over the whole body of monks in the 
capital. He had little affection for Nestor ius and took a keen 
interest in Cyril s efforts to dethrone him from his see. When 
he learnt, after considerable delay, for communications had 
been carefully watched, that things were going badly at 
Ephesus, he made up his mind to leave his cell, outside which 
he had not set foot for six-and-forty years. At the news of 
this departure all the monasteries emptied themselves : an 
enormous procession of monks made their way, to the chanting 
of psalms, through the crowds of the populace towards the 

1 Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1393 ; v., p. 819 (Synodicon, 41). 

2 Supra, p. 215. 



p. 361-4] EFFORTS FOR PEACE 253 

imperial palace. Among them was to be seen Eutyches, 
another monk of high renown who was known to be a firm 
friend of Cyril. Theodosius II. received the holy men and 
spoke them fair. 

The efforts, however, still fell short of success. The 
Emperor tried a last method of conciliation. He ordered 
each of the two councils to send him eight deputies to engage 
in discussion in his presence, and to enable him to form an 
opinion for himself. The question of the Theotokos, which had 
been the starting-point of the business, was thenceforward 
settled. The Easterns made no difficulty in accepting this 
term : they said so definitely to Count John. 1 Nestorius 
himself had said and had repeated that, once properly explained, 
it might be used. He had also let it be understood that, if 
orthodoxy were secured, he was ready to abandon his see and 
to return to his monastery. 2 He was taken at his word, it 
would seem, and at rather better than his word, for without 
waiting for orthodoxy to receive the satisfaction which he 
hoped, he was taken back to Antioch (September 431). 3 

The satisfaction which he hoped and which the bishops of 
the East were urgently demanding was the condemnation of the 
proposals for Anathema. The heretical character of this docu 
ment was in their view as clear as daylight. They exerted them 
selves to prove it to all comers and especially to the Emperor. 
The latter had summoned to Chalcedon the deputies of the two 
parties. On the side of Cyril there were Philip and Arcadius, 
two of the Roman legates, 4 Juvenal, Flavian, Firmus of 
Caesarea, Theodotus of Ancyra, Euoptius of Ptolema is in 
Libya, brother and successor of the famous Synesius, and 
finally Acacius of Melitene, the best theologian of the whole 
party but also the least disposed to agreement. The Easterns 
were represented by the Patriarch John, escorted by Himerius 
of Nicomedia and six Syrian prelates, among whom Theodoret 
of Cyrus or Cyrrhos in Euphratesiana was the most dis 
tinguished by his knowledge and his eloquence. 

1 Synodicori) 47 (Mansi, Cone, v., p. 783). 

2 Synodicon, 15 (Mansi, ibid. pp. 777, 779). 

3 Synodicon, 24-26 (Mansi, ibid. pp. 792-4). 

4 It was adroit to display the Roman legates. It was certainly not on 
them that they were relying for the defence of Cyril s theology ; but their 
mere presence served as a recommendation of the other delegates. 



254 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

At Chalcedon, as at Ephesus, the Easterns had to reckon 
with the hostility of the local clergy. Eulalius the bishop, 
a determined enemy of Nestorius, assailed them without 
scruple. From quite close at hand the monks of Rufinianae, 
led by their abbot, Hypatius, also made demonstrations against 
them. In vain did John and his friends invoke the support of 
the Bishops of Milan, Aquileia, Ravenna, and Thessalonica : 
the letters which they wrote to them either remained 
unanswered or arrived too late. On September n the 
Emperor arrived. There were several sessions with the 
Emperor in regard to which we are very vaguely informed 
by the letters of the Easterns. Theodoret disputed against 
Acacius of Melitene : he and his friends were of opinion that 
they had the better of it. However, the party of Cyril lent 
themselves little to conversations : they refused in particular to 
allow any discussion of the proposals for Anathema. 1 For the 
Easterns it was the corpus delicti. 

At last, convinced of his own powerlessness to close the 
dispute and impressed by the presence of the Roman legates 
in Cyril s camp and by the number of his adherents, Theodosius 
II. decided abruptly to re-cross the Bosphorus and invited the 
Cyrillian delegates to come to Constantinople for the installa 
tion of the successor of Nestorius. 

The clergy of Constantinople had for the most part but 
half-hearted sympathy for the former bishop: they continued 
to be divided among themselves in regard to the unending 
rivalry as candidates between Philip and Proclus.. For the 
third time these were put forward ; but they were again 
disregarded, and Maximian, an old priest of charitable and 
unassuming disposition, was chosen. He was consecrated on 
October 25, in the presence of the three legates of the Pope. 2 
He was well known at Rome where he had made a long 
stay. 3 

1 In view of this debate a collection of patristic texts had been drawn 
up by them, doubtless by Theodoret. The Abbe Saltet (Revue tfHistoire 
Ecclesiastique, vi., pp. 513 ff.) has succeeded in reconstructing it, by the aid 
of the Eranistes of Theodoret and especially of the dossier added by Pope 
Gelasius to his treatise DC duabus naturisin Chris to (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont.) 
p. 544 ff.). The latter is only a mere summary of the original collection. 

2 Bishop Projectus, whose name did not appear among the delegates, 
had rejoined his colleagues at Constantinople. 

3 Jaffe, Regesta, 392 ; Coustant, Epp. Rom. Pant., p. 1261. 



p. 364-7] ESCAPE OF CYRIL 255 

The special position of Constantinople 1 having thus been 
set in order, it was now necessary to finish with the Council. 
Cyril and Memnon were still at Ephesus, still under arrest. 
The fact that the Cyrillian delegates had been invited to the 
consecration of Maximian did not imply that the Emperor had 
decided in favour of Cyril s Council against John s. Since it 
was impossible to re-unite in a ceremony of the Church the 
delegates of the two assemblies, Theodosius had chosen those 
who were, for the moment, the most favourably regarded in 
Constantinople, who represented the largest number of 
bishops and included in their ranks the legates of the Holy 
See. As for his own opinions in regard to the Council they 
were plainly expressed in the two decrees by which he 
pronounced the dissolution of the assembly. In the first, 
after recalling all his efforts to arrange the dispute and 
emphasizing their lack of result, he ordered the bishops to go 
home and to endeavour by a more pacific course of conduct 
to repair the damage which they had done. As for Cyril and 
Memnon, whom the Emperor continued to regard as deposed, 
they were excepted from this leave to depart. 

But Cyril had dealt with his own position for himself. 
Without waiting for the imperial rescript, he had succeeded 
in escaping and was on his voyage towards Alexandria. As it 
would have been difficult to start another pursuit of him in his 
own Egypt, it was decided to accept the fait accompli. To put 
as good a face as possible on the discomfiture of the Govern 
ment a second rescript was despatched, in almost the same 
terms as the former : of Cyril and Memnon it was said not that 
they were regarded as bishops once more or were deemed to be 
deposed but merely that Cyril might return to Alexandria and 
Memnon remain at Ephesus. The Emperor added that so long 
as he lived he would never condemn the Easterns, for they had 
not been convicted in his presence on any point. 

John returned to Antioch and Cyril to Alexandria, where 
he resumed his episcopal functions without authorization of 
any kind. However, his return was less triumphal than his 
departure had promised. It was soon known in Egypt that 

1 Nestorius had been considered by CyriPs party as deposed : others 
might hold that he had tendered his resignation. In any case the Govern 
ment had removed him ; for many nothing more was needed : the see was 
vacant. 



256 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

he had involved himself in difficulties, that many bishops 
condemned him, and that the Government took stern measures 
with him. Pharaoh under arrest ! What an indignity ! And 
among the bishops who had made the expedition to Ephesus, 
more than one added under his breath that he had richly 
deserved it. Isidore of Pelusium, the only man who could 
speak frankly in that sternly regulated country, had no scruple 
in telling him of these reports. " Favour," so he wrote to 
him, 1 " obscures the view, but hatred blinds completely. ... A 
number of those who have been at Ephesus represent you as 
a man burning to avenge an injury of his own, not to seek in 
orthodoxy the glory of Jesus Christ. He is, they say, the 
nephew of Theophilus. He acts just like him. The fury of 
the uncle was unleashed against John, the Saint, the Friend 
of God ; the other too, though the two cases are very different, 
has sought for a success on which he can make his boast." 

He had sought it : he had obtained it. Nestorius had 
fallen from his episcopal throne, and that by the sentence of 
the Bishop of Alexandria. Once more Egypt had prevailed 
against Constantinople. When himself was made the subject of 
an enquiry he had evaded the discussion of his Anathemas and 
that was the main thing, for his deposition by the Easterns was 
of no account in his eyes. 

However, the Anathemas continued to be a source of trouble. 
Ever since they appeared he had had to defend them, and not 
against Nestorius but against people of manifest orthodoxy 
such as Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata, These charged 
them bluntly with heresy and were making vigorous efforts to 
prove their charge if anyone would consent to listen to them. 
Cyril, it is true, had caused the Anathemas to be read before 
his Council, but only as a document in the proceedings against 
Nestorius and without securing any vote on the question of 
their orthodoxy. 2 The Easterns were using this reading as an 
argument to implicate the whole Council in what they called 

1 3">; cf. Ep. 370. 

2 It had been absolutely necessary to read Celestine s letter by which 
Cyril had been commissioned : otherwise he could not have justified either 
his position as the Pope s representative or his intervention in the direction 
of the discussion. But when once Celestine s letter had been read, he could 
not avoid the production also of the formal Act by which he had discharged 
his commission. 



p. 367-9] MAXIMIAN OF CONSTANTINOPLE 257 

the heresy of its head. It was an exaggeration. However, 
Cyril himself felt that he had gone too far. He evaded a vote 
at Ephesus, a discussion at Chalcedon. In his synodal report 
to Pope Celestine there is no mention of the Anathemas. 
Officially Rome remained for a long time in ignorance of this 
document, to which it would no doubt itself have raised certain 
objections. 1 

On Christmas Day 431 Pope Celestine received at St Peter s 
the delegates of the clergy of Constantinople who had come 
to notify him of the accession of Maximian. He was satisfied 
with this choice, and in the replies which he made on the i$th 
of the ensuing March to the letters which had been brought 
him from the Eastern capital he expressed his happiness that 
there had been given as a successor to Sisinnius a man of like 
simplicity. As for Nestorius he held that it was wrong to 
have allowed him to settle at Antioch where he could continue 
to do harm. In regard to him and to John of Antioch he was 
still relying upon the information furnished him by Cyril. 2 
However, so far as John was concerned he had not lost all 
hope of his return. It was, however, under other auspices 
that this matter was to be continued. Celestine died on July 
27, 432. 

The Council of Ephesus had been summoned to re-establish 
religious peace, which had been disturbed at Constantinople 
and throughout the whole Eastern Empire. It had hardly 

1 On the testimony even of Cyril s formal records two letters of his were 
read at the Council, the first quite at the beginning of the session, after the 
creed of Nicasa (supra, p. 245), the other, the letter of the Anathemas, after 
the letter of Celestine to Nestorius. In his report in which he follows the 
order of the reading, Cyril does not mention any after Celestine s letter. In 
.another place, he uses the ambiguous expression rd ypanpara, . . . Kvpi\\ov, 
Lower down, for the letters of Nestorius and of Celestine he makes use 
of the singular eiuvToKf). Possibly the plural ypdwara (litterae) was used 
deliberately in order to extend it, in case of need, to the letter which 
contained the Anathemas, I think it, however, more probable, in view of 
the mention of the vote which follows that of the ypdnnaTa, that Cyril, or 
the Council in whose name he writes, wished to throw into the shade the 
document which was the subject of dispute. 

2 The unlimited confidence accorded by Celestine to Cyril is only 
too closely reminiscent of the relations of his predecessor Zosimus with 
Patroclus, the Bishop of Aries. We no longer possess, unfortunately, the 
letters that he wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria after the Council. 



258 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

succeeded in doing so. Nestorius, whose extravagance of 
language had been the cause of the evil, found himself, it is 
true, out of action and his successor appointed. In this respect 
the disorders in the capital were in course of settlement. There 
remained, however, at Constantinople a party of Nestorians in 
the same way as after the removal of Chrysostom there had 
remained a party of Johannites. Certain prelates who were 
friends of the ex-bishop, notably Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, 
kept this flame alight. Maximian, with the support of the 
Government, defended himself with some energy. The Pope s 
legates, Juvenal, Flavian, and other delegates of the Council 
were still at Constantinople. 1 A sentence of deposition which 
seems to have emanated from a meeting held by these prelates, 2 
was launched not only against Dorotheus but also against three 
other metropolitans, Himerius of Nicomedia, Eutherius of 
Tyana, and Helladius of Tarsus. The last was a man of 
sanctity, a former monk who had been elected bishop late in 
life. Maximian had notified to him his own enthronement, but 
Helladius had refused his letters : he remained faithful to 
Nestorius, like all the Easterns, riot considering him to have 
been lawfully deposed. It does not appear that any effort was 
made to secure the ousting of the Bishop of Tarsus. With the 
others the case was different. In regard to the Bishop of 
Nicomedia, which was near to the capital, they succeeded 3 : 
Dorotheus and Eutherius offered a more serious resistance, 
and for the time retained their sees. 

A graver matter, and one in which the Council most 
completely failed in its aim, was that communion was broken 
with John of Antioch and his supporters. While returning 
to their homes the Easterns were subjected to insults on the 
way. The Bishops of Ancyra arid Caesarea treated them as 
excommunicate. On their side they halted from time to time, 
held council and engaged in reprisals. At Tarsus they pro 
nounced once more the deposition of Cyril and of five of his 

1 Mansi, Cone, v., p. 257. 

2 Maximian had not, according to ancient law, any authority over the 
three metropolitans of Asia Minor. Even if we allow for the pretensions 
of Constantinople, Helladius was certainly outside his jurisdiction and 
dependent on no one save the Patriarch of Antioch. 

8 Letter of Theodoret, in the Synodicon, c. 71 (Mansi, Cone, v., 
p. 848). 






p. 369-72] THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CHURCH 259 

deputies at Chalcedon. 1 On their return to their several 
dioceses they maintained their attitude. Nestorius, to whom 
they could not give back his bishopric, was treated by them 
as a colleague who had been irregularly dispossessed ; Cyril 
as an abettor of disturbances and a heretic. 

It was necessary for the Government to intervene. O happy 
days, so might have said some of the old consulars who had 
lingered in paganism, O happy days when pontiffs did not 
quarrel among themselves, when religious matters settled 
themselves administratively and without noise! Now it was 
necessary for the State to descend into this arena of raging 
theologians. It descended. 

In matters of this kind governments are always inclined to 
simple solutions. It was proposed at first to make John and 
Cyril come, to Nicomedia 2 and to effect their reconciliation : as 
if it would have been an easy matter, as if behind them there 
had not been brains that thought and hearts stirred to anger. 
Another scheme was propounded next : to make the Easterns 
accept the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril that of the 
Anathemas. 3 This meant adding together the wishes of the 
two parties ; but, as each of them was attached to only half the 
programme and repudiated the other with the utmost energy, it 
was not very easy to achieve. Such, however, was the task 
entrusted to Aristolaus, tribune and notary, who was despatched 
as a peace-maker to Syria and Egypt about a year after the 
Council. This interval had been sufficient to cause the 
inconvenience of the schism to be felt. All relations were 
disturbed. Already Pope Celestine had expressed a desire 
to see a settlement arrived at with Antioch. 4 His successor, 
Xystus III., went further in this direction. 5 He wrote to 
Acacius of Bercea, an old acquaintance of the Romans, 6 and 

1 Synodicon^ 66, 136, 141, 174 (Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 843, 917, 920, 
953) We have not the names. The Roman legates had no doubt been 
spared. 

2 Imperial letter addressed to John (Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 277, 663, 664). 

8 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte ii., p. 252, is wrong in questioning that 
this was the requirement of the Court. Cf. Synodicon, 203 (Mansi, Cone. 
v., p. 988) : Aristolaus insistebat ei (Cyrillo) ut divinitus sancita perageret 
The letter to John of Antioch (Synodicon 50; Mansi, Cone, v., p. 827) 
which is relied upon is that of a person still badly informed. 

4 Jaffe, 385 ; Constant, p. 1202. 6 Jaffe, 389, 390. 

Synodicon, 55 (Mansi, Cone, v., p. 830). 

III. S 



260 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

made urgent efforts to enlist his interest in the welfare of the 
Church. The Emperor, on his side, addressed himself both 
to this venerable bishop and to the celebrated Stylite 
Simeon whose moral authority might have a considerable 
effect. 1 

Aristolaus went to Antioch and to Alexandria. At Antioch 
the subject of the withdrawal of the proposed Anathemas was 
at once mentioned to him. Acacius, who from the height 
of his no years seemed to tower above all parties was com 
missioned to write to Cyril to propose to him that adhesion 
should be given only to the Creed of Nicaea, explained when 
necessary by the letter of St Athanasius to Epictetus, 2 
and that all other doctrinal expositions should be cast into 
oblivion. 3 This was to get rid at once of the writings of 
Cyril and of those of Nestorius. Cyril replied to the old 
Bishop of Bercea. In this letter and certain others which 
he wrote at this time he explained his proposed Anathemas, 
defended himself from all trucking with Arianism and Apolli- 
narianism, but insisted still on requiring the condemnation 
of Nestorius. 

At Constantinople Maximian lent him aid, but not so 
much as he would have wished. Like Cyril, the new Bishop 
of Constantinople insisted, and with reason, that the deposition 
of Nestorius should be recognized as valid. As for the 
Anathemas, for which he had not the paternal feelings of 
the Bishop of Alexandria, he did not see any reason why 
they should not be sacrificed. 4 At the Court a good many 
people talked in the same way. For a moment Cyril saw 
himself very closely hemmed in. He treated it as a very 
serious disorder, but did not allow himself to be in any way 
mastered by it. By his exertions all means of influence at 
Constantinople were set to work. The holy monks Eutyches 
and Dalmatius, the priests Philip and Claudian, Bishop 
Maximian himself, were desired to enlist the aid of Pulcheria, 
whom it was sought to influence also through her Maids of 
Honour, the Cubiculariae Marcella and Droseria, who were 
given presents for this purpose. Important eunuchs, favourite 
officials, received enormous douceurs in cash and in kind, 

1 Synodicon, 51, 52 (Mansi, Cone, v., p. 828). 2 See Vol. II., p. 471- 

3 Synodicon^ 123, 129 (Mansi, v., pp. 829, 830). 

4 Cf. Liberatus, Brev. 8. 



p. 372-5] NEW EFFORTS FOR PEACE 261 

costly carpets, tapestries, furniture in ivory, live ostriches. 1 
The Grand Chamberlain Chrysoretus was devoted to the 
Easterns. Hence, " in order that he may cease to attack us," 
they put themselves specially to expense. He obtained as 
many as six ostriches and all the rest in proportion. These 
self-interested gifts were described as " Benedictions " : they 
were the Eulogiae of the Church of Alexandria. 

The Church of Alexandria was not unanimous in its 
approval of the Bishop s acts of generosity : people considered 
his theology expensive, and they murmured against him. But 
Cyril knew what he was doing : the Anathema proposals, thanks 
to his astute measures, crossed in safety a very dangerous 
place. 

He made vigorous personal efforts in addition and not 
without success. His letter to Acacius, with his explanations 
of the Anathemas, made a very good impression in the 
East. Acacius showed himself disposed to sympathize with 
his views. The same was the case with John of Antioch, 
and they seemed to have had with them the bishops of the 
provinces of Phoenicia (Tyre and Damascus), of Syria properly 
so called (Antioch and Apamea), and of Arabia (Bostra). In 
Cilicia, on the contrary, where in conjunction with the memory 
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, there ruled the present influence 
of Helladius of Tarsus, they would listen to nothing, and 
persisted in considering Cyril as a heretic: Eutherius of 
Tyana and Himerius of Nicomedia were at one in this. Such 
were also the views of the metropolitan of Euphratesiana, 
Alexander of Hierapolis. Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata, 
who belonged to this province, followed a middle course : 
while firmly maintaining their estimate of the Anathemas, 
they judged that Cyril had almost retracted them in explaining 
them. As for Nestorius it did not seem to them necessary 
that every one should condemn him : it was sufficient that 
some had done so. 

Cyril s thought, we must recognize, was orthodox : this 
was clearly seen when he consented to explain it. The fault 

1 The list of these douceurs has been preserved in the Synodicon, as an 
appendix to Letter No. 203 (Mansi, v., p. 987). Earlier editors had been 
ashamed, apparently, to publish it. The Benedictines of Monte Cassino 
have given it in their Bibliothcca Casincnsis t i 2 , p. 46. It is, moreover, men 
tioned and summarized in the letter itself. 



262 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

was that when translating it in his proposed Anathemas he had 
made use of terms that were suspect and of unfortunate origin, 
and in these the Easterns, prejudiced by their own theological 
usages and excited by the passion of the moment, saw things 
which were inadmissible. No one, it is true, asked them to 
adopt them as their own: all that it was desired to obtain 
from them was that, despite the Anathemas, they should 
consent to recognize that Cyril was not heretical. That they 
should accept his explanations as giving the true sense of 
the disputed document or as a retractation of this production, 
was after all a secondary matter. The Patriarch John left 
Theodoret to debate this question, and, disregarding the 
opposition of the most determined, he sent to Alexandria 
the Bishop of Emesa, Paul, 1 with letters of an extremely 
pacific tone. Cyril gave him a good reception: he was in 
a state of suffering, and this delayed the negotiations a little. 
It was agreed to let the question of the Anathemas drop 
as they had already been explained by their author, and he 
pledged himself to offer further explanations. In return Cyril 
accepted a profession of faith 2 which had been decided upon 
at Antioch : except for a phrase added to meet the occasion 
this form was taken, word for word, from a letter 3 addressed 
from Ephesus to the Emperor Theodosius II. by the Eastern 
Council, which there opposed the Anathemas uncompromisingly/ 

1 Paul of Emesa was the trusted confidant of Acacius : he had repre 
sented him at Ephesus (Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1400). 

3 " We profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, perfect 
God and perfect man, endowed with a rational soul and a body, is born of 
the Father before the ages as touching His Divinity and in the end of the 
days, for us and our salvation, of the Virgin Mary as touching His humanity ; 
that He is consubstantial with the Father as touching His Divinity and with 
us as touching His humanity, for two natures have been united (860 Qfofwv 
(wets ytyove) ; moreover, we recognize but one only Christ, one only Son, 
one only Lord. According to this union without confusion we say that the 
holy Virgin is Mother of God, for God the Word was incarnate and made 
man, and from the moment of conception united to Himself the temple 
which He took from her." The added passage is : " As to the evangelical 
and apostolical passages relative to the Lord we know that theologians 
employ some of them without distinction as referring to a single person and 
distinguish others as referring to two natures ; those which are worthy 
of God when it is a question of the Divinity of Christ, those of a less lofty 
kind when it is a question of His humanity." 

3 Synodicori) 17 (Mansi, Cone, v., p. 783). 



P. 375-8] CYRIL AND THE EASTERNS 263 

It was a great success for the Easterns, and at the same 
time the best proof that these people who had just been 
engaged in such ruthless warfare were upon the whole in 
accord on fundamental points. Cyril was accepting an 
Eastern Creed, drawn up, one may suppose, by Theodoret 
himself: he was even going so far as to make use of the 
technical terms of the Easterns, speaking of "temple" and 
of " two natures," There were not wanting those among his 
own supporters who reproached him for having gone too far 
in the way of concessions. 

He consented, moreover, to forgive the insults which he 
had received at Ephesus: this greatly moved him, for he 
often returns to it, with a little too much forgetfulness that 
he had been the first to begin. 

On the other side, the Easterns had to accept the deposition 
of Nestorius and to condemn his teaching. This was the 
point which irked ; but here Cyril was very strong, for he 
could count on the support of Constantinople. To satisfy 
the Court and the new bishop of the capital it would have 
been enough to declare that the latter had been lawfully 
elected, the see being vacant by resignation. But it seems 
clear that Nestorius had not lent himself to this adjustment, 
and that he was demanding his bishopric again. He had 
resigned, no doubt ; but it was at a time when the Court, 
accepting the sentences of John s Council exactly as it did 
those of Cyril s Council, seemed determined by one stroke to 
remove the two persons who were engaged in controversy 
the Bishop of Alexandria and him of Constantinople. Since 
then the attitude of the Government had undergone a change. 
It had resumed relations with Cyril : Nestorius alone was 
sacrificed. We can understand his having protested, having 
withdrawn his resignation and declared that he did not 
acknowledge his deposition which had been pronounced in 
the circumstances with which we are acquainted. Paul of 
Emesa, by an unwarrantable application of Theodoret s scheme, 
offered to pronounce in the name of the others the anathemas 
required. Cyril did not consider that he had in this respect 
the necessary powers: in his letter John had not breathed 
a word of it. He admitted Paul to his communion and then 
sent him back to Syria, escorted by two Alexandrian deacons 
and by Aristolaus himself. They carried a formulary in 



264 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

which was expressed the condemnation of Nestorius and 
of his teaching. 1 

The Patriarch John obtained some modifications of termin 
ology, but he signed, and with him a certain number of his 
bishops. 2 

Paul of Emesa set out again for Alexandria carrying a 
letter in which it was said that " for the peace of the Church, 
for the removal of quarrels and scandals, they recognized 
Nestorius as deposed, and that they anathematized his empty 
and profane statements," without further specification. 8 It 
was peace. Cyril received with open arms the messenger who 
brought it. He replied by a famous letter 4 : " Let the 
heavens rejoice and let the earth tremble (with gladness) ! " 
In it he rejected many views which had been wrongly 
attributed to him, made clear his doctrine, and in order to be 
completely plain reproduced the confession of Antioch in the 
form in which John had himself inserted it in his letter, and 
declared it to be in conformity with his own opinions. 

News of this happy ending was immediately given both 
from Antioch and from Alexandria alike to the Emperor 
and to Pope Xystus, to Maximian of Constantinople and to 
the whole episcopate. Pope Xystus testified his joy by 
highly expressive letters. 6 

All is well that ends well. One might be tempted to 

1 What was meant by the teaching of Nestorius ? This point had been 
in no way defined. It is not doubtful that the Eastern creed accepted by 
Cyril did not correspond to the belief of Nestorius. 

2 Acacius is not mentioned in the documents of the acceptance nor in 
those which followed. He must have died about this time. One of his 
Chorepiscopi Balai composed in his honour five Syriac hymns : in the last 
of these pieces he is represented at his last hour conversing with God on 
his long life which had come to its end and on the eternity upon which he 
is entering. The Syriac text is in Overbeck, S. Ephraemi Opera Selecta, 
p. 251 fif ; a German versioji by Bickell, Ausgewdhlte Gedichte der sy rise hen 
Kirchenviiter Cyrillonas^ Baldus, etc. (Kempten, 1872) in the Bibliothek der 
Kirchenvdter. 

3 Tis 0au\as aiJroO KCU /3e/3^\oi>s Kt>o<f>uvias. In the letter of John of 
Antioch to the Emperor the corresponding terms are : Depositum sive 
damnatum habemus Nestorium . . . anathematismo subicientes quaecumque 
ab eo aliene ac peregrine dicta sunt contra apostolicam doctrinam (Synodicon, 
91). It is very vague. It is not said either in what Nestorius had been 
heretical nor even that he had been so. 

Ep. 39. * Jaff(6, Regesta, 391, 392. 



p. 378-81] RECONCILIATION AND DOUBTS 265 

say here: since they made so much of agreement, could they 
not have begun by it ? But such is not the way of men. 

Besides, this peace was in no way definitive. Under the 
pressure of the Government the leaders had made reciprocal 
concessions ; but these their subordinates had in general 
rather suffered than accepted. In Egypt Isidore of Pelusium 
expressed certain apprehensions and exhorted Cyril not to 
alter his views in order to escape ill usage. 1 It is the only 
voice of opposition that we hear in Egypt John of Antioch 
was conscious of a great many others. When it was learnt 
that he was going to sign, there was bewilderment in the 
bishoprics of Cilicia and of Euphratesiana. They accused the 
Patriarch of having yielded too easily. To accept the 
deposition of Nestorius by the Cyrillian Council and the 
legitimate character of that gathering was to admit themselves 
vanquished, to recognize that since their arrival at Ephesus the 
Easterns had been schismatics. The opposition was directed 
by Alexander of Hierapolis: local councils were held, letters 
were written, exhortations delivered, debates held sometimes, 
for they were not all of the same opinion. Andrew of 
Samosata was among the first to be pacified and put 
himself in communication with his neighbours Acacius of 
Melitene and Rabbulas of Edessa: the first was a Cyrillian 
of long standing, the second a recruit, but a very ardent one. 
Some of them wrote to the Pope : we still possess a letter 
of the metropolitans of Tyana and of Tarsus, Eutherius and 
Helladius 2 ; it is a document of touching naivete-, a report 
had been spread abroad that Xystus was a man of quite 
different views from his predecessor Celestine: these good 
bishops were convinced of it and counted upon the fact. 

1 Ep. i. 324. This leads us to think that Aristolaus had something 
besides exhortations in his wallet, and that if the Bishop of Alexandria 
had not yielded he could have made him regret it. Liberatus (Brev. 8) 
says that it had been a question of exile: "(Aristolaus) sacram principis 
deferens Joanni et Cyrillo, in qua comminatus est utrisque Nicomediam 
exilium, nisi pacem haberent ad invicem." The mention of Nicomedia 
gives ground for supposing here a confusion between the recollection of 
these threats of exile and that of the project of a conference mentioned 
above (p. 259); but it is natural that at such a time the Emperor should have 
called to his aid all his resources. 

Coustant, op. cit. t p. 1245. 



266 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTOR IUS [CH. x. 

This opposition, inspired in varying degrees by the sympathy 
retained for Nestorius and the theological tradition predominant 
in Syria, was not the only one to cause embarrassment to the 
Patriarch John. Apollinarianism, but lately cultivated at 
Antioch with such success, was transforming itself there into 
Monophysitism. It was an evolution analogous to that which 
in earlier days had had as its stages Arianism, the doctrine of 
the Homoiousios and that of the Three Hypostases ; or again 
to that which, at the very time with which we are dealing, was 
giving a sweeter flavour to Pelagianism, and leading it to that 
modification which is represented to us by the views of Cassian 
and of Faustus. Hence Cyril had, even in the immediate circle 
of his Syrian colleague, men devoted to his doctrines, and even 
one might say prone to exaggerate them under the stimulus of 
unceasing controversies. The most notable person in this 
opposition was a monk of Antioch, Maximus, who figured 
among the number of the deacons of his church. Cyril, whom 
he startled by his ardour, was sometimes obliged to restrain it. 1 
There were others of them, particularly in the monasteries. 

However, Maximian died at Constantinople (April 12, 434), 
and the Court, without the smallest delay, caused Proclus to be 
enthroned. The party of Nestorius was in movement 2 : it was 
held that no delay was possibly. It was important also to put 
an end to the discords which were seething in the jurisdiction 
of Antioch. The Patriarch John asked for a law ; at the same 
time there was brought to bear upon Theodoret the influence 
of the most renowned solitaries of his country Simeon the 
Stylite, James and Baradatus. The Bishop of Cyrus at last 
entered into communication with John, who gave him favourable 
terms and did not oblige him directly to condemn his friend 
Nestorius. Following Theodoret s example the Cilicians 
submitted themselves, with the exception of two who were 
driven from their churches. There were also sent into exile 
Eutherius of Tyana, Dorotheus of Marcianopolis and a few 
others. 3 The most severely treated was Alexander of 
Hierapolis, a venerable and unbending old man, whom 
neither the entreaties of Theodoret nor the thought of a 

1 Epp. 57, 58. 2 Synodicori) 150 (Mansi, Cone, v., p. 929). 

3 Count Irenaeus drew up this martyrology later. We still possess 
it in the Synodicon^ No. 190 (Mansi, Cone, v., p. 965). There were in all 
fourteen recalcitrants, almost all of whom paid cruelly for their opposition. 



P. 381-4] NESTORIUS IN EXILE 267 

people by whom he was adored could shake in his resolution. 
For what he deemed to be righteousness he suffered everything, 
even to the mines of Egypt, whither he was sent by a severity 
cruelly excessive. 

Nestorius himself, too, felt the force of imperial displeasure. 
Although, as far back as the year 432, Pope Celestine had 
expressed the wish that he should not remain at Antioch, 
he had been tolerated there for a space of four years. In the 
retirement of his monastery he had still kept up some friend 
ships. No more now than formerly could he succeed in holding 
his tongue. To his expressions of willingness to resign he 
had given no sequel. He was incessantly engaged in protest 
against his pretended deposition. Across the path of 
negotiations he cast recriminations formulated in the guise 
of Memoirs. For those who had gone back he was a 
witness of a very troublesome kind. John in the end found 
him so inconvenient that he asked to be rid of him. He was 
interned at Petra 1 in Idumaea, a gloomy abode for a man 
accustomed to great towns. But it was only a passing stay, 
for they were not slow in finding him a more distant place of 
exile. He was despatched to the oasis of Ibis, 2 at the end of 
the Libyan desert. There he was forgotten. In 439, at the 
time when Socrates was finishing his Ecclesiastical History, it 
was vaguely believed in Constantinople that he was still living 
in his place of exile. 3 That was all that they knew about the 
matter. 

All the proscriptions fell upon his head. At the moment 
when he was starting for exile an imperial law 4 forbade his 
adherents to call themselves Christians, and inflicted upon them 
the name of Simonians. His books were proscribed : it was 
forbidden to read them, to copy them, to keep them : they were 
to be thrown into the fire. The " Simonians " were forbidden 
to hold meetings even outside the towns. This was not enough : 
attacks were made upon the friends of the condemned Nestorius. 
The Count Irenaeus and the priest Photius were banished to 
Petra, 6 and their goods subjected to confiscation. Further, 

1 Mansi, Cone, v., p. 255. 

2 The Great Oasis of the ancients, now called the Oasis of Khargeh. 

3 Socrates, H. E. vii. 34. 

4 Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 66 ; cf. Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 413, 416. 
6 Synodicon, 188, 189 (Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 964, 965). 



268 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [en. x. 

since it was notorious that many bishops belonging to the 
jurisdiction of Antioch, while accepting the peace of 433, 
had not condemned Nestorius, the tribune and notary 
Aristolaus returned in 435 to exact more definite signatures: 
he obtained them. Theodoret it would have been difficult for 
it to be otherwise was now obliged to resign himself and to 
drink the bitter cup. 

It was not Cyril s fault that it was not more bitter still. 
Learning that new signatures were being demanded of the 
Easterns, he proposed to add to the formulary certain 
theological explanations. This time John resisted and the 
claim was not pressed. What disquieted Cyril was the state 
ment that the Easterns, in spite of their adhesion, were 
continuing to teach, as they had done formerly, doctrines akin 
to that of Nestorius. On their side Cyril s opponents were 
convinced that he allowed the preaching of the passibility of 
God, and they complained bitterly about it. It is not surprising 
that in this world so imperfectly reconciled there were made 
sometimes statements that were exaggerated and that there 
passed from place to place rumours that were inexact. 

The declarations collected by Aristolaus implied the recogni 
tion of Proclus as lawful Patriarch of Constantinople. But 
a new incident occurred. 1 Ne^torius, in his clumsy and 
controversial sermons, had been greatly influenced by Diodore 
of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, celebrated teachers 
whose memory continued to be held in high honour. The 
noise of his affair re-awakened curiosity in regard to their 
books : his supporters appealed to them. In default of his own 
writings, which first the Church and then the State had not 
been slow to ban, there were put in circulation again those of 
his predecessors and masters. Naturally the Cynllians were 
disturbed about it. This controversy, strange to say, made its 
first stir in Persian Armenia, at that time at the height of its 
literary development. A number of Greek and Syriac books 
had been translated there under the patronage of the Catholicos 
Sahag and of the Teacher Mesrob. Those of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia in such circumstances attracted the attention of the 

1 Synodicon, 196-200 (Mansi, Cone, v., pp. 971 ff.), Liberatus, Brev. 
c. 10 ; Facundus, Pro def. trium capitulorum^ lib. viii., and the documents 
quoted in the Fifth (Ecumenical Council, fifth session, Mansi, Cone, ix., 
pp. 240 ff. Cf. Cyril, Epp. 66-74. 



p. 384-7] THE TOME OF PROCLUS 269 

translators. But the Bishops of Edessa and of Melitene, who 
were determined Cyrillians, interfered to put them on their 
guard against these productions which were highly suspect 
in their eyes. They were still more so, one can well imagine, 
in the eyes of the Apollinarians, whose views were very 
fully represented whether in Armenia Magna itself or in the 
monasteries of the country on its border. In presence of this 
conflict it occurred to the Bishops of Armenia to address 
themselves to Constantinople and to consult Proclus, the new 
bishop. 1 Proclus replied by a long doctrinal exposition, 2 in 
which is found the formula Unus de Trinitate incarnatus^ which 
was better suited to the data of the problem than Cyril s 
formula, Una natttra Dei Verbi incarnata. The Armenian 
bishops had attached to their enquiry a certain number of 
extracts from Theodore which Proclus did not hesitate to 
condemn. Not content with having entered into explanations 
with the Armenians, he thought it worth while to present his 
exposition to the Easterns, asking them to sign it and to 
express disapprobation at the same time of the propositions 
censured in an appendix. A deacon of Constantinople called 
Basil, seconded at Antioch by another deacon, Maximus, 
exerted himself on his part to secure the condemnation of 
Theodore. Cyril being solicited by him, 3 and being besides, 
needless to say, little disposed to favour the theology of 
Mopsuestia, was urgent in the same sense. He even wrote 
a treatise, which is now lost, against Diodore and Theodore. 

John of Antioch, however, and the bishops of the Orient who 
were constantly being asked for signatures, began to weary of 
it. They consented further to sign the "Tome "of Proclus to 
the Armenians, but they refused to condemn the passages of 
Theodore. As a return was made to the attack, they put 
themselves in opposition and demanded bluntly that they 
should be left in peace. People were beginning besides to 
see that it was not from them that the greatest danger was 

1 This enquiry is lost ; there remains only the title of it in the fifth 
session of the Fifth (Ecumenical Council (Mansi, Cone, ix., p. 240). The 
text which follows this rubric is derived from another source. 

2 Mansi, Cone, v., p. 421. 

8 It is a request of Basil either to Cyril or to Proclus which appears in 
the existing text of the Fifth Council, with a rubric which attributes it to 
the Bishops of Armenia. Cf. p. 269, note I. 



270 THE TRAGEDY OF NESTORIUS [CH. x. 

coming. Armenian monks were causing scandal in Constanti 
nople and scouring the provinces : under pretext of inveighing 
against Theodore, they were protesting against the union of 
433, against the weakness of Cyril who confined himself to 
writing against Theodore and remained in communion with 
John. They even went so far as to blame him for not having 
anathematized John by name at the Council of Ephesus. 1 
Apollinarianism was awakening once more, was hastening to 
the prey. It was time to stop this revanche. Such was the 
opinion of Cyril himself and also of Proclus : the Government 
did what was necessary to calm this effervescence. 2 

Irenaeus occupied his exile in writing the history of the 
whole of this business, or rather in collecting the dossier for 
it, a dossier of very considerable extent, comprising several 
hundreds of documents. He gave it the title of " Tragcedia," 
a title which discloses the trouble of his spirit. The friend of 
Nestorius was still in the thick of the conflict ; he was fighting 
with documents as his weapons; and it is not only Cyril and 
his followers who excite his indignation : the moderates of the 
Orient, John of Antioch, and Theodoret, also meet with very 
severe treatment at his hands. 3 

1 Some fragments of a document emanating from these monks have 
been preserved in Book II. of the (unedited) Treatise of Pelagius on behalf 
of the Three Chapters. 

2 Imperial letter to John of Antioch, Turbam atque tumultum (Synodicon, 
219) ; cf. Facundus, Pro defens, viii. 3. 

3 The "Tragcedia" of Irenseus is lost in its original form and in its 
Greek text. We no longer possess it except in extracts, of considerable 
size, it is true, in a compilation belonging to the next century and formed 
after the death of Justinian (565) by a Latin clerk, a defender of the Three 
Chapters. It is entitled Synodicon^ and this Synodicon has come down to 
us in a MS. of Monte Cassino of which Lupus (Christian Wolf), Baluze, 
and Mansi (torn, v.) have given editions which are incomplete and imperfect. 
A good description of the MS. with the supplements which are most 
indispensable will be found in the Bibliotheca Casinensis^ torn, ii., pp. 49 ff. ; 
Florilegium^ pp. 5-47. Cf. Maassen, QuelUn i., p. 733. 



CHAPTER XI 

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 

As the result of pressure, and with the aid of certain measures 
of constraint, the imperial government had succeeded in im 
posing upon the two religious parties which divided the Orient 
a species of truce. The fanatics on one side or the other, and 
Heaven knows there was no lack of them, murmured more 
or less sullenly ; but the leaders, John, Cyril, and Proclus 
observed an attitude to one another which was correct. 
Advantage was taken of this breathing space at Constantinople 
to end a quarrel now of long standing, and to bring back 
to the Church the remnant of the Johannites. Chrysostom s 
body was still lying near Comana in the country chapel in 
which he had been buried. Proclus obtained the Emperor s 
leave for it to be brought back to Constantinople and to be 
deposited in the Basilica of the Apostles with those of the 
other bishops. On January 27, 438, during the night, 
Chrysostom entered once more in triumph his episcopal city, 
across the Bosphorus, which was illuminated. The imperial 
family came to meet the procession : the son of Arcadius and 
Eudoxia bent low before the coffin of the exile and touched 
it with his forehead, asking pardon for his parents. 1 

John of Antioch died shortly afterwards, 2 and Cyril made 
no delay in following him to the other world. 3 He did not 
carry with him the regrets of the Syrians. A letter, probably 
apocryphal, which was in circulation at that time under the 
name of Theodoret, 4 expresses with sufficient accuracy, though 
in a very bitter fashion, the relief which they felt : " At last, 

1 Socrates, H. E. vii. 45 ; Theodoret, H. E. v. 36. 

2 In 441 or 442. 3 June 27, 444. 

4 The letter is addressed to John : which is absurd, since John died 
before Cyril. It was, however, cited as by Theodoret, and against him, in 
the Fifth (Ecumenical Council (Session 5 : Mansi, Cone, ix., p. 295). 

S71 



272 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

at last, he is dead, that bad man. . . . His departure gives 
joy to those who survive ; but it will be a grief to the dead. 
It is to be feared that they will soon have had enough of him 
and will send him back to us. ... We must cover his tomb 
then with a very heavy stone in order that we may never have 
to see him again." 

It was not only in Syria that complaints were made of 
Cyril. For nearly sixty years either in the person of 
Theophilus or of his nephew the same family had presided 
over the religious government of Egypt. So long an adminis 
tration had not failed to provoke expressions of discontent. 
To maintain their position as against the Prefects, to sustain 
their credit at Court, and to bring to a successful conclusion 
their schemes for exerting influence, the uncle and nephew 
had been obliged to find a great deal of money : Chrysostom 
and Nestorius laid a heavy burden on the finances of the 
Pharaoh, and those on the shoulders of the people who had 
to pay. Besides, in the course of his management of the 
business of the Patriarchate, Cyril had not neglected his 
relations : their fortune was looked upon with unfriendly eyes. 
Hence the first care of Dioscorus his archdeacon, who had been 
appointed his successor, was to make them disgorge. He did 
so in brutal fashion and thus made himself many enemies. 1 

But these were local affairs. The Easterns, if they had 
foreseen what Dioscorus had in store for them, would not 
have been so much rejoiced by the disappearance of Cyril. 
One Pharaoh succeeded another. Neither the ambitious policy 
of Alexandria, nor the theology which served as its pretext, 
had been embalmed with the deceased Patriarch : they were 
speedily to be seen once more in action. 

At this moment the position of the Easterns was appreciably 
better than on the morrow of the Council of Ephesus, and even 
than it had been after the pacification in 433. The Government 
had rid them of the embarrassment of Nestorius, not only by 
removing him physically but by its firm insistence that every 
one should repudiate him. In doing so it had rendered them, 
whatever they might think, a very great service. Anathemas 
present or past no longer fell except upon the oasis where the 
unhappy man was expiating so hardly his acts of imprudence : 

1 On this, see the complaints brought forward in the third session of 
the Council of Chalcedon by the clergy of Alexandria. 



p. 390-3] IBAS OF EDESSA 273 

his former friends remained unscathed. Among themselves 
factions had ceased : all the Syrian bishops were grouped 
around the Patriarch of Antioch. The latter, Domnus, the 
nephew of John and his successor, held the same views as his 
uncle but in a more resolute fashion. This circumstances 
seemed to permit him. The see of Edessa which, owing to the 
defection of Rabbulas, had been in the days of trouble a 
support for Cyril, was now l occupied by Bishop Ibas (Hiba), a 
man of diametrically opposite views. In the time of Rabbulas, 
Ibas had figured among the most notable teachers of the 
" cole des Perses." This brotherhood, established at Edessa 
since Nisibis had been taken from the Romans (363), was a 
centre of religious instruction for the clergy of the neighbouring 
state. In it the works of Diodore and of Theodore were held 
in great honour. Ibas had translated several of them: hence 
he was not greatly loved by Rabbulas. His opinions, of 
which he gives evidence in a letter 2 written after the peace 
f 433> were in the main those of Theodoret. He did not 
uphold Nestorius : Cyril and his proposed Anathemas filled 
him with profound distaste ; but he considered that every 
thing had been put straight by the Creed of Union in which 
he saw a set-back for Cyril and Rabbulas. 

When he had become bishop his theology was exploited 
against him alike by those who were displeased by his election 
and by those who had reason to complain of his administration. 
Monstrous statements were ascribed to him. " I have no 
jealousy of Christ," he was reported to have said. " He has 
become God. I can do the same myself, if I want to." 

Ibas, despite his literary productions which were little known 
outside the Syriac world, could not be of great assistance to the 
Eastern party. But that party had Theodoret, and Theodoret, 
especially since the death of Cyril, was the greatest authority in 

1 Since 435 : Ibas was installed on August 8 of this year. 

2 The person to whom this letter is addressed is a certain Mari, a 
Persian (*>., a subject of the King of Persia), and to put it more exactly 
belonging to Beth-Ardaschir (Seleucia), who had lived in Roman Syria 
and had known personally Theodore of Mopsuestia. He was not the 
Catholicos who bore the name of Abdiso (Ebed-Jesu), that is unless, 
following a conjecture of M. Labourt (Le Christianisme dans f Empire 
Perse^ p. 133, note 6), one admits that Mari is not a proper name but the 
equivalent of the Greek Ktfptos or of the Latin Domnus. The letter of Ibas 
is in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Act x. (Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 241). 



274 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

theology in the Greek Orient. 1 The inheritor of the knowledge 
of Diodore and of Theodore, he had known how to purge it 2 of 
many incongruous elements, while maintaining at the same 
time, in face of Alexandrian extravagances, the part of it which 
was in conformity with the genuine Christian tradition. From 
this point of view he set the tone of thought around him. If 
there continued to be between the Alexandrian formulas and 
the Eastern explanations an opposition which could not be 
overcome, on the other hand the Easterns had approached 
very closely to the views which were about to prevail at Rome. 
To the service of this theology, definite and firmly based, he lent 
a highly cultivated mind and an eloquence which was greatly 
appreciated by audiences at Antioch. A native of that great 
town, and trained in its schools, he did not confine himself so 
closely to his diocese of Cyrrhos as to prevent his fellow- 
countr) men having often the pleasure of listening to him. 
But, and it was in this that he possessed his highest claim to 
esteem, he was a model Pastor. He knew how to use his high 
connexions in order to defend his flock against secular acts of 
oppression ; heretics, old and new, readily returned at his 
exhortations : there is mention of more than 10,000 Marcionites 
brought back by him to the bosom of the Church. Adored in 
his episcopal city, known in the 800 parishes of his great 
diocese and as far as the Persians, whither his letters carried 
consolation to the persecuted Christians, he found in his life 
as bishop a firm basis for his external activity. In his youth 
he had been attracted, like so many others, by the monastic 
life: the great solitaries of Syria found in him a most 
enthusiastic admirer. He always kept himself in com 
munication with them, singing their praises in his books, 
taking their advice, and sometimes a more difficult matter 
inducing them to accept his. Such a man represented merely 
in himself an ecclesiastical power : he was, for the Orient, a 
kind of Augustine. Domnus, who was now presiding over the 
episcopal body in this country, found in him a counsellor of 
enlightenment and wisdom : he listened to him with readiness, 
without ever taking umbrage at his superiority. 

Since the death of Cyril this body of bishops deemed them- 

1 Autobiographical details in his Letter 81. 

2 The greater part of the writings of Theodoret are later than the 
quarrel between Nestorius and Cyril. 



K 393-6] THEODORET, DOMNUS, IREN^US 275 

selves, to a greater extent than reason warranted, in security. A 
remarkable indication of the state of their minds is the elevation 
of Count Irenaeus, the former friend of Nestorius, to episcopal 
rank and to the position of metropolitan of Tyre. Irenaeus 
must have regained favour with the Emperor, for they would 
not have looked for him in a place of exile in order to make 
him bishop : as for his doctrine Domnus and his colleagues would 
not have ordained him had he not given the assurances which 
were indispensable. He had been married twice ; but this was 
passed over, and the new bishop was recognized not only in 
the jurisdiction of Antioch but also in Asia Minor and at 
Constantinople. Proclus sent him a recognition in writing. 1 

Between the Easterns and the bishop of the capital relations 
were excellent ; they interchanged mutual good offices. Proclus 
would not have had the spirit of his position if he had not en 
deavoured, by all possible means, to extend the influence of his 
see. Despite his friendly relations with the Pope he did not 
cease from encroachments in Illyria. Xystus III. protested 
in vain 2 : the Patriarch took care that a law of 421 which was 
favourable on this point to the pretensions of Constantinople 
should be inserted in the Theodosian Code promulgated in 438. 
In Asia Minor, just as in Illyria, he intervened in episcopal 
elections and in ecclesiastical proceedings. The Easterns for 
whom, in the preceding years, the bishops of that country had 
been almost all of them opponents, had no inclination to protect 
them against their interfering neighbour. They left them 
alone, and even gave an approval sufficiently explicit to cause 
Dioscorus to reproach them in lively terms : " You are betray 
ing," he said, "the rights of Antioch and of Alexandria." 3 

When Proclus died, in July 446, he was succeeded by one of 
his priests, Flavian, a man of moderate views, readily prone to 
hold himself aloof from theological parties, but more favourable 
than his predecessor to the formulas of the Easterns. For this 
reason or for others Dioscorus regarded him with dislike. 

In course of time a certain shifting took place in Court 
influences. The Empress Athenais Eudocia, 4 who had for 

1 Theodoret, Ep. no. 

2 Jaflfe, Regesta y 395, 396 : letters belonging to 437. Vide supra t p. 212. 
:} Theodoret, Ep. 86. 

4 A daughter of the Athenian rhetor Leontius, beautiful and very well 
read, Athenais was still a pagan when she had been presented by 
III. T 



276 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

some years been on bad terms with her husband, was living 
in retirement at Jerusalem. The credit of Pulcheria had 
been at last exhausted: the good and weak Theodosius II. 
was now guided by his Grand Chamberlain Chrysaphius, 
who had held office since 441. Among those whom this 
great personage assisted with his favour, the monk Eutyches, 
his godfather, was in the first rank, and this, in view of 
the popularity of Eutyches in the monastic world and his 
Alexandrian connexions, might have and did actually have 
consequences of the utmost gravity. 

Down to this time the Court of Theodosius II. had 
followed, in the main, the same line as the Bishop of 
Constantinople. It had aided Nestorius down to the time 
when he had appeared incapable of being supported, down 
to the time when Rome, by the authority of its legates, had 
formally condemned him. Subsequently it had shown much 
energy and persistence in rendering him harmless in himself, 
and in rooting out all opposition which, claiming to derive 
from him, might have disturbed his successors. The Easterns 
having ended by complying with this policy, there was no 
reason for not treating them with good-will. This was all 
that was desired at Rome, where there had been a considerable 
decline from the enthusiasm shown at first for Cyril. Neither 
at Rome nor at Constantinople was there any concern for the 
special success of the Alexandrian theology. The peace of 433 
had placed the Faith in security : the fate of the proposed 
Anathemas would be as pleased God. 

All would have been well if they had not had to reckon 
with Alexandria. But the Egyptian Pope was not a negligible 
quantity, resting as he did on the support of his docile body 
of bishops, and strong in the prestige which he exercised over 
the monks of his own country and of everywhere else. While 
engaged in settling accounts with the kinsfolk of Cyril, 
Dioscorus kept his eye on the general course of affairs. He 
quickly perceived that, through Chrysaphius and Eutyches, 
the Emperor, who no longer listened to Pulcheria, might be 

Pulcheria to her brother Theodosius II. She was baptized by the 
Patriarch Atticus and then took the name Eudocia : the marriage took 
place on June 7, 421. After the birth of her daughter Eudoxia, the future 
bride of Valentinian III., she had been proclaimed Augusta (January 2, 
423). Some compositions of hers in verse still survive. 



p. 396-9] INFLUENCE OF EUTYCHES 277 

withdrawn from the influence of the Pope of Rome and of 
the Bishop of Constantinople, and led little by little to submit 
to the guidance of Alexandria. 

Eutyches in his great monastery, where more than three 
hundred monks lived under his rule, was making copious 
dissertations on theology. For this he should not be blamed : 
all monks, all persons of devotion did the same. That he was 
hostile to the views of Antioch went without saying, since 
he had fought so long under the banner of Cyril. But he 
did not confine himself to the doctrine of the Anathemas, 
to the " natural " union (I uniou physique, eyoocn? <pvcriKi fi and the 
one nature (unique nature, /u/a (/>V(TI?) of the Word Incarnate. 
He challenged entirely the view that the humanity of 
Christ was a humanity like ours or, in technical language, 
that Christ was "consubstantial " with other men. 

The contentions of this holy old man, one of the greatest 
celebrities of contemporary asceticism, and since the death 
of Dalmatius (<:. 440) the moral leader of all the monks of 
Constantinople, the godfather and spiritual director of the 
favourite eunuch, could not be treated as drivellings without 
importance. We have seen above what agitation had been 
caused a few years before by the monks of Armenia. Eutyches 
had a long arm. Not to speak of Egypt, which was devoted 
to him, in the Orient every element of disguised Apollinarians 
and of Monophysites was in union and even in correspondence 
with him. Through Uranius, Bishop of Himeria in Osrhoene, 
he supported the opposition against Ibas of Edessa. The 
monk Maximus, 1 who had shown himself so zealous at Antioch 
against Diodore and Theodore, was one of his friends and 
was even regarded as having inspired him with his doctrine. 
Other agents, prominent among whom was a solitary named 
Barsumas, were drawing up documents against Domnus, 
Theodoret, and others, denouncing at Constantinople their 
least important proceedings and stirring up for them on the 
spot unceasing controversies. To leave Eutyches alone was 
to lay oneself open to the danger of seeing inculcated, from 
one end of the Empire to the other, a teaching in which the 
historical reality of the Gospel, often compromised by mystical 
fantasies, would have foundered altogether. 

This monk, however, was so powerful that it was not at 

1 Supra, p. 266. 



278 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

all easy to attack him. The Easterns had the courage to 
do so, 1 In 447 Theodoret published his Eranistes (Beggar- 
man), a celebrated dialogue in which, without mentioning 
anyone by name, he attacks Eutyches and his doctrine. 2 
Eutyches, as we may well believe, held in detestation the 
writings of Diodore and of Theodore. Like his predecessor 
John, Domnus betook himself energetically to their defence, 
and in a letter addressed to the Emperor 3 in the name of 
his synod he protested against the slanders of the monk, 
accusing him of renewing the " impiety " of Apollinaris, 
of teaching the " One Nature," the confusion of the humanity 
and the Divinity, finally of attributing to the Divinity the 
sufferings of Christ. 

Domnus had presumed too much upon his strength. On 
February 16, 448,* appeared an imperial rescript with an edict 
of the Praetorian Prefects. It renewed the proscription of the 
writings of Porphyry and of Nestorius, and then extended it 
to all works which were not in conformity with the Faith set 
forth by the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus as well as by 
Bishop Cyril, of pious memory. The partisans of Nestorius 
were to be removed from the positions they might hold among 
the clergy or excommunicated in the case of laymen. By 
way of an impressive illustration the Emperor ordered Irenaeus, 
who had been " promoted, in some unknown fashion, Bishop of 
Tyre " to abandon this bishopric and resume secular attire. 

It was impossible to be more brutal or to trench more 
openly on the domain of religion. By the authority of the 

1 Facundus, Pro defens. xii. 5, "Domnus Antiochenus, qui . . . 
Eutychi Apollinaris heresiarchae impietatem renovare tentanti et ob hoc 
Diodorum atque Theodorum anathematizare praesumenti primus restitit, 
ad imperatorem Theodosium scribens." 

2 It is divided into three books entitled "ArpeTrroy, Affuyxvros, AiraOfy, 
corresponding to the three errors of the mutability of God, of the confusion 
of the Natures, of the passibility of God. Theodoret makes much use in 
it of the holy Fathers, of whom he quotes many passages. He published 
later a second edition of his book, with new citations borrowed from a 
collection formed by Pope Leo. Cf. Saltet, " Les Sources de PEraniste de 
Theodoret " in the Revue dhistoire ecclesiastique^ vol. vi. 

3 Facundus, op, cit. viii. 5. 

4 Mansi, Cone, v., p. 417. Cf. Cod. Justin. I., i. 3. The text of the 
collections of Councils is more complete than that of the Code, but gives 
no date beyond that of a reading of this document which took place on 
April 1 8, 448, in a monastic church in the Egyptian deserts. 



r. 399-402] POSITION OF THE EASTERNS 279 

Emperor a bishop instituted by the regular authorities was 
deposed from his see : the Formula of Union of 433 was 
repudiated, and Cyril, together it must be understood with 
his Anathemas, was elevated to the position of regulator of 
orthodoxy. The Emperor Constantius had not done worse. 
The Easterns felt the blow. Others, besides, followed without 
delay. Ibas found himself threatened by a suit which certain 
clergy of Edessa initiated against him. Uranius of Himeria 
was the guiding spirit of this cabal. Rebuffed at Antioch by 
the Patriarch s methods of procrastination, the accusers trans 
ferred themselves to Constantinople. In the course of this 
affair a body of monks, under the leadership of a certain 
Theodosius, departed to Alexandria 1 to raise a clamour against 
Domnus and Theodoret. Dioscorus scarcely needed to be 
stirred up against these personages. He had long been in 
close alliance with Eutyches. Theodoret, 2 at the outset, 
affected not to notice their intrigues, and endeavoured to remove 
the prejudices of the Bishop of Alexandria. The latter put 
upon himself less and less restraint : he wrote to Domnus in 
the most arrogant of tones, demanding explanations of the 
sermons of the Bishop of Cyrrhos and of the vacancy of the 
see of Tyre which the Patriarch of Antioch pretended to ignore. 
Theodoret at last received from the Court an order to remain 
in his episcopal residence on the pretext that he was organizing 
too many synods at Antioch. 3 As for the see of Tyre provision 
was made, undoubtedly without reference to the Patriarch. 
Irenseus was replaced by a certain Photius. 4 

In this way the unhappy Easterns were threatened both 
from Alexandria and from Constantinople. It was not the 
fault of Eutyches that Rome did not come into line against 
them. He had the effrontery to write to Pope Leo to stir him 
to action against the efforts of reviving Nestorianism. Leo 
replied evasively. 5 He had a presentiment, no doubt, that 
trouble was brewing in the Orient. 

The crisis was hastened by an event of a quite unexpected 

1 Martin, Actes du brigandage d Ephhe, pp. 153, 168. 

2 Epp. 83-86. gtfr 79 _ 82 . 

4 September 9, 448, a date supplied by the Syriac Acts of the " Robber- 
Synod" of Ephesus (Martin, op. /., p. 143). 

5 Jaffe, Regesta, 418 (June I, 448). 



280 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [en. xi. 

kind- Eutyches was arraigned before the tribunal of the 
Bishop of Constantinople. Flavian had hitherto succeeded in 
tacking about between the intrigues of the Monophysite party 
and his personal sympathies with the theology of the Easterns. 
It was with surprise mingled with terror that he found himself 
suddenly confronted with a formal accusation against the all- 
powerful monk. The accuser was that same Eusebius, now 
Bishop of Dorylasum, who while still a layman had been the 
first to dare to attack Nestorius. He was a man of litigious 
and headstrong temper. Flavian did his utmost to get rid of 
a controversy which he judged to be fraught with peril. But 
Eusebius held his ground : he protested that the Faith was at 
stake, and so far prevailed that Flavian and his Council sent 
in search of Eutyches. 

They had considerable difficulty in securing the presence 
of the holy man. He entrenched himself behind his vow of 
seclusion, urged his state of ill-health, multiplied one difficulty 
after another. But Eusebius had no intention of letting him 
slip. A report was spread abroad that Eutyches was endeavour 
ing to organize a demonstration of all the monasteries : this 
was more of a character to compromise him. To cut the 
story short, in the end he presented himself, on November 
22, 448, escorted by a multitude of monks and officials : the 
presence of the latter signified in the eyes of all the protection 
of the Chamberlain Chrysaphius. They even went so far as 
to inflict upon the Council the presence of one of the highest 
dignitaries of the Empire, the Patrician Florentius, who took 
an effective part in the discussion. When questioned as to his 
doctrine, Eutyches refused to give the satisfactory explanations 
that were asked. He had an extreme repugnance to the 
Two Natures. While recognizing that Christ had taken His 
humanity from the Virgin Mary His Mother, he could not 
admit that by this humanity He was consubstantial with us. 
It was the humanity of God : it re-entered, in some way, into the 
one nature (imique nature, pia 0ucr^) of the W T ord Incarnate. 
He consented on this occasion to say what they asked him to 
say, but not to censure the opinions which he had professed 
hitherto. It was in vain that the Patrician Florentius himself 
exhorted him, and with urgency, to profess the Two Natures. 
Nothing could make him give way. The Council deposed him 
from the priesthood as well as from his office of archimandrite 



p. 402-5] EUTYCHES AND FLAVIAN 281 

and excommunicated him, at the same time forbidding everyone 
to have intercourse with him. 1 

The blow was a severe one, and it was not only on Eutyches 
that it fell. The question of the Two Natures in Jesus Christ 
had never been handled with such clear-cut definiteness : no 
conciliar authority had as yet imposed the Diphysite formula 
as a condition of orthodoxy. To ask Eutyches to profess it 
without qualifications was perhaps to go too far. Undoubtedly 
the subject of the Two Natures had been raised in the Formula 
of Union of 433, but either indirectly or with circumlocutions. 
Cyril who had recognized this Formula had not on that account 
ceased to reproduce his own special formula, " One is the 
Incarnate Nature of the Word." There existed, as it were, 
two Cyrillian terminologies, the one which Cyril tolerated 
among the Easterns, the other which he made use of for 
himself, naturally because he thought it better than the 
other. 2 His own might no doubt be brought over to that of 
the Easterns by means of explanations tending to represent 
the word " Incarnate" as signifying in another way the second 
nature, the human nature. But these explanations could not 
be other than very far-fetched : from the moment that it is 
desired to express belief in the duality of Natures, the best 
course is not to begin by saying that there is but one. Besides, 
it was not Cyril who had made a struggle to bring over his 
theology to that of the Easterns : quite the contrary: They 
put to him, to him too, the question of the Two Natures. He 
recognized that, strictly speaking, one can talk of the " nature 
of the humanity;" but he mistrusted this formula, which 
according to him only serves to mask the idea of the human 
hypostasis. In fine he only admits the Two Natures in an 
ideal fashion, in a kind of logical anteriority to the Incarnation : 
"the one Christ results from the union of the Two Natures"; 
after the Incarnation it was better not to speak save of a single 
Nature incarnate. 

For Flavian and his Council, as for Eutyches, Cyril was 
assuredly a great authority. But, as can be seen, there were 
two Cyrils, the real, natural Cyril, the Cyril of the One Nature, 
and it is this Cyril whom Eutyches invoked on his side though 
he went beyond him ; and the Cyril as diplomatist, the Cyril of 

1 Mansi, Cone, vi., p. 747. 

2 See for this his two letters to Successus (Epp. 45, 46). 



282 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

safeguards and forced concessions, and this is the Cyril whom 
Flavian had in mind. The first was represented by the pro 
posed Anathemas as well as by the letters to Acacius of 
Melitene and to Successus ; the other by the Dogmatic Letter 
to Nestorius (Kara^Xvapovcri) and by that in which he accepts 
the Formula of Union. 1 It is necessary to insist on this dis 
tinction : it was made at Rome too ; for nearly a hundred years it 
governed opinion there in regard to the doctrine of the famous 
Bishop of Alexandria and on the use to be made of his writings. 

We can see how delicate the position was for the orthodox 
who were obliged to accept Cyril and to combat in his disciples 
not only those disciples exaggerations but the favourite 
formulas of their master. A little exercise of criticism would 
have delivered them from embarrassment. It would not have 
been difficult to make an investigation into the authorities on 
whom Cyril depended, those celebrated passages of St Gregory 
the Wonder-worker, of Popes Felix and Julius, of St Athanasius, 
and to show that in these spurious documents it was 
Apollinarianism which was finding expression and not the 
tradition of the Church. This task was effectively dis 
charged in the following century. 2 It might have been 
accomplished in the time of Cyril or ot Flavian, with the 
result that many religious misunderstandings would have been 
avoided. Nothing of the sort happened. Apollinarian texts 
figure at the Council of Ephesus among the documents of the 
Faith ; Eutyches could adduce with sincerity to Pope Leo a 
letter of his predecessor Julius, as formally conceived as 
possible against the dogma of the Two Natures. 

But there was one point where the old monk was certainly 
in advance of the Alexandrian theology, and in disagreement 
with it : it was when he said that Christ is not consubstantial 
with us. It was as much as to say that He is not man. 
Under pretext of raising Him as much as possible, of laying 
greater stress upon His Divinity, Eutyches made of Him a 
being absolutely stranger to humanity. Hence it is not 
astonishing that he was treated as an Apollinarian and even 
as a Valentinian. In reality he was neither the one nor the 

1 Supra, pp. 2.33 and 264. These two documents were read officially at 
Flavian s Council, to the exclusion of the letter with the Anathemas. 

2 Leontius (?), Contra fraudes Apollinaristarum (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, 
Ixxxvi., p. 1947). 



p. 405-8] EUTYCHES AND CYRIL 283 

other ; but with the excessive logic in vogue in controversies, it 
was possible to drive him to conclusions analogous to these 
heresies. And this is the explanation of the fact that the 
Monophysites in their turn were also able to launch at him 
their Anathemas, while at the same time protesting as he did 
against the Two Natures. 

Already in the course of the discussion he seems to have 
said in regard to the Two Natures, " If my Fathers of Rome 
and Alexandria enjoin it upon me, I am ready to affirm them." l 
The hearing had come to an end when he announced to the 
Patrician Florentius, who informed Flavian of the fact, that 
he would carry the sentence to the "Councils" of Rome, 
Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica. 2 The Bishop of 
Constantinople did not consider this as a formal appeal, and 
certainly not as a suspensory appeal : the heads of the 
monasteries 3 were required to accept the condemnation of 
Eutyches. They lent themselves to what was asked of them. 
However, in his own monastery, the condemned archimandrite 
was vigorously upheld by his disciples. He himself made his 
protest by means of notices posted up. 

But it was not only at Constantinople that the sound of the 
blow was heard. In the Orient, Domnus and his party felt 
themselves strengthened once more. The accusers of Ibas, 
tossed without result from Antioch to Constantinople, from 
Constantinople to Antioch, had ended by securing the con 
stitution, the highly irregular constitution, of a tribunal of 
arbitration upon which appeared, in company with Eustathius, 
the Bishop of Berytus, Photius, the new Metropolitan of Tyre, 
and the Bishop of Himeria, Uranius, who was a suffragan of 
Ibas and his bitter enemy. But they failed. Ibas defended 
himself: his clergy came in force to dispute the statements 
attributed to him and to justify his administration. The 
debate ended with a general reconciliation, more or less 
sincere, and the Bishop of Edessa returned to his diocese for 
the Easter festival of the year 449. 

Whilst in the Orient there was a state of rejoicing, the aged 

1 Mansi, Cone, vi., p. 817. 

2 The omission of Antioch is to be noted. 

3 There are twenty-three signatures of archimandrites following those 
of the bishops who had sat as judges at the Council (Mansi, Cone, vi., 
p. 752). 



284 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

Eutyches was once more weaving a web and Dioscorus was 
busying himself in helping him. Chrysaphius also was setting 
himself in motion. Flavian and Eutyches had written to 
Rome : the monk s protest arrived there first ; it was supported 
by a letter of the Emperor Theodosius II. 1 Eutyches had not 
forgotten the Court of Ravenna: a letter of his, written to 
Peter Chrysologus, the eloquent bishop of the Italian capital, 
was destined to secure for him there some useful expressions 
of sympathy. Peter replied to him, deploring these contro 
versies which were incessantly coming to life again and urging 
his correspondent to take the advice of the Roman Pope. 

During the twenty years that these questions were agitating 
the Church, people had set themselves at Rome to make 
a serious study of them. In the past they had relied upon 
the reports of Cassian and of Marius Mercator ; they had 
confused, or come very near to confusing, the views of Nestorius 
with the system of Paul of Samosata. Marius Mercator, it is 
true, continued to live at Constantinople. Always embittered 
against Nestorius and his followers, he continued his campaign 
of pamphlets and of partisan translations, defaming in Latin 
the dead and the living, Diodore and Theodore, Ibas, 
Theodoret and Eutherius of Tyana. He was a Cyrillian of 
the most uncompromising type : there was no use talking to 
him of the Two Natures. But the time had gone by when his 
anti-Pelagian fervour could win him credit at Rome. Prosper, 
another zealous disciple of Augustine, was making an exhaus 
tive study of the doctrine of the Incarnation and of its 
traditional documents. A dogmatic theologian himself, and 
one of the most acute, Pope Leo had no need to rely upon 
the knowledge of others and to put himself at the discretion of 
the Bishops of Alexandria. Whatever efforts were made, he 
did not allow himself to have his doctrine given him. When he 
had before his eyes all the documents of the affair of Eutyches, 
and especially the formal records of the synod, he had no 
difficulty in recognizing that the Bishop of Constantinople 
had decided well and that the doctrine of Eutyches was 
inadmissible. He held, too, that some of his assertions upon 
which stress had not been laid ought to have been corrected as 
soon as made. " What did he mean by professing Two Natures 
before the union, one only after it? It was exactly the 
1 Jaff, Regesta^ 420-423. 



p. 408-11] ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE 285 

contrary. Before the union there was only the Divine Nature : 
after it, there was the Divine Nature and the human Nature, 
united without confusion." 

Whilst Leo was reflecting upon the situation it was under 
going a transformation at Constantinople. The Emperor 
Theodosius II., disgusted at this new affair, had endeavoured 
in vain to bring about a reconciliation between the monk and 
the bishop. Flavian, to whom were offered only guarantees 
which were insufficient, remained inflexible. The Court had 
reason to surmise that Rome, was little disposed to extend 
patronage to Eutyches : hence it was decided, on the latter s 
representations and on the basis of his appeal which was more 
or less settled, that the matter should be carried before an 
oecumenical council. It was appointed for August I, again 
at Ephesus. The letters of summons 1 gave a clear indication 
of the intention with which it was being brought together. 
Theodoret was told not to take part in it : on the other hand 
one of his most notorious opponents, the Archimandrite 
Barsumas, was specially summoned as a representative of 
the religious of the Orient, oppressed in their own country 
by bishops who were partisans of Nestorius. To counteract 
the intrigues of Theodoret and his friends, Dioscorus was 
nominated as president of the council: he was to be assisted 
by Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea, men who 
could be relied upon. 

While waiting for the date fixed for the opening of the 
assembly, an official enquiry was instituted at Constantinople 
in regard to the formal records of the Council in November, 
in which Eutyches alleged that falsifications had been made. 
They were not proved. The deposition was also taken of an 
official who said that before the appearance of Eutyches he 
had seen his sentence drawn up in advance in the possession 
of Bishop Flavian, Finally the Emperor exacted from the 
latter a profession of faith. It was unwarrantable, but Flavian 
had to comply. It was clear that there was being prepared 
for the monk a revenge of the most impressive kind. 

An enquiry was also held at Edessa. The governor of 

Osrhoene, Chereas, was charged with the task of restoring 

to its former condition a situation which had become too 

favourable to Ibas. Before this high commissioner, only 

1 Mansi, Cone, vi., pp. 588 ff. 



286 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

members of the opposing party could secure a hearing ; to the 
depositions, so often challenged, of the enemies of the bishop 
were added the clamourings of a rabble excited against him. 1 
Ibas was removed from Edessa and thrown into prison. 2 

However, Pope Leo had received, about May 12, an 
invitation to the Council. The case did not seem to him to 
be worth such a marshalling of episcopal forces. He excused 
himself personally, as much on the ground of lack of precedent 
as on that of the threatening position in which Italy was 
placed : Attila was at its gates. He confined himself to 
sending legates, to whom he entrusted a whole series of 
letters to the Emperors, to Flavian, to the Council, to the 
monks of Constantinople. 3 The most important, the one to 
which all the others make reference for matters of detail, is one 
of those that he addressed to Flavian. 4 It is the famous Tome 
of Leo, of which there will be so much to be said later. The 
doctrine of the Incarnation is there expressed in terms simple 
and precise: Two Natures, in the unity of a single Person; 
two true Natures, capable of action and each acting on its 
own account, in agreement of course, and in co-operation. 5 

The Tome of Leo was the condemnation not only of 
Eutyches, but of the Alexandrian theory, at any rate in the 
excessive and exclusive form given to it by those who at 
that time held it. Like the sentence of the Council of 
Constantinople, the Pope s definition placed itself on the 
ground of the Act of Union of 433, that is to say on the 
same ground as the Easterns, Theodoret, Domnus, and the 
rest. It was even much more plain : not having to reckon 
with the dislikes of anyone, Leo affirmed the Two Natures, 
clearly and without ambiguities. As for the person of 
Eutyches, he urged that tenderness should be shown to the 
aged Archimandrite, provided that he retracted his errors. 

1 See the formal records in the Syriac Acts (Martin, Actes du brigandage 
(fEphhe^ pp. 15-60). 

2 Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 204 (a corrupt text). 

8 Jaffe, Regesta, 423-432. The majority belong to June 13, 449, the last 
to July 23, the two preceding to June 20. 
Jaffe, op. tit. 423, Lectis dilectionis. 

5 "In integra veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, 
totus in suis, totus in nostris. . . . Agit utraque forma (forma Dei, forma 
servi) cum alterius communione quod proprium est." 



p. 411-14] THE TOME OF LEO 287 

Retract his errors ! There was a fine prospect of that. 
Eutyches was marching to triumph. 

He was to be seen among the first to arrive, escorted by a 
considerable body of monks ; Barsumas brought others of 
them from Mesopotamian Syria. The latter were scarcely 
acquainted with Greek, and their theology, one may suppose, 
was somewhat limited. On the other hand they could be 
relied upon if there were any occasion for howling or bludgeon 
ing. It was a reinforcement for the Patriarch of Alexandria, 
who, in addition, had not failed to put on board with himself 
a reasonable number of Parabolani of vigour and devotion. 

The Roman legates had set out from Italy four in number 
Julius the Bishop of Puteoli and three members of the Roman 
clergy, the priest Renatus, the deacon Hilary, the notary 
Dulcitius. Renatus died on the journey, at Delos. On 
landing at Ephesus the three others at once put themselves 
into communication-with Flavian, who had himself also arrived. 
It was for him that they had letters and not for the Bishop of 
Alexandria. They had some also for the Council. 

This had been summoned one morning (August 8) by 
Dioscorus, without previous notice : it met forthwith in the 
cathedral. Dioscorus presided, elevated upon an imposing 
throne : at his sides there took their places Julius of Puteoli, 
head of the Roman delegation, then Juvenal, Domnus, and 
Flavian. 1 There were about 130 bishops, for the most part 
devoted to Dioscorus, and ready to do what he should ask them. 
He had brought a score of them from his own Egypt ; Juvenal 
some fifteen from Palestine, equally amenable. From Syria 
there were almost as many, but for. the most part picked with 
care and selected among those who offered opposition to the 
Patriarch. The latter in the absence of Theodoret and Ibas, 
the one interned in his diocese, the other imprisoned, found 
himself very much deserted : his attitude showed it. 

The legates of Rome brought in their letters the condemna 
tion of Eutyches ; but it was not Pope Leo who was going to 
direct the Council. Dioscorus himself had only to figure there 
as an executive officer. Everything had been decided at 
Constantinople. Two officials, the Count Helpidius with the 
tribune and notary Eulogius, had been delegated to ensure 
external order and the execution of the Emperor s programme. 
1 Order of seniority, without regard to the rank of the sees. 



288 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

From their instructions, 1 couched in general terms, needless to 
say, but in which it is easy to read between the lines, it follows 
that this programme involved two points the rehabilitation of 
Eutyches, and next the deprivation equally of Flavian and of 
all the bishops suspected of Nestorianizing. The prelates who 
had sat as judges in the case at Constantinople might be 
present at the re-hearing but without giving any vote. The 
same exclusion had been pronounced against others to such 
an extent that there were 42 bishops who only appeared at 
the Council in the role of spectators. 2 

The session opened with the reading of the imperial letters. 
After the first the legate Julius asked that the letters of Pope 
Leo should also be read ; Dioscorus pretended to acquiesce. 
But there were still other imperial letters : it was certainly 
necessary to read them. Again and again the Bishop 
of Puteoli renewed his request : it was always evaded. He 
ought to have protested and taken his departure. Isolated in 
the midst of this assembly 3 whose language he did not speak, 
and which by a large majority was hostile to him, looked at 
askance by the presidents and by the officers of the Emperor, 
having on his side only men who were accused and against 
whom everything was let loose, he lost his head a little and 
allowed himself to be drawn into following a discussion which 
he ought either to have cut short or to have directed. 4 

The will of the Emperor having been communicated to 
the Council, it hastened to conform to it. They accordingly 
turned their attention to the Faith. The question of Faith, 
or so at least Dioscorus gave the Council to understand, 5 was 

1 Mansi, Cone, vi., pp. 596-597. - Ibid. p. 605. 

3 The deacon Hilary was present, it is true ; but as he had been placed 
after the bishops he must have found himself far removed from Julius and 
quite unable to act in concert with him. If the priest Renatus, in reality 
the most important member of the legation, had been at Ephesus it is 
possible that the course of things would have been different. 

* It is not easy to understand at first how the Roman legates could 
accept the presidency of Dioscorus, when they themselves were present. 
But such was the order of the Emperor. Besides, it was inconvenient to 
place the direction of an assembly in the hands of people who did not 
speak the language. Lastly there was the precedent of the Council of 431, 
in which Cyril, not content with awarding himself the office of president, 
had not even taken the trouble to wait for the arrival of the Roman 
legates. 

5 Such is, moreover, the true sense of the imperial letter in which the 



p. 414-7] THE LATROCINIUM OF EPHESUS 289 

the question of ascertaining whether Eutyches had deserved 
to be condemned by Flavian. The monk was brought in, 
presented his application and his profession of faith, and then 
the Acts of the Council of Constantinople were read. 1 When 
they came to the place where Eutyches had been called upon 
to profess the Two Natures, shouts of rage were raised : 
" Eusebius to the flames. Burn him alive ! Cut him in two 
pieces this man who divides the Christ ! " Eutyches profession : 
" Two Natures before the union, only one afterwards " was 
highly approved : " That is what we all believe," declared 
Dioscorus. In short, Eutyches was declared orthodox and 
re-established in his positions as priest and archimandrite. His 
monks were equally relieved of the censures which their bishop 
had inflicted upon them. 

Some objections seem to have been raised either during 
the session or before it. Dioscorus put them to silence. In 
his arrogant and threatening language there were constant 
references to deposition, exile, even worse. His entourage 
talked of nothing less than throwing opposers into the sea. 

After having absolved in this way the persons who had 
been condemned at Constantinople, they turned their attention 
to the judges. The president caused long extracts of the 
preceding Council of Ephesus to be read, in which it was 
forbidden, on pain of deposition, to put forward and to teach 
any other creed than that of Nicaea. Every one approved, 
including the Roman legates, who had no more suspicion than 
the rest of the use which was about to be made of this 
document. Suddenly Dioscorus declared that Flavian and 
Eusebius with their formula of the Two Natures had infringed 
this regulation and merited deposition. This unexpected 
conclusion awakened lively opposition. " I appeal," protested 
Flavian ; " Contradicitur ! " cried the Roman deacon. Some 
bishops left their seats, 2 approached the president and threw 
themselves at his knees, entreating him and representing to 

question of faith is opposed not in general to questions as to persons, but 
only to questions of temporal administration. 

1 It was in vain that Flavian, supported by the legates, demanded the 
presence of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, as having been the accuser of Eutyches. 
Count Helpidius, in the name of the Emperor, opposed his appearance. 

- Council of Chalcedon, Acts I. and IV. (Mansi, Cone, vi., p. 829 ; vii., 
p. 68). 



290 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

him the enormity of what he was doing. Dioscorus pretended 
to consider himself threatened. He rose hastily and cried, 
" Where are the Counts ? " The Counts appeared and caused 
the doors of the church to be opened. The Proconsul of Asia, 
who was waiting outside, entered with military police, armed 
and brandishing manacles. After them rushed in the multitude 
of monks, Parabolani, Egyptian sailors, and other disorderly 
persons. We can judge of the disturbance. Flavian made 
an effort to reach the altar and to cling to it : the soldiers 
surrounded him, tried to hinder his purpose, wished to drag 
him outside the church. Hustled, bruised, pursued by cries 
threatening his life, the unhappy man had great difficulty in 
rinding a place of refuge for himself and those with him. 
There, eluding the watchfulness of his guards, he drew up a 
formal appeal which was handed to the legates. 1 Eusebius 
also, who had tried in vain to make his way into the assembly, 
was kept a prisoner under observation. 

However, Dioscorus and Juvenal were taking the votes. 
The Basilica was closed once more : no one could leave it. 
Each of the bishops must put his adhesion in form and give 
his signature. A large number did so readily. Others 
hesitated : to the cry of conscience were opposed within them 
the suggestions of fear, the menaces of the terrible Patriarch, 
the military display, the vociferations of the monks and of the 
crowd. All gave way, all of them, including the unhappy 
Bishop of Antioch. The Egyptian notaries took down their 
words: for greater convenience in drawing up the formal 
record, the signatures were appended on blank leaves. All 
this has come down to us, for the reading of it took place, two 
years later, at the Council of Chalcedon. The Alexandrian 
chancery had edited the wording a little and protests were 
not wanting ; but regarded as a whole it remains established 
that in these lamentable sessions the Greek Episcopate exhibited, 
to say the least, a deplorable meanness of spirit. 

After this first session, 2 Dioscorus despatched a report to the 

1 Neues Archiv, vol. xi. (1886), p. 362. To this document was or ought 
to be joined a more circumstantial relatio of what had passed at the 
Council. 

2 That all this took place on the same day is the inference now made 
from the letter of appeal addressed to Pope Leo by Flavian (Neues Archiv 
xi., p. 364). 



p. 417-20] CONDUCT OF DIOSCORUS 291 

Emperor. Whether because he waited for a reply or for 
another reason, fifteen days elapsed without a fresh meeting 
of the bishops. On August 22 another sitting was held, this 
time in the absence, not only of Flavian and Eusebius, but 
also of the Roman legates, who refused to appear again, and 
of Domnus who was ill. 1 It was devoted to settling the 
accounts of Dioscorus and his friends with those of the 
Eastern bishops who most attracted their hostility. They 
began with Ibas, who was deposed with his nephew Daniel of 
Haran. Then they turned to Irenaeus of Tyre, who had been 
replaced already without having been the subject of a formal 
sentence : he was deprived, and with him a suffragan whom 
he had consecrated, Aquilinus of Byblos. 2 Then came the 
turn of Theodoret : he too was deposed. All these sentences 
which affected persons subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Patriarch of Antioch were notified to him. He had the heart 
to give his assent. This baseness did not save him. After 
the others he too was tried as contumacious, and deposed. 
The Council ended its proceedings by the solemn acceptance 
of the proposed Anathemas of Cyril. 3 

Cyril, in fact, on this day got the better of all his adversaries : 
his theology carried the day, in bad company it is true, and 
by dint of very deplorable methods. Dioscorus and Juvenal, 

1 Martin, Actes du brigandage d*Ephese, pp. 8-10. 

2 They remitted to the next Bishop of Edessa the matter of Sophronius, 
Bishop of Telia, one of his suffragans. He was accused of witchcraft : 
the dossier of this case contains, on this subject, some very curious 
details. 

3 Of the Council of Ephesus in 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum} we still 
possess : (i) the original formal record of the first session, that of August 8, 
inserted in that of the first session of the Council of Chalcedon ; (2) a Syriac 
version of the proceedings against Ibas, Theodoret, Domnus, and others. 
In 1873 G. Hoffmann had already given a German translation of them in 
a Kiel University Programme ; in 1874 the Abbe P. Martin published a 
French translation of them in the Revue des Sciences ecdesiastiques of 
Amiens (it is this translation which I quote, from a tirage a part} ; in 1877 
S. G. Perry edited the Syriac text and some documents annexed to it ; 
he republished it in 1881 with an English version (The Second Synod of 
Ephesus, together with certain extracts relating to it, Dartford). It is 
possible that everything happened in two sessions, that of August 8 and 
that of the 22nd. The affairs of Ibas and others down to that of Theodoret 
inclusively were certainly dealt with on the same day (Actes du brig., pp. 
126, 131). Strictly speaking that of Domnus might be referred to another 
day ; but it is not necessary. 

III. U 



292 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

Eutyches and Barsumas, carried him in triumph and acclaimed 
him noisily. 

However, Theodoret was not dead. By confining him in 
his far-off bishopric, the imperial police had kept him at a 
distance and in safety from the brutal violence of the monks. 
It was to be expected that he would be heard of. A powerful 
voice, the voice of Pope Leo, was soon to be raised in his 
favour. Thanks to the manoeuvres of Dioscorus, it had not 
been able to make itself heard at the Council: it was no 
fault of Chrysaphius and his agents that the legates were 
not detained in Asia, and that thus Leo would not have been 
informed. But the deacon Hilary hoodwinked all attempts 
to keep an eye on him and succeeded in discovering the 
road to Rom. He brought thither, together with trustworthy 
information, 1 the written appeal of Flavian. Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum had also appealed : his protest was confided by him 
to two of his clergy, who carried it to Rome. They speedily 
saw him arrive in person and finally some priests of Theodoret, 
with a third letter of appeal, addressed to the Pope by their 
bishop. 

On receiving the first tidings Leo hastened to take action. 
Surrounded by a certain number of Italian bishops 2 he made 
a lively protest against what had just taken place at Ephesus. 
Letters in this sense were immediately despatched to the 
sovereigns of the East, Theodosius and Pulcheria, to Flavian, 
to the clergy, and to the faithful monks of Constantinople. 
It was not possible to inculpate the Emperor and his ministers, 
the true culprits : the Pope casts the whole responsibility on 
the Bishop of Alexandria, censures and annuls all that has been 

1 It was not without difficulty that Hilary escaped from Dioscorus and 
his people. When he became Pope he caused to be constructed on the 
sides of the Baptistery of the Lateran two chapels, one of which, under the 
title of St John the Evangelist, still exists. We read on the lintel of the 
door the inscription : 

LIBERATORI SVO BEATO IOHANNI 

EVANGEL1STAE HILARIVS EPISCOPVS 

FAMVLVS CHRISTI 

8 The earliest letters (Jaffe, Regesta, 438-444, Epp. 43-51) belong to 
October 13 or 15: the Pope s anniversary brought to Rome every year, 
for September 29, a certain number of bishops. 



p. 420-3] RESULTS OF THE LATROCINIUM 293 

done, and requests the gathering in Italy of another Council, 
in which shall be repaired the unjust acts of that of Ephesus. 
Some months later, the Imperial Court of the West being 
transferred to Rome, the Pope induced it to take a part 
in this matter. Valentinian III., his mother Placidia, and 
his wife Eudoxia wrote 1 to the princes of Constantinople, 
their kinsfolk, in support of the representations of the Roman 
Pontiff. 

It was labour in vain. An imperial law had just been 
issued by Theodosius II., 2 approving of everything that the 
assembly at Ephesus had done, and giving to its decisions 
the requisite sanctions. To the Pope 3 and to the princes of 
Ravenna the reply was made that everything had passed off 
well at the Council, that Flavian and other causes of disturbance 
having been removed, religious peace was re-established 
throughout the whole Empire of the East, without any damage 
to the Faith. 4 

Order did indeed reign. The police had exerted themselves 
to see that the deposed bishops were removed from their 
churches. Flavian found a place of exile assigned to him. 
A eunuch named Saturninus was conducting him to it when 
the poor bishop, overwhelmed no doubt by strain and ill- 
treatment, died in the hands of the men who were escorting 
him. 5 The wretched Domnus disappeared also, though in a 

1 Leo, Epp. 55-58. The sovereigns took part in the festival of St Peter s 
Chair (February 22). It has been thought (Analecta Maredsolana i., p. 409) 
possible to connect with this fact a sermon " in cathedra sancti Petri," 
transcribed in an ancient collection of Homilies at Toledo. This does not 
seem to me very certain. 

~ Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 495. 

s The letter addressed to the Pope has not come down to us. 

4 Leo, Epp. 62-64. 

5 Chronicles of Prosper and of Marcellinus ad ann 449. That of 
Prosper is contemporary : that of Marcellinus seems to reproduce annals 
of Constantinople which are also contemporary. On the death of Flavian 
the testimonies are in disagreement. At the Council of Chalcedon it was 
said repeatedly that he had been killed ; Dioscorus was referred to as the 
murderer : his deacons Peter (Peter Mongus) and Harpocration and also 
the monk Barsumas were represented as having committed the actual 
assault upon Flavian (Mansi, Co/tc.vl, p. 691 A, 1017 ; vii., p. 68) : in 453 Pope 
Leo, writing to Theodoret (Jaffe, Regesta, 496; Migne, Patrol. Latina, liv., 
p. 1051), says that Dioscorus in sanguine innoccntis et catholici sacerdotis . . . 
manus intinxit. Flavian, however, says nothing resembling this in his 



294 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

less tragic fashion. He had formerly been a monk in the 
monastery of St Euthymius on the outskirts of Jerusalem : it 
was from thence that he had set out to join his Uncle John and 
to make his fortune. He entered this pious retreat once 
more, no doubt with regret at having left it. He was replaced 
by a certain Maximus, probably the deacon who in the days 
of the Patriarch John had offered him so much opposition. 1 
Ibas, who had already been some time a prisoner, was provided 
with a successor. The same was the case with Eusebius 
of Dorylaeum. Theodoret was requested to retire to a 
monastery which he possessed near Apamea. He too would 
no doubt have been replaced ; but they had not time to 
do it. 

The see of Constantinople was vacant. One of Dioscorus 
men was chosen to fill it 2 Anatolius, an Alexandrian 
apocrisiarius who was resident at the capital. Such a choice 
was not likely to please the supporters of Flavian. However, an 
effort was made to secure authorization for him from Pope Leo, 

letter of appeal : Statim me circumvallat multitude militaris et volente me 
ad sanctum altare confugcre non concessit, sed nitebatur de ecclesia eruere. 
Tune tumultu plurimo facto vix potui ad quendam locum ecclesiae confugere 
et ibi cum his qui mecum erant latcre, non tamen sine custodia ne valeam 
itniversa mala quae erga me commissa sunt ad vos referre. The legate 
Hilary does not seem to have had knowledge of other acts of violence, for 
he says nothing about them in his letter to Pulcheria (Leonis, Ep. 46), and 
the Pope himself, in the letters based on the new reports made by Hilary, 
does not make any allusion either, not even in the letter which he addressed 
to Flavian. The tatter s death, which happened shortly after the Council, 
would naturally have been attributed to the brutalities of which he had been 
the object, and certain details, certain complicities which had been passed 
over at first, would have been emphasized, with more or less exaggeration. 
Pope Gelasius (Gcsta de nomine Acacii 2) says that after having been 
taken as an exile to Hypepe, he died there superveniente seu ingesta 
morte. According to Liberatus (Breviarium 12) caesus Flavianus etmultis 
iniuriis affectus dolore plagarum migramt ad Dominum ; the historian 
Evagrius (ii. 2) accuses Dioscorus of having kicked him. We may neglect 
the later accounts. 

1 Supra^ pp. 266, 277. 

2 Theodore the Reader (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, Ixxxvi., p. 217), says that 
Dioscorus himself conducted the consecration. It is very difficult to 
believe. The consecrators wrote to Pope Leo : the signature of Dioscorus 
would assuredly have been mentioned by the Pope in the letters which he 
sent to Constantinople relative to this consecration. 



p. 423-5] DEATH OF THEODOSIUS II. 295 

and in conformity with custom the new bishop and his con- 
secrators wrote to him. Leo whose intervention in the matter 
of the Council had so far been set aside, seized the opportunity 
offered him. Neither Anatolius nor the bishops who had 
ordained him had sent any kind of profession of faith. The 
assumption was that they were living in ordinary times and 
that nothing serious had happened. The Pope 1 then declared 
that he was ready to recognize Anatolius, provided that 
Anatolius accepted, together with Cyril s letter to Nestorius 
(Kara<t>Xvapov(rt), that which he, Leo, himself had written to 
Flavian on the subject of the Incarnation. To shorten the 
negotiations, he sent to Constantinople a deputation composed 
of two bishops 2 and two Roman priests. 

Leo evidently reckoned on the probability that these legates 
when they arrived at the Court of the East would succeed in 
exercising useful activity there. Providence helped him in a 
different fashion: the Emperor, Theodosius II., died on 
July 28 as the result of an accident on horseback. 

He left no children. With determination the Empress 
Pulcheria grasped the reins of government, and without 
delay ordered the execution of the Grand Chamberlain, 
Chrysaphius. Perhaps he had endeavoured to weave some 
intrigue in order to maintain himself in power. In any case 
he was detested alike for his avarice and for the scandalous 
abuse which he had made of his influence over the dead 
Emperor. 3 However the Empress did not feel her hands 
strong enough to govern alone : she associated with herself 
a senator, Marcian, who had had a career in the army. Though 
neither of them 4 was any longer young she married him on 
condition of living as single ; then she caused him to be 
proclaimed Emperor, and invested him herself as being the 
trustee of the Theodosian tradition. 

The fall of Chrysaphius was a catastrophe for the party of 
Eutyches. Down to the death of Theodosius II. Pulcheria had 
had to keep to herself the expression of her private opinions, 

1 Jaffe, Regesta, 452-454, July 16 and 17, ^o(Epp. 69-71) to Theodosius, 
Pulcheria, the monks of Constantinople. 

2 One of them was Abundius of Como. 

s Chronicles of Prosper and of Marcellinus. Apart from the ecclesi 
astical writers we have little information about this eminent person. 
4 She was in her fifty-second year : he was fifty-eight. 



296 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

which agreed with those of Archbishop Flavian and Pope Leo. 
Now that she was mistress everything was to change. From 
the outset Leo was informed that henceforward his wishes would 
be regarded. The victims of Dioscorus and his synod were 
recalled from exile ; Flavian s remains, which had been brought 
back to Constantinople, were deposited with great pomp in the 
Church of the Holy Apostles ; Eutyches was taken from his 
monastery, and found himself established in a place of confine 
ment in the suburbs ; in a word the evil that had been done 
was repaired so far as possible. As for the members of the 
assembly at Ephesus their lamentations were soon heard. A 
number of them declared that they had yielded to violence and 
began to repudiate the decisions given in their name. Anatolius, 
since the wind had changed, had made haste to receive the 
legates and to sign the letter to Flavian ; he now set himself 
to secure signatures to it from the others. Maximus of Antioch 
was not less edifying ; the possession of the Patriarchate had 
moderated his passions, hitherto so little controlled. Leo, who 
was kept informed of what was happening, was presiding from 
Rome over this movement of reparation. Day by day the 
number of opponents was being reduced. There remained, 
however, still some : Dioscorus in particular gave no sign of 
coming to a better mind. It might have been said that he was 
still cherishing the hope of a new turn of events in which he 
might regain his position of triumphant hero. 1 They were vain 
imaginings ! It was to the role of scapegoat that circum 
stances were about to dedicate him. To lay the blame on 
the dead Emperor was a thing impossible : in those days 
Emperors were never wrong. All the blame then fell on the 
knavery of Dioscorus and the stupidity of Juvenal. 2 The 
care of these men and of some others the Pope meant to 
take upon himself: as for the rest of the prelates who had 
been at Ephesus, he remitted them to the Bishop of Con 
stantinople who, in concert with the legates, would take 

1 Dioscorus seems, upon the accession of Marcian, to have had inclina 
tions towards political opposition. He was accused (see the complaint of 
Sophronius at the third session of Chalcedon) of having hindered the 
proclamation of Marcian at Alexandria. This must be compared with the 
rumour which reached Nestorius and which is dealt with below, p. 311. 

2 In qua (synodo) malevolentiam suam Dioscorus, imperitiam autem 
Juvenalis ostendit (Leonis Ep. Ixxxvi. i). 



p. 425-8] POLICY OF PULCHERIA AND MARCIAN 297 

steps to rehabilitate them after exacting from them suitable 
amends. 

Already it seemed to him that everything was in a position 
to be settled, without the turmoil of a council, by the mere 
acceptance of his letter. What good was to be served by 
further inconveniencing the bishops? Those of the West 
especially, who were more disturbed about Attila than about 
Eutyches, had every possible reason for staying at home. 
So thought the Pope. At Constantinople, on the other hand, 
great importance was attached to the meeting of the council. 
The Government desired that there should be elucidated 
once and for all this question of the Incarnation which 
was so prolific in controversies, and that agreement should 
be arrived at on a formula resting upon high authority. For 
the defeat of Dioscorus and the powerful party which 
grouped itself behind him, the procedure by way of securing 
signatures seemed rather an ineffective course : it was thought 
not to be going beyond what was necessary that the episcopate 
in its entirety should be brought into line. For these and 
certain other reasons it was decided that a council should be 
held at Nicaea, and that as many bishops should be summoned 
as it should be possible to collect. 

Pope Leo, though little allured by this solution, was none 
the less obliged to fall in with it. For his first legates he 
had already substituted others the Bishop Lucentius 1 and 
the priest Basil : he joined to them in addition Paschasinus, 
Bishop of Lilybaeum in Sicily (Marsala), and Boniface, a priest 
of Rome. Paschasinus was expressly entrusted with the duty 
of presiding at the Council in the name of the Pope: the 
others were to assist him. Leo added to them in addition 
Julian, the Bishop of Cos, an Italian by birth, who had lived 
for a long time at Rome and possessed a thorough knowledge 
of the two languages. 

Flocking to Nicaea were to be seen more than 520 bishops, 
all belonging to the Eastern Empire except the Roman legates 
and two from Africa. Besides these there was the usual crowd 
of monks who had come, without summons, from Constantinople 
and from Syria. Dioscorus arrived from Egypt with seventeen 
of his own bishops. He was in no sense beaten. The Emperor 
had promised to be present at the Council, but he kept them 
1 Of Ascoli in Picenum. 



298 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

waiting for a very considerable time. The monks were in 
a state of ferment, and Dioscorus who, apart from his own 
Egyptians still had the support of a large number of bishops 
of Palestine and Illyricum, had the daring to risk a stroke 
of supreme audacity. He pronounced, on his own authority, 
excommunication against Pope Leo. 1 He wished, no doubt, 
as his predecessors Theophilus and Cyril had done, to reverse 
the parts and to put into the position of a person accused, 
even of one condemned, the man who was setting up to be 
his judge. But he had presumed too much upon his powers. 
Contrary to his expectation he was not followed : only about 
ten of the Egyptian bishops gave their signature : the rest 
abstained. 

The legates had remained at Constantinople ; they were 
waiting for the Emperor. The latter, detained by military 
necessities, was still unable to find leisure to go to Nicaea. 
On the other hand he had no intention that the capital 
should be the theatre of these great religious sessions which 
might cause disturbance in the populace. He began by 
expelling the monks and then requested the bishops to 
transfer themselves to Chalcedon where the Emperor would 
have every facility for attending. 2 

The Council opened on October 8, 451, in the Basilica 

1 I place this event at this point (i) because it is certain that it took 
place at Nicaea and there is no sign that Dioscorus had any other occasion 
for finding himself in this town ; (2) because*-while earlier than the Council 
of Chalcedon, it seems clearly to have been subsequent to the pontifical 
letters which preceded that assembly. Leo makes no mention of it 
anywhere before the Council, not even in his instructions to Paschasinus. 
As for the ground of the condemnation I think that Dioscorus based it on 
the doctrine of the Tome of Leo, a doctrine in which his supporters 
always pretended to find a new expression of the Nestorian heresy. 

2 On the Council of Chalcedon our information is derived from the 
formal records of this assembly and the documents annexed. No use can 
be made of the panegyric of Macarius of Tkuou (Anteopolis), supposed to 
have been pronounced at Gangra by Dioscorus in exile. M. E. Revillout 
has published a portion of this production in his Revue tgyptologique 
(vol. i., p. 187 ; ii., p. 21 ; iii., p. 17) under the title " Recits de Dioscore 
exile a Gangres sur le concile o.e Chalcedoine"), attributing to it great 
importance. M. Amelineau, who has given it complete in his Monuments 
pour servir a Phistoire de PEgyfrte chrctienne (vol. iv. of the Memoires of 
the French Archaeological Mission at Cairo [1888], p. 92), has shown (ibid. 
pp. xv. ff.) that it is an apocryphal document and of no value. 



p 428-31] OPENING OF THE COUNCIL 299 

of St Euphemia, a magnificent building, a sanctuary associated 
with miracles. 1 The Emperor was not present at the opening, 
but his place was taken by an impressive group of high 
functionaries, 2 headed by the Patrician Anatolius. These 
personages, nineteen in number, took their place in front 
of the balustrade which closed the apse. Seats had been 
prepared right and left along the whole length of the 
nave. On the left of the officials sat the Roman legates, 
Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus the Patriarch of 
Antioch, Thalassius and Stephen, the Bishops of Caesarea 
in Cappadocia and of Ephesus, with those under their 
jurisdiction, that is, the Bishops of Thrace, Asia Minor, and 
Syria. In front, to the right of the official body, were Dioscorus 
of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and the representative 
of Anastasius, the Bishop of Thessalonica. These too had 
their suffragans with them, that is, the Bishops of Egypt, of 
Palestine, and of lilyricum. The mode of seating answered to 
the views held : on the right were the supporters of Dioscorus 
and of his Council, on the left their opponents. 

When the session had opened the legates demanded that, 
without other discussion, Dioscorus should be excluded from 
the assembly: such was the purport of their instructions. The 
presidents had some difficulty in making them understand 
that a formal trial was necessary. It was proceeded to 

1 Description in Evagrius, H. E. ii. 3. It included an atrium, a 
covered basilica and a round sanctuary, with two stages one above the other, 
in the midst of which was the silver shrine with the relics of the martyr. 
The latter, at some uncertain date, warned in a dream either the Bishop of 
Chalcedon or some other pious person to come to gather the "Vintage" 
at her tomb. Accordingly the Emperor, the Court, the Patriarch, and the 
clergy of the capital went in state to the basilica. The Patriarch opened 
a little window pierced in the tomb and passed through it an iron rod 
fitted with a sponge. It was drawn out soaked with a red liquid which 
passed for the blood of the martyr. This marvel is not without analogy 
with those still to be seen at Naples and at Bari. 

2 The protocols make a constant distinction between the Ju dices and 
the Senatores : the first are actual holders of office Anatolius, Magister 
militum and Patrician ; Palladius, Praetorian Prefect of the Orient ; Tatian, 
Prefect of Constantinople ; Vincomalus, Master of the Offices, with an 
ex-Master, Martial ; Sporacius, Comes Doincsticorum; Genethlius, Count of 
the Privy Treasury. As for the senators, to the number of twelve, they 
were all former officials of the highest rank, Consuls, Patricians, Praetorian 
Prefects, Grand Chamberlains. 



300 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

without delay. Dioscorus took a seat in the middle of 
the church as the accused, and immediately Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum l stood up with an act of accusation formally drawn 
up. He also took a place in the middle as accuser. His 
application urged the reading to the Council of the Acts of the 
assembly at Ephesus, from which he proposed to prove that 
Dioscorus as judge had acted contrary to the Faith and to 
justice. 

The reading began, but was broken by various incidents. 
At the first mention of the name of Theodoret, the presidents 
interrupted to say that this bishop ought to be brought in, 
that Pope Leo had restored him, and that the Emperor had so 
decided. There was a fine disturbance. However, Theodoret 
made his entrance, amid acclamations from the left and outcries 
from the right : " Out with the master of Nestorius, the enemy 
of God, the Jew!" "To the doors with Dioscorus, the assassin!" 
" To the doors with the enemies of Flavian, the Mamchaeans ! " 
" To receive Theodoret is to condemn Cyril ! " Recalled to 
order by the magistrates, the bishops calmed themselves for 
a moment, and Theodoret, ready for conciliation, took his seat 
on the bench of the accusers. 

When they came to the proceedings at Ephesus, to the 
evasion of the letters of Pope Leo, the rehabilitation of 
Eutyches, the condemnation of Flavian and of Eusebius, 
disapprobation became more and more evident. On the 
benches to the left were seated in considerable numbers 
members of the Council of Ephesus, and those not the least 
important among them Thalassius of Ccesarea, Stephen of 
Ephesus, Basil of Seleucia. Covered now with shame they 
excused themselves abjectly, sought for evasions, and not 
being able to implicate the Emperor Theodosius II., fell 
back upon the terror which had been inspired in them by 
the terrible Patriarch of Alexandria. The latter, who felt 
himself to be lost and had no longer any shift to try, gazed 
upon them with sneering glances, and let fly at them from 
time to time a bitter interruption : " What ! Do you dare 
to deny it? Say at once that you were not there." The 

1 In these proceedings Eusebius always takes the part of accuser. 
Every time that he appears he has in his wallet a plaint drawn up against 
someone. It was a role useful, perhaps, but ungrateful. His personal 
inclination must here have been at the service of his zeal. 



p. 431-3] TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 301 

Egyptians acted as a chorus : " Ah ! You were afraid. Is a 
Christian afraid ? Fine martyrs you would make ! " 

But it was not by sarcasms that Dioscorus could improve 
his position. In the formal records of Ephesus were included 
the Acts of Flavian s Council. When the place was reached 
where the Bishop of Constantinople had explained how in 
agreement with Cyril (the official Cyril) he understood the 
doctrine in dispute, the presidents requested the bishops to 
say what they thought of these explanations. Beginning 
with the legate Paschasinus, the prelates of the highest rank 
hastened to declare them Orthodox. Juvenal, seeing that 
the wind had turned without hope of change, rose and 
declared that he, he too, was of this opinion ; and then in 
order the better to establish his position, he crossed over from 
the right to the left, followed by all the bishops of Palestine. 
Those of Illyricum did the same, with the exception of 
Atticus, the metropolitan of Nicopolis, who pretended to be 
unwell and vanished. But the crowning point was that 
four Egyptian bishops, there, under the eye of their Pope, 
separated themselves from him and proceeded to join his 
opponents. 

At last the end was reached of the interminable protocols 
of Ephesus and Constantinople. As the reading proceeded 
the assembly had manifested in a very adequate manner that 
it regarded as shameful iniquities both the rehabilitation of 
Eutyches and the condemnation of Flavian. The occasion 
had now arrived for confirming this judgement by pronouncing 
the deprivation of the guilty. But the session had been 
prolonged till nightfall. It was by. the light of candles that 
the officials who presided deferred the coatinuation of the 
deliberations to an ensuing session, adding as they did so 
that in their opinion it would be expedient to depose 
Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius 
of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, who were more particularly 
responsible for the perfidy at Ephesus. The assembly 
separated to the chant of the Trisagion, " Holy God, Holy 
and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy upon us!" 1 

Two days later, 2 on October 10, the Council met for the 

1 It is the first time that mention is made of this famous acclamation. 

2 Evagrius transposes Session II. and III. of the Council: the order 
which he follows is that of the most ancient Latin version. Facundus 



302 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

second time. Dioscorus was not present at the session. The 
same was the case with Juvenal and the four others 1 whose 
deprivation had been demanded by the magistrates. The latter 
called attention to the counsel which they had given for their 
deposition, and presented a request, in the name of the 
Emperor, for the promulgation of a Definition of Faith. The 
Council had little desire for one. It thought that, as the affair of 
Eutyches had been settled by the Pope, all that was needed was 
to confine themselves to the documents that had been previously 
authorized and upon which they were in agreement. These 
were read : the Creed of Nicaea, then the creed called the Creed 
of Constantinople which here makes its first appearance under 
this title, then the two classic letters of Cyril to Nestorius and 
to John of Antioch, and finally the Tome of Leo to Flavian, 
to which the Pope had added in the previous year a collection 
of testimonies from the Fathers. As he fully recognized that 
in the East Cyril enjoyed a very high authority the Pope had 
not failed to have recourse to his works : three passages from his 
Scholia on the Incarnation appear in the series of extracts. This 
did not hinder him from censuring 2 the famous formula, " One is 
the Nature incarnate of the God Word," to which the Cyrillians 
clung so much. In fine, both Pope Leo and the Government 3 
and the Council, as a whole, were in agreement in passing over 
in silence the Cyril of the Anathemas, compromised for the 

also (Def. v. 3) attests the fact that some MSS. placed Session III. before 
Session II. This discrepancy comes, I think, from the fact that Session 
III. which was held apart from the magistrates, must have been wanting 
in certain official copies, and that when it was supplied later it was placed 
in a different order. 

1 However, the name of Eustathius of Berytus appears in the list of 
those present at the second session : it does so no doubt by mistake. 

2 Letter to Paschasinus (Ep. 88 : Jaflfe, Regesta, 468) : " Scias penitus 
detestandos qui secundum Eutychis impietatem atque dementiam in 
Domino . . . dicere ausi sunt duas non esse naturas, hoc est perfectae 
divinitatis atque perfectae humanitatis ; et putant quod possent nostram 
diligentiam fallere, cum aiunt se unam Verbi naturam credere incarnatam." 

3 However, the officials got themselves into trouble sometimes among 
these dossiers : thus, at the end of the first session of the Council the lay 
bureau presented the two letters of Cyril as having both been ratified by 
the first Council of Ephesus. It was a lapsus : the reference is clearly to 
the two letters which were read at the following session and of which one 
only was read at the Council of Ephesus, the second being subsequent to 
it in date. 



p. 433-6] DIOSCORUS CONDEMNED 303 

time being by the abuse made of- them by Eutyches. This 
omission was not, however, to the taste of everyone. Some 
bishops were unable to grasp the agreement, officially admitted, 
between Leo and Cyril. It was necessary to give some 
explanations on that head to the Palestinians and to the 
" Illyrians." One of the latter, Atticus of Nicopolis, who had 
recovered from the timely indisposition with which he had 
been seized at the first session, was moved to remark that 
besides the two letters of Cyril which had just been read there 
was yet another which it would have been worth while to 
mention, that in which figure the twelve Anathemas. They 
appeared not to hear him. Anatolius was commissioned to 
collect the bishops at his quarters in order to give the explana 
tions which might be still necessary and to give his attention 
to the question of faith. It was decided to suspend the sessions 
for five days. However, three days later (October 13) a new 
meeting was held, this time to deal with the case of Dioscorus. 
At the end of the previous session some voices had been raised, 
begging for mercy for the proscribed bishops in general and even 
for him ; but no heed ^iad been paid to them. Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum, resuming his role of accuser, laid a complaint 
relative to the Council of 449. Four clergy of Alexandria laid 
others in regard to abuses committed by their bishop in his 
episcopal administration. Nothing of all this was discussed, 
for they failed entirely in citing Dioscorus at his dwelling. 
He put forward excuse after excuse, and finally stayed at home. 
It was necessary to proceed per contumaciam. On this day the 
imperial officers had not come to the Council : it was the 
Roman legates who directed the . discussions. Their leader, 
Paschasinus, rose and pronounced the sentence. After refer 
ence first to the usurpation of power whereby, even before the 
Council of Ephesus, Dioscorus had restored Eutyches, and 
then to the insult done to Pope Leo by the refusal to read 
his letters, he declared that strictly speaking they might have 
dealt mercifully with him as Pope Leo had desired should 
be done with the other members of the assembly at Ephesus, 
who had returned to a better mind. 1 But Dioscorus, so far from 

1 There is no express mention of the deposition of Flavian. The legates 
seem to have wished to confine themselves, so far as possible, to acts in 
which the responsibility of Dioscorus was alone involved, thus passing the 
sponge over the collective misdeeds committed at Ephesus. 



304 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

repenting, had outraged the Holy See afresh by pronouncing 
excommunication against the Pope and had insulted the Council 
itself by refusing to answer the grave accusations laid against 
him. " In consequence the most holy and blessed Archbishop 
of the great and old Rome, Leo, by us and by this holy 
Council, in union with the blessed Apostle Peter who is the 
corner-stone of the Catholic Church and the foundation of 
the orthodox faith, has deprived him of the episcopal office 
and of all sacerdotal dignity." 

One after another the bishops expressed themselves in 
conformity with this decree and appended their signatures. 
The sentence was communicated to the condemned : the 
Council also notified the Sovereigns, the clergy of Alexandria 
who had to administer the vacancy, and finally, some days later, 
the populace of Constantinople and of Chalcedon, among whom 
Dioscorus was beginning to spread the report that all was not 
finished and that he was going to have his revenge. 

At the fourth session, which took place on October 17, the 
magistrates made a further attempt to obtain a Definition of 
Faith. Not succeeding in this, they moved the bishops to 
declare expressly and individually whether they accepted the 
Tome of Leo. One after another they accepted it This done, 
they demanded the return of the five accomplices of Dioscorus. 
The magistrates, with much dissatisfaction, sent to consult the 
Emperor who referred the matter to the Council. The latter, 
which in the previous session had deliberately isolated 
Dioscorus from the group of those accused with him, hastened 
to admit them, after having assured themselves that they had 
adhered to the Tome of Leo and to the deposition of the 
Patriarch of Alexandria. 

Now came the turn of the Egyptian bishops. They had 
not been seen again since the first session. Reduced to 
thirteen by the defections of October 8, they presented a 
profession of faith in which they declared themselves faithful 
to the teaching of their former bishops, from St Mark to Cyril, 
and hostile to all heretics, from Simon to Nestorius. However, 
they made no mention of Eutyches nor even of Apollinaris, 
and spoke neither of the Tome nor of Dioscorus. When an 
effort was made to induce them to explain themselves, all 
that was obtained was lamentations and cries for pity : they 
could do nothing without their head, the Bishop of Alexandria. 



p. 436-9] EGYPTIANS AND MONKS 305 

However, the Council succeeded in making them condemn 
Eutyches. As for signing the letter of Leo, as for approving 
the deposition of Dioscorus, for them it meant exposing them 
selves to certain death, should they return to Egypt. 1 They 
grovelled upon the ground, begging for mercy. The Council 
decided that they might wait for the election of the future 
Patriarch before giving their signatures ; but that, until then, 
they must remain at Constantinople under guarantees. 

But the opposition was not done with ; there remained still 
the monks who were disciples or partisans of Eutyches. After 
the overthrow of their leader the archbishopric of Con 
stantinople began to interfere with them : they laid complaints 
before the Emperor. The latter, after having promised to 
deal with the matter himself, finally referred the petitioners 
to the Council. They presented themselves there. In order 
to enlighten his colleagues as to the authority of these 
individuals, the Patriarch of Constantinople had secured the 
presence of some heads of monasteries of recognized position, 
who were commissioned to identify the appellants. It was 
found that several of them were unknown persons and that 
the rest for the most part were hermits and not superiors of 
organized communities : three only out of the eighteen could 
claim this position. It was not then a deputation of a very 
influential kind. But they were not therefore the less arrogant. 
With them had come the notorious Barsumas. When he was 
noticed he was assailed with outcries : " Out with the assassin ! 
To the amphitheatre with the homicide ! Exile him ! " When 
calm was restored, Carosus, the spokesman, presented a petition 
by which the monks demanded neither more nor less than the 
restoration of Dioscorus, declaring that if they were refused 
satisfaction they would create a schism, not wishing to remain 
with people who were violating the Creed of Nicaea. 

This insolent manifesto met with the reception which may 
be imagined. When calm was restored, Aetius, the arch 
deacon of Constantinople, produced the canons of Antioch 
against rebellious and seditious clergy, and then those who 
had appeared were summoned to condemn Eutyches and to 
accept the Tome of Leo. They refused. The bishops, the 

1 The Monophysite party here inaugurates the attitude which it was 
thenceforward to adopt : that of censuring Eutyches and protesting against 
the deposition of Dioscorus, the Tome of Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon. 



306 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

officials, urged them again and again. It was useless. Firm 
in obstinacy, they fastened themselves to the Creed of Nicaea 
and would know nothing beyond it, except reprobation of 
Nestorius. They were offered a delay of three days. " What 
use is it?" they replied. "We are here; put an end to us 
without further delay." Sentence, however, was deferred. 1 
This matter belonged rather to the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
of Constantinople. 

With all these questions of individuals time was passing. 
But it was absolutely necessary to come to the Definition, 
so much desired by the Government. Meetings had been held 
at the quarters of the Patriarch of Constantinople : a formula 
of faith had been prepared. At the opening of the fifth session 
(October 22) it was read. The majority applauded, but from 
a group of Eastern bishops a protest was raised, and the 
legates supported them. We no longer possess this draft 
decree : it was not inserted in the formal record. It was 
objected to it that it was not sufficiently in agreement with 
the letter of Pope Leo. Doubtless it did not contain the 
expression in two natures, to which the Pope attached so much 
importance. The disagreement appeared so grave to the 
legates and the situation so much strained that they asked 
the magistrates to give them their passports in order to return 
to Italy, whither the Council should be transferred. The 
magistrates proposed the modification of the form of statement 
and the nomination for this purpose of a commission which 
was to meet in the sanctuary of St Euphemia, adjoining the 
church. Dioscorus, they said to the bishops, is in favour of 
the formula " of two natures " : he has been condemned. Not 
for his doctrine, replied Anatolius, but only for having ex 
communicated the Pope and refused to obey the Council. The 
assembly became a scene of tumult. There were cries of 
"Down with the Nestorians !" meaning by that the bishops 
of the East. It was protested that Leo was in agreement 

1 After the Fourth Session the original Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 
in the form in which we have them in the ordinary Greek text, give another 
account of this business, purporting to have been dealt with in a session on 
October 20. At the end it is determined that the monks shall have a 
month s delay, from October 15 to November 15. This document which 
is lacking in the ancient Latin versions and which was unknown to 
Evagrius, seems to me to be a doublet of the Fourth Session so far as 
concerns the episode of the monks. 



p. 439-42] THE DEFINITION OF FAITH 307 

with Cyril ; that they ought to hold to the text that had been 
proposed. 1 The magistrates, in perplexity, sent to Con 
stantinople, asking for instructions. The messenger returned 
with a decision of the Emperor, in conformity with their 
proposal and to the wishes of the legates: either a new 
commission or the transfer of the Council to the West. The 
outcries began again : " If they won t have our plan, let us go. 
The other side are Nestorians ! Let them go to Rome ! " The 
" Illyrians," though they were suffragans of the Pope, cried out 
more loudly than the others. "This must be ended," said 
the magistrates. " Are you for Leo or for Dioscorus ? " * " For 
Leo," replied the assembly. The commission was immediately 
set up. This time all the three legates were on it, together 
with six Easterns. The other party was largely represented : 
Thalassius, Eusebius of Ancyra, former members of the Council 
of Dioscorus, appeared in it, together with Atticus of Nicopolis 
and various others of the same side. The delegates shut 
themselves up in the mausoleum (martyriuni) of St Euphemia 
and deliberated in secret. 3 When they returned they had 
drawn up the Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon. 
It was at once read. The passage of primary importance is the 
following: "We believe ... in Jesus Christ . . . who for us 
and our salvation came forth from the Virgin Mary, Mother 
of God in relation to the humanity, as one single and the same 
Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, in two natures, without 
confusion or change, without division or separation, the 
difference of the natures being in no wise suppressed by 
their union, each nature preserving on the contrary its 
particularity, both concurring to form a single person and a 
single hypostasis. . . ." 

Acclamations made themselves heard : the solution had 
been found at last : it had not been without difficulty. 

It remained to promulgate it solemnly. Three days later, 
on October 25, the Emperor Marcian crossed the Bosphorus 
and presented himself at the Council in impressive magnificence. 

1 Eusebius of Dorylaeum himself (Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 104) spoke in 
this sense. 

3 An adroit way of stating the question, but imperfect. It was between 
Leo and Cyril that they had to choose. 

s No formal record, no document of any kind whatever of these 
deliberations, has come down to us. 

III. X 



308 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. XL 

He addressed them in Latin 1 and then in Greek: the text of 
the Definition was read once more, with the signatures of the 
bishops : for several provinces, at any rate, the metropolitans 
voted in the name of those who were absent, so that we find 
not less than 600 names of bishops at the end of this celebrated 
document. 

This imperial session, to which the greatest publicity 2 was 
immediately given, remained for contemporaries the essential 
moment of the Council of Chalcedon. 

To tell the truth it corresponded to a twofold capitulation 
of the assembly, before the Government and before the Pope. 
The Council did not want a Definition : one was extorted from 
it. At the very least it wished for one which was not fixed or 
precise : " A single Person resulting from the union of two 
natures." It had been constrained into accepting the Roman 
formula, " A single Person in two natures." It was almost the 
same position as at Nicsea. Eutyches had been condemned 
without difficulty as Arius had been at Nicaea. As at Nicsea 
too, an effort had been made to contrive for the vanquished 
party a shelter of orthodox appearance under which it might 
be able to prolong its existence. With this end in view they 
had entrenched themselves behind a terminology borrowed 
from Cyril, which was a strong recommendation. The legates 
pressed their point and secured the adoption of clear terms. 
The mischief is that they had against them the general 
sentiment which was in favour of ambiguity, and that only 
the old-fashioned " Easterns," the Nestorians, as they were 
currently styled, supported them with enthusiasm. 

This alliance made itself clearer still in the following 
sessions when the business was dealt with of those who had 
been condemned at Ephesus. The Bishop of Antioch, Domnus, 3 
had not appealed against his deposition ; in his stead Maximus 

1 Latin was still the official language even in the Eastern Empire. In 
the Councils the letters of the Pope, even these, were read in Latin first, 
then in Greek. 

a It is in this connexion that there was formed and put in circulation 
in the West a dossier which has been preserved to us in Codex Vaticanus 
1322, which has been very well described by the Ballerini in their edition of 
St Leo, vol. ii., p. 727 ; cf. Maassen, Quellen, i. 737. This dossier has 
been included almost in its entirety in the Collection of Quesnel. The last 
document, in order of time, is a letter of Leo, of March 21, 453. 

3 Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 269. 



p. 442-5] DOMNUS, THEODORET, IBAS 309 

had been selected at Constantinople and had been ordained by 
Anatolius about the beginning of the year 451. Pope Leo, 
albeit this interference of Constantinople in the affairs of 
Antioch was little pleasing to him, had refrained from rejection 
of this arrangement. The only question concerning Domnus 
then was to provide that a pension should be allowed 
him by his successor. But Theodoret and Ibas were demand 
ing their bishoprics again. Theodoret s had already been 
given back to him by Pope Leo : he wished that this settlement 
should be ratified by the Council, and this did not go through 
without objections. 1 It was demanded of him with insistence 
and in discourteous terms that he should condemn Nestorius 
He made up his mind to do so : " Anathema to Nestorius and 
to him who does not give to Mary the title of Mother of God 
or who divides Christ into two Sons." Theodoret was well 
aware that Nestorius did not censure absolutely the term 
"Mother of God" and that he had never taught the "two 
Sons." His anathema carries with it, I think, a certain 
admixture of irony. 

The affair of Ibas 2 encountered more difficulty. Acquitted 
at Tyre, he had been deposed at Ephesus. The proceedings 
at Tyre were read, but the legates opposed the reading of those 
at Ephesus : the accursed synod was no longer to count. It 
was abolished : the Emperor was entreated to issue a law upon 
the subject. There was also read a document of a very 
delicate character the letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian in 
which unfavourable language was used of Cyril. The legates, 
however, decided that Ibas was orthodox 3 : he was restored, 
not without having pronounced the anathema against Nestorius. 
This was also required from certain prelates who were suspected 
of retaining feelings of sympathy for the former Bishop of 
Constantinople. 4 

Thus the Eastern term " Two Natures," which so strongly 
repelled Cyril, was not merely tolerated or accepted but imposed 
as a rule of faith: the former friends of Nestorius, notably 
Theodoret and Ibas, who had figured in the front rank of the 
opponents of Cyril, were received, rehabilitated, restored in the 

1 Acta viii. 2 Acta ix. and x. 

3 hvayvwffdGiffrjs yap rrjs t7rt<rroX?7S ai/roP, frreyvufji.cif avrbv virdpxeiv 6p065o$ov 
(Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 261). 

4 Mansi, vii., 192, 193. 



310 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

sees from which they had been driven by the sentences of 
Dioscorus and the police of Theodosius II. "What could 
be clearer," concluded the Monophysites. " Nestorius had his 
revenge. The bishops at Chalcedon and their instigator, Pope 
Leo, were so many Nestorians. What a comedy ! They were 
anathematizing Nestorius and canonizing his doctrine." 

This way of looking at things soon became for the 
Monophysites an article of faith, and this had very serious 
consequences. What is more curious still is the fact a fact 
which we have only just learnt that such was the view of 
Nestorius himself. 

Nestorius was still in this world. For long years he had 
lived in wretchedness, but in peace, in his distant oasis. One 
day 1 it was completely raided by the Nobades, a barbarous 
horde established on the upper Nile, to the south of the First 
Cataract. The Nobades put everything to fire and sword and 
carried away a multitude of prisoners, among them the exiled 
bishop. Then, learning that other barbarians, the Maziques, 
were about to descend on the oasis and put themselves on 
their tracks, they thought it advisable to rid themselves of their 
prisoners, entrusted them to Nestorius, and compelled them to 
set out for the valley of the Nile. On the way the caravan 
broke up, each going where he chose. One party only of 
the fugitives arrived, with Nestorius at their head, at the 
town of Panopolis (Achmin). 2 It was, for the man who had 
been condemned at Ephesus, a dangerous place of sojourn. 
Schnoudi 3 was not far from these: the frosts of age had in 
no wise extinguished his energy and especially his zeal against 
heretics, Nestorius wrote to the governor of the Thebaid to 
point out that if he had contravened his sentence of banishment 
he had been compelled to do so by force majeiire. He asked 
also not to be delivered over to the hands of those who wished 
him ill, lest it should be said that it was better to be a captive 
among barbarians than to live under the protection of Rome. 
But the implacable Schnoudi had his eye upon him ; besides, 
failing him, Dioscorus and Chrysaphius sufficed to keep the 

1 With regard to this, see the two letters of Nestorius preserved by 
Evagrius, H. E. i. 7. 

2 According to Timothy Aelurus (Plerop. 36) he had been sold by the 
barbarians to the town of Panopolis. 

a Vol. II., p. 398 f. 



p. 445-8] NESTORIUS 311 

officials of Theodosius II. in the paths of severity. Nestorius 
was despatched to Elephantine, on the farthest frontier. He 
had hardly arrived there when a counter-order recalled him to 
Panopolis. He re-entered it half dead, broken with fatigue, 
with one arm and his sides injured by accidents of the journey : 
he did so to hear assigned to himself a third place of exile, and 
that was not the last, for he was still to be transferred once again. 

It was doubtless in this fourth retreat, in the desert behind 
Panopolis, that he wrote the last pages of his Apology)- Time 
was moving on, events were being precipitated, and the echo 
ot them reached even to his mournful solitude. Nestorius 
heard of the controversy of Eutyches and Flavian, of the 
triumph of Dioscorus at the second Council of Ephesus, the 
death of Flavian, the intervention of Pope Leo, and the 
sudden change of things on the death of Theodosius II. The 
last fact that he has mentioned in his Memoirs is a local fact, 
the flight of Dioscorus to escape deposition and exile. This 
relates to some rumour, or to some episode otherwise unknown 
but prior to the Council of Chalcedon. Of that Nestorius 
does not speak. It is possible that he had knowledge of it 
before his death, but his pen stops a little earlier. 

He was resigned, perceiving well that he would never return 
from his exile : " My dearest desire," he said, " is that God 
should be blessed in heaven and upon earth. As for Nestorius, 
let him remain anathema ! God grant that while cursing me 
men may reconcile themselves with Him. ... I should not 
refuse to withdraw what I have said, 2 if I were certain that 

1 This work, which was known to Evagrius (//. E. i. 70, p. 257), has just 
been published in Syriac by Pere Paul Bedjan (Leipzig : Harrassowitz, 1910) 
from several copies of a MS. at Kotchanes. The Abbe Nau has given a 
French translation of it under the title Lc livrc tVHeraclide de Damas. In 
Syriac the work is entitled : The Book luhich is called Tegourta of 
Heraclcides of Damascus ; writ fen by Mar Nestorius. On the basis of a 
MS. copy Mr J. F. Bethune-Baker has produced a study entitled, Nestorius 
and his Teaching (Cambridge, 1908), in which the doctrines of Nestorius 
are examined with care, perhaps with too much concern for apologetic. 
Full extracts from the book are reproduced in it. John Philoponus, who 
wrote a work in four books against the Council of Chalcedon, seems to 
have known the Memoirs of Nestorius or at the least a study by the former 
Bishop of Constantinople of the relations between his doctrine and that of 
Flavian (Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 55). 

2 The expressions, clearly, for it is of that alone that any question can 
arise. 



312 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [CH. xi. 

it was required of me and that men could thus be led back 
to God." He had seen the documents of the Councils of 
Constantinople (448) and Ephesus (449), and knew upon 
what to rely in regard to the doctrine of his successor Flavian. 
The Tome of Leo had filled him with joy. Flavian and Leo 
thought exactly as he did. He had been advised to write 
to Leo. If he had not done so, it was not because of an 
unreasonable pride, it was in order not to embarrass the 
Roman Pope, in order that the unpopularity attaching to 
himself, Nestorius, might not make an obstacle to the task 
which Leo was accomplishing so well. 

Long live the doctrine of Flavian and of Leo ! Anathema 
to Nestorius ! It is exactly the Council of Chalcedon. 

In fact, one can continue to ask oneself in what did the 
heresy of Nestorius consist ? 1 At the outset, as we have 
seen, it was identified with that of Paul of Samosata, which 
is assuredly a stupendous blunder. Later he was reproached 
with teaching two Sons, two persons in Jesus Christ, 2 and 
this is what is currently called Nestorianism. But he did 
not cease to protest the contrary. Even though his pre 
decessors, Theodore and Diodore, had gone as far as that and 
this theory had been for himself also a dangerous reef towards 
which were carrying him, unknown to himself, certain currents 
of thought, one could not attribute to him, without established 
proofs, a doctrine which had been solemnly repudiated by the 
Church of Antioch, and by which his contemporaries and 
friends, Theodoret and the rest, are assuredly unscathed. 
There remains his attitude on the question of the Theotokos. 
There, it cannot be denied, he showed himself imprudent and 
bungling. But, in the first place, what ecclesiastical authority 

1 For the Bishop of Carthage, Capreolus, he who had sent a deputy 
to the Council of Ephesus, the Nestorian heresy was identified with the 
following doctrine : " We must not say that God is born. A simple 
man was born of the Virgin Mary, and God has later dwelt in him." 
This follows from the correspondence interchanged between Capreolus and 
two Spanish monks (scrvi Dei\ Vitalis and Constantius, in reference to 
the doctrines taught in the circle in which they were living (Migne, Patrol. 
Latina, liii., pp. 847 ff.). It is in the same fashion that Pope Gelasius 
represents things to himself, Photini et Pauli Samosateni secutus errorem 
(Tract, i. i ; iii. passim}. 

2 It is already in this way that Pope Leo speaks (Jaffe, Regesta, 479, 
499) 500, 542 ; Epp. cii. 3, cxxiii. 2, cxxiv. 2, clxv. 2). 



p. 448-51] WHAT WAS NESTORIANISM? 313 

had canonized this term ? The Council of Nicaea had imposed 
the Homooustos: what council had prescribed the Theotokost 
And then, had not Nestorius protested that he accepted it, 
provided that the sense of it was made clear? In the same 
way, in the 4th century, many people used to specify when 
accepting the Homoousios that they did not take this term 
in the same sense as did the Sabellians. At Ephesus Cyril 
produced statements deemed to be held by Nestorius and 
extracts from his works. 1 But, apart from the fact that 
Nestorius had not been enabled to explain them (for who 
could reproach him for his contumacy ?), what heresy had 
been deduced from them at that time? None. Nestorius 
was censured in a general way, without any one declaring 
exactly why. 2 

Cyril accused Nestorius; but Nestorius on his side accused 
Cyril. When people had done with hasty and irregular pro 
ceedings, on what ground had the understanding been arrived 
at? On the proposed Anathemas of Cyril? It was with great 
difficulty that they had been saved from a condemnation. 
What they were in agreement upon was the formula elaborated 
and presented by the friends of Nestorius, a formula which 
he himself would have signed with both hands, and at the 
same time upon the condemnation of Nestorius, the reasons 
for which were expressed in vague terms. Already the 
combination was found : Jonah was thrown into the sea, but 
the ship continued on its course. The blessing of peace makes 
its demands. Another beginning was made at Chalcedon. In 
the interval the proposed Anathemas had been consecrated, 
but by the council of Dioscorus, by what is called the 
" Robber-synod " of Ephesus. 3 

1 Several of them speak of Two Natures, and it was no doubt because of 
this term, ill understood and ill regarded at Alexandria, that they were 
deemed worthy of censure. 

2 It is certainly not of his sect that we ought to ask it. He has left 
none. The Church of Persia, which later honoured his name, is only 
connected with him in a very indirect manner. The partisans whom he 
may have had for some time at Constantinople do not attract mention for 
very long. Those whom people called Nestorians at the Council of 
Chalcedon and on the morrow of that assembly were Theodoret and other 
Easterns, persons of established orthodoxy. 

3 Latrocinium Ephesinum. The mot is Pope Leo s (Jarfe, Regesta^ 475 ; 
Leon is Ef. xcvA 



314 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON [en. xi. 

I do not mean to say that in this way justice has been 
done to Cyril. His celebrated "Chapters" admitted of other 
adhesions besides those of Dioscorus and of Juvenal: they 
obtained them later. For the moment they remained in 
the discreet twilight in which people shelter controversial 
documents. 

Nor again do I mean to say that the reproaches levelled 
at Nestorius, from the time of his accession to the Patriarchal 
See of Constantinople, were devoid of foundation. It is certain 
that he scandalized many people whom other modes of speech 
would have avoided shocking. At the end of his life he 
deemed that Flavian and Leo had taught the same doctrine 
as himself. There was perhaps in this a certain element of 
illusion pardonable in a man proscribed, who on the day 
when the avenger arrived made no attempt to delude him 
by niceties of phrase. In the pact of union which he signed 
in 433, John of Antioch did not intend to tax Nestorius 
with heresy ; but he consented, and so did his party with 
him, to condemn his excesses of language. 1 

It is, I think, to this official and authoritative document 
that we must attach importance. 

Whilst preparations were being made for the great 
council which was, in his view, to give him a startling revenge, 
Nestorius, occupied with the thought of his approaching 
end, was entrusting himself to the Lord s hands and making 
his farewell to the earth which was so sombre around him : 
" Rejoice with me, O Desert, my friend, my support, my 
dwelling: thou too, land of exile, my mother, 2 who wilt guard 
my body until the resurrection." So ends his book. 

His health visibly declined. They took pity on him : he 
was brought back to Panopolis and established in the fortress, 
but with a prohibition to discourse. One of his friends of 
other days, Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, 3 had come to rejoin 
him. However, at Constantinople they were remembered. 
The Emperor Marcian having been entreated to intervene, 
sent a tribune with letters of grace intended to put an end 
to the effects of the sentences of exile, and to put the two 
bishops out of the reach of insults. 4 It was too late, at any 



1 Supra, p. 264. 2 The word " exile " is in Greek (tfrpta) feminine. 

3 Supra, pp. 234, 258. 

4 Nestorius had been, in 431, the object of an ecclesiastical sentence, 



p. 451-4] DEATH OF NESTORIUS AND SCHNOUDI 315 

rate for Nestorius. The tribune found him at his last hour. 
It was in vain that recourse was had to physicians of the 
highest reputation : the exile died in his exile. 1 Dorotheus 
rendered him the last duties. 

His friends at Constantinople demanded that his remains 
should be carried back thither : they even made in this 
connexion a noisy demonstration, all the more inopportune 
because the Council of Chalcedon had just at that very moment 
condemned anew Nestorius and his doctrine. The Emperor 
had them dispersed. 

Schnoudi, too, died about the same time as Nestorius 
whose adversary and persecutor he had been (July I, 45 1). 2 

irregular at the outset but subsequently ratified sufficiently to be able to 
be considered as definitive. No one ever spoke of going back upon this 
condemnation. But he had been besides exiled, in 435, by imperial 
decree : it is, I think, this sentence of exile which was revoked, to some 
extent, by the clemency of Marcian. Timothy Aelurus says only that the 
tribune announced to the two bishops " that they had no longer anything 
to fear from their adversaries." 

1 The Monophysites maintained that Nestorius had died like Arius 
(Vol. II., p. 146, note 2) ; they glutted themselves upon the details of his 
agony. Timothy Aelurus (Pleroph. 36), who wished him no good, confines 
himself to saying : " Dorotheus advised the tribune to wait a little (in order to 
communicate to him the orders of the Emperor) on account of the weakness 
of Nestorius ; but his condition grew worse from day to day ; his tongue 
refused its service and protruded from his mouth in the tribune s presence : 
his speech became indistinct : his tongue mortified to such an extent that 
he became an object of horror and of pity, as the tribune later on told a 
number of persons." Zacharias the Rhetor (III. i) has already fuller 
knowledge in regard to it : the story went on, naturally, gathering details 
of a more and more terrifying character. 

2 According to the calculations of M. Amelineau (Memoircs de la 
Mission Archfologique du Cairc, vol. iv 1 ., pp. Ixxxi.-lxxxix. and xciii.). 



CHAPTER XII 

THE MONOPHYSITES 

THE Council of Chalcedon 1 had renewed the condemnations 
previously passed against Nestorius and Eutyches : in this it 
had proceeded unfettered and had shown itself unanimous. 
It had further enacted a Definition of dogma ; but it must 
clearly be recognized that this had rather been snatched from 
it, and that it corresponded only imperfectly with the convictions 
of the majority. How did this situation arise? Was the 

1 For the history of the period comprised between the Council of 
Chalcedon and the death of Zeno, the account whrch comes nearest the 
time of the events is that of the Rhetor Zacharias of Gaza, written from the 
Monophysite point of view, although its author, who subsequently became 
Bishop of Mitylene, ended by attaching himself to the side of orthodoxy. 
His book, which was written in Greek, was largely drawn upon by Evagrius 
(Books ii. and iii.) who often quotes it. It was transcribed, with cuts 
however, in a Syriac compilation (Historia miscellanea], which comes down 
to the year 569 and is preserved in the British Museum MS. Add. 17202. 
This compilation, divided into twelve books, only depends on Zacharias for 
Books iii.-vi. Published in Syriac by Land in the third volume of his 
Anecdota Syriaca (Leyden, 1870), it was the subject in 1899 of two editions, 
one in German by K. Ahrens and G. Kriiger (Die sogenannte Kirchen- 
geschichte des Zacharias Rhetor) in the small Teubner collection " Scriptores 
Syri," fasc. iii., the other, a better one, in English by Messrs Hamilton & 
Brooks ( The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene). 
On these editions see the remarks of Kugener in the Revue de F Orient 
chrttten, vol. v. (1900), pp. 201, 461. An extract from this same compilation 
had already been published by Mai (Script. Vetcres, vol. x., pp. 119, 361) from 
a Vatican MS. Zacharias had meant to compile, not a history properly so 
called, but a sort of memorandum for reference, for the use of an official 
named Eupraxios. He hardly troubles himself about what happens outside 
Alexandria and Palestine. 

Then follows Evagrius himself, who adds much to the accounts of 
Zacharias. Evagrius, who was secretary of Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch 
(569-594), then an official at Constantinople, has left us an Ecclesiastical 
History in six books which extends from the first Council of Ephesus (431) 
to the year 594. It is a serious work and well furnished with documents. 

316 



r. 455-7] CYRIL AND LEO 317 

doctrine of St Leo then not the true mean, the straight path, 
between the opposite ways of Nestorius and of Eutyches? 
Not entirely. Apart from its natural defenders, the Romans 
and the friends of Theodoret, everyone in the Greek empire was 
in agreement in finding in it sinister resemblances to that of 
Nestorius. In any case it was not the only possible formulation 
of orthodoxy : there was another, Cyril s, to which people 
were accustomed. But the latter had been left in the shade. 
No doubt Cyril had been acclaimed and even his agreement 
with Leo ; but the letter with the Anathemas did not appear 
among the documents which received canonical sanction, on 
which the Definition of Faith declared itself based. For his 
formula, "one single nature incarnate," there had been substi 
tuted the mention of the Two Natures. They had not even 
wished by adhering to the expression CK 8uo <j>v(reow, " of two 
natures," to leave open a door of communication between the 
two theologies. In fine, Cyril, the true Cyril, had been sacrificed 
to Leo. 

In Latin we have the Gesta de nomine Acacii, printed at the head of 
the Tractates of Pope Gelasius (Thiel, pp. 510-519, g 1-13 ; it is the best 
edition, for there are several), evidently anterior to his pontificate, 
apparently about 486. It is a somewhat brief resume of the events in the 
East, compiled with a view to explaining the causes of the deposition of 
Acacius. 

Much more detailed is the Breviarium of Liberatus, a deacon of 
Carthage, written about 564 (Migne, Patrol. Latina y Ixviii., p. 969) after 
the condemnation of the Three Chapters : the author energetically 
defends them. 

We must cite also the histories, lost except for a few fragments, of John 
of ^Egeum and John Diacrinomenus (Photius, Bibliotheca, Codd. 41, 45 : cf. 
Miller, Revue archeologique, xxvi. (1873), pp. 282 and 401) and of 
Theodore the Reader (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, Ixxxvi.). Timothy Aelurus, 
Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria (457-77) wrote during his exile 
an Ecclesiastical History of which the Plerophoriae (vide infra} have 
preserved for us some fragments. 

To these strictly historical writings are added various biographies of 
Peter of Iberia, Isaiah, Theodosius, Romanus, Severus, etc., emanating from 
the Monophysite (acephalous) circle in Palestine : I include among these the 
books of Plerophoriae, compiled about the end of the 5th century by John 
of Beth Rufin, successor of Peter of Iberia, and published in French by 
M. Nau in the Revue de P Orient chrctien, iii. (1898), pp. 237 ff. 

It goes without saying that precedence is taken of all these narrative 
texts by the official documents, the letters of the Popes, Emperors, 
Councils : they will be found collected in the editions of the Councils, after 
that of Chalcedon. 



318 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

The proof that this was a blunder is the history upon 
which we are entering, that of the resistance of the Cyrillians 
to the Council of Chalcedon in other words, of the Monophysite 
crisis ; and especially the series of efforts made in the course of 
two centuries by the Byzantine Government to appease religious 
excitement by reconciling Leo and Cyril. Under Justinian 
a formula was put forward which purported to settle every 
thing: "One of the Trinity suffered in flesh"; but it came 
too late. The opposition, elated by its successes and irritated 
by persecution, refused this agreement What it demanded 
thenceforward was not Cyril reconciled with Leo, but Leo 
sacrificed to Cyril. 

We may well believe that if the legates of Rome had been 
able to foresee the long-drawn-out miseries that were to follow, 
or if they had better understood the susceptibilities of religious 
opinion in the circle in which they were drawing up documents, 
they would have given, not clearly in regard to essentials but in 
the details of the terminology, a larger part to the Cyrillian 
tradition. The Government, after having put pressure on the 
Pope in order to have a Council and then on the Council in 
order to obtain from it a formula, thought itself strong enough 
to impose this formula on all its subjects and to conquer the 
recalcitrants. Disappointments were not long in coming. 

After the principal questions, the Council treated further 
some matters of controversy in regard to boundaries and 
jurisdictions. It was at this time that definitive organiza 
tion was given to the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and of 
Constantinople. 

The Council of Nicaea 1 had accorded special honours to the 
Bishop of Jerusalem, without, however, withdrawing him from 
the authority of the Metropolitan of Caesarea. It was a 
homage rendered to the great memories of the Holy City 
and even to earlier tradition. It seems likely, in fact, that as 
well before the Council of Nicaea as afterwards, the Bishop 
of Jerusalem had had precedence over his metropolitan in 
episcopal assemblies held outside Palestine. 2 Eusebius gives, 
in his Ecclesiastical History p , the episcopal list of Jerusalem just 

1 Canons ) 6, 7 ; Vol. II., p. 120. 

2 Eusebius, ff. E. vii. 30 ; a Council of Antioch against Paul of 
Samosata ; see also the Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon. 



p. 457-60] QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION 319 

as he does those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. However, 
the Council of Diospolis (4I5) 1 shows clearly that, shortly 
before Juvenal, the ancient subordination of Jerusalem to 
Caesarea was still the rule of their provincial relations. Juvenal 
endeavoured to change this. He proceeded, to begin with, 
by isolated encroachments, ordaining bishops as far as Phoenicia 
and Arabia: then, at the first Council of Ephesus (431), at 
which his metropolitan was not present, he desired to pass 
from fact to right, and presented documents in favour of his 
pretensions. 2 But Cyril put himself in the way, 3 wrote to 
Rome and contrived that no progress should be given to 
the claims of the Bishop of Jerusalem. 4 Proclus having shown 
subsequently inclination to admit them, Cyril maintained his 
opposition. 5 For some time imperial rescripts, procured by 
one side or the other, continued the conflict between the sees of 
Antioch and of Jerusalem. Finally the Emperor Marcian 
referred the dispute to the Council of Chalcedon. It was 
settled by a partition : the Patriarch of Antioch retained the 
two Phoenicias and Arabia. Juvenal obtained only the three 
Palestines, which represented a recent dismemberment of the 
ancient and single province of the same name. 

As for the see of Constantinople, it was already seventy 
years since the "oecumenical" council gathered by Theodosius 
in that city 6 had recognized to it the second place after the 
see of Rome, basing its decision on the fact that Constantinople 
was a new Rome. The same Council had also laid down that 
the bishops of the " Dioceses " of Asia and of Pontus must settle 
among themselves the business of their respective areas. This 
was, so it seems, the exclusion of all interference of the Bishop 
of Constantinople in these two Diocesan jurisdictions. But it 
had not been determined where in each of them should be the 

1 Supra, p. 154. 

2 "Credidit se posse proficere et insolentes ausus per commentitia 
scripta firmare" (Leo, Ep. cxix. ; Jafife, Regesta, 495); supplication of the 
Easterns to the Emperor (431) in Mansi, Cone, iv., p. 1402. 

3 Is this really in 431, at a time when Cyril had so much need of 
Juvenal, and not rather after his reconciliation with John of Antioch? The 
letter which he wrote to Rome was addressed to Leo (mihi . . . indicavit> 
loc. cit.) ; if it is to Leo as Pope, this would be in 440 or 441. But it is 
hardly conceivable that, for such a matter, the Patriarch of Alexandria 
addressed himself to a person of less dignity. 

4 Loc. cit. 5 Cyril, Ep. 56. Vol. II., p. 348. 



320 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xii. 

superior ecclesiastical authority, nor how it should perform its 
functions. In the Diocese of Asia there is seen, it is true, a 
certain tendency to organize itself around the apostolic see of 
Ephesus ; but the Diocese of Pontus which stretched from the 
Bosphorus to the Euphrates and the Taurus was not easy to 
centralize. Caesarea in Cappadocia, the residence of the civil 
VicariuSy was very far from the extremities: Ancyra, which was 
better situated, was its rival. 1 The province of Bithynia, 
comprised within this jurisdiction, was near to the capital ; 
the town of Chalcedon was, as it were, a suburb of it ; those 
of Nicomedia and of Nicaea were also not far from it. The 
bishops of Asia Minor, 2 often called to Constantinople for 
their business with the secular administrations, offered to the 
bishop of the capital the elements of an almost permanent 
council. It was natural enough that they should carry thither 
their ecclesiastical disputes. Through these relations the 
Bishop of Constantinople found himself initiated into the 
affairs of these provinces, and it often happened that he was 
asked to concern himself in the consecrations of bishops, to 
direct them, to celebrate them. 

The facts by repetition passed into customs, customs into 
traditions. This matter had not yet been expressly dealt with 
formally, when Anatolius brought it before the Council of 
Chalcedon. The decisions taken in this connexion were formu 
lated, along with other disciplinary canons, in a session of the 
Council at which the Roman legates refused to be present, saying 
that they had not been sent for that purpose. Their purport 
is as follows. In the first place (Canons 9, 17) 3 disputes with 
metropolitans were to be brought either before the " Exarch " 
of the Diocese or before the Bishop of Constantinople. To the 
latter was recognized the right of consecrating the metropolitans 

J Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 449. 

2 Towards the middle of the 5th century the Diocese of Thrace only 
included twenty-five to thirty bishoprics. We can understand this body of 
bishops appearing somewhat limited and the effort of the Patriarch of the 
New Rome to extend his jurisdiction in Asia Minor. 

3 Canons 9 and 17 are drawn in such a way that it might be thought 
that this concurrent jurisdiction was open even to the bishops of Syria, 
Egypt, and Illyria. In fact, however, it only extended to the three Dioceses 
which formed the Patriarchate of Constantinople. By the Exarch was 
meant the bishop who had his see in the chief town of the civil 
Diocese. 



p. 461-3] POSITION OF CONSTANTINOPLE 321 

of the three " Dioceses " of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace ; lastly 
there was promulgated anew the canon of the Council of 
381, by which the see of the New Rome had been classed 
immediately after that of the Old (Can. 28). 

It could hardly be said that there was in this, from the 
practical point of view, a great innovation. The relations 
defined by the Council of Chalcedon were just those which 
usage had introduced for two or three generations. The 
legates, however, raised difficulties. They caused the holding 
of a supplementary session and produced instructions from 
Pope Leo by which they had been enjoined to secure respect 
for "the definition of the holy Fathers and the dignity of 
the Pope if any, in reliance upon the importance of their 
towns, should endeavour to make an attack on them." They 
read further what they called the definition of the holy Fathers, 
that is the sixth canon of Nicaea, in which there is in no way 
any question of Constantinople, for the good reason that that 
town did not exist at the time of the Council, nor of the 
classification of the great sees, nor even of Rome except 
incidentally. 1 It is true that, in the Roman copy, the canon 
began with this phrase, foreign to the original text : " The 
Roman Church has always had the pre-eminence." 2 But 
the pre-eminence of the Roman Church was not disputed 
by any one the Council laid no stress on this gloss. The 
legates also raised doubts as to the circumstances in which 
the vote had been obtained. An enquiry was held in their 
presence : the Bishops of Asia and of Pontus declared that 
they had voted freely. However the Bishop of Ancyra, 
Eusebius, did not show himself very enthusiastic for the new 
arrangement : he foresaw that the clergy of Constantinople 
would abuse it for purposes of gain. Of the two sees which 
were chiefly interested, those of Ephesus and Caesarea, the 
first had just been declared vacant. Thalassius, the occupant 
of Caesarea, was doubtless not very well satisfied ; but he 
was a man of accommodating disposition : he lent no support 
to the resistance of the legates/ The latter could do nothing 
more than protest. 

1 Vol. II., p. ii9f. 

- Ecclesia Romano, semper habuit primatum. On the documents of this 
gloss see Maassen, Quellen i., pp. 198". 

3 An obscure phrase, Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 452. 



322 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xii. 

Pope Leo, when he received news of the Council, showed 
himself much offended by these arrangements. He in his 
turn protested with the utmost vehemence to the Emperor, 
the Empress, and the Patriarch Anatolius. 1 Doubtless, they 
had accepted his doctrinal judgements, rehabilitated Flavian, 
censured Eutyches, deposed Dioscorus : doubtless, they had 
approved his dogmatic letter and drawn up, in strict con 
formity with it, the formula of the Definition. This last 
point represented deference of a very marked kind, for the 
majority, who were greatly attached to Cyril, had a feeling 
of having sacrificed him to the Romans. However, the Pope 
was not satisfied : he insisted so much and so strongly that 
the report spread in the East that he was going to annul the 
Council of Chalcedon just as he had annulled that of Ephesus. 
It was in vain that they quoted to him the CEcumenical 
Council of 381; he had no knowledge of that assembly: he 
would know nothing of this pre-eminence of Constantinople 
which reduced to the third and fourth places the old traditional 
sees of Alexandria and of Antioch. 

This zeal for the metropolises of Egypt and Syria is not 
without cause for astonishment at first sight. However, if we 
look at it more closely, we can understand why Pope Leo made 
such a display of it. He could not see with a favourable eye 
the incessant advances of the see of Constantinople. Of what 
blindness would he not have been the victim had he not 
discerned in it a great danger for the unity of the Church 
and the dignity of the Greek Episcopate ! For the ancient 
conception of the Christian brotherhood presided over by 
the Apostolic See of Rome, they were on the way towards 
substituting another, that of the Church directed from the 
Capital by a prelate whom his position, often also his origin 
and tendencies of mind, placed under the immediate 
influence of the Court and of the Government. No doubt 
the Government to-day was Pulcheria : but to-morrow ? And 
then, were they going to push further the application of this 
principle that the bishop of the place where the Emperor 
lives has the right to a sovereign jurisdiction? Transferred 
to Italy, this notion of ecclesiastical law tended towards nothing 
less than the dispossession of the See of St Peter for the 
benefit of the Bishop of Ravenna. 

1 Jaffe, Regesta, 481-484 ; Epp. civ.-cvii. 



p. 464-6] OPPOSITION OF POPE LEO 323 

At bottom, Leo had excellent reasons for not taking 
patiently this decision of the Council ; but these good reasons 
he could not utter, and this fact compelled him to lay stress 
upon others which were not always very strong nor very 
intelligible to the Greeks. In particular they failed entirely 
to understand the disdain which was publicly declared for 
their (Ecumenical Council of 381, and regarded as extremely 
belated a protest which came after seventy years of silence. 
That Constantinople should have the second place after Rome 
was a thing which had passed into a custom : Anatolius had 
sat at the Council immediately after the legates : the latter, 
so far from opposing this, had called the attention of the 
bishops to this fact, and had lamented that at Dioscorus 
Council Flavian had been put in the fifth place. 1 

This quarrel made a bad impression in the East, and 
greatly embarrassed the Government On the one hand the 
Tome of Leo was exciting enormous opposition, and they 
had been forced to send troops to inculcate respect for the 
Council of Chalcedon : on the other this same Council was 
censured by the Pope. They were nonplussed. Finally a 
sort of accommodation was arrived at. They secured from 
Leo a statement of express approval 2 of the Council of 
Chalcedon, without his desisting, however, from his protest 
in favour of " the canons of Nicaea." On this point they 
let him say his say: Anatolius continued to exercise his 
authority, without insisting that it should be legalized by 
the Pope. 

This conflict did not go outside the sphere of letter-writing : 
the public was only interested in it in a very indirect fashion, 
for the reaction which it might have upon a struggle which 
was infinitely more serious in their eyes. 

In view of the difficulty with which the Greek Episcopate 
had yielded, in the matter of the formulas of the Faith, to 
the Roman requirements, there was reason to fear the 
appearance of serious resistance outside. No doubt the 
Government was very decided 3 and the episcopate very docile ; 

1 First Session (Mansi, Cone, vi., p. 608). 

2 ]a.ttz,Re>gcsta,49Q(Ep. cxiv.); cf. 491-493 (Epp. ex v.-cxvii.), 495 (Ep.c\\\.\ 

3 An edict was posted up at Constantinople February 7, 452 ; another 
sent to the provinces March 13 (Mansi, Cone, vii., 476, 477) ; revocation of 

III. Y 



324 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

but there were in the East men who feared neither the Govern 
ment nor its councils. They were about to appear on the 
scene, or rather they were there already. Before the imposing 
assembly at Chalcedon, the rebellious monks had appeared 
with arrogant mien and insolent speech : it had not been 
possible to bend them to obedience. The Egyptian bishops 
had, in truth, prostrated themselves before their colleagues, 
but they had no more yielded than the monks. We are about 
to meet with them again, both the one and the other. 

It was in Palestine that the monks made their most re 
sounding disturbance. One of them, a certain Theodosius, 
who in past years had played a part of some importance 1 
and helped to envenom the quarrel between Dioscorus and 
Domnus, hastened from Chalcedon immediately on the con 
clusion of the Council and gave the most disquieting news of it. 
They had condemned Eutyches, and Nestorius too; but the 
latter s doctrines had been canonized and Cyril found himself 
proscribed in the person of his successor. The Faith had been 
betrayed by the bishops and persecuted by the Government. 
Juvenal, that Juvenal of whom they had hoped so much, who had 
so constantly upheld Cyril and Dioscorus, Juvenal had betrayed 
his trust just like the others. Ought they then to receive him ? 

These sparks fell in a very inflammable milieu. The monks 
were very numerous in Palestine, especially in the deserts to 
the east of Jerusalem, towards the Jordan and the Dead Sea. 
In the towns there were always many of them to be found. 
Most frequently they were unattached monks who passed their 
lives in wandering from sanctuary to sanctuary or in mortifying 
themselves in an asceticism at once useless and ill-regulated. 
Occasionally they were to be seen grouped in monasteries or 
even in colonies of anchorites (lauras). The efforts of St 
Euthymius to introduce discipline into the solitudes had only 
succeeded in a very narrow circle. At Jerusalem there were 
known the Convent of Passarion, and upon the Mount of 

the edict of Theodosius II. against Flavian and in favour of Eutyches, 
July 6 (ibid.) p. 497) ; edict against the supporters of Eutyches, especially 
those of his monastery, July 28 (ibid.) p. 501). 

1 Supra, p. 279. He had not always been on good terms with Dioscorus. 
The latter one day had him whipped and paraded through the streets of 
Alexandria on a mangy camel : the monk had taken up, we do not know in 
what connexion, a seditious attitude towards the little-suffering Patriarch 
(Evagrius, H. E. ii. 5). 



p. 466-9] OPPOSITION OF THE MONKS 325 

Olives the establishment founded by Melania the younger, 
with its two monasteries, one for men, the other for women. 
The pious foundress was no longer there to direct it 1 : her 
almoner and confidant, the monk Gerontius, succeeded her. 
In default of Melania another very great lady was living at 
Jerusalem, in that strange world of monks and pilgrims. This 
was the widow of Theodosius II., the former Empress Athenais- 
Eudocia, who had retired to the Holy City some years before. 
Although she was well versed in literature, there is little 
probability that she had special competence in theology. But 
the Council of Chalcedon was the Council of Pulcheria: this 
did not commend it to her respect : it was also the revenge 
for the Council of Ephesus, the Council of Dioscorus and of 
Theodosius II. It is true that in the last days Eudocia had 
been on very cold terms with the deceased Emperor ; but to 
husbands who are dead much is pardoned. In short, Eudocia 
shared completely in the views of the insurgent monk. 

Gerontius and his friends did the same. The opposition 
spread like fire in a dry prairie. Euthymius and his congrega 
tion were almost the only ones to remain in the path of duty. 
A number of irreproachable monks, like the future St Gerasimus, 
the Abbot Romanus of Tekoa, and Peter of Iberia, 2 a former 

1 She died December 31, 439: her mother Albina and her husband 
Pinianus had preceded her to the tomb (431 or 432). 

2 The life of this personage had been written by Zacharias the Rhetor 
(supra.) p. 316, note i), with those of Theodore of Antinoe and Isaiah the 
prophet : we no longer possess the first two ; on the other hand, another 
life of Peter of Iberia, greatly extended, written about the beginning of the 
6th century, has come down to us in a Syriac version, edited with German 
translation by Richard Raabe (Pefrus der Iberer^ Leipzig, 1895) ; cf. Chabot, 
" Pierre PIberien " in the Revue de V Orient Latin, iii. (1895), p. 368. Peter 
was of the family of Bacour, the first Christian King of Iberia (Rufinus, 
H. E. \. 10) : in his own country he bore the name Nabarnougi ; his father, 
King Bosnian, had sent him to the court of Theodosius II. as a hostage 
(422) : he was then twelve years old. He edified the Court by his piety ; 
then after some years had elapsed he fled to ^Jerusalem (430) with a 
companion who shared his views, John the Eunuch. Being well received 
by Melania the younger, who had seen him at Constantinople, he received 
the monastic habit from the hands of Gerontius, and then organized a 
monastery at the " Tower of David," where he lived in peace with John the 
Eunuch and several others. But when the Empress Eudocia had settled 
at Jerusalem, as he was for her an old acquaintance, she disquieted him by 
her visits so that he fled to the outskirts of Gaza (438). There, very much 
against his will, he was ordained priest (447). 



326 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xu. 

Caucasian prince who, for the time being, was edifying by his 
asceticism the neighbourhood of Gaza, lent their support to the 
movement. Hesychius, a priest whose knowledge and eloquence 
were in very high esteem, also took sides against the Council. 1 
It was understood that Juvenal should not be received, that 
another bishop should be elected, and that throughout the 
whole of Palestine, they would replace in the same fashion 
the bishops who had given way at Chalcedon. 2 

This programme was carried out. Juvenal on his return 
found- himself welcomed by a riot. 3 It was in vain that he 
offered resistance : all his efforts to make the monks hear 
reason and to calm them remained without result. The town 
was in a state of insurrection. The monks had closed its gates 
and were mounting guard on the ramparts. Within, murder 
and arson were the order of the day : they had opened the 
prisons and enlisted the criminals. A deacon had his throat 
cut and was dragged through the streets. In Juvenal s teeth, 
his see was declared vacant and Theodosius was acclaimed in 
his stead. An effort was made to assassinate the former bishop, 
and if they did not succeed with him, one of his colleagues, 
Severian of Scythopolis, fell under the dagger of the fanatics. 
Juvenal escaped to Constantinople. 

Eudocia delighted in this rising : she was the soul of it. 
The movement, further, gained the whole of Palestine. Every 
where Theodosius was installing bishops devoted to himself. 
It was in these circumstances that Peter of Iberia received 
episcopal consecration and found himself entrusted with the 
care of the Church of Maiouma, close to his monastery. 

It was not in the name of Eutyches that people had risen in 
this way. They demanded only the true Faith, that of Nicaea, 
otherwise called Cyril s, which had been overcome by Leo 
and the Council of Chalcedon. Whilst the latter was holding 
its sessions, Eutyches on his way to exile 4 had passed through 

1 Supra, p. 241, note I. 

2 On this business see the two imperial letters addressed, after the 
repression, to the monks of Sinai and to those of ALlia. (Mansi, Cone, vii., 
pp. 484, 483) ; Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius (Cotelier, Ecclesiae 
graecae monumenta, vol. ii.), cc. 72-86 ; Zacharias iii. 3-9. 

3 It is perhaps to this time that we ought to assign the synodal letter 
of the bishops of Palestine, Cum summus (Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 520), which 
is generally placed after the restoration of Juvenal. 

4 We do not know exactly where. It appears that he continued to 



p. 469-72] DISTURBANCES IN PALESTINE 327 

Jerusalem where the priest Hesychius had given him hospitality. 
But the monks did not compromise themselves with him. 
They condemned him even without hesitation. It was said 
that Theodosius was personally more favourable to him ; but 
either that was not true or he changed his opinion, for he left 
the reputation of being an enemy of Eutyches. 1 

Palestine could not be left in a state of revolt. The Govern 
ment sent troops, and the Count Dorotheus, the military 
commander, received orders to restore the official bishop. 
Juvenal returned with him. At their approach the monks set 
themselves in motion, as of yore the Maccabees had marched 
against the generals of Antiochus. The encounter took place 
near Nablus. 2 Parleys were tried ; but the monks remained 
inflexible. It was necessary to employ force : they allowed 
themselves to be killed rather than yield. Jerusalem was 
subjected to military occupation : Juvenal re-entered it and 
material order was almost re-established. 

But a long time had yet to pass before they succeeded in 
pacifying men s minds. Theodosius had been able to escape to 
Sinai. Peter of Iberia, too, had put himself out of the reach of 
pursuit. The ex-Empress Eudocia, upon whom they had no 
hold, remained at Jerusalem and worked zealously to maintain 
the agitation. Means of moral suasion were tried: Marcian 
and Pulcheria wrote to the monks 3 ; Pope Leo did the same 4 ; 
Euthymius did his best. In short, men s minds calmed them 
selves little by little. Upon Eudocia the sovereigns of 
Constantinople had little means of influence : they caused 
letters to be written to her by other members of her family 

make doctrinal statements, for Pope Leo grew uneasy at his propaganda 
and demanded that he should be sent further away (Jaffe, l\egesta> 464 ; 
Ep. cxxxiv., April 15, 454). 

1 Zacharias iii. 9, 10. However I do not know whetl er from the 
very insistence used by the Monophysites in relieving Theodosius of 
the charge of Eutychianism there would not result some confirma 
tion of the imperial words (supra^ p. 326, note 2) in which this charge is 
formulated. 

2 Zacharias iii. 5, 6. 

3 Letters cited above, p. 326, note 2 : to these should be added the letters 
of Pulcheria to the Abbess Bassa and to the archimandrites and monks of 
>Elia, as well as the letter of Marcian to the Synod of Palestine (Mansi, 
Cone, vii., pp. 505, 509, 513). 

4 Jaffe, Regesta, 500 ; Ep. cxxiv. He wrote also to Juvenal (Jaffe, op. cit. 
514 ; Ep. cxxxix.). 



328 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

and by the Pope. The letter 1 of the latter is a little master 
piece of diplomacy : Leo assumes the royal lady to be occupied 
in preaching the true Faith and good conduct to the monks of 
Palestine (alas ! she was very far from doing so !), and starting 
from that assumption he gives her indirect advice. 

He wasted his eloquence. To move the intrepid Athenian 
there was needed the terrible lesson of the catastrophes which 
in 455 fell upon her family: Valentinian III., her son-in-law, 
massacred in a rising, Rome pillaged by the Vandals, her 
daughter and grand-daughters taken captive to Africa. Eudocia 
humbled herself under the hand of God and consented at last 
to trouble the Church no more. Theodosius, recaptured by 
the imperial police, was placed in the charge of the monks of 
Constantinople, who guarded him down to the time of the 
death of Marcian which was speedily followed by his own. 2 

It was not only in Palestine that the opposition of the 
monks showed itself. It made itself heard almost everywhere. 
In Syria the bishops complained of it strongly. 3 In Cappadocia 
a certain George made such a twittering that it was heard as 
far as Rome. Archbishop Thalassius, always a man of peace, 4 
tolerated him beyond limit 5 At Constantinople Carosus, 
Dorotheus, and their representatives refused to recognize the 
Council : it was necessary to take them from their monasteries 
and to assign them others. Carosus, however, yielded after 
the lapse of some years, and no doubt the case was the 
same with others. 6 But there always remained in certain 
monasteries a leaven of opposition ; and not only in the 

1 Jaffc, op. cit. 499 ; Ep, cxxiii. 

2 Zacharias iii. 9 ; cf. the account of his death written by the author of 
the life of Peter of Iberia (Ahrens and Kriiger, Zacharias, p. 257 ; ed. 
Brooks in the Scriptores Syr/, 3rd series, torn, xxv., p. 15). On the death 
of Marcian he was taken, ill, to the suburb of Sycse (Galata), where he died 
December 30, 457 : his remains were transported to Cyprus. It was in the 
monastery of Dius, greatly devoted to the Council of Chalcedon, that he 
was interned. 

3 Jaffe, Regesta, 495, 496 ; Leo, Epp. cxix., cxx. 

4 JalTe, Regesta^ 494 ; Ep. cxviii. 

5 Thalassius was a former Praetorian Prefect whom Proclus had abruptly 
installed in the see of Caesarea (Socrates, H. E. vii. 48). 

6 St Auxentius, a celebrated solitary in the outskirts of Chalcedon, 
also refused at first to submit to the Council. His biographer (Acta 
Sanctorum^ February 14) relates in detail the means by which he was led 
to do so. 



p. 472-5] CAPPADOCIA AND EGYPT 329 

monasteries but among the clergy themselves. Leo often 
complains of it in his letters. But it was in Egypt that 
matters took the most regrettable turn. 

Dioscorus had been exiled to Gangra in the heart of 
Paphlagonia. It was no small matter to give him a successor. 1 
Orders had been sent to the Augustal Prefect, Theodore. He 
came to an understanding with the four bishops who after the 
first session of the Council had deserted Dioscorus, and the 
electoral assembly was brought together. From this first 
moment positions were clearly defined. Official people, the 
notables, individuals who were peaceable either by character or 
worldly position, accepted with good or bad grace the sentence 
of the Council and saw nothing improper in the election of a 
new bishop. The common people, on the other hand, stirred 
to frenzy by the monks, cried out at the sacrilege. While 
Dioscorus lived no other ought to be bishop at Alexandria. 
These protests were disregarded : the authorities, ecclesiastical 
and civil, were in agreement upon the choice of the arch- priest 
Proterius, a man in whom Dioscorus apparently had con 
fidence, since it was to him that, on setting out for the Council, 
he had committed the government of his Church during 
the interim. In taking him it seems that the authorities 
wished to diminish as much as possible disagreement with 
the opposition. 

They were hardly successful. The sound of revolt speedily 
rumbled in the streets of Alexandria. 2 Troops marched : they 
were put to rout. Driven back into the Serapeum, the soldiers 
of the Emperor sustained a siege there which turned out badly 
for them : in the end they were burnt alive. In reprisal, the 
Government stopped the distributions of corn, closed the baths 
and the theatres, and immediately despatched reinforce 
ments. The town was subjected to military occupation. Calm 
appeared once more, but for a moment. The mass of the 
Alexandrians definitely did not wish for Proterius : they did 
not cease to make things difficult for him. 

His election was notified to Rome in accordance with usage : 
it seems that his explanations as to the Faith were not very 

1 Liberatus, Brev. 14 ; cf. Zacharias iii. 2. 

2 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 5, refers for this to the testimony of the historian 
Priscus of Panion who was at that time at Alexandria. 



330 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

clear, for the Pope asked for others. 1 Leo had only a vague 
idea of the difficulties among which the unfortunate Patriarch 
was struggling. Like the imperial government he regarded 
as disciples of Eutyches all those who resisted the Council of 
Chalcedon and his own Tome. 

The imperial police, placed resolutely at the disposal of 
Proterius, removed from the episcopal sees everyone who 
offered opposition. The bishops thus displaced retired where 
they could except to Alexandria, where residence was forbidden 
to them. 

However, Dioscorus died at Gangra on September 4, 454, 
after three years of exile. Alexandria at once began to 
seethe. There was talk of appointing a successor to the dead 
Patriarch. The officials succeeded in preventing the carrying 
out of this scheme, and the Emperor thought it a good 
opportunity to regain the dissenting party. A silentiary 
named John was sent to Egypt to reconcile them with 
Proterius. 2 In this he did not succeed, and he returned to 
the Court with a petition of the Dioscorians. 

From the very first the opposition centred in a little 
committee, of which the leaders, a priest Timothy, surnamed 
the Cat (Aelurus, A*t\ovpos\ and a deacon called Peter the 
Hoarse (Mongus, Moyyo9) were both called to great celebrity. 
They had both of them been present at the second Council of 
Ephesus with their Patriarch Dioscorus, and had remained 
faithful to him. They were not partisans of Eutyches ; far 
from that, they hunted without pause, him, his doctrine, and 
his disciples: they were intransigeant Cyrillians nothing more. 
They would not hear mention of the Two Natures, nor of 
the Tome of Leo, nor of the Definition of Chalcedon. It was 
for this reason that the Patriarch Proterius had not been 
able to avoid deposing them. As they were important 
persons he had thought it his duty to notify their deprivation 
to Constantinople and to Rome. 8 

1 Jaffe, Regesta, 489 ; Ep. cxiii., March 1 1, 453 ; Jaffe> 503 ; Ep. cxxvii., 
January 9, 454 ; Jaffe, 505-507, March 10 following. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 516; Ep. cxli., March u, 455 ; Zacharias Hi. 11. See 
the letter of Marcian to the monks of Alexandria, of which this envoy was 
the bearer, Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 482, the Latin text, more complete than 
the Greek. 

3 Letter of Acacius to Pope Simplicius, Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont.) p. 193 ; 
cf. p. 356 infra. 



p. 475-8] CHANGES IN THE EMPIRE 331 

In order to remain attached to Dioscorus they were obliged 
to pass the spbnge over all the monstrous doings of the 
Council of Ephesus, and in particular over the fact that 
Dioscorus had there solemnly proclaimed the orthodoxy of 
Eutyches. It was their weak point. On the other hand they 
said, following Anatolius of Constantinople, that Dioscorus 
had not been condemned for his doctrine but only for having 
excommunicated Pope Leo, wherein, according to his disciples, 
he had been perfectly right, since Leo was a Nestorian. 

This doctrinal position they had maintained before the 
Emperor Marcian through the intermediation of the silentiary 
John. They had not succeeded in convincing him ; but 
Marcian soon died (February 457) ; the people of Alexandria 
intervened and the position became suddenly very grave. 

Pulcheria had died in the summer of 453, more than three 
years earlier. The race of Theodosius was almost extinct : 
its sole representatives were a few captive women in Africa, 
in the women s quarters of the King of the Vandals. In fact 
the two halves of the Empire were in the power of two 
barbarian officers, Arians both of them, Ricimer in the 
West, Aspar in the East, to whom their religion as much as 
their nationality forbade the giving of the crown. Aspar 
put that of the East upon the head of one of his trusted 
supporters, Leo (February 7, 457). As there was no longer 
any member of the Theodosian family to give him the 
investiture, it occurred to them to have recourse to the 
Patriarch Anatolius, and the latter presided at the coronation 
of the new Emperor. It is the first time that we see the 
clergy taking part in these political ceremonies. 

Aspar and his Emperor could not entertain for the Council 
of Chalcedon the feelings of Marcian and Pulcheria. The 
Egyptians 1 suspected this. By an unfortunate coincidence 

1 On these happenings the petitions cited below, p. 333, note 3, give us 
the Proterian version ; the Monophysite version would be represented for 
us by the counter petition (tbid. t note 4) if we had it complete. We have 
to content ourselves with the accounts of Zacharias iv. I, 2, 3, and of the 
biographer of Peter of Iberia, p. 65 (Raabe s edition). Zacharias says that 
Timothy was consecrated by Peter and two Egyptian bishops whom he 
does not name : Evagrius, H. E. ii. 8, has preferred to follow the biographer, 
whose testimony is confirmed by the petition of the Proterian bishops a 
document absolutely contemporary. 



332 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

their military governor happened to be on tour in the 
interior: there was therefore every facility for a rising. An 
attack was made on the principal church, the Caesareum : the 
clergy of Proterius were driven from it, and the insurgents 
proceeded on the spot to the election of Timothy. 

The Bishop of Pelusium, who had been ejected for his 
attachment to Dioscorus, happened to be at Alexandria in 
spite of prohibitions. He was a very poor sort of person : St 
Isidore had made great complaint of him. 1 He was brought to 
the Caesareum. Two others should have been necessary. Some 
one bethought himself of Peter of Iberia, the Palestinian bishop, 
whom the defeat of the Theodosians at Jerusalem had thrown 
into exile and brought likewise to Alexandria. 2 They succeeded 
in discovering him : he was borne in triumph to the great 
church ; rnd Eusebius and he consecrated Timothy as successor 
of Dioscorus, to the great joy of the populace (March 16, 457). 

The festivity was of short duration. The general Dionysius, 
who had learnt what was going on, made haste to return, 
arrested the new Patriarch and dispatched him to Taposiris 
(Abousir). This step, far from calming people s minds, had 
the result of still further exciting them, to such an extent 
that it was necessary to recall Timothy, and to try to make 
the two parties live in peace, while tolerating the schism. 
Even that attempt did not succeed. On Holy Thursday, 
March 28, the baptistery of the Church of Quirinus, in which 
Proterius was officiating, was invaded by a hostile mob. The 
bishop was massacred 3 ; the assassins wreaked their will upon 
his body, dragged it through the streets, hanged it on the 
Tetrapylon, and after a thousand outrages and cannibal 
excesses the populace burnt it and scattered the ashes to the 
winds (March 28, 457). 

Timothy was rid of his rival ; but he had on his shoulders 
a business of the most serious kind. For the moment, 
however, it seems that a good number of Proterians, wearied 

1 Supra, p. 206. 

2 Molested by Proterius, he had been obliged to retire to Oxyrhynchus 
where he lived for some time ; but he had returned to Alexandria and 
happened to be there at the time of the death of Marcian (Petrus der 
Iberer, p. 64). 

3 The Monophysites alleged that Proterius had been killed by some 
imperial troops (Zacharias iv. 2 ; cf. Petrus der Iberer, p. 68). 



p. 478-81] TIMOTHY AELURUS 333 

of these interminable quarrels, showed themselves disposed 
to submit to the Dioscorian Patriarch. But the latter, at 
the instigation of the fanatics who surrounded him, imposed 
upon them conditions of too great severity. 1 They went to 
make their complaints, some of them to Pope Leo, 2 others to 
the Emperor and to the Patriarch Anatolius. 3 Timothy on 
his side lost no time. Strong in the enthusiasm of the populace, 
he proceeded to replace the Chalcedonian bishops everywhere 
by people devoted to his own views, recast the clergy of 
Alexandria in the same sense, and replied to the demons 
tration against him at Constantinople by the despatch of 
another group of bishops who were commissioned to plead 4 
in favour of the revolution which had just taken place. 

It was then that the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, so strongly 
resisted by Pope Leo, played an unexpected part and saved 
the situation. Anatolius, as we have seen, had no special 
fondness for the dogma of the Two Natures. It would not 
have cost him a great effort to change his theology and return 
to that which he had so long professed. 5 But, since the events 
at Ephesus, he had become Patriarch of Constantinople, and 
this position made him a devoted supporter of the Council 
which had founded his Patriarchate. From the moment that 
he saw anti-Chalcedonian intrigues arising around him he 
intervened with vigour and secured that the new government 
should remain faithful to the decisions of the old. H 

However, this fidelity to principle had to reckon with the 
acts which had just taken place in Egypt. The Emperor 
Leo ordered the punishment of those of the assassins of 
Proterius who could be discovered 7 ; as for the position of 
Timothy he took a long time to examine it. 

1 Zacharias iv. 3, 4. 

2 On June I, 457, the Pope had still only very vague news (quidam 
rumores) as to the events at Alexandria (Jaffe, Regesta, 457 ; Ep. cxliv.). 

s Petitions presented to the Emperor and to Anatolius by a group of 
fourteen Egyptian bishops and some priests of Alexandria who had made 
the voyage to Constantinople (Mansi, Cone, vii., pp. 525, 531). 

4 Only the opening of their petition to the Emperor has been preserved 
to us (Mansi, vii., p. 536). 

" The Pope made continual complaints of his toleration with regard to 
the " Eutychians " of Constantinople. 

Jaffe, Regesta, 520-524 (Leo, Epp. cxliv.-cxlviii.) ; 529 (Ep, clL). 

Theophanes ad ann. 5951. 



334 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

The emissaries of the intruded Patriarch were establishing 
understandings among the clergy of Constantinople, and even 
at Court. Aspar, the all-powerful Patrician, was not ill-disposed 
to them. Pope Leo had reason to fear the gathering of a new 
Council in order to review that of Chalcedon : it was being said 
that his famous letter was obscure : he was being asked for 
explanations which, according to him, were superfluous. He 
was writing in all directions, to Constantinople, to Antioch, to 
Jerusalem, to Thessalonica, exerting himself to keep everybody 
in the path of duty. At last the Emperor made up his mind 
not to assemble a new CEcumenical Council and to consult the 
episcopate province by province. Two questions were sent 
to all the metropolitans 1 : Should the Council of Chalcedon 
be upheld? Should Timothy be recognized as Bishop of 
Alexandria ? To this questionnaire were appended the petitions 
presented to the Emperor by the two parties in Egypt. Each 
of the metropolitans summoned his Council. The result of 
this consultation by segments was that the bishops were 
unanimous in censuring the intrusion of Timothy 2 ; in regard 
to upholding the Council of Chalcedon we do not meet with 
any case of opposition except that of Amphilochius, the 
metropolitan of Side, and his comprovincials. 3 

1 The only ones omitted in the list of persons addressed (vide infra, 
note 2) are those of the provinces of Praevalitana, of Mcesia Superior and 
of Dacia Ripuaria, which were probably disorganized by the barbarians. 

2 The documents of this business were brought together in a collection 
called Encyclia (Evagrius, H. E. ii. 9, 10), which Cassiodorus (Divin. Litt. 
n) caused to be translated by the monk Epiphanius. Of this version a 
copy (Parisinus 12098) has come down to us: it is incomplete, it is true, 
for it lacks the replies of twenty-two provinces : the three Palestines, 
Cyprus, Arabia, Cilicia Secunda, Euphratesiana, in the Diocese of the 
Orient ; Bithynia, Honorias, Galatia Secunda, in the Diocese of Pontus ; 
Asia, Phrygia I* and II a , Pamphylia II* (Side), Caria, Lycaonia, in the 
Diocese of Asia ; Rhodope, Hemimont, in the Diocese of Thrace ; 
Macedonia I and II*, Thessaly, in the Diocese of Macedonia; Dacia 
Interior in the Diocese of Dacia. The Eastern Empire, minus the Diocese 
of Egypt, included at that time fifty-six provinces. 

3 The letter of the bishops of this province, drawn up by Amphilochius, 
appeared in the history of Zacharias, where Evagrius (H. E. ii. lo) took 
knowledge of it ; but the Syriac text of the Historia Miscellanea gives only 
an abridgement of it. There has been preserved a short phrase of the original 
Greek (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, Ixxxvi. c. 1841) and some Syriac extracts in 
the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (ed. Chabot, ii., p. 145). We can see 
besides from the letter of another Pamphylian Synod, that of Perga, that 



r. 481-4] THE GOVERNMENT AND TIMOTHY 335 

It had been thought worth while also to address questions 
to some of the monks of highest renown, Simeon the Stylite, 
Varadatus and James, all three of them Syrians. They gave 
their opinions in the same sense as the bishops. 1 

It would have been natural to proceed without delay against 
the Patriarch of Alexandria. However, the process of shuffling 
was continued. The Pope continued to make constant repre 
sentations. Instead of doing what he demanded they asked 
him for legates, for fresh explanations. In the end he sent 
two bishops, Domitian and Geminian, with a great doctrinal 
letter, 2 in which he handled the whole dispute again and 
moderated his style to such an extent that there no longer 
appears in it the famous expression " in two natures," and that 
the Monophysite formula is only criticized in it with reserve and 
in a special acceptation. 3 On this occasion as before he attached 
to his exposition a whole collection of extracts : he even took 
care to give a larger place in it to Cyril. On the receipt of 
this letter the Emperor despatched to Alexandria the silentiary 
Diomede with instructions to have it read to Timothy. It was 
undoubtedly for him that it had been written : they thus were 
showing him much consideration. If the old bigot had allowed 
himself to be moved, if he had accepted Leo s explanations, what 
misfortunes would have been spared to the Church ! He was 
inflexible. Diomede returned with a reply of refusal. 4 

the bishops of that country were not completely satisfied with the formulary 
of Chalcedon. In the letter of Perga a distinction is made between the 
language of professions of faith or creeds, like the Creed of Nicaea, and the 
scientific terminology of which use may be made in discussions against 
heretics. The signatories desired it to be clearly understood that the 
expression Two Natures falls into this latter category. Amphilochius of 
Side had been suspected, at the Council of Chalcedon, of sharing the 
views of Eutyches. He was required, at the end of the eighth session, to 
anathematize them in express terms. 

1 The reply of Varadatus is the only one which appears in the Encyclia. 
Varadatus and Simeon had each written two letters, one to the Emperor, 
the other to the Patriarch of Antioch, Basil (Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 229 
ad fin. ; cf. Evagrius, H. E. ii. 10) ; Evagrius has preserved to us the 
substance of Simeon s letter to Basil. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 542 ; Ep. clxv., August 17, 458. 

3 "(Eutychramus qui) Verbi incarnati, id est Verbi et carnis, unam audet 
pronuntiare naturam " (c. 2). 

4 Zacharias iv. 6 and Michael the Syrian, ed. Chabot, ix. i ; cf. Migne, 
Patrol. Graeca, Ixxxvi., p. 273. 



336 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

The members of the Court who up to that time had placed 
their influence at the service of the Egyptian Patriarch felt 
themselves put out of countenance. Anatolius had just died 
(July 3, 458) : a prelate of more definitely Chalcedonian views, 
Gennadius, had replaced him in the see of Constantinople. 
However, some time still elapsed before recourse was had to 
active measures. They were entrusted to Stilas, the Dux of 
Egypt, who did not succeed without difficulty. Disturbance 
broke out the Proterians supported the forces of police; as 
many as 10,000 is given as the number of the dead. 1 At last 
the old pontiff was arrested and sent on the way to Palestine. 
Thence he was taken to Constantinople, and Pope Leo had 
reason to fear that after having induced him to sign some 
vague formula they might send him back to Alexandria. 2 This 
did not happen, whether because Timothy persisted in refusing 
any understanding or because the irregularity of his promo 
tion was deemed to disqualify him. He was sent accordingly 
to Gangra and, as he found means to continue there his 
activity as an agitator, they despatched him to the other 
side of the Pontus Euxinus, to Cherson in the Crimea. 
He remained there for a long time, down to 475, writing 
incessantly in order to defend his own views and to combat 
alike the supporters of Eutyches and those of the Council of 
Chalcedon. 3 

Timothy having thus been put out of the way, they 
proceeded to the election of another Bishop of Alexandria. 
The Proterians elected a second Timothy, surnamed Salofaciol 
(White Turban). 4 He was an excellent man, kind to everybody, 
even to the fanatics who regarded communion with him with 
aversion : " We like you very much," they said to him, " but we 
do not want you for bishop." 

He was so accommodating that he even went so far as to 

1 This is what is said by Zacharias (iv. 9), an author with a tendency to 
exaggeration. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 546, 547 ; Epp. clxix., clxx., June 17, 460. 

3 On the literary productions of this individual see J. Lebon, " La 
Christologie de Timothee Elure," in the Revue d Histoire eccttsiastique^ 
ix. (1908), p. 677. 

4 Leo replied to the letters by which the accession of Salofaciol was 
notified to him (Jaffe, Regesta, 548-550; Epp. clxxi.-clxxiii.). The con- 
secrators were ten in number. 



p. 484-7] ZENO EMPEROR 337 

replace the name of Dioscorus 1 in the diptychs, and for this 
reason was reprimanded by the Pope. 2 

The Egyptians kept themselves quiet : Timothy on his 
departure had entrusted them to the care of Peter of Iberia. 
In 471 the exiled Patriarch lost a great protector, the Patrician 
Aspar, who was massacred with his family at the instigation of 
the Emperor Leo to whom he had given the throne. Leo himself 
died in January 474. Since the influence of Aspar had begun 
to wane there had been seen rising that of an Isaurian 
adventurer who changed his barbarian name to that of Zeno. 
The Isaurians, the distant descendants of the pirates exter 
minated by Pompey, made it their speciality, like the modern 
Kurds, to scour the roads of upper Asia Minor. Their centre 
was the town of Isaura, on the Lycaonian side of the Taurus. 
It was a barbarian element in the interior. Leo thought it a 
good stroke to set it over against Germanic barbarianism : 
Zeno received the title of Patrician and the hand of Ariadne, 
the Emperor s daughter. By her he had a son named Leo, 
like his grandfather, who proclaimed him Augustus only a few 
months before he died. 

When the succession began (February 3, 474)5 two persons 
had the rank of Augustus, the Empress Verina, widow of the 
late Emperor and her grandson, aged four or five years. It 
was natural enough that Zeno should seize the power and he 
did so, though public opinion was little in favour of the 
brigands of Isauria. His mother-in-law lent her help and a 
ceremony was arranged in the Hippodrome in which the little 
Leo put the crown on the head of his father. Shortly after 
wards (November, 474) the child died and Zeno remained sole 
master of power. It was not for long. His private conduct 
and his method of government awakened such discontent that 
it was an easy thing to overthrow him. The Empress Verina 
undertook the task : she set up in opposition to him her own 
brother, Basiliscus. Zeno lost his head, crossed over to Chalce- 
don (January 9, 475 ), 3 and thence fled to Isauria with his wife. 

1 Jaffe, op. cit., 580 ; cf. Zacharias iv. 10. 

2 Evagrius (//. E. ii. 11) says that some called him BoaiX^, others 
aXopa/aa\o . The first of these two terms means tha_ Timothy was the 
Patriarch of the Emperor : it is the meaning of the word Melkite, still in use. 

3 The date is supplied by John of Antioch (M uller- Didot, Fragin. Hist. 
Graec., iv., p. 618 ; cf. De Rossi, I user. Chr. L, p. 383). 



338 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. XH. 

This family revolution was to have the most serious conse 
quences in ecclesiastical affairs. The Church of Constantinople 
was ruled, since the death of Gennadius (471), by the Patriarch 
Acacius, a man of discretion, greatly devoted to the interests of 
his see. Zeno who, in the past, had been somewhat com 
promised with the Monophysites of Antioch, was now observing 
in regard to the Council the same attitude as his predecessors. 
Acacius kept him firm in these views. Over Basiliscus he had 
not the same influence. The latter had in his entourage friends 
of Timothy Aelurus. Yielding to their advice and, so it was 
said, to the influence of his wife Zenonis, he recalled the aged 
Patriarch from exile and gave him an "encyclical" letter, 1 
which was entirely in conformity with his views. In this the 
two Councils of Ephesus were formally recognized and censure 
was expressed equally of the errors of Eutyches and the 
doctrinal innovations of Chalcedon. All the bishops were 
invited to sign this document : a refusal to sign, and in general 
any sort of manifestation in favour of the Council of Chalcedon, 
was punished by deposition in the case of clergy, by exile and 
confiscation for laity. 

Timothy triumphed without moderation. Exasperated by 
his long exile and his interminable controversies, he had seen 
arrive at last the day of vengeance. He enjoyed it. When 
he returned from Cherson to Constantinople, the sailors of 
Alexandria, always numerous at the Golden Horn, acclaimed 
him with enthusiasm ; the populace put itself en fete ; they 
pressed upon his steps ; they asked for his blessing. It was as 
a victor that he entered the imperial palace where apartments 
had been prepared for him. The welcome of the Patriarch 
Acacius was more cautious. Timothy, it is true, made an 
attempt to force his hand. He wished to make a solemn entry 
into St Sophia. But faithful monks barred his road : the other 
churches were equally closed to him. 2 The anti-Chalcedonian 
reaction was not calculated to please the Patriarch of the 
capital. In this connexion his views or his apprehensions were 
those of his predecessors, Anatolius and Gennadius : he had 

1 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 4. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 573, 574, 575 (Thiel, pp. 180, 185, 186). According to a 
tradition, perhaps legendary, preserved by Theodore the Reader (i. 30), the 
Patriarch Timothy fell from his ass at the place called Octogonium and 
hurt his foot. 



p. 487-90] TIMOTHY AND ACACIUS 339 

wind, too, of certain intrigues concocted with the view of 
dispossessing him of his see. In short, he showed himself very 
frigid, and refused to sign the Encyclical. His position must 
have been very strong, for despite the penalties formally laid 
down he succeeded in holding his ground. 

It was not only against this opposition that Timothy had 
to struggle. There was also that of the Eutychians, against 
whom he had waged unceasing combat and who were making 
an agitation at Court, alleging that he was not a very 
immaculate person and that he ought to be sent back to 
Cherson. 

His friends made him realize that he would do better not to 
linger in the capital. He embarked for Alexandria. En route 
he put in at Ephesus, where the triumph began anew. It was 
the place of the Alexandrian successes: there Nestorius had 
been vanquished by Cyril and Flavian by Dioscorus. It was 
also the best base of operations against the Bishop of Constanti 
nople. The Council of Chalcedon was not held in much 
honour there, precisely because of the famous 28th canon, so 
dear to the bishops of the capital. Quite recently they had 
elected and consecrated there a bishop jiamed Paul, without 
troubling themselves about Constantinople or the canon. 
Acacius had intervened and had secured the removal of 
this pretender. Timothy caused him to be recalled. A great 
council was held of the Bishops of Asia : the Patriarch of 
Alexandria solemnly recognized the autonomy of Ephesus 
which had been infringed by the accursed Council. A sentence 
of deposition was pronounced against Acacius, and in a letter 1 
which the assembly addressed to the Emperor, the latter was 
invited to withdraw himself from the communion of a bishop 
of such wrong ideas. 

At last Alexandria was reached. The debarkation took 
place in the evening, by the light of torches, amidst a great 
popular demonstration. Salofaciol, who had been previously 
requested to remove himself, had retired to Canopus, in the 
monastery of the Pachomians, where he was living like the 
monks by the occupation of a basket-maker. Timothy Aelurus 

1 Zacharias, v. 3 ; Evagrius, H. E. iii. 5. Evagrius says that he 
borrowed it from Zacharias. However he is more full than the existing 
Syriac text, which must have been abbreviated here by the compiler of the 
Historia Miscellanea. 

III. Z 



340 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

had no difficulty in installing himself again. This time he 
showed himself more conciliatory, more ready to grant 
communion with himself, on condition, of course, of con 
demnation of the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon. 
People criticized his moderation : apart from the Eutychians, 
towards whom he continued his antipathy, certain irreconcil- 
ables on his own side held themselves aloof, considering that 
he was too indulgent towards the converted Proterians. But 
Timothy let them talk. He even went so far as to trouble 
about the material necessities of his predecessor. He assigned 
him a farthing a day, not a very magnificent alms, but sufficient 
for a monk. The remains of Dioscorus were brought back to 
Alexandria in a silver casket and deposited in the sepulchre of 
the bishops. 

In Syria also the Monophysite party was marching from 
success to success. It had deep roots there, in the old docetic 
tendencies, in the inclinations of mind which here and there 
survived the defeated heresies of Eunomius and Apollinaris. It 
must not be supposed, despite the imposing attitude of John of 
Antioch and his colleagues, that the populations in this country 
were exactly represented by their body of bishops. From 
the time of Cyril some measure of opposition showed itself. 1 
Monks full of suspicion kept a watchful eye upon the prelates. 
Constant attendants at sermons in the great churches, they 
listened to them with malevolent ear and then departed to 
Alexandria to make reports. Under Dioscorus it had been 
far worse. It is easy to see, from the story of Ibas and that 
of Theodoret, how greatly the theology of Antioch was falling 
into discredit in its own country from which it sprang. From 
the time of the second Council of Kphesus a number of Syrian 
prelates had passed over to the opponents of their predecessors. 
The Government, it is true, under the inspiration of Eutyches 
and Dioscorus, had assisted this change ; but there was some 
thing else. The proof of this is the fact that when the wind 
changed in official quarters, when the Council of Chalcedon had 
decided in favour of Theodoret and his friends, the Cyrillians, 
so far from diminishing in importance, became a powerful party 
which had to be reckoned with. The mass of Mesopotamian 
monks, especially in the district of Amida and towards the 

1 Supra, p. 266. 



p. 490-3] GROWTH OF PARTIES 341 

frontier of Armenia, had been gained over to the Alexandrian 
theology, not to say that of Eutyches or even of Apollinaris. 
Almost everywhere, besides, pious souls were inclining towards 
Monophysitism. They considered it more mystical than the 
rival doctrine. That was its great attraction. In the second 
century people had been Modalist through piety, because the 
system of Noetus and of Sabellius implied a Christ more Divine, 
so it seemed, than He was in the theology of the Logos. Now 
they distrusted the Two Natures because the teaching of Leo 
and of Theodoret did not seem sufficiently to involve the 
absolute Divinity of Jesus. In the $rd century and in the 4th 
the heresies of Paul of Samosata and of Arius had seemed 
entirely incompatible with piety, and that is why people had 
turned away from them. In the 5th century the theology of 
Chalcedon, which people did not readily distinguish from that 
of Nestorius, was seen in the same angle, an angle which caused 
trouble. On the one side was the Government, the great 
Council, the Roman Church : on the other piety towards the 
Saviour. It was a formidable antithesis ! The Monophysites 
always attributed to themselves a monopoly of devotion. The 
adhesion not of all the monks but of a very large number of 
them, and those the most restless, lent support outwardly to 
this pretension. The party was very frequently persecuted l : 
it was one more recommendation. In fine it was a party 
genuinely religious, and it is certainly for that reason that 
there was so much difficulty in overcoming it. 

Theodoret had died shortly after the Council of Chalcedon. 2 
At Antioch the Bishop Maximus, who had been involved in 
some proceedings, 3 was replaced in 455 or 456. Under Basil 
who succeeded him, the town of Antioch was overthrown 
(458) by an earthquake. We have no record which enables 

1 I hasten to add that when the Monophysites had power in their grasp 
or when they found themselves in force at some point they showed them 
selves the most immoderate of men. No religious party, unless it be, 
perhaps, the Donatists of Africa, has made so large a use of violence. 

2 The last document which mentions him is a letter of Pope Leo (Jaffe, 
496 ; Ep. cxx.) of June n, 453, addressed to him. Gennadius of Massilia 
(Marseilles), c. 89, makes him die sub Leone, that is to say in 457 at earliest. 
I do not know if great importance need be attached to this testimony. 
In 458 he had already been replaced. 

8 Jaffe, Regesta, 516; Ep. cxli. ; if, Xpovoypoupinbv auvronov, p. 131, ed. 
De Boor ; (fp\r]8-n Std irTcucr/xa. 



342 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

us to follow the working of men s minds there. After Basil 
came Bishops Acacius and Martyrius. It was the last who 
had to undergo the first assaults of the Monophysite party. 

After his marriage with Ariadne, 1 Zeno had caused himself 
to be sent to Antioch as Commander of the Forces of the 
Orient : he held the Court of a Vice-Emperor there. With him 
had come a priest of Chalcedon 2 who had previously been 
a monk among the Acoemeti CA.Kotjunjrot) and then had 
quarrelled with them. He was called Peter and bore the 
surname of Fuller. The Acoemeti were regarded as greatly 
devoted to the Council of Chalcedon, a fact which caused 
them to be treated as Nestorians : Peter the Fuller held views 
opposed to them. On arrival at Antioch 3 he undertook the 
guidance of the Monophysite opposition and organized it 
against the bishop. As the result of a riot Martyrius withdrew 
and went to make complaints at Constantinople, whilst Peter 
was installed in his place under the approving eye of Zeno. 4 
Supported by his colleague, the Patriarch Gennadius, Martyrius 
succeeded in exonerating himself from the charges which 
Zeno and his protegt had not failed to raise against him. 
He returned to Antioch. Peter withdrew for some time ; 
but, as the imperial government had not dared to banish 
him and he continued to enjoy the protection of Zeno 
who was on the spot, Martyrius once more had a hard 
time, so hard that he was disgusted with it, and declared 
publicly in church that he resigned : " I renounce a rebellious 
clergy, an unruly people, a church defiled." Without further 
formality Peter seized the succession. 

But this solution did not please Constantinople. Gennadius 
obtained an order of exile. 5 Peter was already on the way 

1 Supra, p. 337. 

2 There he governed the monastery of Saint Bassa, where he seems to 
have misbehaved himself: Hoc (monasterio) propler crimina dcrelicto, 
Antiochiam fugisse (Gesta de nomine Acacii^ 12 ; Thiel, Epistulae 
Romanorum Pontificum, p. 518). Cf. Theodore the Reader, i. 20. 

3 For what follows see Theodore the Reader, i. 20-22 ; cf. Gesta Acacii, 
loc. cit. 

4 According to John of ^geum (Revue Archcologique, xxvi. (1873) 
p. 401) the ordination purports to have been celebrated at Seleucia in 
Syria by some bishops whom Zeno constrained 



6 It is doubtless to this business that there belongs a law of June i, 
471 (Cod. Justin, i. 3, 29), forbidding monks to leave their monasteries in 



p. 493-6] PETER THE FULLER 343 

to the oasis where Nestorius had lived a long time, when he 
succeeded in making his escape and returned to the capital. 
He was handed over to the Accemeti. They kept guard over 
him so long as the Emperor Leo lived (t 474). Zeno also left 
him to them ; but when Basiliscus had driven out Zeno and 
recalled Timothy Aelurus, Peter the Fuller felt that his hour 
had arrived. They handed back to him again in 475 the 
see of Antioch, whose new holder, Julian, died in the course 
of these happenings of mortification, so it was said. 1 But 
the triumph of the Monophysites was not lasting: in the 
following year Zeno re-established himself and Peter received 
a new order of exile : this time he was despatched to Pityus 
in the Caucasus. He did not go so far : they were content 
with interning him at the Euchaites, a famous sanctuary 
of St Theodore, in the province of Helenopontus. On the 
vacant throne his partisans made an effort to instal John 
Codonatus, 2 one of his friends, of whom he had tried to make 
a metropolitan of Apamea, and who, not having been welcomed 
in that town, was living provisionally at Antioch. But the 
Government interfered, and John Codonatus was removed in 
the same fashion as Peter the Fuller. 

In their place the Government secured the enthronement 
of a certain Stephen s who held the see for a short period, 
and perished, the victim of the Monophysites. They took 
advantage of a function which had brought him to St 
Barlaam, a church in a suburb, to make themselves masters 
of his person, and caused his death by piercing him with 
pointed reeds (481). As an orthodox election was no longer 
possible at Antioch, the Patriarch of Constantinople provided 
for the vacancy by sending Calendion, a bishop ordained 
by himself. 

We see from these narratives what was the power and 
the daring of the Monophysite party in the old metropolis 
of the Orient, and how poor a figure was made there from 

order to go to create disturbance at Antioch and in the other towns of the 
Orient. 

1 Theophanes ad ann. 5967. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 577 (Thiel, op. cif. p. 191) ; cf. Byzantinische Zeitschrift^ 
iii., p. 4 (O. Giinther). 

3 The list of bishops of Antioch distinguishes two Stephens ; Evagrius 
and Malalas know but of one only. 



344 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xii. 

that time forward by the theology of Diodore and of Theodore, 
of Nestorius and of Theodoret. 

In Palestine the position was not very different. Anastasius, 
the successor of Juvenal, very readily signed the Encyclical. 1 
All would have proceeded to the taste of Timothy Aelurus, 
if he had not had against him the Patriarch Acacius. 

It was impossible to win over Acacius. Basiliscus and 
his Court did not frighten him. He had a presentiment that 
the new regime would not last long. The new Emperor was 
of no greater weight than Zeno. There were speedily signs 
of discontent, even in the senate. Zeno had taken refuge in 
the mountains of his native land. Two generals, two brothers, 
111 us ( iXXov?) and Trocundus, who were sent against him, 
had succeeded in blockading but not in taking him. They 
themselves were also Isaurians. 

Negotiations were soon set up between them and the 
fugitive prince. During this time the Patriarch Acacius was 
kindling the enthusiasm of the populace of Constantinople. 
His refusal to sign the Encyclical was a proof that he saw 
in it a menace to the Faith. Zealots were everywhere 
acclaiming the bishop for his opposition. Religious pro 
cessions passed through the streets : at St Sophia was to 
be seen a mournful spectacle, the throne and the altar draped 
in black. There was near the town a solitary named Daniel, 
a native of Syria, who had attempted to reproduce, under a less 
kindly sky, the original and terrible asceticism of Simeon the 
Stylfte. The faithful thronged, in respectful reverence, around 
his pillar, from which he never descended, even in the 
hardest frosts of winter, when the tempests from the North 
covered him with icicles. The populace having demanded 
that he should be ordained priest, the Patriarch Gennadius 
had to have himself hoisted up to the narrow platform which 
the solitary occupied, in order to perform on it the sacred rites. 
People came from great distances to see this human prodigy. 
If some distinguished personage visited Constantinople they 
did not fail to take him to the Stylite. Acacius succeeded 

1 Zacharias, v. 3, 5. According to this author Anastasius would appear 
not to have signed the Anti-encyclical (vide infra\ contenting himself with 
remaining in communion with those who had done so. Cf. Evagrius, H. E. 
iii. 5. 



p. 496-9] ACACIUS AND DANIEL THE STYLITE 345 

in making use of the popularity of this saint. He persuaded 
him that the peril of the Church was extreme, and that to 
ward it off he ought to come and make a demonstration in 
company with his bishop and the faithful of the capital. 
Daniel descended : enthusiasm was carried to its height : 
Basiliscus felt the ground trembling beneath him. 

From Isauria he received strange tidings. Illus and 
Trocundus had come to an understanding with Zeno, and 
after having made him accept their conditions were in 
course of bringing him back to Constantinople. In haste 
the " usurper " collected another army and sent it across the 
Bosphorus. In haste, too, he withdrew his Encyclical. An 
edict, which people called Anti-encyclical, was published. It 
contained the annulment of the first, and the restoration of 
things to their previous position, notably so far as concerned 
the Patriarchal rights of Constantinople. 1 

This pitiful step did not save Basiliscus. Zeno quickly 
re-entered the capital (September 476). 2 The usurper and 
his children fell into his hands : he despatched them to 
Cappadocia, where they died of hunger in the castle which 
served them as a prison. 

An estimate could be formed at this time of the variableness 
of the Greek Episcopate. The Encyclical of Basiliscus had 
been signed everywhere. Figures are quoted of 500 or 
700 bishops as having thus abjured both the Tome of Leo 
and the Decrees of Chalcedon. 3 When the reaction came, 
they found themselves quite as numerous in acclaiming it. 4 

In his episcopal residence at Alexandria Timothy felt 
himself stricken with a mortal blow. Adieu to his hope of 

1 The text of it is in Evagrius, H. E. iii. 7. 

2 Basiliscus had lasted twenty months (Victor Tunnunensis ad ann. 476 : 
Procopius, Bellum Vand. i. 7, p. 342, ed. Dindorf. The official notification 
of Zeno s return to which Pope Simplicius replied on October 9, 477 (Jaffe, 
Regesta, 576) was doubtless only made some months after the re-entry 
to Constantinople. 

3 There were, apart from Acacius, some cases of local opposition. At 
Hierapolis (the see in Euphratesiana I think) the populace massacred the 
officials (magistrtani) who came there to bring the Encyclical (John of 
^geum, Revue Archfologique^ xxvi., p. 402). 

4 A great number of bishops came to Constantinople in 477 to acclaim 
the restoration. Pope Simplicius (Jaffe, Regesta, 577) was somewhat 
disturbed at this concourse there. 



346 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xii. 

taking his revenge upon the impertinent Acacius ! It would 
not be given to him as it had been to Theophilus, to Cyril, 
and to Dioscorus, to see at his feet his vanquished rival. 
Constantinople was gaining the day over Pharaoh. Doubtless 
they would proceed to make him expiate his ephemeral 
triumph, and perhaps to set him once more on the road to 
exile. 

As a matter of fact a quaestor speedily disembarked at 
Alexandria as bearer of an order to this effect. But age and 
vexation had weakened the old Patriarch ; they found him ill, 
and he was allowed to die in peace (July 31, 477). 1 

The police, however, had already taken measures against 
Aelurus body of bishops : one only 2 among its members, 
Theodore of Antinoe, found himself at Alexandria at the 
moment when the great leader passed away. He made haste 
to lay his hands on the deacon Peter (Peter Mongus), who, after 
having become bishop in this hasty fashion, presided over 
the obsequies of his predecessor and then immediately dis 
appeared in order to escape being arrested. Salofaciol, being 
officially recalled, left his monastery at Canopus and set the 
patriarchal house in order. The churches were restored to 
him, but the opposition deserted them and a return was made 
to the position of earlier days. Of all this process of change 
the Patriarch Acacius informed Pope Simplicius in terms of 
the highest optimism. 3 

However, it was a precarious position. Even with a man 
like the kindly Salofaciol, pacification made no progress. In 
Palestine and in Syria the Monophysite party gained in strength 
and eliminated little by little the Chalcedonian influence. The 
recent manoeuvrings of the episcopate were of a character to 
show how little attachment there was to the Council. It was 
defended, it was abandoned, it was adopted again, at the will 
of the Government. Whatever may be said of the weakness of 
men s characters, it is none the less true that if the work of 

1 According to the tittle-tattle of his opponents he had poisoned himself 
(Liberatus, Brev. 16). It is more than unlikely. 

2 Letter of Acacius to Simplicius, Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont.) p. 194 ; cf. 
Gesta Acacii) ibid. p. 516, and Jaffe, Regesta^ 601. Zacharias, v. 5 and vi. 2, 
speaks of several bishops. 

3 Letter quoted above, note 2. 



p. 499-502] POSITION OF ACACIUS AND SALOFACIOL 347 

Chalcedon had been truly cherished it would certainly have 
found somewhere in the episcopal body a group of convinced 
upholders. 

The Patriarch Acacius thought all this over in his episcopal 
palace at Constantinople. It was upon him that there devolved 
in the last resort all the ecclesiastical affairs of the Eastern 
Empire : Zeno handed them over absolutely to him. Up to 
that time he had supported the Council of Chalcedon ; but the 
further matters proceeded the further the course of events 
inclined him to believe that, if religious peace were really 
desired, some concessions must be made. No doubt this would 
be looked at askance at Rome ; but they would dispense with 
the assent of the Pope; if he broke with them, they would be 
rid of the trouble of his perpetual and unwise interventions. 
After all, the splendour of the Old Rome had greatly diminished. 
It had no longer an Emperor : it was a barbarian king who 
was in command there and a king whose authority did not 
extend far beyond the bounds of Italy. The Latin Church, 
submerged from all sides by Germanic invasions, its communi 
cations cut with the real Empire, that of Constantinople, no 
longer understood anything that was happening there, in 
particular the necessities against which it had to struggle at 
this time. It was wise to neglect her advice and to save 
itself without her. If there were occasion, explanation could 
be made later. 

So they reasoned in the governing circles of the Byzantine 
Church. However, 1 the Patriarch Timothy Salofaciol was 
seeing the end of his career drawing near. All the efforts 
that he had made to secure the removal from Alexandria of 
Peter, his rival/had remained without result He knew 2 that 
some understanding was being concocted with that individual. 
Being very anxious to have an orthodox successor, he addressed 
himself to the Emperor and sent to him as a representative for 
this end one of his priests, John surnamed Taiaia, a former 
monk of Canopus. On arriving at Constantinople, Taiaia com 
mitted the imprudence of entering into close relations with the 
Patrician Illus. The latter had, six years before, given back 
the throne to Zeno : but in the course of time they had fallen 

1 On the events which follow see Zacharias, v. 6-12, vi. 1-3 ; Evagrius, 
//. E. iii. 12-16 ; Gesta Acacii^ 8-10. 

2 Zacharias, v. 6. 



348 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

out and the Court attributed to him the darkest designs. 
There was talk of a conspiracy, and Theognostus, the Prefect 
of Egypt, was suspected of being deeply involved 1 in it. 
Talaia, supported by Illus and Theognostus, produced at Con 
stantinople the impression of an intriguer, more busy with his 
own affairs than those of his Church. He received a promise 
that the future Patriarch should be chosen to the advantage of 
orthodox interests ; but he had to enter into an undertaking not 
to claim the position for himself. He returned to Alexandria. 
Shortly after his return Salofaciol died in June 482. Talaia, 
after being elected in his place, forgot his undertakings and 
allowed himself to be enthroned upon the seat of St Mark. 

This did not suit the purpose of Acacius, who was meditating 
allowing the succession of Chalcedonian Patriarchs to fail, as 
being impossible to uphold in opposition to Egyptian opinion, 
and coming to an understanding with that of Dioscorus and 
Aelurus. John Talaia, not having been recognized at Con 
stantinople, and fearing the fate of Proterius, made up his mind 
to flee to Rome. A new Prefect, Pergamius, was sent in place 
of Theognostus : he at once entered into negotiations with 
Peter Mongus, who had hitherto been keeping himself concealed, 
and presented to him the conditions upon which he could be 
recognized the signing of a decree of union, the purport of 
which was submitted to him, and the admission of the Proterians 
to his communion. 

The decree of union or Henotikon, 2 obviously drawn up by 
the Patriarch of Constantinople, takes the form of a letter 
addressed by the Emperor Zeno " to the bishops, clergy, monks, 
and faithful of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis." 
In it the sovereign sets forth his faith, represented by the 
Creed of Nicaea and that of Constantinople (381). Saddened 
by existing discords, and in deference to the prayers which have 
been addressed to him with a view to the restoration of unity, 
he declares his attachment to these documents while adhering 
none the less to what was done at Ephesus against Nestorius 
and against " those who subsequently have thought as he did," 3 

1 Zacharias, v. 6 ; cf. Liberatus, Brev. 18. 

2 Evagrius, H. E. iii. 14; Liberatus, Brcv. 17. The document is not 
dated : it must belong to 482. 

3 An allusion to the second Council of Ephesus, that of 449, and 
particularly to the condemnation of Ibas and of Theodoret. On the other 



p. 502-5] THE HENOTIKON 349 

as well as to the condemnation of Eutyches ; he accepts also 
the twelve Anathemas of the Blessed Cyril. He protests that 
Mary is Mother of God ; that the Son of God made man is 
one and not two ; that He is consubstantial with us by His 
humanity; that in the manner of conceiving of Him, there 
must be excluded all idea of division, of confusion, of appear 
ances without reality ; that there are not two Sons ; further 
that One of the Trinity became incarnate. Whosoever 
thinks or has thought otherwise, whether at Chalcedon or 
in any other synod of any kind, he is anathematized, but 
especially Nestorius and Eutyches. 

Of one nature, of two natures, there is no mention. At 
bottom the document was in agreement with the feelings of 
which the Greek Episcopate had given evidence at Chalcedon : 
it left outside the Creed certain controversial formulas, the 
sense of which had not yet been sufficiently elucidated. It 
bluntly, openly, gave authority to the doctrine of Cyril and to 
the formulation of it in the twelve Anathemas. In its sub 
stantial content, if we leave out of account the circumstances in 
which it was put forward, it could not raise any objection from 
the side of orthodoxy. 

The worst of it was that implicitly it allowed to fall both 
the Tome of Leo and the Dogmatic Decree of Chalcedon, 
two formulas which for the past thirty years the Govern 
ment and its officials, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and 
the Greek Episcopate as a whole, in agreement with the 
Holy See of Rome, had been putting forward and defending 
as the two-fold symbol of orthodoxy. It was a retreat. 

It fell short, besides, of complete success. The Monophysites 
considered the Henotikon insufficient. Peter Mongus, it is true, 
accepted it, and after this he was immediately recognized as 
official Patriarch and admitted to communion with Con 
stantinople. But this arrangement did not please all his 
supporters. Accustomed as they were to treat with insult 
on every opportunity the Tome of Leo and the Council of 
Chalcedon, they were not content with the tacit disavowal of 
them made by the decree of union. Protests were raised from 
all sides. The Patriarch set his wits to work in appeasing them : 
the names of Proterius and of Timothy Salofaciol were erased 

hand the reprobation of Eutyches agrees implicitly with Flavian s Synod 
and the Council of Chalcedon. 



350 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

from the diptychs : the body of the latter was taken from the 
burial place of the patriarchs and moved elsewhere. Peter 
brought out some old sermons in which he had formerly held 
less measured language, and declared that he had not changed 
his views. He even went so far as to speak against the Council, 
while avoiding on the other hand too precise anathemas, for an 
eye was being kept upon him from the official side and the 
magistrates made enquiry occasionally as to his statements. 
At the same time that he was writing to Acacius letters full 
of respect for the Council, 1 his supporters were fabricating and 
putting into circulation a whole supposititious secret corre 
spondence 2 in which the roles were strangely reversed. In this 
was to be seen Acacius, disabused of Leo and the Council, 
prostrating himself at the feet of the Patriarch of Alexandria, 
imploring clemency for the past, accepting and performing in 
the most profound mystery the penance inflicted on him 
by Peter Mongus and finally obtaining from him recogni 
tion as Archbishop of Constantinople and admission to his 
communion. 

Nothing came of it. The opposition became more and 
more threatening. The Patriarch had recourse to measures of 
severity and issued harsh edicts against certain monasteries. 
This made a commotion : complaints were carried to the 
Emperor, who showed himself little gratified by the fact that, 
despite his Edict of Union, discord was returning in the most 
vigorous fashion. An official named Cosmas was despatched 
to Alexandria. On his arrival the opposing party organized 
an enormous demonstration. Near a church in the suburbs 
30,000 monks assembled with Theodore, Bishop of Antinoe, 
at their head, the very man who had laid hands on the Patriarch 
Peter. Thirty thousand monks ! And soldiers were wanting 
on the frontiers, even on the frontiers of Egypt ! This 
concourse purported to be coming to town in order to 
ascertain the theology of the Patriarch. Only 200 of them 
were allowed to enter as delegates ; they came to the Great 
Church where Cosmas was present with the clergy. Peter 
Mongus, one of the ablest exponents of balancing that 
Byzantine theology has produced, found means of making them 

1 Evagrius, //. E. iii. 17. 

2 Amelineau, " Monuments pour servir a 1 histoire de 1 Egypte 
chretienne," in the Mcmoires de la Missio?i du Caire t iv., p. 196. 



p. 505-8] POSITION AT ALEXANDRIA 351 

understand that he held Leo and Chalcedon in horror, without 
however employing terms of too great definiteness which would 
have startled the officials. The monks judged him to be 
orthodox; but they continued to wish to be rid of him, 
because he remained in communion with Acacius and other 
" Chalcedonians." 

However, the project which had already been formed of 
electing a successor to him was not carried into execution. 
Cosmas gave back the monasteries that had been confiscated : 
the monks, while continuing to murmur strongly, retired ; the 
populace, wearied by so many exactions, was beginning to 
regard them unfavourably. However, the opposition held its 
ground and continued to agitate : a certain Nephalius was the 
moving spirit. As it had not been constituted a separated 
church the dissidents were styled Acephali. The Henotikon, 
in fine, had not set the Egyptian Patriarch on a bed of roses. 

The Patriarch of Antioch, Calendion, was not willing to 
accept it. He found himself at this moment in a peculiar 
position. The disagreement between Illus and Zeno had 
become singularly aggravated. The Empress Ariadne had 
attempted to rid herself of the Patrician by procuring his 
assassination. The blow failed, or mainly did so. However, Illus 
thought that the air of Constantinople was becoming unhealthy 
for him. He caused himself to be sent to the Orient with 
extraordinary powers. His brother Trocundus accompanied 
him with a former Professor at Athens, a certain Pamprepius, 
one of the last representatives of theurgic Neoplatonism. He 
was the magician of the establishment : he seems to have had 
sufficient importance to give to the movement which was in 
preparation the appearance of a pagan reaction. 1 There 
speedily arrived another general, the commander of the armies 
of Thrace, who was named Leontius. Popular excitement 
was stimulated. When Illus judged that the hour had come, he 
proclaimed his colleague Leontius Emperor and caused him to 
be invested by Zeno s own mother-in-law, the Empress Verina. 
Political circumstances had led this princess to reside, against 
her will, in Isauria, in the fortress of Papyrion. Illus had her 
removed from it and brought her to Tarsus. She crowned 

1 On the hopes excited at this time among the pagans of Caria, 
see the life of Severus by Zacharias the Rhetor (Patrol. Oricntalis^ ii., 
p. 40). 



352 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

Leontius and notified his accession to the peoples of the 
Empire by an official letter (sacra), 1 in which she explains that 
as depositary of the imperial tradition she is using her 
prerogatives to replace Zeno, who is unworthy of his com- 
mission, by a new Emperor. The higher clergy of Syria had 
to accept the " usurper." How were they to have resisted ? 
But when Zeno had regained the upper hand, when Illus, 
Lecntius, and Pamprepius had been reduced to shutting 
themselves up in the asylum of Papyrion, they had to reckon 
with the victors. The Patriarch Calendion was treated 
as a State criminal and sent off on the road to the Great 
Oasis. Peter the Fuller, recalled from the Euchaites, saw 
himself, for the fourth time, installed in the Apostolic See of 
Antioch. This time the installation was final. He accepted 
the Henotikon. We hear no suggestion that he had, like. his 
colleague of Alexandria, to struggle against an opposition 
composed of irreconcilables. 

Peter was a great liturgist. He knew to what an extent 
customs in worship can exert influence upon religious thought. 
It is to him that the practice goes back of reciting in the Mass 
the Credo of Nicaea. In his view it was a protest against 
the Council of Chalcedon. The Monophysites took every 
opportunity of repeating that they desired only the Creed of 
Nicaea and repudiated all others. He attempted also to 
complete the Trisagion. To the hallowed words, " Holy God, 
Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal," he added, " Crucified 
for us, 6 a-ravpwOels Si tj/mw" This was equivalent to the 
formula Deus passus which had been used without specific 
implication before all these controversies. Now it was plainly 
a profession of the unity of nature. 2 Calendion, with a view 
to settling matters, had conceived the idea of inserting between 
the primitive text and the heretical addition the words, " Christ 
our God" which saved the situation and orthodoxy. But this 
correction, like many other wise things, met with little success. 
The " Crucified for us " without any softening became the battle 
cry of the Monophysites, just as the Deo Laudes had been that 
of the Donatists. 

1 Theophanes ad ann. 5974. 

2 The Thcotokos is in itself quite as open to criticism as the Crucifixus 
pro nobis. We may note the analogy between Calendion s combination 
and that which Nestorius had proposed with his Christotokos. 



p. 508-10] CALENDION AND PETER MONGUS 353 

As for the Syrian bishops the affair of Illus furnished 
a political pretext for getting rid of the most zealous 
Chalcedonians. 1 The others yielded to circumstances, accepted 
the Henotikon, and entered into communion with the new 
Patriarchs of Antioch and of Alexandria. 2 It was the same 
in Palestine. Anastasius, Juvenal s successor, had adhered 
with his Council to the Encyclical of Basiliscus and had not 
retracted. 3 Martyrius, who replaced him about 478,* also 
showed some measure of detachment from the Council of 
Chalcedon. These prelates, in the same way as those of 
Alexandria, had to struggle against a monastic opposition of 
an obstinate kind which rebelled against compromises. The 
Henotikon, though well received by Martyrius, 5 did not allay 
all elements of resistance. However, thanks to the intervention 
of a monk who was highly respected, Marcian of Bethlehem, 6 
the greater number of the dissidents came over. There 
remained only a small group whose leaders were Gerontius, 
the former almoner of Melania the younger, and Romanus, 
superior of the monastery of Tekoa. Peter of Iberia himself 
also remained opposed to the reunion. Driven from his 
bishopric of Maiouma, he was wandering with but a sparse 
attendance along the Syrian coast, evading as well as he could 
the searches of the police. The same was the position of two 

1 Theophanes (ad ann. 5982) mentions the Bishops of Tarsus, Hierapolis, 
Cyrrhos, Chalcis, Samosata, Mopsuestia, Constantina, Himeria, Theo- 
closiopolis. 

2 Letter addressed to Peter Mongus by a Council of Antioch, Zacharias, 
v. 10. 

3 Zacharias, v. 2, 5. 4 Zacharias, v. 6. 

5 There is a discourse of his in Zacharias, v. 6. In this he belauds the 
three Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and rejects 
whatever may have been decided in a contrary sense at Ariminum, 
Sardica, Chalcedon, or elsewhere. See also (Zacharias, v. n) his letter to 
Peter Mongus. The Life of St Euthymius (cc. 113, 114) bears trace of 
this. 

According- to Cyril of Scythopolis, in the life of St Euthymius, 123, 
124 (Acta Sanctorum, January, vol. ii., p. 686 ; Cotelier, Ecclesiae Graccae 
Monumcnta, ii., p. 305), Marcian seems to have summoned a meeting at 
Bethlehem of all the dissident monks and, finding them greatly perplexed, 
to have persuaded them to have recourse to the lot. They accordingly 
tossed up whether they should unite to the bishops or not : the lot fell 
for reunion. Zacharias, v. 6, says nothing of this original method of 
procedure. 



354 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

Egyptians of mark, the Bishop Theodore of Antinoe and a 
kind of prophet named Isaiah, 1 like the prophet of the Old 
Testament. Isaiah and Peter died in 488. 2 

Such in the East was the doctrinal position. We must now 
see what estimate was formed of it at Rome. 

Since the death of Aelurus arid the restoration of Timothy 
Salofaciol, Pope Simplicius was breathing more freely. How 
ever, he took to heart the toleration exercised in regard to 
Peter Mbngus, the Alexandrian anti-Pope, and did not cease 
to write to the Emperor and to Acacius 3 with demands that 
he should be exiled. Great was his terror when, in the middle 
of the year 482, he received at the same time both letters 
from Alexandria notifying to him, along with the death 
of Salofaciol, the accession of John Talaia, and an imperial 
missive in which Talaia was accused of perjury while 
Peter Mongus was mentioned with eulogy, and a suggestion 
was even made of giving him the succession. He wrote at 
once to Constantinople to hinder the nomination as Patriarch 
of a man so unworthy as Peter: at every opportunity he 
urged Acacius to intervene, and from the outset to send 
him information. 4 

It was in vain : Acacius sent not a word of reply. However, 
Simplicius died on March 10, 483, after an illness of some 
duration. Immediately after his installation his successor 
Felix III. entered into this business with the resolution of a 
Roman of olden time. During the illness of his predecessor, 
John Talaia had arrived from Alexandria with definite informa- 

1 The latter, however, seems to have shuffled : in spite of his 
intransigeance in principle he showed himself conciliatory enough in 
practice. 

2 The Lives of these three individuals were written by Zacharias the 
Rhetor (supra, p. 316, note i), who seems to have published them about 
518, dedicating them to a chamberlain named Misael. We now only 
possess, and that only in Syriac, the Life of Isaiah. See Kugener in the 
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, -ix. (1900), pp. 464 ff. On Isaiah see Vailhe, Echos 
d* Orient, ix. (1906), pp. 81 ff. The Syriac text of the Life of Isaiah is in 
vol. iii. of Land s Anecdota Syriaca, p. 346 : there is a German version in 
Ahrens and Kriiger, Die sogen. Kirchengesch. des Zacharias rhetor, p. 263 ; 
texts and Latin version by E. W. Brooks in the Corpus Scriptorum Christ. 
Orient. Scriptores Syri, Third Series, vol. xxv. 

3 Jaffe, Regesta, 579-582, 584. 

4 Jaffe, op. cit. 586-589 ; cf. Gesta Acacii, 10, II. 



p. 510-13] ATTITUDE OF ROME 355 

tion. He laid a formal complaint against the powerful Patriarch 
of Constantinople. Felix at once organized a mission, composed 
of two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, and a Roman "defensor" 
whose name was also Felix. These persons were commissioned 
to carry to the Emperor and to Acacius letters of a very urgent 
character 1 ; one of these letters, 2 addressed to the Patriarch, 
was a citation to appear to answer the complaint of his 
colleague of Alexandria. In this the legates had a task of 
great delicacy; but they had been enjoined to enter into 
relations with the convent of the Accemeti, which was very 
zealous for the Council of Chalcedon, and especially with their 
abbot, the monk Cyril. 

On landing at Constantinople the envoys of Pope Felix 
were at once put into strict confinement, and then so 
effectually instructed in the right way that they allowed their 
letters to be taken, and consented to be present at Acacius 
services. Acacius took advantage of their presence to place 
solemnly upon the diptychs the name of Peter Mongus. 
This, for the general public of the capital, was the ratification 
of what had taken place since the previous year, the approval 
of the Roman Church given to the Henotikon and to 
the arrangements at Alexandria. There were, however, at 
Constantinople, especially in certain monasteries, persons 
capable of understanding both the intentions of the Holy See 
and the intrigues of the Patriarchate. The Accemeti sent to 
Rome. When the legates returned they found the Pope in 
possession of information, and, as may easily be conceived, 
extremely incensed. On July 28, 484, a synod of seventy-seven 
bishops met in the presence of the Pontiff, pronounced against 
them a double sentence of deposition and excommunication ; 
and then, without adjournment, deposed as contumacious the 
presumptuous Patriarch of Constantinople. 3 

It was a grave step assuredly, but inevitable. Acacius, 
fortified by an ecclesiastical authority which was still strongly 
challenged, or rather by his personal influence over the 
Emperor, had arrogated to himself the power to deal as he 
thought fit with the great Council of Chalcedon, and that 
without even taking the trouble to give notice thereof to the 

1 Jaffe, op. cif. 591-595- 2 Jaffe, op. cif. 593. 

3 Jaffe, Regesta, 599-604. Evagrius, H. E. iii. 18-21, makes use of the 
Acts of this Council which have not come down to us. 

III. 2 A 



356 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. XH. 

Pope of Rome, a principal party in this matter. To the 
explanations that had been demanded of him he had replied 
only by a disdainful silence ; and when the Pope had sent in 
person to seek for them at Constantinople, he had shut up the 
envoys of the Holy See, had laid hands upon their papers 
and had taken advantage of their inexperience to lead them 
to authorize what they had been sent to forbid. Multarum 
transgressionmn reperiris obnoxius, says the Pope in beginning 
his letter of excommunication. 1 Then he enumerates these 
transgressions, numerous, outrageous, proved to the hilt, and 
ends: "By virtue of the present sentence which we 2 send 
thee by Tutus, a defensor of the church, go in company 
with those whom thou seekest so willingly (Mongus and his 
supporters). Thou art deprived of the sacerdotium> cut off 
from the Catholic communion and from the number of the 
faithful : thou hast no longer right either to the name of 
priest nor to sacerdotal functions. Such is the condemnation 
inflicted upon thee by the judgement of the Holy Spirit and 
the apostolic authority of which we are the depositaries, 
without any possibility of ever being released from the 
anathema." 

Besides this document, which was addressed to Acacius 
himself, a short note drawn up, I think, with a view to being 
exhibited in public placards, contained simply the following : 

" Acacius, who in spite of two warnings has not ceased to 
disregard salutary ordinances, who has dared to imprison me 
in the prison of my representatives, 3 God, by a sentence 
pronounced from heaven, has ejected from the sacerdotal 
office. If any bishop, clerk, monk, or layman after this 
notification shall hold communion with him, let him be 
anathema : by command of the Holy Spirit." 

Acacius had certainly deserved the severe stroke which 
fell upon him. Yet there was small probability that the 
Roman sentence would be executed in the East, that 
communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople would be 
abandoned by his clergy, his flock, and the Byzantine Episcopate. 

1 Jaffe, op. cit. 599. 

2 The letter is in the name of the Council ; after Felix the seventy- 
seven bishops appended their signatures to it. 

3 Mequc in meis crcdidit career izandum. The insult had been keenly 
felt. 



r. 513-16] DEPOSITION OF ACACIUS 357 

It was thus a rupture not only with Acacius but with the 
Greek Church as a whole. Pope Felix III. has been the 
subject of severe criticisms on account of it. However, it 
ought to be recognized that if he declared the rupture, it was 
not he who created it : it existed already, by the action of 
Acacius. In uniting himself with the Monophysites the 
Patriarch knew well that he could not count on the approval, 
or even on the silence, of the Holy See. Just as he had 
abandoned the Council of Chalcedon in an oblique and 
hypocritical fashion, in the same way also he broke with 
Rome without declaring the rupture, while leaving without 
reply all the questions of Simplicius, confiscating the first 
letters of Felix and tricking his legates. It is not thus that 
people act towards those with whom they desire to remain in 
relations. It was perhaps on his part a supreme act of 
astuteness to cause the Pope to decree a schism which was 
his own doing. 

At bottom, what he desired was an Imperial Church, of which 
he would have been the sole Head. Despite all the Roman 
protests, his predecessors and he had not ceased to exercise, 
even to reinforce, their jurisdiction over the " Dioceses " of 
Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, which had been subordinated by 
the Council of Chalcedon to the see of Constantinople. He 
had no scruple in intermeddling in the affairs of Illyricum 
and even in intervening in the Patriarchate of Antioch, 
weakened by so many vicissitudes. It was thus that he had 
nominated to Tyre, the first see after that of the Patriarch, 
John Codonatus, the accomplice of Peter the Fuller. 1 Besides, 
the Patriarchs of the Orient, the Patriarch of Egypt in the 
same way as those of Syria, held their positions only by his 
favour, because he pleased to uphold them. In fact, every where 
where the officials of the Emperor Zeno went, the influence, 
the authority of the Patriarch Acacius was likewise recognized 
and active. 

Such a system clashed with a twofold traditional conception, 
that of Christian unity and that of the superior part assigned 
to the Roman Church in the organization and preservation of 
this unity. But the Patriarch told himself, perhaps, that to 
the east of the Empire there was a Church 2 which lived its 
own life, without regular relations with the rest of the Christian 

1 Jaffe, Rcgcsta, 599. 3 See the following chapter. 



358 THE MONOPHYSITES [CH. xn. 

world, a Church in which Rome was known only by name 
and which maintained itself in an attitude of jealous mistrust 
in regard to Constantinople and Antioch. He was aware 
also that the whole of the old Latin Empire, Africa, Spain, 
Britain, Gaul, and even Italy herself had fallen bit by bit 
into the hands of the barbarians : that among those strange 
sovereigns who sat enthroned in the Latin capitals, at 
Carthage, at Aries, at Ravenna, not a single one was a 
Catholic : all were Arians : there were even some, in the 
North of Gaul and in Britain, who were not Christians of any 
sort. What was to be done with this West ? Was it not past 
hoping for? Let the Pope of Rome make for himself what 
he could of this state of dissolution and this barbarism. 
Since, at the centre of the world, there was an Empire that 
was Christian, truly Christian, from the sovereign down to the 
last of his subjects, since in this Empire there lived unchanged 
the Roman tradition, it was that alone which counted. Let us 
leave on one side in the East the fire-worshippers, in the West 
the followers of Arius. Without excluding from the ideal 
unity of the Christian Church the peoples subject to their 
yoke, let us not admit that thence there should come to us 
directions for our religions affairs. 

Such were, I believe, the thoughts of Acacius. They might, 
for the moment and in his circle, seem well grounded enough ; 
but the event proved that they were in advance of the actual 
position : the schism, though long and lamentable, was not, 
this time, final. 

The "defensor" Tutus, commissioned to carry the sentence 
of the Roman Council, for it would not do to think of sending 
bishops, succeeded in evading the police officers who guarded 
the Strait of Abydos (Dardanelles). He penetrated unper- 
ceived into Constantinople and put himself into communication 
with some monks devoted to the Pope. 1 These charged 
themselves with securing the delivery of the document. After 
several fruitless attempts they succeeded in pinning it to the 

1 Belonging to the monastery of the Accemeti according to Zacharias, 
quoted by Evagrius, H. E. iii. 18 (the Syriac says nothing of this), and 
Liberatus, Brev. 18 ; to the monastery of Dius, according to Basil the 
Cilician, author of an Ecclesiastical History (Photius, Bibliotheca, 42) which 
went down to 527, quoted by Nicephorus Callistus, H. E. xvi. 17. Cf. 
Parg*oire, Echos (FOrient> vol. ii., pp. 367 ff. 



p. 516-18] RUPTURE WITH ROME 359 

Patriarch s pallium during a ceremony in St Sophia. Acacius 
had these presumptuous fellows 1 chastised, and erased the 
name of Felix from the diptychs of his church. 

1 According to Theophanes, ad ann. 5980, some of them seem to have 
been put to death, others thrown into prison. The defensor Tutus 
himself also ended by suffering himself to be corrupted. On his return 
to Rome he was deprived of his position and excommunicated (Jaffe, 
Regtsta, 608). 



CHAPTER XIII 

CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE 

THE eastern frontier of the Empire had never marked the 
limit of Christian expansion. Beyond the provinces regularly 
administered by Byzantine officials, there had for long been 
living churches different in language and nationality, to which 
we must now turn our attention. I have already spoken 1 of 
the missions among the Goths at the time when that people 
was still dwelling to the north of the Pontus Euxinus and of 
the Christian settlements established in the Tauric Chersonese 
(Crimea). Let us now finish the religious circumnavigation of 
the Black Sea and thus arrive at the great Churches of Armenia 
and of Persia. 

I. The Caucasus. 

On the other side of the strait from which it derived its 
name, the town of Bosphorus or Panticapeum possessed a 
"factory" called Phanagoria with a bishopric which seems 
to have been intermittent. The first holder of it that we 
meet with belongs to the year 519. 

Further along there emptied itself into the Pontus Euxinus 
the river Hypanis, the modern Kouban. Then the high 
wall of the Caucasus began to rear itself, sheer above the sea. 
In its folds lived populations of warlike and free - booting 
propensities, akin to the modern Circassians. Finding little 
to live upon in their forests and their rocky heights, they were 
accustomed to scour the sea, to the great detriment of Greek 
commerce which even in these lost lands had colonies, Nicopsis, 
Pityus, Dioscurias. 2 Christianity early planted itself there. It 
is in these almost fabulous countries that ancient legends 
represent as travelling the apostles Andrew, Peter, and 
Matthias ; a Bishop of Pityus took part, in company with 
1 Vol. II., pp. 448 ff. 2 Tuapse, Pizunda, Soukoum. 

364 



p. 519-22] THE CHURCH OF IBERIA 361 

the Bishop of Bosphorus, in the Council of Nicaea. Later on 
the Roman settlements passed through some rather bad times ; 
but Justinian intervened with energy, rebuilt the fortresses, and 
reorganized the ecclesiastical administration. After him we 
find a bishopric at Nicopsis in Zichia and another at Dioscurias, 
then called Sebastopolis. 1 

To the south of this town there opened out the plain of 
Phasis or Colchis, behind which, as far as the Caspian Sea, there 
stretches the long valley of the Kour with the provinces of 
Iberia and Albania. Over the populations of these countries 
there reigned a dynasty of Iranian origin, whose capital was at 
Metzketh, to the north of the present town of Tiflis. 2 Like 
Armenia, and for the same reasons, this country was divided 
between Persian influence and Roman protection. In the time 
of Constantine the Christian religion had been introduced 
there in very touching circumstances. Near the royal residence 
lived a Christian captive whose virtue and piety attracted 
general attention. She obtained by her prayers the healing 
of a child and then of the Queen herself. The latter began 
already to talk of embracing the religion of her benefactress : 
the king wished to wait. Another marvel brought him to a 
decision. They built a church at this time, according to the 
directions of the captive, and then addressed themselves to the 
Emperor Constantine in order to procure priests. Thus was 
organized the Christianity of Iberia. This story was told to 
Rufinus by another Georgian king, Bacour, who held a position 
in the Roman army. 3 From Georgian tradition we learn that 
the converted king was called Mirian and the captive Nina. 
In the following century another prince of the royal family, 
Nabarnougi, better known under the name of Peter of Iberia, 
played an important part in the religious affairs of the 
Empire. 4 

1 Procopius, De Acd, iii. 7. 

2 Tiflis was only founded about the middle of the 5th century. 

3 Rufinus, H. E. i. 10. When Rufinus knew him he was Dux Limitis 
Palaestini . later he became Comes Domcsticorum. He appeared at the 
Battle of the Cold River (394) among the principal lieutenants of Theodosius 
and fell in action (Zosimus, H. E. iv. 57, 58 ; Socrates, H. E. v. 25). 

4 Supra, pp. 325 ff. 



362 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 



2. Armenia. 

To the south of Iberia the Armenian Mountains rear 
themselves from the Desert of Iron as far as the Cappadocian 
plateau, around which they project the chains of Pontus 
and of Anti-Taurus. From their flanks break forth some 
famous streams : towards the Pontus Euxinus the Lycus, the 
Acampsis, and the Phasis ; towards the Caspian Sea the Kour 
arid the Araxes ; then the two Euphrates and the Tigris, whose 
folds enclose the great plain of Aram and reach at last to that 
arm of the Indian Ocean which we call the Persian Gulf. 

The story of the men who lived in these high valleys was 
early intermingled with that of their neighbours below, the 
ancient peoples of Assyria and Chaldaea. The most ancient 
records are the inscriptions of Nineveh, which of course only 
speak of them in connexion with victories won in the mountain 
by the armies of Assur. 

But just as the Assyrians had taught their neighbours 
the cuneiform script, the latter made use of it in their turn to 
write in their language and from their point of view the 
narrative of their great deeds. With these records of 
differing origin we can go back as far as the gth century 
B.C. We see there that the mountaineers who designated 
themselves by the name of Chaldees (XaXtfoi) were called 
Ourartou by their neighbours ; this last name corresponds very 
well with that of Ararat employed in the Biblical documents 1 
of the 8th century and the 7th to denote their country. 

The language of these Ourartic inscriptions has not yet 
been able to be classified with precision : it is, however, certain 
that it has no similarity to modern Armenian. The people 
who spoke it seem to have come from the East or the North, 
and its expansion was effected rather in the direction of the 
West. The political centre and the royal residence were 
situated near Lake Van (Thospa), whose formidable crag 
provided a citadel : there was the sanctuary of the national 
goddess, Khaldis. 

1 IV. [II.] Kings xix. 37; Isaiah xxxvii. 38; Jeremiah li. 27. As for 
the identification of the famous mountain of Agri-Dagh with the Ararat of 
Genesis, first made by St Jerome, it seems to have remained unknown to 
the Armenians down to the 9th or loth century. 



p. 522-5] EARLY ARMENIAN HISTORY 363 

After many struggles, that is to say many marauding 
expeditions, the masters of the plain succeeded in overcoming 
the mountaineers. Van was taken and burnt, except for the 
fortress, by King Tiglath Pileser (736). However, the little 
nation maintained its independence down to the following 
century. It was then that the land was submerged by the 
great flood of the peoples whom we call Cimmerians or 
Scythians. When it retired it left behind it a tribe hitherto 
unknown to history, that of the Hayk^ as they still call 
themselves, the Armenians as they are styled by the Persians 
and the Greeks. The new-comers rolled back the former 
inhabitants of the country eastwards and even ended by 
assimilating them. They were not Iranians: at length, how 
ever, they conformed themselves in many things to the customs 
of the Medes and the Persians, their mountain neighbours and 
soon their political masters. 

Under the Achsemenids 2 and, after the death of Alexander, 
under the Seleucidae, the Armenian countries formed two 
satrapies ; but, especially in the latest days, indigenous 
dynasties had been planted here and there. Their submission, 
almost a nominal one, gave place to complete independence 
when Antiochus the Great had been beaten at Magnesia by 
the Romans (190). Three Armenian kingdoms made their 
appearance at that time. That of Little Armenia, to the west 
of the Upper Euphrates, between that river and Cappadocia, 
fell later into the hands of Mithradates, in whose heritage the 
Romans found it (65). They gave it to vassal kings whose 
line extended nearly to the time of Vespasian. Then it was 
reunited to the province of Cappadocia. The two other 
kingdoms extended to the east of the Euphrates Superior, 
one of them northwards in the direction of the Caucasus and 
of Media it is that of Great Armenia ; the other south 
wards to beyond the Tigris the kingdom of Sophene. This 
last kingdom, reunited to the former by King Tigranes, received 
shortly afterwards a capital, Tigranocerta." In Great Armenia 

1 Hayk is a plural : the singular is Hay. They have been identified 
with the Hittites of Asia Minor. 

* Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, 5., p. 744 ; ii., pp. 56, 265 : iii., p. 65 ; 
v -> P- 339- Cf. Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator^ pp. 78, 101. 

3 In an unidentified position in the neighbourhood of Mardin. See 
Sachau s memoir in the Abhandhtngen of the Berlin Academy, 1880. 



364 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 

the centre of government was to the north of the Araxes, at 
Artaxata, a town situated in a position selected, so it was said, 
by Hannibal. In the time of Marcus Aurelius it was trans 
ferred to Valarschapat, a li f tle further west, where the Romans 
had built a new town (Kaivri Tro X/?, Nor-Khalakh). 

Great Armenia, restored by Lucullus and Pompey (66 B.C.) 
to the natural limits which it had overstepped under Tigranes, 
was considered together with the Caucasian States, Iberia and 
Albania, and sometimes also Media Atropatena, as forming 
part of the Roman Empire. However, it was not a province. 
The indigenous kings had been maintained in it. These 
princes were most frequently connected by kinship or alliance 
with those of the Parthian kingdom. Their subjects, as I have 
said, were Iranized at an early date. Hellenism did not make 
any impression among these populations. The Roman 
garrisons established at certain points, at Ziata (Kharpout), 
in the former kingdom of Sophene, at Gornese (Garhni) near 
Artaxata, were no more successful in exercising any trans 
forming influence. Although clients of the Romans, the 
Armenians did not resemble them in any way : it was with 
their neighbours the Parthians that they had most connexion. 
This false position was the source of endless wars between 
Rome and the Parthian Empire. In the 3rd century, after 
the campaigns of Septimius Severus, the Romans succeeded 
in establishing themselves firmly in Mesopotamia : Nisibis, 
two days march from the vanished Tigranocerta, became 
their principal stronghold in these countries. 

It was about this time that the Iranian Empire passed into 
the hands of the Sassanids. The royal family of Armenia, 
closely related to the dethroned Arsacids, could not fail to be 
hostile to the " usurpers." War broke out anew between the 
mountaineers and their neighbours to the south ; and it was 
not only a political war. The Sassanids, ardent propagators 
of the Mazdaean religion, endeavoured to make it prevail in 
Armenia. 

The position became easier about 261, thanks to the inter 
vention of Odenath of Palmyra who restored in these Eastern 
territories the authority of the Roman Empire and the fortune 
of its allies. Compromised for a moment by the disaster of 
Zenobia (272), this restoration was confirmed again by the 
victories of Carus (282) and of Galerius (297). Armenia 



p. 525-8] THE ARMENIAN KINGDOMS 365 

numbered once more among the clients of Rome, preserved 
its independence in relation to the Persian State. 

Nevertheless, Diocletian judged it advantageous to rectify, 
on the upper Tigris, the traditional frontier. In the conventions 
in which the war of 297 ended, several provinces of Southern 
Armenia were annexed. This annexation completed the 
successive attachment to the Empire of all the lands which 
had once formed the kingdom of Sophene. 

The boundaries established in 297 were not destined to be 
maintained for an indefinite period. By the treaty concluded 
in 363 between the Emperor Jovian and Sapor II., the Roman 
frontier was withdrawn to the west of Nisibis, to the south of 
the Tigris ; on the left bank of this river it went back from the 
eastern Tigris as far as Nymphios. At the same time the 
Empire had to renounce the traditional protectorate that it 
exercised over Armenia. To this it did not resign itself easily : 
a fact which produced, from the reign of Valens onwards, an 
unfailing crop of difficulties. Under Theodosius (c. 387) the 
governments of Constantinople and of Ctesiphon made up 
their minds to divide between them the disputed territory. 
The King of Kings obtained the lion s share, four-fifths of the 
Armenian territory : the Roman Empire had Erzeroum 
(Garin, Theodosiopolis), and some districts in the western 
part. 

The Armenian lands annexed to the Empire entered, some 
at once, others but slowly, into the provincial organization. 
Armenia Minor had been, as I have already said, incorporated 
in the province of Cappadocia about the time of Vespasian. 
Diocletian made a special province of it, and this was divided 
into two, under Valens or under Theodosius, and thus gave an 
Armenia Prima and an Armenia Secunda with metropolises at 
Sebaste (Sivas) and at Melitene (Malatia). The province of 
Mesopotamia, organized by Septimius Severus, remained for 
a long time undivided ; but in the end it was dismembered 
about the same time as Armenia Minor. In the land of Aram 
they cut off a province of Osrhoene, giving to it at the same 
time Edessa as capital. The name of Mesopotamia was 
reserved to the valley of the western Tigris, which had for its 
principal town Amida (Diarbekir), founded about 340 by the 
Emperor Constantius. To the north of Amida and of the 
Tigris began the Armenian land properly so called. It was 



366 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 

administered for the Empire by satraps, hereditary l at first, 
and then, beginning from the reign of Zeno (c. 480), revocable 
like the governors of provinces but always chosen among the 
native inhabitants. Justinian put an end to the regime of the 
satraps, and rearranged on this side the provincial boundaries. 

It is Eusebius who is the first 2 to speak of Christian 
Armenians. In connexion with the persecution of Maximin 
Daia (311-313) he relates that this prince "endeavoured to 
compel the Armenians to sacrifice to idols." These Armenians, 
he says, had long been friends and allies of the Romans : they 
were Christians and observed their religion with devotion. 
Maximin thus rendered them disaffected, and made himself 
enemies. 

These are not the terms in which stibjects of the Empire 
would be referred to. We are then not in Little but in Great 
Armenia. On the o ther hand, it is scarcely conceivable that 
the Emperor could have taken measures of religious constraint 
in a land where he had not direct authority, in a land 
governed by an allied king. There is here, then, an ap 
parent contradiction. It would resolve itself if we identify 
the Armenians with whom Maximin was dealing with the 
inhabitants of that part of Great Armenia which Diocletian 
in 297 had joined to the Empire, while causing it at the same 
time to be governed by native princes. Sophene, the most 
western of these districts, the nearest to Melitene and to 
Little Armenia, sometimes gave its name to the whole of the 
Roman satrapies. It is, I think, with this country that we are 
here concerned. 3 

The " Armenians" of Eusebius seem to profess Christianity 
as a national religion : this links on the Christians of Sophene 

1 These satraps, although invested by the Roman Emperors, were none 
the less vassals of the King of Armenia. The latter possessed in the 4th 
century residences and fortresses on several points of the Roman satrapies 
(Gelzer, Die Anfiinge der armenischen Kirche. in the Transactions of the 
Leipzig Society of Sciences, 1895, P- r 3 o > note i). 

* H. E. ix. 5. The Armenians, of whom Merouzanes, the correspondent 
of St Dionysius of Alexandria, was bishop (Eusebius, H. E. vi. 46) must be 
looked for in the Provincial Armenia or Armenia Minor. On this subject 
see my memoir, " L Armenie chretienne dans 1 histoire eccle"siastique 
d Eusebe" (Melanges Nicole, Geneva, 1905). Cf. Vol. I., p. 338. 

3 Cf. Vol. II., p. 26, note 2, and the memoir quoted supra. 



p. 528-31] ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 367 

to those of Great Armenia. So far as the latter is concerned, 1 
the abolition of paganism and its replacement by Christianity 
are attributed, by all Armenian tradition, to King Tiridates 
(261-317). Sozomen 2 knew the details of this event, but he 
speaks of it only with caution : " // is said that Tiridates, the 
chief of this nation, as the result of an extraordinary miracle 3 
which took place in his house, became a Christian and 
enjoined all his subjects by a single edict also to practise this 
religion." 

The Armenians tell the tale of it at much greater length ; 
but their stories are very little credible. We are reduced, for 
these origins, 4 to a compilation in six books, of which the first 
two, attributed to a certain Agathangelus, exist in Armenian 
and Greek : they deal with the reign of Tiridates. The four 
others, which bear the name of Faustus of Byzantium, are only 
known to us in an Armenian text. 5 They carry the narrative 
down to the partition of Armenia at the end of the 4th 
century. 

This " History of Armenia " has its starting-point in the 
conversion of King Tiridates by a Christian of Armenian race, 
but educated in Cappadocia, Gregory, styled, in virtue of the 
part he played, Gregory the Illuminator. This famous man, who 
belonged to one of the noblest families in the kingdom, had been 
at first persecuted by Tiridates and then recognized by him 

1 There is no need to take into account the legends relating to St 
Bartholomew and St Thaddeus. The first comes from Byzantine catalogues 
of the late 6th century or the century following : the other is only an 
Armenian adaptation of the famous legend of Edessa. All this is of 
foreign importation. The true current of tradition is that which goes back 
to St Gregory the Illuminator. Despite the fables which encumber it, it 
is the only one of which history could make use. However, it must be 
recognized that the connexion with Edessa seems to have been made fairly 
early. Faustus of Byzantium always describes the see of the Catholicos as 
" the throne of St Thaddeus." 

2 ff. E. ii. 8. 3 "E/c TIVOS 7rapa56ou BeoffrjfAeLas. 

4 I disregard Moses of Chorene, a writer not of the 5th century, as was 
long believed, but of the 8th. 

:> Agathangelus and Faustus are to be found, in a French translation, 
in the first volume of the Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de 
VArmtnie^ by V. Langlois (Paris : Didot, 1867). On the origins of 
Christianity in Armenia, see H. Gelzer, Die Anfdnge der armenischen 
Kirche in the "Transactions of the Royal Academy of Saxony," vol. xlvii. 
( 895), P- 109. 



368 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [en. xm. 

as a messenger of God, and commissioned to preside over the 
establishment and organization of Christianity as the national 
religion of Armenia. He was sent to Caesarea, whence he 
brought back episcopal consecration : he set himself forthwith 
to instruct his fellow-countrymen, to baptize them and to found 
churches. The latter were, for the most part, established in 
places where the sanctuaries of the earlier religion had been 
in use. The Christian clergy recruited themselves, to a con 
siderable extent, among the officiants of the pagan temples. 
The goods of the latter were assigned to the churches. 

The story has come down to us in a form likely to cause 
great uneasiness. Fables have an amplitude in it which is 
very uncommon : what is more, the editor purports to be 
King Tiridates own secretary. We are then in the presence 
of a forgery. However, this literary forgery and these 
monstrous legends rest upon certain topographical and even 
historical data which it would be imprudent to neglect. It has 
been noticed that the marvellous in its most incredible form is 
attached to the episode of the two virgin martyrs Hripsime and 
Gaiane and their thirty-two companions. These saints, victims 
of the persecution of Tiridates, had been martyred near 
Valarschapat. Three churches were erected in their honour. 
Later the residence of the Catholicos was established in this 
holy place, called Etchmiadzin, which thus became the centre 
of Armenian Christianity. It is natural that in such circum 
stances the legends of Etchmiadzin should have received 
a special development. Nevertheless, even after having 
eliminated everything which, in the narrative of Agathangelus, 
concerns Etchmiadzin directly or indirectly, there still remain 
enough fables, and, above all, enough historical blunders 1 to 

1 The Emperor Marcian (t45?) is represented as a colleague of 
Diocletian ; the war of the Goths as in the time of Diocletian, with the 
single combat of Tiridates and the King of the Goths ; the reign of 
Licinius in the East placed before the persecution of Diocletian ; the relics 
of St John Baptist and of St Athenogenes brought to Armenia from the 
beginning of the episcopate of St Gregory ; the journey of Tiridates and 
of Gregory to Rome, where they meet Constantine and Archbishop Eusebius 
(variant Sylvester), though Gelzer has endeavoured to save it (op. cit. 
pp. 167-171), etc. The confusion in regard to Marcian proves that, at least 
in the Greek and Armenian recensions that we possess, the history of 
Agathangelus hardly goes back to the end of the 5th century. On the 
whole, however, it is well to put it earlier, for Lazarus of Pharbe, who wrote 



p. 531-5] GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR 369 

make one scarcely tempted to draw from it much more than 
I have done. 

However, it is possible to collect there some local memories, 
destructions of temples, 1 foundations of churches. The church 
of Aschdischad in the province of Taron, is highly extolled : 
it is, so it is said, the first, the mother of all the churches of 
Armenia. The fact is that this church, like that of Bagavan in 
the Bagrevan, was held in great veneration : both were, on 
certain days of the year, the scene of great religious and national 
festivals. Aschdischad had been in former days a holy place 
of paganism : the god Vahak n, the Armenian Heracles, was 
honoured there, with his companions in worship Anahid and 
Astghig (Aphrodite). 

Taken as a whole, the Armenian legend gives an impression 
identical with that which results from the short passage of 
Sozomen. Christianity was not introduced in Armenia, as it 
was in the Roman Empire, little by little, by way of individual 
conquests, successive foundations. The king made up his mind 
all at once to change the national religion : the conversion took 
place not only on his example but by his order. The people 
evidently count for nothing in it : the nobles alone are consulted 
and approve. The priests, naturally, offer resistance. It is 
necessary to reckon with their territorial power and their 
numerous retinue of temple servants. The king proceeds 
methodically, availing himself of the aid of the lay aristocracy 
to triumph over the priestly aristocracy, and the latter, for 
whom moreover certain compensations are provided in the 
new state of things, in the end resigns itself. 

This official change can hardly have come about apart 
from certain necessities or opportunities of a political kind. 
Armenian nationality, protected by the Romans, had hardly 
been threatened except by the Persians. But the Persians, 
since the advent of the Sassanid dynasty, were seeking not less 
to propagate their Mazdaean religion than to extend their 

towards the end of the 5th century, knew Agathangelus almost in the form 
in which he has come down to us. 

1 Apart from what is said of Etchmiadzin, the destruction of the temple 
of Dir, at Erazamoin ; of Anahid, at Artaxata ; of Parschimnia, at Thortan, 
in the district of Daranalis ; of Aramazd, at Ani ; of Anahid, at Erez 
(Acilicene) ; of Nanea, daughter of Aramazd, at Thil ; of Mihr, at 
Pakaiaridj, in the district of Terdjan (Derxene). 



370 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [OH. xm. 

Empire. In this respect their attitude bears a close resemblance 
to that of the Arabs in the 7th century. It is possible that 
the political chiefs of Armenia felt the need of opposing this 
formidable propaganda by a religious enthusiasm which the old 
divinities could scarcely inspire. At the moment 1 when this 
problem presented itself, Christianity was already very powerful 
in Asia Minor and Syria. The Roman state tolerated it, and 
it was easy to foresee that some day it would succeed the 
various forms of paganism which were still rivalling it in the 
Eastern provinces of the Empire. From the moment when the 
old Armenian cults were menaced by a religious propaganda 
which was subversive of nationality, it was good policy to 
replace them by a religion with stronger power of resistance, 
which had no compromising connexion with the national 
adversary, and on the contrary had fixed its roots in the 
Empire which was a friend and protector. 

This official conversion led in the end to a Church which 
was frankly national. At the outset, it is needless to say, it 
was necessary to have recourse to neighbouring Churches in 
order to procure instructors, catechists. Some of these came 
from Roman Armenia, from Cappadocia and also from Syriac- 
speaking lands, from Edessa and from Nisibis. 2 As there was 
not yet an Armenian script, Greek and Syriac must have been 
employed in the Liturgy. It was only in the 5th century that 
Armenian characters were invented and that this language, 
which had hitherto remained an oral one, began to become 
literary. As for the religious organization it moulded itself 
from the beginning in the lines of the ancient cult. The 
temples, changed into churches, retained their territorial endow 
ment, which was enormous : their ministers were transformed 
into clergy : the most dignified became bishops. At the head 
of this priestly body, Gregory, the initiator of the movement, 

1 The exact date is not known. Yet the conflict between Maximin and 
the Armenians seems to presuppose that the conversion of the latter already 
goes back to a fairly early date, before the annexation of Sophene in 297. 
Gelzer, op. cit., p. 166, places the event in the neighbourhood of 280. 

2 It is possible that, even before Gregory, missionaries of Syriac speech 
had penetrated into the south of Armenia. The indications of this, and, 
in general, of Syrian intervention in the early days of the Armenian 
Church have been collected by Ervand Ter-Minassiantz in the first 
chapter of his study entitled Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen 
zu den syrischen Kirchen ("Texte und Untersuchungen," vol. xxvi. 1904). 



p. 534-7] RISE OF THE CATHOLICATE 371 

established himself in a kind of supreme pontificate which the 
Greeks described by the name Catholicos. 

This dignity, in exactly the same way as the royal office, was 
considered as hereditary : there was a kind of patriarchal 
dynasty just as there was a royal dynasty. Gregory had 
children : his two sons Aristaces and Urthanes succeeded him 
one after the other. Aristaces was present in 325 at the 
Council of Nicaea. Urthanes placed one of his sons at the 
head of the Georgian Church ; another, Jousik, succeeded him 
in Armenia. Later still we find his grandson Narses, and then 
the latter s son Sahag (Isaac) the Great. Such a system was. 
not without sources of inconvenience. The Armenian clergy 
had been largely, too largely, endowed with the goods of the 
temples. The original recruiting among the former pagan 
priests had prolonged, under the Christian label, the existence 
of a caste, consecrated and powerful, and now arranged in a 
hierarchy around a chief of high lineage. This personage could 
not fail to enter into rivalry with the political chief, and the 
conflicts between them presented all the greater danger because 
among these mountaineers organized on a feudal basis the 
authority of the Prince, undermined besides by the intrigues of 
neighbouring states, could never be very strong. The Catholicos 
Jousik was assassinated by King Diran ; Narses by King Pap. 

One may well imagine that so rapid a conversion must have 
been very superficial. A barbarian people, whose religion was 
of a gross and sensual kind, could not have been led between 
one day and the next, I do not say to the ideal of the Gospel, 
but to the morality, relatively lofty, which was still observed 
among the Christian bodies of the Roman Orient. There were 
even in certain connexions efforts at resistance, protests, in 
favour of the ancient religion. The Catholicos Urthanes was 
attacked one day, in the church of Aschdischad, by a tumult of 
revolted pagans. The Queen, whom the bishop was accustomed 
to reprove from time to time for her conduct, gave them secret 
encouragement. King Diran (326-337) also in his turn drew 
upon himself the reproaches of the Catholicos Jousik, the son 
of Urthanes, to whom the disorders of the Court were a cause 
of scandal. One day he refused the King entrance to the 
church : Diran had him dragged from it himself, and caused 
him to be given a beating from which he died a few days later. 

After the death of Jousik, his sons, who were devoted to the 
III. 2 B 



372 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [en. xiu. 

pleasures of the world, refused the office of Catholicos. For 
some time the Church of Armenia was administered by one 
of St Gregory s fellow-workers, Daniel the Syrian. Then 
followed two archbishops, Pharen and Sahag (Isaac), who 
seem to have let things go and scarcely to have offered any 
opposition to abuses. Neither of them was a descendant of 
Gregory the Illuminator. Sahag, however, was of a priestly 
family, that of Bishop Albian, one of the first fellow-workers 
of Gregory. 1 

Gregory s posterity was not exhausted. The two sons of 
Jousik were dead, but from one of them, Athanakines, and a 
daughter of King Diran, was born a child named Narses, who 
was brought up at Caesarea. Years passed by. The long 
period of hostilities between the Persians and the Romans, 
which began with the reign of Constantius, ended in the 
downfall of Julian. Sahag was at Antioch in the autumn of 
363. He signed (To-ccKo/a?) with a number of other bishops 
the Consubstantialist profession of Faith addressed to the 
Emperor Jovian, Shortly afterwards the seat of the Catholicos 
became vacant : Narses, still a very young man, had returned 
to the Court of Armenia, where he occupied a position in the 
entourage of King Arsaces. The Armenian nobles acclaimed 
him as Patriarch. He was taken to Caesarea, where Archbishop 
Eusebius occupied the episcopal throne. Basil was present 
at the ordination. The famous dove which one finds so 
often in these ceremonies appeared, so it was said, in the 
church and placed itself first on Basil and then on Narses. 
It was a sign. Narses, brought up in Cappadocia, had lived 
there in the observance of a form of Christianity more earnest 
than that of Armenia. He had seen there ascetics sober in 
dress, austere in morals : organizations for relief, hostels for 
the poor, the sick, and others, all the works of Eustathius and 
of Basil. He carried home with him, together with fruitful 
memories, a spirit hitherto unknown to his own land. The 
new religion of Armenia was scarcely anything but a kind 
of Anti-Mazdaeism under Christian forms, Narses desired to 
communicate to his fellow-countrymen the true religion of 

1 This family, from which the Catholicos was readily chosen when the 
line of Gregory failed, was dominant in the region of the upper Euphrates 
(Mourad-Sou) at ManAVteakert ; that of Gregory at Aschdischad (near 
Mouch) a little lower down on the same river. 



p. 537-40] NARSES 373 

the Gospel, that which he had seen practised with fruitful 
results in the land of the Romans. A Council was held at 
Aschdischad and promulgated laws in the form of canons. 
The young Catholicos preached Reform everywhere. He set 
himself in particular to inculcate the indissolubility of marriage 
and to abolish certain funeral customs. The monks were 
favoured, the clergy exhorted to conform themselves to their 
mode of life. New bishoprics were founded as well as houses 
of reception for the poor, the sick, the lepers, as well as for 
the elimination of mendicity. At the same time schools were 
opened in which Greek and Syrian masters acted as teachers. 

The zeal of Narses, seconded at first by public opinion, 
speedily brought upon him the enmity of the Court. He 
came into conflict with King Arsaces 1 who tried to set up in 
opposition to him a rival. When Arsaces in 367 had been 
taken prisoner by the Persians, Narses had a period of respite. 
The Emperor Valens was upholding in Armenia Pap, 2 son of 
Arsaces, to whom the Catholicos was for some time guardian. 
But Pap was not slow in freeing himself from control and 
behaved in such a way as to bring upon him the rebukes of 
the bishop. Narses paid the penalty for his frankness. He 
was invited to the king s table and there poisoned. 3 

His death was the signal for a reaction against his reforms. 
Not only were the customs condemned by Narses resumed, but 
the King went back upon Tiridates acts of generosity towards 
the churches : he took away from them the largest part of their 
endowments. Encouraged by the attitude of the prince, the 
people erected once more here and there the altars of the 
ancient gods. 

This change could not be agreeable to the- authorities of the 
Empire. The metropolitan of Caesarea protested against the 
assassination of the Catholicos. Down to that time the head 
of the Armenian Church had been regularly consecrated at 
Caesarea. This custom dated back to its origin : it was at 
Caesarea that St Gregory the Illuminator had received ordina 
tion. Once consecrated, the Catholicos himself used to ordain 
the other bishops. Since the death of Narses this power had 
been refused to him, and the Armenian bishops were obliged 
to come to secure consecration in Cappadocia. These relations, 

1 Faustus, iv. 13-15. 2 The "Para" of Ammianus Marcellinus. 

3 Faustus, v. 24. 



374 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 

in regard to which our information is imperfect, were favoured 
by the imperial policy, which, ever since Jovian had been obliged 
to abandon the protectorate of Armenia, was setting itself to 
regain by means of intrigues the ground lost by the ill-starred 
expedition of Julian. Pap, the murderer of Narses, was 
Valens man, a man little to be relied upon and one of whom 
the Emperor in the end got rid 1 in a fashion more oriental 
than honourable. In 373 we see St Basil receiving an official 
commission 2 to set in order the affairs of the Armenian Church. 
He went to Satala, a frontier town on the upper Lycus, where 
the Armenian bishops presented themselves before him. He 
addressed remonstrances to them on their passivity and urged 
them to show themselves for the future less indifferent in regard 
to matters in which the religious conscience is involved. One 
of them, Cyril, who was greatly disliked by the clergy of Satala, 
was subjected to an enquiry which turned in his favour. It 
would have been advisable to fill up the gaps which had come 
about in this episcopal body ; but the Bishop of Nicopolis, 
Theodotus, who would have been able to supply persons 
suitable and speaking Armenian was for the moment estranged 
from the metropolitan of Caesarea. 3 Owing to this incident 
Basil s mission failed in what was its essential purpose in the 
eyes of the Government. 

The matter was taken in hand again by King Pap himself. 
He sent to Caesarea a candidate for the episcopate, Faustus. 4 
It was customary that the Armenian bishops should only be 
ordained upon the recommendation of their colleagues of 
Armenia Minor. Faustus presented no testimony on their 
part. Basil refused to consecrate him. Faustus then addressed 
himself to Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, who was taking at this 
time the position of second metropolitan of Cappadocia. 
Anthimus consecrated him without demur. 5 

1 AmmianuSj xxx. i. 

2 It is quite possible that the ascendancy of Basil over the Armenian 
Episcopate counted among the reasons which determined Valens to 
tolerate him in his see. See Vol. II., p. 322. 

Ep. 199- 

4 This Faustus must be different from the one whom a .third Faustus, 
Faustus of Byzantium, mentions in his History in connexion with the 
election and death of St Narses (iv. 3 ; v. 24 ; cf. vi. 5, 6). However, with 
such historians all confusions are possible. 

5 Basil, Epp. 120-122. 



p. 540-S] FAUSTUS AND SAHAG 375 

The post that Pap was giving in this way to Faustus was 
precisely that in which Cyril had been confirmed by St Basil. 
It was an important post, perhaps that of Catholicos. 1 

After the death of Pap Armenia was tossed to and fro for 
a dozen years between the influence of Persia and the influence 
of Rome. In the midst of unceasing wars the national Church 
maintained itself as best it could. Its heads, Zaven, Sahag, 
Aschbourag, have left but a memory of a very faint kind. 
They belonged to the family of Albian. The family of Gregory 
was not, however, extinct. Narses had left a son, Sahag, who 
attained the office of Catholicos about the year 390 and played 
a very great part. When Armenia was partitioned, the holy 
places of Aschdischad and Etchmiadzin found themselves 
comprised within the Persian part, and in this naturally the 
Catholicos fixed his residence. 2 If he was not there already, 
he installed himself definitely at Etchmiadzin. All tie with 
Caesarea was broken, and an effort, was even made, by striking 
legends, to inculcate the idea that the primatial church had 
been founded by Jesus Christ in person. 

The accession of Sahag the Great practically coincides with 
the division of the kingdom of Armenia. For a comparatively 
short time there were two kings, vassals in the one case of the 
Greek Empire, in the other of the Persian state. It seems likely 
that the political separation had at the very same time ecclesi 
astical results and that the bishoprics situated in the Armenia 
which was subject to Rome were withdrawn from the obedience 
of the Catholicos. The southernmost of them formed part, 
from the middle of the 5th century onwards, of the ecclesiastical 
province of Amida. 3 We possess less light upon the relations 
of those in the north, which seem to have been attached, not to 
the nearest province, that of Sebaste, but to that of Caesarea. 4 

1 However, Faustus of Byzantium does not speak either of Cyril or of 
Faustus (at any rate under these names). According to him Narses was 
replaced by Jousig, of the family of Albian, without the intervention of the 
Bishop of Cassarea. It was then that the latter is represented as having 
forbidden to the Catholicos the consecration of his colleagues (v. 29). 

2 Faustus, vi. 1-4. 

3 This follows from the signatures of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. 

4 The Bishop of Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum) is, in the ancient Tam/ed, a 
direct suffragan of Caesarea. It is a reminiscence of the ancient relations 
between the metropolitical see of Cappadocia and the young Church of 
Armenia. 



37G CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [<-u. xm. 

In Persarmenia Sahag represented the national tradition, 
not only for religious matters but also from the dynastic point 
of view. The last descendant of St Gregory the Illuminator, 
he upheld to the end the rights of the Arsacids to rule over 
Armenia. At the same time that the last king, Ardaches, who 
was disliked by the Armenian nobles, was deposed by his 
suzerain, the King of Kings Bahrain V. (420-438), Sahag also 
was deprived of the pontificate. In place of the king, Bahram 
nominated a marzban or governor. As for the Catholicos, 
the Armenian " satraps " replaced him by a certain Sourmag, 
who did not please them long. The King of Persia, at 
their request, gave him successors who were Syrians, at first 
Perkischo, then Samuel. The saintly Sahag survived his three 
successors ; but, though entreated to do so, he was unwilling 
to ascend after them the throne of which he had been 
dispossessed. 

Sahag, with the aid of Mesrob, a learned monk, rendered 
to his fellow-countrymen the most signal of services by forming 
for them an alphabet which made it possible at last to write 
the national language. Up to that time the Armenians in 
respect of books had been tributaries of the Greeks or the 
Syrians. They preached in Armenian, but all writings were 
in Greek or in Syriac. Under the influence of Mesrob and of 
Sahag a quantity of Greek or Syriac books were translated 
into Armenian, and the writers of this land began to write in 
their own language. This has contributed not a little to 
preserve the individuality of this people, so greatly threatened 
by dismemberment and absorption of a political kind. 

The history of the pontificate of Sahag is fairly well known 
to us from the accounts of it given by three serious authors ot 
the 5th century Gorioun, author of a Life of St Mesrob, 
Elisha, and Lazarus, the historians of the Armenian insurrec 
tion in the time of Jazdgerd II. This last event is one of very 
great importance. From the time of the suppression of the 
Armenian kings clown to the middle of the 5th century, the 
kings of Persia had respected the religious beliefs of the country 
and had abstained from propagating Mazdoeism in it, still more 
from imposing its profession. Jazdgerd II., 1 in the twelfth year 
of his reign (449-450), addressed an invitation to the leaders of 
the nation to embrace the cult of Ormuzd. We still possess 
1 Elisha, c. 2 (p. 190) ; Lazarus, 20-23 (p. 281). 



r. 543-6] SAHAG AND MESROB ,>77 

this document, together with the reply made to it by the 
seventeen bishops of Armenia, the other leaders of the clergy, 
and the representatives of the aristocracy. The last, however, 
when summoned to Ctesiphon about Easter 450 yielded to the 
king s demand. They returned to Armenia with a body of 
700 Magi who were to superintend the change of cultus. 
Everything was to be concluded within the space of one year. 
But at the call of the clergy the whole of Armenia roso in 
revolt. The Marzban himself was obliged to take the side of 
the insurgents. Even those who had weakened at the King s 
Court became the leaders of the Holy League. The Roman 
Emperor, though invited to intervene, remained neutral. 
Reduced to their own resources, the Armenians fought valiantly 
and gained some successes. In the end the numbers and 
superior discipline of the Persian army got the better of the 
insurrection. The Marzban Vasag had gone over once more 
to the Persians, and by his exertions there was organized in the 
land quite a party which was favourable, if not to the new 
cult, at any rate to outward submission. On its side the royal 
government recognized that it had taken a wrong course and 
once more adopted its tradition of toleration. Only the leaders 
were interfered with. A certain number of Armenian nobles 
who had been sent to the king underwent a long and harsh 
captivity. The clergy were still more severely treated. The 
Catholicos Joseph, Sahag Bishop of Reschdouni and some 
priests, one of whom named Leo enjoyed a quite peculiar 
popularity, were executed near Nischapour in Khorassan 
(July 25, 454). It is these who are called the Leontian 
Martyrs. 

Peroz, the successor of Jazdgerd (457-484), restored their 
liberty to the "satraps" confined for their Faith and for 
insurrection (462-463). The Armenian Church had already 
reorganized itself, under the Catholicates of Melidas and of 
Moses, both of them natives of Manazgerd. After them the 
national pontificate was awarded to Kiud. 

Pacified externally, Armenia did not cease to be troubled 
by religious strife. Employment and honours were granted 
only to apostates. Without being officially imposed, Mazdaeism 
was spreading itself more and more by the magnetism 
of Government patronage. Naturally, patriots and zealous 
Christians did their utmost to counteract this movement. 



378 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 

Hence arose quarrels incessantly renewed. The Patriarch 
Kiud was, of course, the centre of the opposition. Denounced 
to the Court, he was summoned before the king and deprived. 
But the national party found other leaders in the family of 
the Mamigouni. This family, exceedingly influential and also 
deeply compromised in the previous wars or insurrections, 
found itself compelled to give pledges to the Court of Persia, 
even from the point of view of religion. In the twenty-fifth 
year of King Peroz (481-482), a revolt of the Iberians provided 
the Armenian patriots with a favourable opportunity. The 
eldest of the Mamigouni, Vahan, surnamed Vahan the Magus 
on account of his apostacy, put himself at the head of the 
movement. A military conspiracy broke out : the Marzban 
and the Persian commander had a narrow escape of capture. 
In several encounters the Persians were beaten by the 
insurgents. However, they succeeded in regaining the 
advantage, and the resistance took the form of a war of 
parties. Vahan prolonged it for a period of three years, 
during which he and his followers distinguished themselves 
by exploits worthy of the Maccabees. 

Success crowned their efforts. In 484 the King of Persia 
was defeated in a decisive battle by the Ephtalite Turks in 
the outskirts of Merv. The Persian Government felt the need 
of pacifying Armenia. They came to terms with the insurgents. 
Vahan Mamigouni, summoned to the presence of the new 
King Balasch, was commissioned by him to govern Armenia 
with the title of Marzban. It was a great triumph for the 
Christian and patriotic party. 

The Patriarch John Mantagouni, who had taken an 
important part in the movement of insurrection, had the 
joy of consecrating its happy ending by solemn Thanksgiving 
Services. The history of the two revolts of 450 and 481 was 
forthwith written by Lazarus of Pharbe and dedicated to the 
national hero Vahan Mamigouni. 

3. Persia}- 

About the year 333 the Emperor Constantine, writing to 
the King of Persia, Sapor II., commended to him the Christians 

1 J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans F Empire perse sous la Dynastic 
sassanide (Paris, 1904) ; Synodicon Orientale, ed. Chabot (Paris, 1902). 



r. 546-9] CHRISTIANITY IN PERSIA 379 

of this land : they were there, he said, in considerable numbers, 
in the principal districts. 1 He had learnt, adds Eusebius, that 
among the Persians there were many churches and Christians. 2 
The fact is, moreover, established by the Homilies of Aphraates, 
"the wise Persian," a contemporary of Eusebius, and by the 
documents of Sapor s persecution. 

The evangelization of the country must go back to a fairly 
early date. Tatian, like Aphraates, belonged to the land of 
Assyria or of Adiabene, which formed part of the Persian 
kingdom. In the 3rd century the Bardesanite dialogue, 
"The Laws of the Countries," 3 reasons about the moral 
obligations of the Christians of Parthia, Media, Persia and 
even of Bactriana, in such a way as to justify the inference 
that the Gospel already had disciples in the furthest regions of 
the Persian Empire. 

In regard to details we have only legends, each more 
improbable than the other. The fact which may be accepted 
as their residuum is that Christianity was imported chiefly from 
Edessa. In exceptional cases missionaries may have come 
from elsewhere, some even against their will, having been 
transferred to Persia as prisoners of war. 4 But Edessa, an 
ancient Christian centre of Syriac speech and Semitic culture, 
was the focus best situated for sending forth rays into the 
countries of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is precisely in 
this way that things are represented in the legend of St Maris, 
which, in spite of the lack of certainty which it offers in 
details must rest, at bottom, on a tradition worthy of 
considerable respect. 5 

In Persia the Gospel came into collision with an official 
religion which was strongly organized, Iranian Mazdseism. 
The priests of this cult, who were attached in each village to 
the local Pyraeum, 6 were governed by a kind of provincial 
bishop, the Mobed. The Mobeds (Magi) had a head, the 



, yw ] rv piffTtavuv . . . TT?S 

T<i KpdTHTTO. fTTi TrXc tffTOV, UHTTTfp tcTTl flOl j3oi \0/X^VU>, KK6<r/J.r}TO.l (EuSCbluS, Vita 

Constantini) iv. 13). 

2 H\i)6uiv ra$ TOV GeoO ^KK\Tjffia^ t Xaotfs re /j.vpidv5po\}5 TCUS roG "XpiffTou iroifj.vais 
tvaycXdfcffdai (Eusebius, Vita Constantini, iv. 8). 

3 Vol. I., p. 329. Eus., Praeparatio Evangelica, vi. 10, 46. 
Vol. I., p. 340. 

5 Edited by Abbeloos, Analecta Bollandiana, iv. p. 43. 
Temple of Fire. 



380 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [OH. xm. 

Mobedan-mobed or Archimagus, one of the most important 
personages of the Persian State. In the western provinces, 
which were Aramaean in race and language, this hierarchy 
represented little more than a facade. Ormuzd had not 
dethroned the old divinities of Nineveh and of Babylon : their 
worshippers, it is true, were outside the ruling caste ; they 
were treated as rayahs. Among them lived a numerous 
Jewish population, descendants in part of the great Captivity. 

About the time when the Apostles began to preach the 
Gospel the Jews were so influential in Adiabene that they 
succeeded in converting King Izates, together with his mother 
Helena, and his brother Monobazus. 1 Adiabene was at that 
time a little frontier kingdom, a vassal of the King of Persia 
as that of Osrhoene was of the Roman Emperor. 

But the real centre of the Jewish colonies was to be found 
towards the lower Euphrates, in the town of Nehardea. There 
were schools there from which issued the Babylonian Talmud. 
Jewish Christianity does not seem to have spread itself in 
these circles ; yet in the early developments of the religion of 
the Mandaites there can be recognized Christian elements 2 
which had filtered in, Heaven knows how, and had passed from 
it into Manicheism. It was certainly not from these roots 
that there sprang the Church of Persia. 

At the moment when it becomes visible to history its 
organization, roughly similar to that of the Churches of the 
Empire, presents on the other hand some peculiar features. 
The communities are governed by a body of bishops, priests, 
and deacons, with which is incorporated the group of ascetics, 
men and women. All of them taken as a whole bear the title 
of "Sons of the Alliance." In general there was only one 
bishop in each place : sometimes, however, we find two of 
them ; but it is an anomaly. Religious teaching is founded, 
as everywhere, upon the Bible : in the explanations given ot 
it rabbinical traditions furnished elements analogous to those 
which the Greek commentators derive from their national 
philosophies. There was little speculation on dogma. The 
Christology developed by Aphraates has certainly not been 
influenced by the controversies relating to Sabellius, to Paul 

1 Josephus, Ant. xx. 2-4. Helena died at Jerusalem shortly before the 
war of Titus. Her tomb is still to be seen there. 
- Cf. Vol. I., p. 409- 



p. 549-52] CHRISTIANITY AND MAZD^ISM 381 

of Samosata, and to Arianism. However, they maintained 
relations with the episcopate of the Empire. A Persian 
bishop was present at the Council of Nicaea 1 : there was one 
of them also at the Dedication of the Holy Sepulchre in 335 : 
he is even represented as a skilled theologian. 2 

The ecclesiastical language was Syriac, at any rate in the 
western provinces, the only ones from which any literary 
remains have come down to us. There is, however, nothing 
to hinder us from supposing that in the eastern districts, in 
Persia properly so-called, Hyrcania, Seistan, and the Oasis 
of Merv, the Liturgy was written and celebrated in Pehlvi or 
in another tongue. 

The lines of administration in which the hierarchy of the 
Mobeds had been shaped, served also for the Christian 
communities. There were distinguished at an early date the 
ecclesiastical provinces of Adiabene (Nineveh, Arbela, Mosul), 
Garamaea (Kerkuk), Chaldaea (Seleucia - Ctesiphon), Mesene 
(Bassora), Susiana (Gundisapor), Persia (Rew - Ardaschir). 
A province of Nisibis, trophy of the victory of Sapor over 
Julian, was added from 363 onwards. Others were organized 
later. A very natural tendency led the Bishops of Seleucia- 
Ctesiphon to transform themselves into Patriarchs after the 
example of the Grand Mobed and the Armenian Catholicos. 
This result, however, was not achieved without conflicts. 

Of these early days there remains a curious literary monu 
ment in the collection of the teachings of Aphraates 3 or Jacob, 
Bishop of the province of Adiabene, whose memory centred 
in the monastery of Mar-Mattai (St Matthew) to the north 
of Nineveh. These Teachings are dated with exactness, the 
first ten in the year 336-337, the others in 345. There were 
at first only twenty-two of them, corresponding to the letters 
of the Semitic alphabet ; a twenty-third was added as a supple 
ment. Aphraates treats in them of religious subjects of the 
most diverse kind : an important place is given to controversy 
against the Jews, a fact which agrees well with the special 
problems of the area. 



1 Eusebius, Vita Constantini, iii. 7 : lu&wijs Tlepcri8o<> among the signatures. 

2 Ibid. iv. 43 : ru 0e?ci Xoyia c^riKpipuKus avf]p. The name is not given. 

3 Published with a Latin translation by Dom Parisot in Mgr. Graffin s 
Patrol. Syriaca, vol. i. (Paris, 1894): in a German translation by Bert in 
the Tcxte tmd Untersuchungen y vol. iii. 



382 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [OH. xm. 

Between these two series of Teachings comes an event of 
very grave significance : the rupture of the Persian sovereign 
with his Christian subjects. Down to that time he had 
tolerated them. When Sapor II., while still in his mother s 
womb, 1 had been proclaimed king in 309, the Roman Empire 
was persecuting them. Now, not only did it show them 
favour in its own borders and tend to make of their religion 
a State Religion, but it posed as their protector in foreign 
countries. This was a grave matter, more especially as Sapor 
on arriving at manhood had set himself the task of recovering 
the provinces ceded in 297, and was preparing in consequence 
to break the peace. Since the last year of Constantine there 
had been occasional hostilities. Constantius had hardly been 
installed when war broke out with the celebrated siege of 
Nisibis, whose inhabitants, encouraged by their bishop James, 
did marvels and tired out the patience of the invader. The 
hostilities, with many vicissitudes of success and defeat, lasted 
on down to the downfall of Julian in 363. They began again 
even under Valens (373), and it was only with Theodosius that 
a settlement was achieved. 

In this state of relations it was easy to represent the 
Christians as supporters of the foreigner. The Jews naturally 
regarded them with dislike : the Magi, whose cult they held 
in abhorrence, were not any more their well-wishers. Besides 
the Christians hardly disguised their Roman sympathies. 
Aphraates, in his Fifth Homily, which belongs to 337, speaks 
in terms scarcely veiled of the war which is in preparation, 
and has no hesitation in prophesying the success of Edom 
(Rome). He was doubtless not the only one to think and 
speak in this fashion. Thus we must not be too much 
surprised that, shortly after the opening of hostilities, the 
Christians should have been persecuted in Persia. A beginning 
was made in 340 by inflicting on them extraordinary burdens ; 
then edicts enjoined the destruction of the churches and 
the confiscation of their property. At the same time an 
attack was made upon the clergy. Bishops, priests, and other 
clerks were arrested and taken to the royal residence at Ledan, 
in Susiana. The one of highest rank was Simon Barsabaeus, 
Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. An effort was made, without 

1 The Magi placed the royal crown on the body of the pregnant 
queen. 



p. 552-5] CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM 383 

success, to convert them to Mazdaeism. A first massacre 
took place on Good Friday 341 : in this Simon perished with 
several other bishops, a dozen priests of Seleucia, a hundred 
persons in all. In the following year it was the turn of his 
sisters, who were accused of magical practices against the 
sick Queen. They were cut in two and the Queen was made 
to pass between their bleeding limbs. At the same time there 
appeared an edict ordering the massacre of the Christians 
everywhere, without distinction between clergy and laity. 
These horrible orders were carried out with the refinements 
of Oriental cruelty. All private hatreds, all sanguinary 
instincts, were let loose. The Mazdaeist clergy, who were 
to be found everywhere, showed the greatest zeal in the 
discovery and pursuit of Christians. It was in particular in 
the presence of the Prince, under the protection of the armed 
force which accompanied him in his movements from place 
to place, that the massacres were perpetrated. Even at the 
Court and in high offices there were victims. 1 Almost the 
entire population of the valley of the Tigris would have ended 
by succumbing to it if Sapor had not changed his mind and 
confined the proscription to the members of the clergy alone. 

There were apostates but, so far as appears, many fewer 
than in the Roman persecutions. In many places Christian 
worship was suspended. The faithful of Seleucia made an 
effort to replace the martyr Bishop. A first successor, 
Schahdost, was elected : he was immediately arrested with 
128 clergy or religious of both sexes, who were all of them 
executed : he himself was beheaded (342). A nephew of 
Simon, Barbaschemin, succeeded Schahdost ; he too perished, 
together with sixteen clergy (346). It was necessary to 
abandon the effort to replace him : the episcopal see remained 
vacant for some twenty years. The other churches were 
not better treated. 

This reign of terror lasted down to the death of Sapor II. 
in 379. When there was an opportunity for recollection and 
for reckoning up the victims, nearly 16,000 names could be 
recovered. Nor was this the whole : in the confusion of the 
butcheries an enormous number of martyrs escaped all 
reckoning. The survivors speedily set themselves to collect 

1 Usthazanes, Major-domo of the Palace ; Pusaik, the Chief of the 
Workmen ; Azad, a favourite eunuch (Sozomen, H. E. ii. 9, u). 



384 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xni. 

the memories of these terrible years. Lists 1 were formed, 
stories were drawn up, the various editions of which, here 
as elsewhere, received embellishments as they progressed. 
The most important of them speedily circulated beyond the 
Persian frontier. The Greek historian Sozomen, about the 
middle of the 5th century, draws upon them largely. 2 

In this bath of blood the Church of Persia continued 
to live. In truth, and to judge from the " Teachings " 
of Aphraates, it hardly perceived the calamities which were 
bursting upon it. Orientals are accustomed to being 
massacred. Aphraates groaned, but with self-restraint. An 
imperturbable moralist, he continued to preach amid the 
tempest, and his fellow - countrymen continued to furnish 
him with subjects for remonstrances. 3 The clergy abused 
their authority : they were harsh to the poor, practised usury, 
spent themselves in continual quarrels. The greatest defect 
in organization was the fact that there was not, in the land, 
any superior ecclesiastical authority. Strictly speaking, the 
bishop of the capital seemed indicated as the person to direct 
the others : the neighbourhood of the Court and of the high 
dignitaries of the Empire put him more than his colleagues 
in touch with the political power : the latter had a disposition 
to consider him as representing more especially the Christian 
communities of the realm, and as responsible in certain 
respects for their loyalty. But where exactly was the capital ? 
The Court resided sometimes in Susiana, sometimes in 
Chaldaea. It was in this latter country at Ctesiphon, opposite 
to Seleucia, that it generally spent the winter. Ctesiphon 
was a royal town just as the Manchu city is at Pekin. The 
Court made full display there of its cumbrous pomp, its 
services, its military organization. On the other side of 

1 The most ancient is one which appears at the end of a very ancient 
Martyrology in the Syriac MS., Brit. Mus. Add. 12150, transcribed at 
Edessa in 412 (Acta Sanctorum, November, vol. ii., p. [Ixiii.]). 

2 Sozomen, H. E. ii. 9-14 ; Assemani, Acta Martyrum Orientalium, 
vol. i. (Rome, 1748), in Syriac and Latin. The collection published by 
Assemani has been wrongly attributed to Marutas, Bishop of Maipherqat 
(c. 400). Another Syriac edition has been given by Bedjan, Acta Martyrum 
et Sanctorum, vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1890). On the criticism of these documents 
see Labourt, op. tit., pp. 51-55. Cf. G. Hoffmann, Ausziige aus syrischen 
Akten persischer Marty rer (Leipzig, 1886). 

3 See especially Homily XIV. 



p. 555-8] APHRAATES AND MARIS 385 

the Tigris, on the right bank, at the confluence of the Royal 
Canal (Naharmalka) which linked it with the Euphrates, rose 
Seleucia (Beth-Ardaschir), a vast town, one of the great marts 
of the world. Seleucus, the lieutenant of Alexander, had 
founded it to succeed Babylon, which was declining : in its 
place, in the Middle Ages, there rose a little higher on the 
Tigris the very important town of Bagdad. It was in origin 
a Greek city like Antioch : from it came several men of 
letters. But from the time when the Parthians had been 
substituted there for the Seleucids this distant Hellenism 
began to dissolve itself in the Semitic surroundings : in the 
3rd century, to judge from appearances, there were no longer 
there any but passing Greeks, drawn thither by commerce. 
Several times ravaged, even burnt by the armies of Trajan, 
Lucius Verus, Septimius Severus, Seleucia at the time when 
Christianity made its way into it found itself greatly fallen 
from its ancient splendour. 

According to a tradition which has but little authority, 1 but 
is perhaps to be accepted in this, the Evangelizer, the first 
Bishop, was Maris, who had come from Edessa and who 
established in the oldest quarter of the town the most ancient 
church of the district, the church of Kokhe (Kor^). This 
name seems to be the one which the place bore before 
Seleucus. 2 After these origins we hear mention of a Bishop 
Papa, who seems to have had serious difficulties alike with his 
colleagues, notably Miles the Bishop of Susa, and with his own 
clergy, instigated by one of its members, Simon Barsabaeus. 
Papa would seem to have been deposed and Simon appointed in 
his stead ; but the bishops of the Roman Empire, the " Western 
Fathers," when consulted in regard to this matter seem to have 
intervened, to have restored Papa and to have decided that 
only on his death should Simon exercise episcopal functions. 3 
He exercised them, in fact, down to his martyrdom. In 344 
Aphraates, in the name of an assembly of Bishops and other 
Christian leaders, addressed a long and severe admonition to 
a group in which figured the clergy of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. 
The latter was a prey to serious disorders. 

1 See Labourt s discussion, op. cit. p. 13. 

2 Just as at Alexandria the Racotis quarter preserved a name earlier 
than Alexander. 

3 On this affair see the Synodicon Orientate, ed. Chabot, pp. 289 ff. ; 
Assemani, Acta Mart. Orient., vol. i., p. 72 ; cf. Labourt, op. cit. p. 21. 



386 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH.XIII. 

When peace returned, on the accession of Sapor III. in 383, 
the churches of Persia re-organized themselves, and the question 
of primatial authority could be taken up once more. Happily, 
diplomatic relations having been renewed between the Emperors 
of the Theodosian family and the Persian sovereigns, it was 
possible also to re-establish from the side of the West 
ecclesiastical communications. Marutas, 1 Bishop of Maipherqat 
(Martyropolis in Mesopotamia beyond the Tigris), was several 
times added to imperial embassies and succeeded in creating a 
certain influence at the Persian Court and with the Episcopate 
of the kingdom. It was by his exertions, and in virtue of a 
royal summons, that there was held in 410 the Council of 
Seleucia. 2 

Marutas presented himself at it with a letter of the 
"Western Fathers," Porphyry of Antioch, Acacius of Beroea, 
and their colleagues of Edessa, Telia, and Amida. The Persian 
prelates took official cognizance of it. There were communi 
cated to them also the creed and the canons of Nicaea; they 
accepted them and formulated a scheme of discipline in 
conformity alike with the Nicene ordinances and with local 
conditions. An effort was made before all else to strengthen 
the union between Christians of the same Church and to 
establish a real bond between the Churches themselves. The 
Council proclaimed the superior authority of the Bishop of the 
two royal towns (Mahoze, Madain = Seleucia-Ctesiphon) over 
the metropolitans of the provinces and over the bishoprics 
established outside the provincial organization. The metro 
polises were : Beit-Lapat (Gundesapour) 3 for Susiana ; Nisibis, 
for the frontier province, added again to the Roman Empire ; 
Prat 4 in Mesene, for the province of the lower river; Arbela, 
for Adiabene ; Karka of Beit-Selok, 6 for Garamaea. The Bishops 
of Persia and of the more distant regions, whether in the 
interior or on the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, were not 
yet grouped in metropolitical jurisdictions. 

An effort at internal organization, with the assistance of the 
episcopal body of the neighbouring Empire, and above all with 
the benevolent support of the royal power that is what is 
represented by the Council of Seleucia. The King of Kings, 

1 Supra, p. 62. 

2 Synodic ox Orientate, ed. Chabot, p. 253. 

3 Sahabad, between Susa and Souster. 4 Bassora. 6 Kerkuk. 



p. 558-61] COUNCIL OF SELEUCIA 387 

Jazdgerd I., had already given testimony of his good-will 
towards the Christians by the promulgation of a kind of edict 
of religious liberty and by causing the rebuilding of the 
churches destroyed during the persecution. 1 He received in 
audience the leaders of the Council, Isaac and Marutas, and 
by the medium \>f two very high officials, signified to the 
assembly that he ratified its resolution and would take steps to 
secure their application in practice. 

It could have been wished that everyone had continued in 
the good intentions which had been displayed at the Council. 
Unhappily the old habits of indiscipline speedily regained the 
upper hand and the organization of the Patriarchate was not 
slow in being undermined afresh. The second successor of 
Isaac, Jahbalaha, had made as ambassador the journey to 
Constantinople in 417-8 : two years later the Bishop of Amida, 
Acacius, arrived at Seleucia in the same capacity. It was 
agreed to hold a new Council (420), and this time the Church 
of Persia accepted a Byzantine code of a more comprehensive 
kind : it contained the canons of Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, 
Antioch, and Laodicea. Collections of this kind began to 
circulate in the Eastern Empire : they passed even into Latin 
countries. I do not know whether Acacius of Amida who 
carried them to Persia rendered a great service to the Church 
of that land. The majority of these canons had been dictated 
by circumstances of a local and transitory kind : they scarcely 
lent themselves to adaptation for general use. 

Jazdgerd I died in 420. During the last part of his reign 
mention is made of several executions of Christians. These, 
under the favourable conditions of religious peace, had 
multiplied in numbers. Conversions took place among the 
Mazdaeist Persians, even among officials or dignitaries of 
State. Proselytism of this kind, which was greatly disliked 
at Court, was sure to raise difficulties. Others arose from 
the imprudent zeal of certain Christian priests who did not fail, 
as opportunity offered, to assail the national religion 2 and to 

1 He bore an excellent reputation at Constantinople. Socrates (H. JS. 
vii. 8) represents him as extremely disposed to turn Christian ; Procopius 
(Bellum Pers. i. 2) relates that Arcadius had entrusted to him, by will, the 
guardianship of his son Theodosius II. All this is of very small credibility. 

2 Theodoret, H, E. v. 38; Labourt, op. cit. pp. 105 ff. ; Cf, Analecta 
Boll, xxviii., pp. 399-415 (Peelers). 

III. 2 C 



388 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 

overthrow the Pyraea. However, it seems very likely that 
under Jazdgerd repression was confined to particular cases. 
His son and successor, Bahram V., yielding to the sug 
gestions of the Mobeds, let loose a general persecution 
and one of extreme cruelty. 1 Before the prospect of 
tortures of the most horrible character the Christians fell 
away in great numbers : others hid themselves : those who 
happened to be within reach of the frontier took refuge in the 
Roman Empire, 2 despite the guard which was kept on this side 
by the Arab tribes. The result of this was frontier incidents 
between the two empires. To the protests which came from 
Constantinople against the persecution of the Christians reply 
was made from Ctesiphon that the Magi of Cappadocia 3 were 
disturbed in the exercise of their worship. Complaint was also 
made that the Roman Empire, which had as great an interest 
as the King of Persia in the gates of the Caucasus remaining 
closed to the barbarians of the North, did nothing to aid in 
their defence. War broke out : it lasted for nearly two years, 
and was on the whole fairly successful for the Romans. 4 In the 
course of the operations 7000 Persian prisoners were delivered 
by the Bishop of Amida at the charge of his church. Acacius 
remained faithful to the good relations that he had entertained 
in the preceding years with the Persian Court. King Bahram 
desired to see him and once more he made the journey to 
Ctesiphon. 

When peace was made with Theodosius II. in 422, the 
position of the Christians of Persia improved a little. Their 
bishops took advantage of it to revive the old quarrels : once 
more opposition raised itself against the Catholicos Dadiso. 
His adversaries interested in their cause some personages of 
the Court, and also, so it would seem, certain bishops of 
the Byzantine Empire. 5 Disgusted with these intrigues the 

1 Theodoret, loc. cit. t and Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, ix. 9. Cf. 
Labourt, op. cit. pp. 112 ff. 

2 One of them, a certain Abraham, came as far as Auvergne. Sidonius 
Apollinaris had known him (Ep. vii. 17). 

3 Cf. Vol. I., p. 393. This was the time when Theodore of Mopsuestia 
was writing ,against the Magi of Persia ; Theodoret himself too published 
a book of controversy with the Magi, II/>ds rd$ 7Tfi5<rets T&V WLdyw {Ep. 82). 

4 Socrates, H. E. vii. 18-21. 

6 Perhaps Acacius of Amida, who visited the Persian capital at the time 
of these differences. 



i>. 561-4] THE PERSIAN CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE 389 

Catholicos desired to retire from the world. He yielded, 
however, to the entreaties of his supporters who gathered 
themselves together and went to look for him in an Arab 
district, Maktaba of Tayyaye. There a council 1 was held 
which restored Dadiso, and decided that for the future religious 
matters should not be carried before the "Western Fathers," 
the latter having themselves laid down that no council ought to 
assemble itself against the Catholicos and that all the dis 
cussions ought to be terminated by him, in conjunction with his 
colleagues of the Persian kingdom. What St Peter had been 
in the Apostolic College, the Catholicos was in his body of 
bishops. 

Thus was cut the bond, a very weak one, which, from a 
disciplinary point of view, attached the Persian Church to that 
of the Roman Empire, and more especially to the Patriarchal 
See of Antioch. It is possible that in thus accentuating its 
autonomy the episcopate of the kingdom of Persia thought to 
diminish the constant suspicions of the Government as to the 
co-religionists of the Romans. I believe, however, that it was 
inspired by the necessity of strengthening the local ecclesiastical 
organization which too frequent appeals to a distant authority 
could not have failed to compromise. It is the same feeling 
which had led the bishops of Africa to forbid appeals from 
their jurisdiction to that of the Holy See. It would have been 
happy if they had rested there, and if, under pretext of 
autonomy, they had not ended by breaking every connexion 
and by sacrificing the community of faith. 

After Bahram V. his successors Jazdgerd II. (438-457) and 
Peroz (457-484) were also, at intervals, bigoted persecutors. 
Jazdgerd II., as we have seen above, endeavoured to convert 
Armenia to Mazdaeism. He also persecuted the Jews : he was 
a Mazdaean of a very fanatical kind. In Persia also we find 
mention of martyrs, 2 John, Metropolitan of Beit-Selok,who was 
executed at Kerka in company with a great number of others, 
and in Media Pethion a renowned missionary. Under Peroz 
the Catholicos Babowai was thrown into prison, and spent two 
years there, at a time when the Persians were once more at war 
with the Romans. Set at liberty in 464, he administered his 

1 Synodicon Orientate, p. 285. 

2 Hoffmann, Ausziige aus sy rise hen Akten persischcr Mdrtyrer^ pp. 43- 
68 : cf. Anal. Boll, vii., p. 5. 



390 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xm. 

pontificate for some twenty years longer; but one day a 
correspondence was seized between him and the Emperor 
Zeno. Peroz caused him to be hung by his ring finger (484). 

4. Echoes of Christological Disputes. 

Neither the Armenian Church nor the Church of Persia 
took any direct part in the Christological disputes which 
agitated the Empire during the 5th century. No bishop of 
these countries figured at the Councils of Ephesus and of 
Chalcedon. As to the latter in particular, the Armenians, who 
were occupied in defending themselves against persecuting 
Mazdaeism, were effectively hindered from attending. How 
ever, the religious divisions in the Byzantine Episcopate rever 
berated beyond the Eastern frontiers, and this reverberation had 
very grave consequences for the future of these far-off Christian 
communities. It was just in the Euphrates provinces of the 
Empire that the conflict of opinions was most acute. Acacius 
of Melitene and Rabbulas of Edessa had taken sides in it in 
favour of Cyril : a number of monks supported their views, 
and even exaggerated them. The Apollinarian * monks who 
had exclaimed so loudly against John of Antioch and who 
assailed Cyril himself were monks of Roman Armenia. In 
the contrary direction Theodoret, Andrew of Samosata, John 
of Germanicia, the School of the Persians at Edessa, with its 
head Ibas, who soon became a bishop, preserved a current of 
opinion favourable, not doubtless to the wild talk of Nestorius, 
but to the doctrinal tradition by which he had been influenced. 
We have seen 2 that about 438 the bishops of Persian Armenia 
had made themselves the exponents at Constantinople of the 
scruples excited by the theological opponents of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia. 3 It was from Iberia that there had come to 
Constantinople a man who was destined to be one of the 
leaders of the Monophysite party, Nabarnougi, who, under 
the name of Peter and the habit of a monk, lived in Palestine 
in the circle of Gerontius and of the Empress Eudocia, was 
ordained Bishop of Maiouma by Theodosius, the intruded 
Patriarch of Jerusalem, himself consecrated Timothy Aelurus 

1 Supra, p. 270. 2 Supra, p. 268 f. 

3 Two of them were in correspondence with Theodoret (Epp. 77, 78), 
but for quite a different matter. 



p. 564-7] MONOPHYSITISM 391 

at Alexandria, and always remained on the left wing of his 
party, so much so that it was impossible to induce him to agree 
to the Henotikon. 

There were thus in the Armenian Church predispositions 
to Monophysitism. When this current was strengthened among 
its neighbours to the West, when the " Nestorian " bishops had 
been replaced by prelates of opposite tendency, when the School 
of the Persians at Edessa had been roughly handled and then 
closed, when finally the Henotikon, everywhere imposed, had 
been interpreted in a sense more and more unfavourable to the 
Council of Chalcedon, it is not surprising that this state of 
feeling should have propagated itself among the Armenians. 
In the period of material peace which followed the wars 
of Vahan, the Catholicos Babken, who succeeded John 
Mantagouni, held a great Council at Valarschapat in 491, 
and there, surrounded not only by his own bishops but also 
by those of Iberia and of Albania, solemnly pronounced the 
condemnation of the Tome of Leo and of the Council of 
Chalcedon. 1 

In so doing he was acting in accordance, if not with the text 
of the Henotikon, at anyrate with the sense which was more 
and more being attached to it in the Roman Orient. But when 
the wind changed, thirty years later, the Armenians did not 
follow the Byzantine Episcopate in its volte-face : hence came 
the schism which, since that time, separates it from the Orthodox 
Church. 

If the Persian bishops, faithful to the spirit of Dadiso s 
Council, abstained from carrying their disputes before their 
colleagues in the West, and even from taking part in the 
dogmatic conflicts of the Byzantine Episcopate, they none 
the less maintained communication with their neighbours 
through the channel of the School of their nation, established 
at Edessa since the time, so it was said, of St Ephrem. 

In the time of Ibas this School included a large number of 
teachers and students, all natives of the Persian kingdom. 
There the questions of the day were discussed, there people 
disputed for or against Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. 

1 John the Catholicos (John VI.), a historian of the loth century, p. 43 
of the Armenian edition (Jerusalem, 1843), quoted by Gelzer in Hauck s 
Encyclopedic i vol. ii., p. 78. 



392 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [OH.XITT. 

The majority held for the teachers of Antioch and showed 
themselves very hostile to the Alexandrian theology. There 
was, however, an opposition among whom Cyril counted some 
weighty supporters, notably a certain Xenaias or Philoxenus, 
who later on played an important part. Among the others, in 
addition to Ibas himself, who became Bishop in 435, were to be 
found Barsumas, 1 Balai and Balasch, all three of them greatly 
disliked by the Monophysites. After the enquiry by Chereas 
in April 449 2 loud cries were raised for their expulsion. This 
same.year Ibas having been removed from Edessa and replaced 
by Nonnus, they were, in fact, exiled, and not only they but 
many others besides. 3 On returning to their own country 
they attained to important ecclesiastical positions there : 
quite naturally they set themselves to accredit the views with 
which they were imbued and for which they had suffered 
persecution. 

When the Henotikon appeared, Barsumas, who had become 
Metropolitan of Nisibis, provoked at the Council of Beit-Lapat 
in Susiana in 484 a doctrinal demonstration in the contrary 
sense. Two years later, at another Council, the Catholicos 
himself, Acacius the successor of Babowai, in his turn defined 
the belief of the Persian Church : " Our faith must be, as regards 
the Incarnation of Christ, in the confession of the Two Natures 
of the Divinity and the humanity. None of us must dare to 
introduce jumbling, commixtion or confusion between the 
diversities of these two natures. But, the Divinity remaining 
and persisting in its own properties and the humanity in its 
own, we reunite in a single majesty and a single adoration the 
diversities of the natures, because of the perfect and indissoluble 
cohesion of the Divinity with the humanity. And if anyone 
thinks or teaches others that passion or change is inherent in 
the Divinity of our Lord, and if he does not preserve in relation 

1 A very different person from the one who played a part at the second 
Council of Ephesus. 

- Supra, p. 285. 

3 This expulsion is usually placed after the death of Ibas in 457. But 
his successor Nonnus showed himself faithful to the Council of Chalcedon, 
as is testified by his Synodal Letter of 458 (Mansi, Cone, vii., p. 552). It 
is more natural to place this event in 449 or 450, after the deposition of 
Ibas and not after his death. The letter of Simeon of Beth-Arsam 
(Assemani, BibUotheca Orientalis^ i., pp. 204, 353) on these events is full 
of confusions. 



p. 567-70] THE SCHOOL OF EDESSA 393 

to the unity of person of our Saviour the confession of a Perfect 
God and of a Perfect Man, let him be Anathema." l 

Acacius had received his training, like Barsumas, at the 
School of Edessa. His Confession of Faith is derived from 
the theology of Antioch ; between it and the Formula of 
Union in 433 or that of the Council of Chalcedon there are 
only shades of expression. 

However, the term " Mother of God " was avoided. It will 
always be so, for in Persia people will always be hostile to what 
theologians call the communicatio idioinatum. When they shall 
make the distinction between Nature and Hypostasis, they will 
feel repugnance to the Hypostatic Union and will hold to the 
Personal Union. It is the old doctrine of Antioch which has 
remained outside the influences which in Greek Syria modified 
it in some points, and led it to recognize itself in the decree of 
Chalcedon. 

Nestorius had very little prominence in this Syriac world. 
They attached themselves there more readily to Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, of whom they possessed many writings. It was 
only later that they restored the memory of the former Bishop 
of Constantinople. This entailed the rejection of the Councils 
of Ephesus and of Chalcedon. With the latter, strictly speaking, 
they could have come to terms from a doctrinal point of view : 
Nestorius quite recognized himself in Flavian and in Leo. 
Whether his estimate remained unknown, whether repugnance 
was felt at ratifying a condemnation which had put him on the 
same footing as Eutyches, or, in short, for some other reason, 
it remains a constant fact that the Council of Chalcedon was no 
more recognized than the Council of Ephesus in Persia. In 
fine, it is on the teaching of the school of Antioch at the time 
of Theodore of Mopsuestia that the doctrinal tradition of the 
Persian Church branches off. Of further developments and 
conflicts, even of that to which the name of Nestorius remains 
attached, it felt but very little effect. 

This may be said of the Great Church, of that over which 
presided the Catholicos of Seleucia ; but we must not suppose 
that it continued indefinitely to represent the whole of the 
Christian elements in the Kingdom of Persia. Monophysite 
propaganda was not slow in intervening, and it too obtained 
some notable successes. 

1 Synodicon Orientate^ edited and translated by Chabot, p. 302. 



394 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH. xni. 

Thus in the dominions of the King of Kings the Christians 
of Armenia no longer professed the same faith as those of the 
Aramaean territory. Even in the latter a doctrinal opposition 
was in course of formation against the metropolitical see of 
Seleucia-Ctesiphon, weakened already by the constant in 
discipline of its suffragans. In the midst of these Christian 
discords the tertius gaudens ought to have been Ahura-Mazda : 
it was the moment for his pyraa to blaze in joy and security. 
Nothing of the sort, however, happened. Just as in the fourth 
century Christianity had conquered the Roman Empire despite 
the quarrels of the bishops, in the same way we see it at the 
moment that we have reached triumphing in Persia over 
similar obstacles, though rendered more formidable by official 
disfavour and by the resistance, a well-organized resistance, 
of the Mazdaean clergy. Islam alone arrested its progress. 

5. The Arabs and the Indians. 1 

On the Aramaean populations of the valley of the Tigris 
and of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire bordered 
the ethnic group of the Arab tribes, nomadic in the neighbour 
hood of the Euphrates and of Syria, attached to the soil at 
certain points, notably at the approaches of the Persian Gulf 
and in what was called Arabia Felix, in the southern angle of 
the Arabian peninsula. The nomads of the north lived, very 
poorly, on the fringe of the two great empires whose frontiers, 
in any case very imperfectly delimited, hardly existed for them. 
Those nearest to Persia early possessed a political centre in 
proximity to the Tigris, in the renowned fortress of Hatra. 2 
Towards the middle of the 3rd century this place was swept 
away by Ardaschir or Sapor I., 3 but another Arab metropolis 
was soon founded to the south of the Euphrates and of Babylon, 
Hira or Hirta of Naaman. 4 Less organized, the nomads of 
the west wandered about between the Euphrates and the 
Syrian towns, Beroea (Aleppo), Chalcis, Epiphania (Hamath), 

1 See my book Eglises stparfos, pp. 366 ff. Cf. the Melanges of the 
Ecole de Rome, vol. xv:., pp. 79 ff. 

2 El Hadr, to the S. W. of Mosul. 3 Noldeke, Tabari, p. 33. 

4 Hira is the Arabic, Hirta the Syriac name. To Hira succeeded 
Koufa, in the time of the first Caliphs, then Nedjef or Meched-Ali, now 
one of the Holy Places of the Shiites. 



p. 570-3] ARAB TRIBES 395 

Emesa, Palmyra, Bostra, Petra. Others moved about in the 
Sinai peninsula, between Petra and the Egyptian Isthmus. 

These sons of the desert scarcely offered a hold for Christian 
preaching. However, as the result of straying over the frontiers 
of the Roman Empire they fell in with the Die-hards of 
Asceticism, whose manner of life made a strong impression 
upon them. Their fasts, their grim places of abode, their 
costume, might seem eccentric to dwellers in the Roman 
towns : they were exactly what was needed to excite the 
attention and the respect of the nomads. Hilarion (f 371), who 
led a. life of penance on the outskirts of Gaza, exercised much 
influence over them. 1 Sozomen 2 speaks of a Sheik Zokoum, 
of the same district, so it would seem. He had no children : a 
solitary obtained some for him by praying for him, on condition 
that he would be converted. He complied, together with his 
whole tribe. 

A Queen of the~Saracens, Maouvia, had for a long time been 
making war on the Romans. She ended by accepting peace 
and even conversion, but on condition that a bishop should be 
given to her tribe and that this bishop should be Moses, 
a solitary whom she held in high esteem. The Emperor 
Valens consented to this arrangement, and Moses was taken 
to Alexandria to be ordained by the Arian Bishop, Lucius. 
But the solitary protested : they had to find Catholic bishops 
for him and to go to look for them in places of exile. 3 It is 
probably this same Moses who, according to other accounts, 
converted an Arab tribe belonging to the Desert of Pharan 
together with its chief Obadian. 4 Such was the origin of the 
Bishopric of Pharan which carried on its work for some time 
in the Oasis of that name, at the foot of Serbal, and was later 
attached to the famous monastery of St Catherine. 5 

Other establishments of this kind were formed in Palestine 
and Eastern Phoenicia: that of Parembolae, to the east of 



1 St Jerome, Vita Hilarionis, 25. 

2 vi. 38. 3 Rufinus, H. E. ii. 6. 



4 Combefis, lllustrium mar ty rum triumphi, pp. 99 ff. 

6 A monk called Nathyr was Bishop of Pharan about the beginning of 
the 5th century (Vitae Patrum, v. 10, 36 ; Migne, Patrol. Latina, Ixxiii., 
c. 918). He is, after Moses, the earliest that we know. Agapitus, the 
alleged Bishop of Sinai in the time of Licinius (Raymond Weil, La 
Presqu ile du Sinai^ 1908, pp. 221, 258) is ia reality a Bishop of Synaos in 
Phrygia. 



396 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH.XTII. 

Jerusalem, another in the outskirts of Damascus, whose bishops 
sat at the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Bishopric 
of Parembolae presents us with a special feature of interest. 
Its first holder was no other than the former Sheik. Before 
his conversion he was called Aspebaetos. His son, a paralytic, 
having been healed by St Euthymius, a monk on the outskirts 
of Jericho, Aspebaetos passed over to Christianity together 
with his tribe. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, baptized 
him by the name of Peter and consecrated him Bishop of the 
Saracens. 1 He played a part at the Council of Ephesus in 431. 

These Arab bishoprics remained isolated from one another : 
they did not group themselves as a national Church, like those 
of Persia and Armenia : they even entered like the other 
Syrian bishoprics into the provincial organizations of the 
Byzantine Church. 

To the south of this Roman Arabia there stretched, in the 
interior, the plateaus of the Nedjed and, near the Red Sea, 
the district of the Hedjaz. The Nedjed was touched by 
Christian preaching, but at a quite late date, not before the 
sixth century. As for the Hedjaz, it never heard it. On the 
other hand, Christianity reached, fairly early, populations much 
farther south, those of the high plateaus which command on 
east and west the outlet of the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean. 
On this side there was something quite different from nomad 
tribes. Two states were established there. On the Arabian 
side the port of Aden, famous from the most distant times, 
centralized in transit the commerce of the Mediterranean and 
of Egypt with the marts of India : in the valleys of the interior 
were cultivated products of great value. It was rich Arabia, 
fortunate Arabia (Felix), the modern Yemen. The princes of 
Saba in bygone days had defended their autonomy against 
Egypt and Assyria; severely handled sometimes by the 
Romans, they were in the end left to themselves. From the 
time of Caesar and of Augustus their state bore the name of 
Kingdom of Himyar or Homer. 

On the African side, the port of Adoulis, like that of 
Massaoua at the present day, allowed of communication with 
the mountaineers of Abyssinia. The latter belonged to the 
same ethnic sources as the neighbouring tribes, Gallas, Dankalis, 
Somalis ; but they had been modified in the course of centuries 
1 Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Eufhymii, c. 18 ff. 



p. 573-6] HOMER AND AXOUM 397 

by a strong Arab migration from the other side of the sea. 
Towards the end of the ist century they formed themselves 
into an organized state of which the town of Axoum was the 
capital. 

In religion the Axoumites and Homerites practised the 
old Sabean cult, a variety of Semitic polytheism. It was 
assailed quite early by a strong Jewish propaganda which 
came, so it seems, from the Israelite colonies in the interior 
which, by way of Teima, Khaiber, and Yathrib (Medina) 
staked out the way between Southern Syria and Arabia Felix. 
In the 4th century the Jews were very numerous in the 
Yemen. 

It is not impossible that among them there may have been 
Jewish Christians. Thus would be explained the fact of that 
Hebrew Gospel which, according to a tradition of considerable 
antiquity, 1 Pantaenus is represented as finding in the country 
of the " Indians." It was said that it had been brought there 
by the Apostle Bartholomew. But the " Indians " of Pantaenus 
are very problematical people. 2 What seems more certain and 
more clear is that towards the middle of the 4th century the 
two countries of Saba and Axoum received missionaries who 
came from the Roman Empire. 

For Axoum Rufinus- tells the following story, drawn by him 
from a good source. 

A philosopher named Metrodorus had visited these 
countries. Following his example another explorer, Meropus 
of Tyre, undertook the same journey, accompanied by two 
Christian children, Frumentius and Aedesius, whom he was 
educating. During a halt, doubtless at Adoulis, a quarrel 
arose between the natives and the members of the expedition : 
the latter were all massacred, Meropus perishing with them. 

1 Eusebius, H. E. v. 10 ; cf. Vol. I., p. 243, note 2. 

2 St Jerome (Dc Viris, 36 ; Ep. 70) adds definiteness to the indications 
of Eusebius. He knows that it was to the Brahmins that Pantaenus 
preaching was addressed, and that it was the Indians themselves who had 
asked Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, to send them missionaries. All 
this seems to be conjectural. There is no more reliance to be placed on 
the reports of Rufinus (//. E, i. 9), who sends St Matthew to Ethiopia and 
St Bartholomew to Nearer India. He designates Abyssinia by the name 
of Further India and places it between Nearer India and the land 
of the Parthians. There could not be greater confusion. See Vol. I., 
pp. 92, 243. 



398 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH.XTTI. 

Only the two children escaped. Taken to the king and 
welcomed by him, they succeeded in gaining his favour with 
such effect that Frumentius became his secretary and Aedesius 
his cup-bearer. After the king s death the queen kept the 
two Tyrians, to teach her son who was in his infancy. They 
profited by their position to promote the practice of religion 
among the Christian merchants whom commerce with the 
Empire led to sojourn in the land. They themselves set the 
example of piety : from this time some churches were built. 
On the young prince s majority they obtained permission to 
return to their own country. Aedesius became a priest at Tyre 
and himself gave Rufinus an account of his adventures. As 
for Frumentius he went to Alexandria, told Bishop Athanasius 
what had taken place, and urged him to send a bishop to a 
land so well prepared to receive the Gospel. Athanasius 
deemed that no one was more suitable than Frumentius to fill 
this office. He ordained him bishop and sent him back to 
Abyssinia where his ministry met with the greatest success. 1 
A little later the Emperor Constantius had business with 
the kings of these distant lands. He chose as his envoy the 
celebrated Theophilus the Indian or Blemmyan, who had long 
been living at the Court of Antioch with a great reputation for 
asceticism and the working of miracles. 2 He was an Arian 
and one of the most irreconcilable kind. Perhaps the mission 
of Frumentius had attracted his attention and aroused in him 
feelings of anxiety. Whether he spoke of this to the Emperor 
or the Emperor had found out for himself that a missionary 
sent by Athanasius could not be otherwise than dangerous, the 
fact is that Constantius wrote in 356 to the princes of Axoum, 
Aizan and Sazan. 3 They were asked to despatch Frumentius 
without delay to Alexandria ; for as he derived his consecration 
from Athanasius it was to be feared that he shared the " errors " 

1 The ordination of Frumentius must be placed either shortly before 339 
or shortly after 346, for between these two dates Athanasius was absent 
from Egypt. Rufinus is a little mixed in the chronology : cf. Aglises 
sfyar&s, p. 311, note i. 

2 Vol. II., p. 222. 

3 The text is preserved by Athanasius (ApoL ad Constantium, 31). A 
Greek inscription (Corpus Inscript. Graec. 5 128), in the name of Aizan as sole 
king, mentions his two brothers Saiazan and Adefas. We see in it that 
Aizan was a pagan : however, the letter of Constantius seems to assume 
that the two princes to whom it was addressed were already converted. 



p. 576-9] FRUMENTIUS AND AEDESIUS 399 

of that prelate who had been at this time condemned and 
deposed from the episcopate. The new Bishop of Alexandria 
would put the Pastor of the Abyssinians in the right path. 

It was doubtless Theophilus who carried this document to 
its destination. Philostorgius, 1 who tells us about his embassy, 
relates that he went to the Axoumites, without entering into 
detail as to what he did among them. Among the Homerites 
he shows him in communication with the prince of the country 
whom he made an effort to convert ; but he encountered strong 
opposition on the part of the Jews. He secured, however, and 
this was one of the objects of his mission, that Roman merchants 
who might travel in these countries and natives who might 
wish to be converted should have liberty to build churches. 
The king himself caused three of them to be erected, one at 
Safar his capital, another at Aden, the third at Ormuz at the 
entrance of the Persian Gulf. 2 This implies that there were 
already Christians in these distant countries. There were some 
at an even greater distance. Theophilus took advantage of his 
journey in the south of Arabia to revisit his native land, the 
island of Divou, which seems clearly to have been either Ceylon 
or some small island near to the Indian coast. 3 He found 
Christians there, in the same way as at other points that he 
visited on the same opportunity. 4 

Thus from the time of the Emperor Constantius there were 
churches on the coast of Hindustan. Cosmas Indicopleustes 

1 iii. 4-6. 

2 This is very difficult to believe, for it does not seem that the Homerite 
state extended so far. Philostorgius gets mixed in the geography. He 
places to the east of the Axoumites, on the shore of the Indian Ocean, a 
colony of " Syrians," established there by Alexander, and still preserving 
the Syriac language. Perhaps he means to speak of Ormuz, in this 
position still. 

3 Ceylon was called, in the language of the country, Sinhala dvipa 
(Island of Lions). Dvipa (AtjSoO) is the word which means Island ; we find 
this root again in the name of Diu, of the Laquedives, the Maldives, 
Serendiv an Arabic name of Ceylon. The designation Ai/3oO has not then 
any definiteness ; but as it corresponds to an Indian term, there is reason 
to believe that it refers to a place belonging to the Indian Sea and not to 
the Red Sea. 

4 Philostorgius says that he reformed various customs there in 
particular, that of remaining seated during the reading of the Gospel. 
As for the Faith, he would not have found anything to correct : the 
Indians were Anomoeans as determined as himself. 



400 CHRISTIANITY EAST OF THE EMPIRE [CH.XIII. 

found them there once more in the 6th century : they were 
then attached to the Church of Persia, of which they were 
colonies. Several of the islands of the Persian Gulf, and even 
certain places on the adjacent mainland, had from the beginning 
of the 5th century Christian settlements and bishops. Cosmas 
found some as far as the island of Dioscorida (Socotora). 1 
Without attaching too much importance to it, it may be noted 
that the legend of St Thomas makes the Apostle travel in 
Western India, in the India of the Indus, and that it contains 
data which imply in its editor a certain knowledge of this 
distant land and of its history in the ist century of our era. 

After the mission of Frumentius and the journey of 
Theophilus, darkness comes over the Christian settlements of 
Arabia^ Abyssinia, and the Indies. It is only in the 6th century 
that they come to light again. 

To the south of Egypt the Blemmyes and the Nobads main 
tained themselves in a state of hostility against the Empire and 
gave too much occupation to the guardians of the frontier for 
Christian missionaries to have been able to find access to 
them. Egypt had religious communications above the first 
cataract ; but they were of a pagan kind. The Blemmyes, 
who were strongly attached to the cult of Isis, exacted the 
maintenance of the Temple of Philae. Each year they were 
to be seen arriving at a fixed period : there was delivered to 
them the statue of the goddess: they carried it home and 
brought it back some months later. This body of adherents 
prolonged, for two centuries after Constantine, the cult of the 
ancient divinity of Egypt, 

1 Cosmas, Book III. (Migne, Patrol. Graeca, Ixxxviii., c. I7<A 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY 

WHILST the Eastern Empire, taking advantage of comparative 
security, was indulging a passion for theological disputes, in 
the West the Church was in close conflict with the barbarians. 

Into the imperial palace at Ravenna, which had witnessed 
the long minority of Honorius, Galla Placidia re-entered from 
Constantinople in 425 with an emperor of six years old. Empress 
herself, she at once undertook, in her own name and in the 
name of her son Valentinian III., the direction of affairs. They 
were going very badly. In Gaul, in Spain, in the Danubian 
provinces, in Africa, the barbarians were dominant or about 
to be dominant everywhere. Of Britain no more was heard. 
The Huns, established in Pannonia, were strengthening there 
the kind of supremacy which they had succeeded in exercising 
not only over the other barbarians, Finns, Slavs, Germans, 
but over the Empire itself, which had become their tributary. 
It was not a woman s hand that at such a moment would 
have been needed at the helm. The men who surrounded 
the Regent, men like Felix, Aetius, Boniface, spent their 
time in intriguing one against the other, in thwarting, in 
extinguishing one another. Aetius succeeded in a very short 
time in ridding himself of his rivals, Felix in 430 and Boniface 
in 432, and forced himself forthwith upon Placidia. For some 
twenty years it was he who was the master. He was a 
man of resource : he knew the barbarians, especially the 
Huns, through having lived among them ; he knew how to 
deal with them and at need how to beat them. 

Alone of the whole of the West, Italy had not yet made 
the acquaintance of barbarians settled in it. Everywhere 
else the successors of the dying Empire were already in 
possession, some of them in a regular manner and as the 
result of treaties, others by the sole fact of conquest. Already 

401 



402 THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY [CH. xiv. 

under Honorius (419) the Goths, on their return from Spain, 
had seen allotted to them the whole of maritime Aquitaine 
from the Loire to the Pyrenees ; their King resided at 
Toulouse, whence his eager desires were directed towards 
Narbonne and Ar|es. A short time before the Burgonds or 
Burgundians had received (413) a settlement on the left bank 
of the Rhine, in the neighbourhood of Worms and of Spires. 
As for the Franks whose thrust had for centuries been making 
itself felt on the lower course of the Rhine, it had been 
necessary to abandon to them Batavia (Holland), Toxandria 
(Brabant), and even regions further south. After the great 
invasion of 407 we see them making themselves masters of 
Cologne and, further west, advancing as far as Cambrai, 
Tournai, Arras, and at last as far as the Somme. In Spain, 
Suevi and Vandals, after having well ravaged the land, had 
ended by assigning to themselves, the one the western regions 
(Galicia and Lusitania), the others the south (Baetica), where 
their name has remained (Andalusia). The Vandals for 
the most part crossed to Africa (429) and made themselves 
its masters. 

We see what subjects remained to the unhappy Empire, 
beyond the Alps and the sea. Moreover, they were not 
always obedient subjects. Menaced on the one side by the 
Franks, on the other by the Goths, the cities between the Loire 
and the Somme, the Armoricans as they were called, had 
ended by sending home the Roman governors and organizing 
themselves as a confederacy. Everywhere in Gaul and in 
Spain were to be met camps of Bagaudae, that is to say of 
insurgents, of outlaws; here there collected in crowds the 
victims of the Roman Treasury, more pitiless than ever ; with 
them were outcasts of every kind, people who had no longer 
anything to lose and who, since the world was dividing itself 
into pillaged and pillagers, preferred to belong to the latter 
category. 

Aetius, so long as he lived, introduced a little order into 
the dtbdcle. The Franks were rolled back towards the north : 
the Burgundians who had given grounds for complaint were 
exterminated or thrown back beyond the Rhine. 1 A little 
later the Patrician established the last remnants of this 
people in Savoy (435). Aided by a body of Alan auxiliaries, 
1 It is the theme of the legend of the Niebelungs. 



p. 582-5] BARBARIAN SETTLEMENTS 403 

he repressed with severity the Armorican insurrection. As 
for the Goths, whom he knew how to keep at a distance from 
Narbonne, he employed them against the Suevi and even 
against the Bagaudae. The last Roman general was the 
common hope. From Spain, even from Britain, there came to 
him final appeals. When in 451 Attila made up his mind to 
throw his hordes upon the Roman Empire, it was Aetius who, 
grouping round him in conjunction with the remnant of the 
imperial army the forces of the Goths of Aquitaine and even 
some Prankish contingents, compelled him to raise the siege 
of Orleans and inflicted on him in Champagne a memorable 
defeat. 

One can easily imagine what would be at such a time 
the position of the churches. In the north of Gaul, where the 
Franks were rampant, Christianity had scarcely penetrated 
except among the population of the towns. When these 
disappeared in massacre and conflagration, Christianity was 
abolished together with all the elements of Roman life. When 
tranquillity returned, re-establishment was not always possible : 
in this way some churches sustained an interruption of 
longer or shorter duration. 1 Elsewhere calamities had to be 
faced without end and without cessation, captives had to be 
redeemed, miseries innumerable to be assuaged, offices to 
be reconstituted, places of worship rebuilt. The bishops 
set themselves to do it. It was upon them too that there 
had devolved the task of intervening, so far as it was possible 
to do so, with the barbarian chiefs or even of imploring the 
aid of the Roman commanders. Peril and common misery 
brought the clergy nearer to the faithful : the Latter felt more 
than ever the necessity of having as bishops men of intellect 
and of sympathy. They asked for them in many cases from 
the monasteries which, since the time of St Martin, were being 

1 This was doubtless the case of Cologne, which, about the beginning 
of the 5th century (it does not appear in the Notitia Dignitatum}, ceased 
to belong to the Empire in order to become the capital of a Prankish 
kingdom ; and of Tongres, the bishopric of which when it re-appeared, 
about the end of the 5th or the beginning of the 6th century, was trans 
ferred to Maestricht ; the Bishoprics of Tournai, Cambrai, Arras, 
Therouanne, Boulogne (if there was one in this city) were equally 
disorganized. At Treves, although this town had been four times taken 
and pillaged before being finally occupied, we do not find any interruption 
in the succession of bishops. 

III. 2 D 



404 THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY [CH. xiv. 

established almost everywhere. At other times as in the 
case of the celebrated St Germanus of Auxerre, of St Paulinus 
of Nola, of Sidonius Apollinaris and many others their 
choice fell upon former officials whose merit they had been 
able to appreciate during their secular administration. 

This, then, was the general position, more or less difficult 
according to places and circumstances : it remained the same 
so long as the Western Empire lasted and even afterwards, 
until the states formed out of its debris had achieved a position 
of some stability. A few facts only, apart from the miseries 
of the invasion, can be mentioned here. 

I. Spain and Priscillianism. 

Despite episcopal condemnations, Priscillianism maintained 
itself in Spain, especially in Galicia. When the Roman 
officials were no longer there to overawe the heretics, they 
raised their heads again, renewed their propaganda, and 
circulated vigorously the Acts, full of marvels but apocryphal 
and doctrinally suspect, of the Apostles Andrew, John, Thomas, 
and others. This literature greatly disturbed the orthodox 
bishops ; they knew, moreover, whether from the avowals of 
the Priscillianists themselves x or otherwise, that the sect was 
maintaining itself around them, and even that some of their 
colleagues were showing it covert favour. At bottom the 
situation had changed little since the Council of Toledo and 
the year 400. 2 But how were counter measures to be taken ? 
In these disastrous times it was impossible to think of holding 
a Council. Besides, was it certain that, if the Episcopate of 
Galicia did assemble, the majority would be for repression? 
Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, with two of his colleagues, 
Hydatius and Ceponius, :i were greatly concerned with this 
position. In default of support in their own province they 
invoked the authority of the Metropolitan of Lusitania, 
Antoninus of Emerita. It was in this town that the Suevic 
King Rechila was at that time living. He was a pagan, but 
his son Rechiar who was to succeed him (448) was a Catholic. 

1 Chronicle of Hydatius, c. 130, cf. c. 138. 

2 Vol. II., p. 430. 

3 Letter of Turribius to these two bishops, among the letters of St Leo, 
after Letter xv. (Migne, Patrol. Latina, liv., p. 693). 



p. 585-8] REVIVAL OF PRISCILLIANISM 405 

The Bishop of Emerita was likely to have some influence at the 
barbarian court. Meanwhile they heard of an energetic action 
of Pope Leo against the Manicheans of Rome (444). The 
idea came to Turribius of securing the intervention of the 
Apostolic See in the analogous affairs which were a source of 
anxiety in Spain. And it was an idea all the more natural 
because already the Popes had several times devoted attention 
to Priscillianism. Turribius wrote to Leo and informed him 
of the melancholy condition of the Galician churches. To his 
letter was appended a summary of the Priscillianist heresy 
set out in sixteen propositions. 

Leo replied by a long letter l in which he praises the zeal 
of Turribius, censures Priscillianism, and refutes one by one 
the sixteen propositions. He would have desired the holding 
of a great Council in which might have been gathered the 
bishops of Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania and Galicia, 
at any rate of the last if it were impossible to secure a fuller 
meeting. Turribius and his friends Hydatius and Ceponius 
were commissioned to summon the Galicians. As a matter 
of fact no council was held. They confined themselves to 
collecting signatures. Turribius drew up an orthodox formula 2 
which he sent, together with the Pope s letter, to all the bishops 
of Spaia All signed it, but according to the chronicler 
Hydatius some Galician bishops kept reservations up their 
sleeves. 3 

This Hydatius was Bishop of Aquae Flaviaef a see 
subsequently suppressed. He has left us an interesting 
chronicle, especially in regard to the events which took place 
around him : like Prosper he tacked his work on to that of 

1 Jaffe, Rcgcsta, 412, July 21, 447. 

2 Mansi, Cone, iii., p. 1002. The title which relates this document to 
the Council of 400 is faulty in doing so. Dom. G. Morin (Revue Bsnedictine, 
x. (1893), P- 386) conjectures, with much probability, that it was drawn up 
by a Galician bishop named Pastor, who is mentioned by Hydatius in his 
Chronicle (c. 102) and by Gennadius in his DC Viris, c. 77. Pastor had 
been elected bishop in 433 in the conventus of Lugo, at the same time as a 
certain Syagrius (Gennadius, op. cit. c. 66 : Morin, loc. cit.\ in spite of the 
Bishop of Lugo, Ag restius. The lattVs opposition arose probably from 
the fact that he was favourable to the Priscillianists. 

3 "Ab aliquibus Gallaecis subdolo probatur arbitrio" (c. 135). 

4 Chaves, in the Portuguese province of Traz-oz-montes, near the present 
frontier of Spanish Galicia. 



406 THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY [CH. xiv. 

St Jerome. In his childhood he had made the journey to the 
Holy Places: he could remember Jerome, Eulogius, John of 
Jerusalem, Theophilus of Alexandria. On becoming a bishop 
in 427 he found himself mixed up in events of the most 
mournful kind, the miseries of the barbarian occupation, the 
constant wars of the Suevi whether among themselves or 
against the Romans, the Goths, the Herulian pirates. He 
took part in 431 in a mission sent to the Patrician Aetius by 
the Roman cities of his province. In 461 the Suevic King 
Frumarius caused him to be arrested in his church and did not 
release him till three months later. It was only in 468 that 
he ceased to write. The Suevi among whom he lived seem 
to have remained pagans down to the death of King Rechila ; 
his son Rechiar was the first Catholic king. But soon the 
religious influence of the Goths, represented in the country 
by a certain Ajax, a native of Galatia and a dignitary of the 
Arian sect, 1 made itself felt in a manner to cause disquiet. It 
was only in the following century that the Suevic conquerors 
succeeded in assimilating themselves, in religion, to the Hispano- 
Roman populations of Galicia. 

In the upper valley of the Ebro the Bishop of Calahorra, 
Silvanus, distinguished himself by his zeal ; this isolated region 
had had up to that time few bishoprics : he set himself to found 
others, without worrying himself too much about his metro 
politan, the Bishop of Tarragona. From this arose a conflict 
which reverberated as far as Rome. 2 

2. Gaul in the Last Days of the Romans. 

The region of the Rhone in Roman Gaul escaped longer than 
the rest from the calamities of invasion. Aries had assumed in 
it the position of a capital. The Praetorian Prefecture had 

1 "Aiax, natione Galata, effectus apostata et senior Arrianus inter 
Suevos regis sui auxilio hostis catholicae fidei et divinae Trinitatis emergit. 
A Gallicana Gothorum habitatione hoc pestiferum inimici hbminis virus 
advectum" (Hydatius, Chron. 232). 

2 From the letters relating to this business it appears that bishops were 
installed at that time at Cascantum (Cascante), Varela (Logrorio), Tritium 
(Tricio), Libia (Leiva), Virovesca (Briviesca). Jaffe, Regesta^ 561 ; Thiel, 
Epp. Font.) p. 165, cf. p. 156. It was perhaps at that time that there was 
founded the see of Auca^ which does not appear in the documents till 589 
onwards and which was later replaced by that of Burgos. 



p. 588-91] HYDATIUS AND PATROCLUS 407 

been transferred thither from Treves with all the great ad 
ministrative offices : it was the meeting place of the assembly 
of the Seven Provinces. To it there converged all that 
remained of Roman life in Gaul and in Spain. To this great 
political position they would greatly have liked to add a 
religious pre-eminence. The Vice-Emperor Constantius and 
his favourite Patroclus 1 had sought under Pope Zosimus to 
make the Bishop of Aries a kind of lieutenant-general of the 
Roman Pontiff for the Transalpine regions. Their efforts did 
not come to anything. After the death of Zosimus and 
especially after that of Constantius (September 2, 421), Patroclus 
saw his hasty constructions collapse. However, there remained 
something as a result. If the Bishop of Aries had not sufficient 
traditional standing to sustain the role which they had dreamed 
of making him take, he was on the other hand in a position to 
exercise a weighty authority in the district adjoining his 
episcopal city. The Pontifical Vicariate did not prosper, but 
Aries became an ecclesiastical metropolis of great importance. 
Under Honoratus and Hilary, the successors of Patroclus, its 
authority extended over the whole of the Viennensis, over 
Narbonensis Secunda and the Alpine provinces : it was the 
jurisdiction which had been established for Patroclus, minus, 
however, Narbonensis Prima. 2 

Patroclus had been killed in 426 in a political conflict. 3 
He was replaced by the founder of Lerins, the venerable priest 
Honoratus. With him had come to Aries a young monk 
related to him, Hilary, who had been snatched by him, not with 
out difficulty, from the life of the world, and was already in great 
repute in the holy island. He was a man of considerable 
culture and of virtue so exemplary that the people of Aries, 
among whom Honoratus only lived two years, appointed him 



,) p. 1 60. 

2 Further, the Bishopric of Uzes, a place included in the city of Nimes 
and in consequence in Narbonensis Prima, was attached to the Province of 
Aries. 

3 Chronicle of Prosper. His death was imputed to the Magistcr 
Militum, Felix, who already had on his conscience the massacre of a 
Roman deacon named Titus. Felix (supra, p. 401), despite his attacks 
against members of the clergy, ranks among the number of benefactors of 
the Roman Church : an inscription (De Rossi, Inscr. Christ, ii. p. 149) 
mentions repairs which, in conjunction with his wife Padusia, he caused to 
be executed to the Lateran Basilica. 



408 THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY [CH. xiv. 

successor. 1 These saintly men caused Patroclus to be forgotten : 
the Bishop s house at Aries became with them a place of great 
edification. There might be seen the illustrious Hilary, 
anxious to spare the treasure of the Church and the patrimony 
of the poor, spending on the work of his hands the leisure hours 
of his pastoral ministry, knitting while he read or dictated his 
letters, in case of need tilling the earth. He preached much 
and long, too long even for the taste of light-minded parishioners 
who were to be seen sometimes discreetly slipping out at the 
moment when he was ascending the pulpit. He was often to 
be met with on the roads, and very far from Aries, always on 
foot, which did not hinder him from arriving before the rest. 
He kept his suffragans in activity by frequent meetings in 
Council : of some of these we still possess documents. 2 

As he attached great importance to good recruiting of the 
episcopal body, he was to be seen arriving everywhere that a 
vacancy took place. The intriguing and the ambitious dreaded 
this appearance ; it was not in their favour that he directed 
suffrages. When he had found his man he ordained him, in 
virtue of his rights as metropolitan, and if efforts at resistance 
were made, the authorities at Aries had to be reckoned with, 
and these Hilary held in his hand. In Gaul as in the Orient 
saintly ascetics were somewhat liable in their search for the 
Absolute Good to overstep positive rules, to sacrifice tradition 
to perfection. Hilary had the mortification of dashing himself 
against obstacles which a more deliberate zeal would not have 
failed to foresee. 

Since the time of Patroclus the clergy of Southern Gaul had 
grown familiar with the road to Rome. They readily carried 
thither their disputes and their complaints. Under Pope 
Boniface had been seen in Rome the clergy of Valence and of 
Lodeve, 3 the former strongly incensed against their Bishop 
Maximus, whom they accused of Manicheism and of many 

1 Supra, p. 194. 

2 Councils of Riez (439), of Orange (441), of Vaison (442). Of the 
signatures appended in these Councils there have only been preserved the 
names of the bishops without indication of see. This lacuna has-been 
supplied by a Cologne MS. of the 7th century, following which Maassen 
(Geschichte der Quellen und der Litteratur des canonise hen Rechts, Gratz, 
1870, p. 951) has published the signatures of Orange and of Vaison. See 
my Pastes Episcopaux (2nd edit.), i., p. 367. 

3 Jaffe, Regesta, 349, 362.. 



p. 591-4] HILARY OF ARLES 409 

other things: the others, irritated against Patroclus who had 
interfered in order to give them a bishop, although, according 
to them, their church depended upon Narbonne and not upon 
Aries. Boniface decided in their favour, in both cases. 
Honoratus had hardly been installed when people wrote to 
Pope Celestine to denounce to him all sorts of abuses, real or 
alleged. Bishops were being chosen, not among the clergy of 
the church to be provided but apart from it, in the monasteries ; 
those elected were maintaining in their new dignity the forms 
of their ascetic life ; they were to be seen clad in mantles 
fastened with a clasp (pallid] and with their tunics held in 
by a girdle. 1 Penitence was being denied to the sick in 
danger of death ; finally, with this mania for taking strangers 
as bishops, very bad mistakes were sometimes being made. A 
certain Daniel who came from the Orient, where he had left a bad 
reputation, had succeeded in evading the police while causing 
himself to be elected bishop. Finally it was said that the 
Bishop of Marseilles (Proculus?) had received with too little 
disguised satisfaction the news of the assassination of Patroclus. 
On these denunciations, which have every appearance of being 
the work of the supporters of Patroclus, Pope Celestine sent 
to the bishops " of Viennensis and of Narbonensis " a rating of 
the most vigorous kind. 2 Three years later he wrote 3 again, 
to Venerius of Marseilles and to various other bishops of the 
region, at the instigation of the two monks Prosper and Hilary, 
who considered that the priests preached too much in Provence 
and that they had not enough zeal for the views of St Augustine. 
From all these reports, all these remonstrances, nothing serious 
happened. It was otherwise when, in 445, Pope Leo was put in 
possession of very lively complaints against the proceedings 
of Hilary of Aries. It had befallen the saint that he had 
appointed a successor to a bishop who was not dead but only 
ill, and who by recovering caused great embarrassment. At 
Besancon, very far from his province, Hilary had, in concert 

1 In place of the flowing tunic and the planeta, the costume generally in 
use. See Origines du Culte chrJtien (4th edit.), p. 386. 

2 Jaflfe, Regesta^ 369, " Cuperemus quidem," July 26, 428. 

3 Jaffe, op. cit. 381 ; supra, p. 196. In this letter there is mention of 
a reply made by the Pope ad fratris Tuentii scripta. This reply is perhaps 
identical with the letter Cuperemus quidem (supra). As for Tuentius he is 
doubtless the same person as he who, under Pope Zosimus, was very badly 
handled by Patroclus (Pastes Episc. i. 100 ff.). 



410 THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY [CH. xiv. 

with St Germanus of Auxerre, whom he used from time to time 
to visit, collected a Council and deposed the bishop, Chelidonius, 
against whom certain disqualifications 1 were being urged. 
Chelidonius went to Rome and submitted to the Pope the 
sentence of Hilary and his Council. He met with a warm 
reception. It was winter. Hilary set out from Aries on foot, 
crossed the Alps amid ice and snow, and on his arrival in Rome 
set himself to protest against the readiness with which without 
any examination they had admitted to communion a bishop 
regularly deposed. He even seems to have disputed to the 
Holy See the right of revising cases already settled by Gallican 
Councils. In any case he expressed himself with a liveliness 
as likely as possible to offend Roman ears ; then before 
the judgment on appeal had been given, he slipped away 
and returned quietly home, always on foot and in unassuming 
dress. 

Pope Leo showed himself much incensed. The enquiry, 
which was pursued apart from Hilary, established that the 
chief of the disqualifications alleged against Chelidonius, 
marriage with a widow, was not real. His Bishopric of 
Besancon was restored to him. As for the Bishop of Aries 
the Pope treated him with extreme severity. In the letter 2 
which he addressed on this subject to the Bishops of Viennensis, 
he reproached him for his hastiness, his domineering methods, 
his recourse to secular force, his encroachments upon provinces 
which did not depend upon him. " What are these usurpations ? 
Before Patroclus none of his predecessors exercised his authority 
within limits of this kind. Patroclus himself only used it thus 
by a concession of the Holy See, a concession of a temporary 
character, revoked subsequently and with reason (sententia 
melwre)" Thus the Bishop of Aries could no longer pretend 
to any jurisdiction outside the Viennensis properly so-called. 
Moreover, Hilary was declared deprived of his rights as metro 
politan over this province : they passed to the Bishop of Vienne 3 ; 

1 He is represented as being husband of a widow, and in the 
magistracy which he had exercised before his promotion having pro 
nounced capital sentences. 

2 Jaffe, Regesta, 407. 

3 Jaffe, op. cit. 450. We do not know what was laid down for the 
provinces of Narbonensis Secunda and of the Maritime Alps : it was no 
doubt upon the Bishops of Aix and Embrun that the consecrations were 
devolved. 



p. 594-7] HILARY AND POPE LEO 411 

it is solely as an act of grace that his bishopric has been 
left to him. In order that no one might be ignorant of 
it Leo obtained an imperial rescript 1 in which Hilary s con 
demnation was brought officially to the notice of the Patrician 
Aetius, and that in terms very hard for the Bishop of Aries. It 
was laid down therein besides that every bishop, of Gaul or 
elsewhere, who should be cited by the Pope to appear before 
him, must reply to the summons, and in case of refusal be 
compelled to do so by the governor of his province. 2 

After being thus smitten Hilary restricted himself to the 
care of his church. Despite the vehemence of the language 
which he had used at Rome, he thought it his duty to take 
every means to appease the wrath of Leo. One of his priests, 
Ravennius, and later two bishops, Nectarius of Avignon and 
Constantius of Uzes, presented themselves in his name before 
the Pope. A common friend, Auxiliaris, a former Prefect of 
the Gauls who was living in retirement at Rome, intervened in 
his favour. 3 But Leo remained inflexible : besides, the things 
which Hilary caused to be said to him were not, it would seem, 
of a character to give complete satisfaction. The disagree 
ment persisted down to the death of the Bishop of Aries 
(May 5, 449). 

With Ravennius, who succeeded him, things took a better 
turn. There was no occasion to maintain against him the 
measure which had deprived Hilary of his rights as metropolitan. 
However, the Bishop of Vienne, who had exercised them for 
some time, protested once more that it was to him and not to 
his colleague of Aries that tradition assigned them. In order 

1 Leonis Magni, Ep. 1 1 ; Novcllac Valentin., xvii., July 8, 445. 

2 Already, at the request of a Roman Council, held in 378, the Emperor 
Gratian had by an edict ordered the same thing. His rescript, however, 
had not been inserted in the Theodosian code. That of Valentinian III. 
appears in the collection of Novellac, drawn up under Majorian ; but it did 
not enter into the Brcviariuvi of Alaric. Cf. Vol II., p. 373; and Revue 
Historique, vol. Ixxxvii. (1905), p. 15. 

3 St Hilary s biographer (c. 17) has preserved to us a very curious 
fragment of a letter addressed to the Bishop of Aries by this Prefect 
Auxiliaris. After high eulogies of Hilary and of his virtues he suggests to 
him the way to deal with the Romans. " The ears of the Romans are 
sensible to a certain softness of speech : if your Holiness could condescend 
to it, you would lose nothing by it and gain much." It is the Parcere 
suljcctis of ancient Rome. 



412 THE WEST IN THE FIFTH CENTURY [cir. xiv. 

to content everybody Leo made up his mind 1 to divide the 
province between the two jurisdictions: Vienne found assigned 
to it the bishoprics of the north, Valence, Tarantaise, Geneva, 
and Grenoble. This time the Pope no longer insisted that each 
province should have its metropolitan : Aix and Embrun fell 
back under the jurisdiction of Aries. 

The Holy See had every interest in settling this difference. 
At this moment it found itself engaged in a conflict which was 
serious in a very different way. - 2 It was the morrow of the 
second Council of Ephesus in which Dioscorus had rehabilitated 
Eutyches. The Pope had in vain annulled the decrees of this 
assembly; the Emperor Theodosius II. was upholding them 
with all his energy : there was no obvious way out. Leo had 
placed on his side the sovereigns of the West ; he was anxious 
that it should be clearly seen that he had behind him the whole 
Latin Episcopate, and did not neglect any step to gain its 
support. At his request the episcopate of the province of 
Milan met in council and sent him a collective adhesion to his 
letter to Flavian. 3 With the same object he turned to account 
the connexions of the Bishop of Aries. Ravennius was charged 
to collect signatures. It does not appear that he used all possible 
diligence, for the adhesions did not arrive till more than a year 
later : further they did not come from the whole of Gaul, but only 
from the region of the Rhone and from some places in Aquitaine. 
In Spain, too, the letters of Flavian to Leo and of Leo to Flavian, 
with documents in support, passed from bishopric to bishopric. 4 
Later, when the legates had returned from Chalcedon, 5 Leo 
took care to inform Ravennius and his colleagues of the success 
which had been obtained there. 

Hilary was still in this world when his friend St Germanus 
of Auxerre died at Ravenna (July 31,448). He had betaken 
himself to the Court in order to avert from the Armorican cities 
a military reprisal with which Aetius was threatening them 
as a punishment for their continual insurrections. He was 
received at the palace, among the clergy, and among the 

1 Jaffe, Regesta, 450, May 5, 450. 2 Supra, p. 292. 

3 Leonis Ep. xcvii., a doc-iment invaluable for the fact that from the 
signatures of the bishops it enables us to delimit the province of Milan, at 
the middle of the $th century. 

4 Hydatius, Chron. c. 145. 5 Jaffe, op. cit. 479, 480. 



p. 597-600] ATTILA 413 

people, as a living saint, just as in bygone days they had 
received St Martin. It was in a sort of triumphal procession 
that his remains were taken back to Auxerre ; in Gaul, as in 
the island of Britain, his memory remained in high honour. 

Three years after his death Northern Gaul underwent the 
invasion of Attila. A number of towns which were raising 
themselves painfully from previous calamities suffered at this 
time or were in fear of doing so. Metz was ov