III. 1. However, within the last few days I have read some writings of Pelagius, a holy man, as I hear, who has made no small progress in the Christian life, and these writings contain very brief expositions of the Epistles of Paul the Apostle.(176)

III. 3. But we must not omit that this good and praiseworthy man (as they who know him describe him as being) has not advanced this argument against the natural transmission of sin in his own person.

(c) Pelagius, Fragments, in Augustine's De Gratia Christi et de Peccato Originali. (MSL, 44:364, 379.)

The teaching of Pelagius can be studied not only in his opponent's statements but in his own words. These are to be found in his commentary (see note to previous selection), and also in fragments found in Augustine's writings and several minor pieces (see below).

I. 7. Very ignorant persons think that we do wrong in this matter to divine grace, because we say that it by no means perfects sanctity in us without our will: as if God could impose any commands upon His grace and would not supply also the help of His grace to those to whom He has given commands, so that men might more easily accomplish through grace what they are required to do by their free will. And this grace we do not for our part, as you suppose, allow to consist merely in the law, but also in the help of God. God helps us by His teaching and revelation when He opens the eyes of our heart; when He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present; when He discovers to us the snares of the devil; when He enlightens us with manifold and ineffable gifts of heavenly grace. Does the man who says this appear to you to be a denier of grace? Does he not acknowledge both man's free will and God's grace?

I. 39. Speaking of the text Rom. 7:23: "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

Now what you [i.e., Augustine, whom he is addressing] wish us to understand of the Apostle himself, all Church writers assert that he spoke in the person of the sinner, and of one still under the law, who by reason of very long custom of vice was held bound, as it were, by a certain necessity of sinning, and who, although he desired good with his will in practice, indeed, was driven into evil. In the person, however, of one man the Apostle designates the people who sinned still under the ancient law, and this people, he declares, are to be delivered from this evil of custom through Christ, who first of all remits all sins in baptism, to those who believe on Him, and then by an imitation of Himself incites them to perfect holiness, and by the example of virtues overcomes the evil custom of sins.

(d) Pelagius, Epistula ad Demetriadem. (MSL, 33:1100 ff.)

This epistle, from which selections are given, was written probably about 412 or 413. As it gives a statement of the teaching of Pelagius in his own words, it is of especial historical interest. Demetrias was a virgin, and probably under the spiritual direction of Pelagius, though little is known of her. Text in Bruckner, op. cit., n. 56.

Ch. 2. As often as I have to speak of the principles of virtue and a holy life, I am accustomed first of all to call attention to the capacity and character of human nature, and to show what it is able to accomplish; then from this to arouse the feelings of the hearer, that he may strive after different kinds of virtue, that he may permit himself to be roused to acts which perhaps he had regarded as impossible. For we are quite unable to travel the way of virtue if hope does not accompany us. For all attempts to accomplish anything cease if one is in doubt whether he will attain the goal. This order of exhortation I follow in other minor writings and in this case also. I believe it must be kept especially in mind where the good of nature needs to be set forth the more in detail as the life is to be more perfectly formed, that the spirit may not be more neglectful and slow in its striving after virtue, as it believes itself to have the less ability, and when it is ignorant of what is within it, think that it does not possess it.

Ch. 3. One must be careful to see to it that … one does not think that a man is not made good because he can do evil and is not compelled to an immutable necessity of doing good through the might of nature. For if you diligently consider it and turn your mind to the subtler understanding of the matter, the better and superior position of man will appear in that from which his inferior condition was inferred. But just in this freedom in either direction, in this liberty toward either side, is placed the glory of our rational nature. Therein, I say, consists the entire honor of our nature, therein its dignity; from this the very good merit praise, from this their reward. For there would be for those who always remain good no virtue if they had not been able to have chosen the evil. For since God wished to present to the rational creature the gift of voluntary goodness and the power of the free will, by planting in man the possibility of turning himself toward either side, He made His special gift the ability to be what he would be in order that he, being capable of good and evil, could do either and could turn his will to either of them.

Ch. 8. We defend the advantage of nature not in the sense that we say it cannot do evil, since we declare that it is capable of good and evil; we only protect it from reproach. It should not appear as if we were driven to evil by a disease of nature, we who do neither good nor bad without our will, and to whom there is always freedom to do one of two things, since always we are able to do both.… Nothing else makes it difficult for us to do good than long custom of sinning which has infected us since we were children, and has gradually corrupted us for many years, so that afterward it holds us bound to it and delivered over to it, so that it almost seems as if it had the same force as nature.

If before the Law, as we are told, and long before the appearance of the Redeemer, various persons can be named who lived just and holy lives, how much more after His appearance must we believe that we are able to do the same, we who have been taught through Christ's grace, and born again to be better men; and we who by His blood have been reconciled and purified, and by His example incited to more perfect righteousness, ought to be better than they who were before the Law, better than they who were under the law.

(e) Marius Mercator, Commonitorium super nomine Caelestii, ch. 1. (MSL, 48:67.) Cf. Kirch, nn. 737 ff.

The Council of Carthage and the opinions of Caelestius condemned at that council, 411.

Marius Mercator, a friend and supporter of Augustine, was one of the most determined opponents of Pelagianism, as also of Nestorianism. His dates are not well determined. In 418 he sent works to Augustine to be examined by the latter, and he seems to have lived until after the Council of Chalcedon, 451. The work from which the selection is taken was written, 429, in Greek, and translated and republished in Latin, 431 or 432. With the following should be compared Augustine's De Gratia Christi et Peccato Originali, II, 2f., and Ep. 175:6; 157:3, 22.

A certain Caelestius, a eunuch from his mother's womb, a disciple and auditor of Pelagius, left Rome about twenty years ago and came to Carthage, the metropolis of all Africa, and there he was accused of the following heads before Aurelius, bishop of that city, by a complaint from a certain Paulinus, a deacon of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, of sacred memory, as the record of the acts stands in which the same complaint is inserted (a copy of the acts of the council we have in our hands) that he not only taught this himself, but also sent in different directions throughout the provinces those who agreed with him to disseminate among the people these things, that is:

1. Adam was made mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or had not sinned.

2. The sin of Adam injured himself alone, and not the human race.

3. New-born children are in that state in which Adam was before his fall.

4. Neither by the death and sin of Adam does the whole race die, nor by the resurrection of Christ does the whole race rise.

5. The Law leads to the kingdom of heaven as well as the Gospel.

6. Even before the coming of the Lord there were men without sin.

(f) Pelagius. Confessio fidei. (MSL, 45:1716 f.) Hahn, 209.

The confession of faith addressed to Innocent of Rome, but actually laid before Zosimus, in 417, consists of an admirably orthodox statement of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation, an expansion of the Nicene formula with reference to perversions of the faith by various heretics, and in conclusion a statement of Pelagius's own opinions regarding free will, grace, and sin. It is due to the irony of history that it should have been found among the works of both Jerome and Augustine, long passed current as a composition of Augustine, Sermo CCXXXVI, and should have been actually quoted by the Sorbonne, in 1521, in its articles against Luther. It also appears in the Libri Carolini, III, 1, as an orthodox exposition of the faith. The passages which bear upon the characteristic Pelagian doctrine are here given. Fragments of the confessions of other Pelagians, e.g., Caelestius, and Julius of Eclanum, are found in Hahn, 210 and 211. For the proceedings in the East, see Hefele, 118.

We hold that there is one baptism, which we assert is to be administered to children in the same words of the sacrament as it is administered to adults.…

We execrate also the blasphemy of those who say that anything impossible to do is commanded man by God, and the commands of God can be observed, not by individuals but by all in common, also those who with the Manichaeans condemn first marriages or with the Cataphrygians condemn second marriages.… We so confess the will is free that we say that we always need the aid of God, and they err who with the Manichaeans assert that man cannot avoid sins as well as those who with Jovinan say that man cannot sin; for both take away the liberty of the will. But we say that man can both sin and not sin, so that we confess that we always have free will.

(g) Augustine, Sermo 131. (MSL, 38:734.) Cf. Kirch, n. 672.

Causa finita est.

Late in 416 synods were held in Carthage and Mileve condemning Pelagianism. On January 27, 417, Innocent wrote to the Africans, approving their councils and condemning Pelagianism, incidentally stating the supreme authority of the Roman See and requiring that nothing should ever be definitively settled without consulting the Apostolic See (text of passage in Denziger. ed. 1911, n. 100). September 23 of the same year, about the time when Pelagius and Caelestius were at Rome with Zosimus seeking to rehabilitate themselves in the West, Augustine delivered a sermon in which he made the following statement. It is the basis of the famous phrase Roma locuta, causa finita est, a saying which is apocryphal, however, and not found in the works of Augustine.

What, therefore, is said concerning the Jews, that we see in them [i.e., the Pelagians]. They have the zeal for God; I bear witness, that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Why is it not according to knowledge? Because, being ignorant of the justice of God and wishing to establish their own, they are not subject to the righteousness of God [Rom. 10:2 f.]. My brethren, have patience with me.

When you find such, do not conceal them, let there be not false mercy in you. Most certainly when you find such, do not conceal them. Refute those contradicting, and those resisting bring to me. For already two councils about this case have been sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come. The case has been ended; would that the error might some time end! Therefore let us warn them that they pay attention; let us teach them that they may be instructed; let us pray that they may be changed.

(h) Zosimus, III Ep. ad Episcopos Africae de causa Caelestii A. D. 417. (MSL, 45:1721.) Cf. Bruckner, op. cit., n. 28.

Fragments of his later Epistula tractoria together with other letters may be found in Bruckner, op. cit.

Likewise Pelagius sent letters also containing an extended justification of himself, to which he added a profession of his faith, what he condemned and what he followed, without any dissimulation, so that all subtilities of interpretation might be avoided. There was a public recitation of these. They contained all things like those which Caelestius had previously presented and expressed in the same sense and drawn up in the same thoughts. Would that some of you, dearest brethren, could have been present at the reading of the letters. What was the joy of the holy men who were present; what was the admiration of each of them! Some of them could scarcely restrain themselves from tears and weeping, that such men of absolutely correct faith could have been suspected. Was there a single place in which the grace of God or his aid was omitted?

(i) Council of Carthage, A. D. 418, Canons. Bruns, I, 188.

These canons of the Council of Carthage, A. D. 418, were incorporated in the Codex Canon Ecclesiae Africanae adopted at the Council of Carthage A. D. 419. The numbers given in brackets are the numbers in that Codex. Interprovincial councils were known in North Africa as "general councils."

In the consulate of the most glorious emperors, Honorius for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth, on the calends of May, at Carthage in the Secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus, when Bishop Aurelius presided over the general council, the deacons standing by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are indicated, met together in the holy synod of the church of Carthage:

1 [109]. That whosoever should say that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in the body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because of the desert [or merit] of sin, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

2 [110]. Likewise that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's womb should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which is removed by the layer of regeneration, whence the conclusion follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For not otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man sin has come into the world,(177) and so it passed upon all men in that all have sinned," than as the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith, even infants, who could have committed no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

3 [111]. Likewise, that whoever should say that the grace of God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

4 [112]. Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us not to sin only in that by it are revealed to us and opened to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says, "Wisdom puffeth up, but charity edifieth," it were truly infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffeth us up, but have it not for that which edifieth, since each is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to love it so as to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as it is written of God, "Who teacheth man knowledge," so also it is written, "Love is of God."

5 [113]. It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification is given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were commanded to do through our free will; as if when grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said, "Without me ye can do nothing," and not "Without me ye can do it but with difficulty."

6 [114]. It seemed also good that as St. John the Apostle says, "If ye shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us"; whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity," where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only in humility but also in truth. For the Apostle might have said, "If we shall say we have no sins we shall extol ourselves, and humility is not in us"; but when he says, "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.

7 [115]. It has seemed good that whosoever should say that when in the Lord's Prayer, the saints say, "Forgive us our trespasses," they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore none of the saints can say, "Forgive me my trespasses," but "Forgive us our trespasses"; so that the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself, let him be anathema.

8 [116]. Likewise it seemed good, that whosoever asserts that these words of the Lord's Prayer when they say, "Forgive us our trespasses," are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth, let them be anathema.

The following canon, although it seems to have been enacted for the case of Apiarius, is nevertheless often cited in the same connection as the eight against Pelagius, and is therefore given here for the sake of convenience.

18 [125]. Likewise, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighboring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think that an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoso shall think of carrying an appeal across the seas, shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.(178)

85. Semi-Pelagian Controversy

With the condemnation of Pelagianism the doctrine of Augustine in its logically worked out details was not necessarily approved. The necessity of baptism for the remission of sins in all cases was approved as well as the necessity of grace. The doctrine of predestination, an essential feature in the Augustinian system, was not only not accepted but was vigorously opposed by many who heartily condemned Pelagianism. The ensuing discussion, known as the Semi-Pelagian controversy (427-529), was largely carried on in Gaul, which after the Vandal occupation of North Africa, became the intellectual centre of the Church in the West. The leading opponent of Augustine was John Cassian (ob. 435), abbot of a monastery at Marseilles, hence the term Massilians applied to his party, and his pupil, Vincent of Lerins, author of Commonitorium, written 434. The chief Augustinians were Hilary and Prosper of Aquitaine. The discussion was not continuous. About 475 it broke out again when Lucidus was condemned at a council at Lyons and forced to retract his predestinarian views; and again about 520. The matter received what is regarded as its solution in the Council of Orange, 529, confirmed by Boniface II in 531. By the decrees of this council so much of the Augustinian system as could be combined with the teaching and practice of the Church as to the sacraments was formally approved.

(a) John Cassian. Collationes, XIII. 7 ff. (MSL, 49:908.)

John Cassian, born about 360, was by birth and education a man of the East, and does not appear in the West until 405, when he went to Rome on some business connected with the exile of Chrysostom, his friend and patron. In 415 he established two monasteries at Marseilles, one for men and the other for women. He had himself been educated as a monk and made a careful study of monasticism in Egypt and Palestine. Western monasticism is much indebted to him for his writings. De Institutis Coenobiorum and the Collationes. In the former, he describes the monastic system of Palestine and Egypt and the principal vices to which the monastic life is liable; in the latter, divided into three parts, Cassian gives reports or what purports to be reports of conversations he and his friend Germanus had with Egyptian ascetics. These books were very popular during the Middle Ages and exerted a wide influence.

Ch. 7. When His [God's] kindness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good-will shining forth or which He himself has, as it were, struck out from the hard flints of our hearts, He fans it and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He "will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" [I Tim. 2:4].… For He is true and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: "As I live, saith the Lord, I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live" [Ezek. 33:11]. For if he willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we think without grievous blasphemy that He willeth not all men universally, but only some instead of all be saved. Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifieth against each of them day by day: "Turn from your evil ways for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" [Ezek. 33:11] … The grace of Christ is then at hand every day, which, while it "willeth all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth," calleth all without exception, saying: "Come all unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest" [Matt. 11:28]. But if he calls not all generally but only some, it follows that not all are heavy laden with either original sin or actual sin, and that this saying is not a true one: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" [Rom. 3:23]; nor can we believe that "death passed on all men" [Rom. 5:12]. And so far do all who perish, perish against the will of God, that God cannot be said to have made death, as the Scripture itself testifieth: "For God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living" [Wisdom 1:13].

Ch. 8. When He sees anything of good-will arisen in us He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on to salvation, giving increase to that which He himself implanted or He sees to have arisen by our own effort.

Ch. 9. … But that it may be still more evident that through the good of nature, which is bestowed by the kindness of the Creator, sometimes the beginnings of a good-will arise, yet cannot come to the completion of virtue unless they are directed by the Lord, the Apostle is a witness, saying: "For to will is present with me, but to perform what is good I find not" [Rom. 7:18].

Ch. 11. … If we say that the beginnings of a good-will are always inspired in us by the grace of God, what shall we say about the faith of Zacchaeus, or of the piety of that thief upon the cross, who by their own desire brought violence to bear upon the Kingdom of Heaven, and so anticipated the special leadings of their callings?…

Ch. 12. We should not hold that God made man such that he neither wills nor is able to do good. Otherwise He has not granted him a free will, if He has suffered him only to will or be capable of evil, but of himself neither to will nor be capable of what is good.… It cannot, therefore, be doubted that there are by nature seeds of goodness implanted in every soul by the kindness of the Creator; but unless these are quickened by the assistance of God, they will not be able to attain to an increase of perfection; for, as the blessed Apostle says: "Neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase" [I Cor. 3:7]. But that freedom of will is to some degree in a man's power is very clearly taught in the book called The Pastor,(179) where two angels are said to be attached to each one of us, i.e. a good and a bad one, while it lies in a man's own option to choose which to follow. And, therefore, the will always remains free in man, and it can either neglect or delight in the grace of God. For the Apostle would not have commanded, saying, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" [Phil. 2:12], had he not known that it could be advanced or neglected by us.… But that they should not think that they did not need divine aid he adds: "For it is God who worketh in you both to will and accomplish His good pleasure" [Phil. 2:13]. The mercy of the Lord, therefore, goes before the will of man, for it is said, "My God will prevent me with His mercy" [Psalm 59:10], and again, that He may put our desire to the test, our will goes before God who waits, and for our good delays.

(b) Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, chs. 2, 23, 26, (MSL, 50:659.)

The rule of Catholic verity.

Vincent of Lerins wrote his Commonitorium in 434, three years after the death of Augustine, who had been commended in 432 to the clergy of Gaul by Celestine of Rome [Ep. 21; Denziger, nn. 128-142; Mansi IV, 454 ff.]. Vincent attacked Augustine in his Commonitorium, not openly, but, so far as the work has been preserved, covertly, under the pseudonym of Peregrinus. The work consists of two books, of which the second is lost with the exception of what appear to be some concluding chapters, or a summary taking the place of the book. In the first book he lays down the general principle as to the tests of Catholic truth. In doing so he is careful to point out several cases of very great teachers, renowned for learning, ability, and influence, who, nevertheless, erred against the test of Catholic truth, and brought forward opinions which, on account of their novelty, were false. It is a working out in detail of the principles of the idea of Tertullian in his De Proescriptione [v. supra, 27]. The Augustinian doctrines of predestination and grace could not stand the test of the appeal to antiquity. After laying down his test of truth it appears to have been the author's intention to prove thereby the doctrine of Augustine false. The so-called "Vincentian rule" is often quoted without a thought that it was intended, primarily, as an attack upon Augustine. The Commonitorium may be found translated in PNF, ser. II, vol. XI.

Ch. 2 [4]. I have often inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and, so to speak, universal rule I might be able to distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity, and I have always, and from nearly all, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds of heretics as they arise, or to avoid their snares, and to continue sound and complete in the faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our faith in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine Law, and then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one, perhaps, will ask: Since the canon of Scripture is complete and sufficient for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to add to it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words one way, another in another way; so that almost as many opinions may be drawn from it as there are men.… Therefore it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies, and of such various errors, that the rule of a right understanding of the prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself all possible care should be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For that is truly and properly "Catholic" which, as the name implies and the reason of the thing declares, comprehends all universally. This will be the case if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality in this way, if we confess that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in nowise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at least almost all, priests and doctors.

Ch. 23 [59]. The Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds; does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but, while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view—if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and to polish it; if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it; if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. Finally, what other objects have councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity, should in the future be believed intelligently; that what was before preached coldly, should in the future be preached earnestly; that what before was practised negligently, should henceforth be practised with double solicitude?

Passage referring especially to Augustine.

Ch. 26 [69]. But what do they say? "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down"; that is, "If thou wouldest be a son of God, and wouldest receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast thyself down; that is, cast thyself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God." And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice: How do you prove it? What ground have you for saying that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has only the answer ready: "For it is written"; and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the Apostles, from the prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul is precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labor, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock,(180) have such a dispensation from God, that borne up of angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.

(c) Council of Orange, A. D. 529, Canons. Bruns II, 176. Cf. Denziger, n. 174.

The end of the Semi-Pelagian controversy.

The Council of Orange, A. D. 529, was made up of several bishops and some lay notables who had gathered for the dedication of a church at Orange. Caesarius of Arles had received from Felix IV of Rome eight statements against the Semi-Pelagian teaching. He added some more of his own to them, and had them passed as canons by the company gathered for the dedication. It is noteworthy that the lay notables signed along with the bishops. Boniface II, to whom the canons were sent, confirmed them in 532: "We approve your above written confession as agreeable to the Catholic rule of the Fathers." Cf. Hefele, 242. For the sources of the canons, see Seeberg, History of Doctrines, Eng. trans., I, 380, note 3. For the sake of brevity the scriptural quotations are not given, merely indicated by references to the Bible.

Canon 1. Whoever says that by the offence of the disobedience of Adam not the entire man, that is, in body and soul, was changed for the worse, but that the freedom of his soul remained uninjured, and his body only was subject to corruption, has been deceived by the error of Pelagius and opposes Scripture [Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 6:16; II Peter 2:19].

Canon 2. Whoever asserts that the transgression of Adam injured himself only, and not his offspring, or that death only of the body, which is the penalty of sin, but not also sin, which is the death of the soul, passed by one man to the entire human race, wrongs God and contradicts the Apostle [Rom. 5:12].

Canon 3. Whoever says that the grace of God can be bestowed in reply to human petition, but not that the grace brings it about so that it is asked for by us, contradicts Isaiah the prophet and the Apostle [Is. 65:1; Rom. 10:20].

Canon 4. Whoever contends that our will, to be set free from sin, may anticipate God's action, and shall not confess that it is brought about by the infusion of the Holy Spirit and his operation in us, that we wish to be set free, resists that same Holy Spirit speaking through Solomon: "The will is prepared by the Lord" [Proverbs 8:35, cf. LXX; not so in Vulgate or Heb.], and the Apostle [Phil. 2:13].

Canon 5. Whoever says the increase, as also the beginning of faith and the desire of believing, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and we come to the birth of holy baptism, is not by the free gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit turning our will from unbelief to belief, from impiety to piety, but belongs naturally to us, is declared an adversary of the apostolic preaching [Phil. 1:6; Ephes. 2:8]. For they say that faith by which we believe in God is natural, and they declare that all those who are strangers to the Church of Christ in some way are believing.

Canon 6. Whoever says that to us who, without the grace of God, believe, will, desire, attempt, struggle for, watch, strive for, demand, ask, knock, mercy is divinely bestowed, and does not rather confess that it is brought about by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit in us that believe, will, and do all these other things as we ought, and annexes the help of grace to human humility and obedience, and does not admit that it is the gift of that same grace that we are obedient and humble, opposes the Apostle [I Cor. 4:7].

Canon 7. Whoever asserts that by the force of nature we can rightly think or choose anything good, which pertains to eternal life, or be saved, that is, assent to the evangelical preaching, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all grace to assent to and believe the truth, is deceived by an heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of the Lord [John 15:5], and of the Apostle [II Cor. 3:5].

Canon 8. Whoever asserts that some by mercy, others by free will, which in all who have been born since the transgression of the first man is evidently corrupt, are able to come to the grace of baptism, is proved an alien from the faith. For he asserts that the free will of all has not been weakened by the sin of the first man, or he evidently thinks that it has been so injured that some, however, are able without the revelation of God to attain, by their own power, to the mystery of eternal salvation. Because the Lord himself shows how false this is, who declares that not some, but no one was able to come to Him unless the Father drew him [John 6:4], and said so to Peter [Matt. 16:17] and the Apostle [I Cor. 12:3].

The canons that follow are less important. The whole concludes with a brief statement regarding the points at issue, as follows:

And so according to the above sentences of the Holy Scriptures and definitions of ancient Fathers, by God's aid, we believe that we ought to believe and preach:

That by the sin of the first man, free will was so turned aside and weakened that afterward no one is able to love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do anything for God, which is good, except the grace of divine mercy comes first to him [Phil. 1:6, 29; Ephes. 2:8; I Cor. 4:7, 7:25; James 1:17; John 3:27].…

We also believe this to be according to the Catholic faith, that grace having been received in baptism, all who have been baptized, can and ought, by the aid and support of Christ, to perform those things which belong to the salvation of the soul, if they labor faithfully.

But not only do we not believe that some have been predestinated to evil by the divine power, but also, if there are any who wish to believe so evil a thing, we say to them, with all detestation, anathema.

Also this we profitably confess and believe, that in every good we do not begin and afterward are assisted by the mercy of God, but without any good desert preceding, He first inspires in us faith and love in Him, so that we both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism with His help are able to perform those things which are pleasing to Him. Whence it is most certainly to be believed that in the case of that thief, whom the Lord called to the fatherland of paradise, and Cornelius the Centurion, to whom an angel of the Lord was sent, and Zacchaeus, who was worthy of receiving the Lord himself, their so wonderful faith was not of nature, but was the gift of the divine bounty.

And because we desire and wish our definition of the ancient Fathers, written above, to be a medicine not only for the clergy but also for the laity, it has been decided that the illustrious and noble men, who have assembled with us at the aforesaid festival, shall subscribe it with their own hand.

86. The Roman Church as the Centre of the Catholic Roman Element of the West

In the confusion of the fifth century, when the provinces of the Roman Empire were being lopped off one by one, Italy invaded, and the larger political institutions disappearing, the Church was the one institution that maintained itself. In not a few places among the barbarians the bishops became the acknowledged heads of the Roman element of the communities. In meeting the threatened invasion of Italy by Attila, Leo was the representative of the Roman people, the head of the embassy sent to induce the Hun to recross the Danube. Under such circumstances the see of Rome constantly gained in importance politically and ecclesiastically. As a centre of unity it was far more powerful than a feeble emperor at Ravenna or puppets set up by barbarians. It was the one and only great link between the provinces and the representative of the ancient order. It represented Rome, an efficient and generally gratefully recognized authority. In the development of the papal idea the first stadium was completed with the pontificate of Leo the Great (440-461), who, fully conscious of the inherited Petrine prerogatives, expressed them the most clearly, persistently, and, on the whole, most successfully of any pontiff before Gregory the Great. Leo, therefore, stands at the end of a development marked by the utterances of Victor, Cornelius, Siricius, Innocent I, Zosimus, Boniface I, and Celestine. For their statements of the authority of the Roman see, see Denziger, under their names, also Kirch and Mirbt. The whole may be found combined in one statement in Schwanne, Dogmengeschichte, I, 413 f.; II, 661-698.

Additional source material: In English there is comparatively little except the writings of Leo, see especially Sermones 2, 82, 84; Epistulae 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 105, 167; Jerome, Ep. 146, ad Evangelum. Kirch, Mirbt, and Denziger give many references to original texts and citations.

(a) Leo the Great, Sermo 3. (MSL, 55:145 f.)

On the prerogatives of Peter and his see.

Ch. 2. … From His overruling and eternal providence we have received also the support of the Apostle's aid, which assuredly does not cease from its operation; and the strength of the foundation, on which the whole lofty building of the Church is reared, is not weakened by the weight of the temple that rests upon it. For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual; and, as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter. For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson [i.e., for the day], the Lord has asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be, amid the various opinions that were held, the blessed Peter replied, saying: "Thou art the Christ," etc. [Matt. 16:16-19].

Ch. 3. The dispensation of the truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that since he is called the rock, since he is pronounced the foundation, since he is constituted the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, since he is set up as the judge to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is intrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done or rightly decreed by us, if anything is obtained from the mercy of God by daily supplications, it is his work and merits whose power lives in his see and whose authority excels. For this, dearly beloved, that confession gained, that confession which, inspired in the Apostle's heart by God the Father, transcends all the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake. For throughout the Church Peter daily says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and every tongue which confesses the Lord is inspired by the instruction [magisterio] of that voice.

(b) Leo the Great, Ep. 104, ad Marcianum Augustum, A. D. 452. (MSL, 54:993.)

Condemnation of the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon.

This and the two following epistles upon the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon define the relation of the Roman see to councils, canons, and patriarchal sees. Apostolic sees may not be constituted by mere canon; political importance of a place does not regulate its ecclesiastical position; the see of Rome can reject the canons of councils even though general; apostolic sees connected with Peter may not have their authority diminished. For the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, v. infra, 90, d.

Ch. 3. Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its glory, and may it, under the protection of God's right hand, long enjoy the rule of your clemency. Yet the basis of things secular is one, and the basis of things divine another; and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord laid as a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for the aforesaid [Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople] that by the aid of your piety and by my favorable assent he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a royal city, which he cannot make an apostolic see; and let him on no account hope to be able to rise by injury to others. For the privileges of the churches, determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene synod, cannot be overthrown by an unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by an innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ, it is necessary that I show an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge intrusted to me, and it tends to condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and laid down under the guidance of God's spirit at the synod of Nicaea for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid) and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common word of the Lord's whole house.

(c) Leo the Great, Ep. 105, ad Pulcheriam Augustam A. D. 452. (MSL, 54:997.)

Condemnation of all canons contravening those of Nicaea.

3. Let him [Anatolius] know to what sort of man he has succeeded, and, expelling all the spirit of pride, let him imitate the faith of Flavian, his modesty and his humility, which raised him up even to a confessor's glory. If he will shine with his virtues, he will be praiseworthy and everywhere he will win an abundance of love, not by seeking human things, but divine favor. And by this careful course I promise that my heart will also be bound to him, and the love of this apostolic see which we have ever bestowed upon the church of Constantinople shall never be violated by any change. Because, if rulers, lacking self-restraint, fall into errors, yet the purity of the churches of Christ continues. As for the assents of bishops which are in contradiction with the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea, in conjunction with your faithful race we do not recognize them, and by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter we absolutely disannul in comprehensive terms in all cases ecclesiastical, following those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by three hundred and eighteen bishops for the pacific observance of all priests, so that, even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree from theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.

(d) Leo the Great, Ep. 106, ad Anatolium A. D. 452. (MSL, 54:1005.)

The relation of the apostolic sees to Peter.

Your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops, given, as you allege, sixty years ago,(181) and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; under this project(182) which from its outset was tottering and has already collapsed, you now wish to place too late and useless props.… The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown, nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The see of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through St. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendor of so great a church be obscured by another's clouds, when Dioscurus fell through his persistence in impiety. The church of Antioch, too, in which first, at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter, the Christian name arose, must continue in the position assigned to it by the Fathers, and, being set in the third place [Can. 6, Nicaea, 325, v. supra, 72], must never be lowered therefrom. For the see is one thing, and those who preside in it something different; and an individual's great honor is his own integrity.

(e) Leo the Great, Ep. 6, ad Anastasium A. D. 444. (MSL, 54:616.) Cf. Kirch, nn. 814 ff.

The policy of centralization. The primates are representatives of the bishop of Rome. Anastasius was bishop of Thessalonica.

Ch. 2. Inasmuch, dear brother, as your request has been made known to us through our son Nicholas, the priest, that you also, like your predecessors, might receive from us in your turn authority over Illyricum for the observance of the rules, we give our consent, and earnestly exhort that no concealment and no negligence may be allowed in the management of the churches situated throughout Illyricum, which we commit to you in our stead, following the precedent of Siricius, of blessed memory, who then, for the first time acting on a fixed method, intrusted them to your last predecessor but one, Anysius, of holy memory, who had at the time well deserved of the Apostolic See, and was approved by after events, that he might render assistance to the churches situated in that province, whom he wished to keep up to the discipline.…

Ch. 5. Those of the brethren who have been summoned to a synod should attend, and not deny themselves to the holy congregation.… But if any more important question spring up, such as cannot be settled there under your presidency, brother, send your report and consult us, so that we may write back under the revelation of the Lord, of whose mercy it is that we can do aught, because He has breathed favorably upon us; that by our decision we may vindicate our right of cognizance in accordance with old-established tradition, and the respect which is due the Apostolic See; for as we wish you to exercise your authority in our stead, so we reserve to ourselves points which cannot be decided on the spot and persons who have appealed to us.(183)



Chapter III. The Church In The Eastern Empire.

At the beginning of the permanent division of the Empire, the church life of the East was disturbed by a series of closely connected disputes known as the First Origenistic Controversy ( 87), in which were comprised a conflict between a rationalistic tendency, connected with the religious philosophy of Origen, and a traditionalism that eschewed speculation, a bitter rivalry between the great sees of Alexandria, the religious and intellectual capital of the East, and Constantinople, the church of the new imperial city, and personal disputes. But more serious controversies were already beginning. While the Church of the West was laying the foundations of the papal system, the Church of the East was falling more and more under the dominance of the secular authority; while the West was developing its anthropology, with its doctrines of Original Sin, Grace, and Election, the East was entering upon the long discussion of the topic which had been left by the Arian controversy—granted that the incarnate Son of God is truly eternal God, in what way are the divine and human natures related to the one personality of the incarnate God ( 88)? The controversies that arose over this topic involved the entire Church of the East, and found in the general councils of Ephesus, A. D. 431 ( 89), and Chalcedon, A. D. 451 ( 90), partial solutions. In the case of each council, permanent schisms resulted, and large portions of the Church of the East broke away from the previous unity ( 91); and on account of the intimate connection between the affairs of the Church and the secular policy of the Empire, a schism was caused between the see of Rome and the churches in communion with the see of Constantinople.

87. The First Origenistic Controversy and the Triumph of Traditionalism

In the East the leading theologians of the fourth century were educated under the influence of Origenism; among these were Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. In the West the feeling regarding Origen was not so favorable, but the Western theologians, Jerome and Rufinus, who were then living in Palestine, shared in the general admiration of Origen. But a series of brief controversies broke out in which the standing of Origen as an orthodox theologian was seriously attacked, as well as the whole tendency for which he stood. The result was a wide-spread condemnation of the spiritualizing teaching of the great Alexandrian, and the rise of what might be called an anthropomorphic traditionalism. The first of the three controversies took place in Palestine, 395-399, and was occasioned by Epiphanius of Salamis, a zealous opponent of heresy. He denounced Origen and induced Jerome to abandon Origen; and Rufinus was soon in bitter enmity with Jerome. The second controversy took place in Egypt about the same time, when a group of monks in the Scetic desert, who were violently opposed to Origenism, compelled Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria and an admirer of Origen, to abandon that theologian and to side with them against the monks of the Nitrian desert, who were Origenists, and to condemn Origen at a council at Alexandria, 399. The third controversy involved John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who had protected four Nitrian monks who had fled to his protection. Theophilus seized the opportunity and, with the assistance for a time of Epiphanius, ultimately brought about the downfall of Chrysostom, who died deposed and in exile, 404. No controversies of the ancient Church are less attractive than the Origenistic, in which so much personal rancor, selfish ambition, mean intrigue, and so little profound thought were involved. The literature, therefore, is scanty.

Additional source material: Jerome, Ep. 86-99 (PNF); Rufinus and Jerome, controversial writings bearing on Origenism in PNF, ser. II. vol. III, pp. 417-541; Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 2-21; Sozomen, Hist. Ec., VIII, 2-28.

(a) Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 27. (MSG, 32:187.)

The force of unwritten tradition.

The following is the most important and authoritative statement of the force of unwritten tradition in the Eastern Church. It is referred to by John of Damascus in his defence of images (De Fide Orthod., IV, 16), cf. 109. It is placed in the present section as illustrating the principle of traditionalism which, in a fanatical form, brought about the Origenistic controversies.

Of the beliefs and public teachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written tradition, others we have received as delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have in relation to true piety the same binding force. And these no one will gainsay, at least no one who is versed even moderately in the institutions of the Church. For were we to reject such customs as are unwritten as having no great force, we should unintentionally injure the gospels in their very vitals; or, rather, reduce our public definition to a mere name and nothing more. For example, to take the first and most general instance, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East in our prayers? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words at the invocation and at the displaying of the bread in the eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded; but, both before and after, we say other words as having great importance for the mystery, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of chrism, and, besides this, him who is baptized. From what writings? Is it not from the silent and mystical tradition? What written word teaches the anointing of oil itself? And whence is it that a man is baptized three times? And as to other customs of baptism, from what Scripture comes the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from the unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in silence, averse from curious meddling and inquisitive investigation, having learned the lesson that the reverence of the mysteries is best preserved in silence? How was it proper to parade in public the teaching of those things which it was not permitted the uninitiated to look at?

(b) Jerome, Preface to the Vulgate Translation of the New Testament. (MSL, 29:557.)

Jerome's free critical attitude in his work in his earlier life.

This preface is addressed to Bishop Damasus of Rome and is dated 383.

You urge me to make a new work out of an old and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures already scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ among themselves, I am to decide which of them agree with the Greek original. A pious labor, but a perilous presumption; to judge others, myself to be judged of all; to change the language of the aged, and to carry back the world already grown gray, back to the beginnings of its infancy! Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands and perceives that what he reads differs from the flavor which once he tasted, break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books or to change or correct anything? I am consoled in two ways in bearing this odium: in the first place, that you, the supreme bishop, command it to be done; and secondly, even on the testimony of those reviling us, what varies cannot be true. For if we put faith in the Latin texts, let them tell us which; for there are almost as many texts as copies. But if the truth is to be sought from many, why should we not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident and ignorant men, and further, all that has been added or altered by sleepy copyists? I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy Elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be a true translation which had apostolic approval [i.e., the LXX]. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of the Apostle Matthew, who first published the gospel of Christ in Judea and in Hebrew. This [i.e., the New Testament], as it is in our language, is certainly marked by discrepancies, and the stream flows in different channels; it must be sought in one fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts bearing the names of Lucian and Hesychius, which a few contentious persons perversely support. It was not permitted these writers to amend anything in the Old Testament after the labor of the Seventy; and it was useless to make corrections in the New, for translations of the Scriptures already made in the language of many nations show that they are additions and false. Therefore this short preface promises only the four gospels, of which the order is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts and only of the ancient manuscripts. And that they might not depart far from the Latin customarily read, I have used my pen with some restraint, so that having corrected only the passages which seemed to change the meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as it was.

(c) Jerome, Ep. 7, ad Pammachium. (MSL, 23:376.)

The principal errors of Origen according to Jerome.

This is the most important work of Jerome in the controversy known as the Origenistic controversy. Jerome attacks in this work John, bishop of Jerusalem, and writes as a result of the work of Epiphanius in Palestine three years before. The following were addressed to John to reject, as a test of that bishop's orthodoxy. See above, 43.

First, in the book περὶ ἀρχῶν it is said [I, 1:8]: "For as it is unfitting to say that the Son can see the Father, so it is not meet to think that the Holy Spirit can see the Son."

Secondly, that souls are bound in this body as in a prison; and that before man was made in paradise they dwelt among rational creatures in the heavens. Wherefore, afterward, to console itself, the soul says in the Psalms, "Before I was humbled I went wrong," and "Return, my soul, unto thy rest," and "Lead my soul out of prison," and similarly elsewhere.

Thirdly, that he says that both the devil and the demons will some time or other repent and ultimately reign with the saints.

Fourthly, that he interprets the coats of skins, with which Adam and Eve were clothed after their fall and ejection from paradise, to be human bodies, and no doubt they were previously in paradise without flesh, sinews, or bones.

Fifthly, he most openly denies the resurrection of the flesh, the bodily structure, and the distinction of sexes by which we men are distinguished from women, both in his explanation of the first psalm and in many other treatises.

Sixthly, he so allegorizes paradise as to destroy the truth of history, understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers; and he overthrows all that is contained in the history of paradise by his tropological interpretation.

Seventhly, he thinks that the waters which in the Scriptures are said to be above the heavens are holy and supernal powers; while those which are upon the earth and beneath the earth are, on the contrary, demoniacal powers.

Eighthly, that the image and likeness of God, in which man was created, was lost and was no longer in man after he was expelled from paradise.

(d) Anastasius, Ep. ad Simplicianum, in Jerome, Ep. 95 (MSL, 22:772.)

Condemnation of Origen by Anastasius, bishop of Rome, A. D. 400

To his lord and brother, Simplicianus, Anastasius.

It is felt right that a shepherd have great care and watchfulness over his flock. In like manner, also, the careful watchman from his lofty tower keeps a lookout day and night on behalf of the city. In the hour of tempest and peril the prudent shipmaster suffers great distress of mind lest by the tempest and the violent waves his vessel be dashed upon the rocks. With similar feelings that reverend and honorable man Theophilus, our brother and fellow-bishop, ceases not to watch over the things which make for salvation, that God's people in the different churches may not by reading Origen run into awful blasphemies.

Having been informed, then, by the letter of the aforesaid, we inform your holiness that just as we are set in the city of Rome, in which the prince of the Apostles, the glorious Peter, founded the Church and then by his faith strengthened it; to the end that no man contrary to the commandment read these books which we have mentioned and the same we have condemned; and with earnest prayers we have urged that the precepts of the Evangelists which God and Christ have inspired the Evangelists to teach ought not to be forsaken; but that is to be remembered which the venerable Apostle Paul preached by way of warning: "If any one preach a gospel unto you other than that which was preached unto you, let him be anathema" [Gal. 1:8]. Holding fast, therefore, this precept, we have intimated that everything written in days past by Origen that is contrary to our faith is even by us rejected and condemned.

We have written these things to your holiness by the hand of the presbyter Eusebius, who, being a man filled with a glowing faith and having the love of the Lord, has shown me some blasphemous chapters at which we shuddered and which we condemned, but if any other things have been put forth by Origen, you should know that with their author they are alike condemned by me. The Lord have you in safe-keeping, my lord and brother deservedly held in honor.

(_e_) Rufinus, _Preface to Translation of Origen's _"_De Principiis_"_. (MSL, 22:733 and also MSG, 11:111.)

In this preface Rufinus refers, without mentioning names, to Jerome. Inasmuch as it was perfectly clear to whom the allusion was made, as the translator and admirer of Origen, Jerome felt himself personally attacked and retorted furiously upon Rufinus.

I know that a great many of the brethren, incited by their desire for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested various men versed in Greek letters to make Origen a Roman and give him to Latin ears. Among these was our brother and associate [i.e., Jerome], who was so requested by Bishop Damasus, when he translated the two homilies on the Song of Songs from Greek into Latin, prefixed to the work a preface so full of beauty and so magnificent that he awoke in every one the desire of reading Origen and of eagerly examining his works, and he said that to the soul of that man the words might well be applied, "The King has brought me into his chamber" [Cant. 2:4], and he declared that Origen in his other books surpassed all other men, but in this had surpassed himself. What he promised in his preface is, indeed, that he would give to Roman ears not only these books on the Song of Songs, but many others of Origen. But, as I perceive, he is so pleased with his own style that he pursues an object bringing him more glory, viz., to be the father of a book rather than a translator. I am therefore following out a task begun by him and commended by him.… In translation, I follow as far as possible the method of my predecessors, and especially of him whom I have already mentioned, who, after he had translated into Latin above seventy of the books of Origen, which he called Homilies, and also a certain number of the tomes written on the Apostle [the Epistles of St. Paul], since a number of offensive passages are to be found in the Greek, eliminated and purged, in his translation, all of them, so that the Latin reader will find nothing in these which jar on our faith. Him, therefore, we follow, not indeed with the power of his eloquence, but as far as we can in his rules and methods: that is, taking care not to promulgate those things which in the books of Origen are found to be discrepant and contradictory one to the other. The cause of these variations I have set forth fully in the apology which Pamphilus wrote for the books of Origen, to which is appended a short treatise showing how proofs which, as I judge, are quite clear in his books have in many cases been falsified by heretical and evil-disposed persons.

(f) Augustine, Ep. 73, Ch. 8. (MSL, 33:249.)

The attempt of Augustine to bring about a reconciliation between Rufinus and Jerome. Jerome had written some affectionate words to Augustine to which he alludes in the beginning of the following passage:

When, by these words, now not only yours but also mine, I am gladdened and refreshed, and when I am comforted not a little by the desire of both of us for mutual fellowship, which has been suspended and is not satisfied, suddenly I am pierced through by the darts of keenest sorrow when I consider that between you [i.e., Rufinus and Jerome] (to whom God granted in fullest measure and for a long time that which both of us have longed for, that in closest and most intimate fellowship you tasted together the honey of Holy Scriptures) such a blight of bitterness has broken out, when, where, and in whom it was not to be feared, since it has befallen you at the very time when, unencumbered, having cast away secular burdens, you were following the Lord, were living together in that land in which the Lord walked with human feet, when He said, "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you"; being, moreover, men of mature age, whose life was devoted to the study of the word of God. Truly, "man's life on earth is a period of trial" [Job 7:1]. Alas, that I cannot meet you both together, perchance that in agitation, grief, and fear I might cast myself at your feet, weep till I could weep no more, and appeal as I love you, first to each of you for his own sake, and then for the sake of those, especially the weak, "for whom Christ died" [I Cor. 8:11], who to their great peril look on you as on the stage of time, imploring you not to scatter abroad, in writing, those things about each other which when reconciled, you, who are now unwilling to be reconciled, could not then destroy, and which when reconciled you would not dare to read lest you should quarrel anew.

(g) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 15. (MSG, 67:708.)

The fall of Chrysostom.

Epiphanius had gone to Constantinople on the suggestion of Theophilus, and there, in his zeal, had violated the canons of ordination as generally received. In this case he had ordained priests in the diocese of Chrysostom and without his permission. Other troubles had arisen. On being called to account for his conduct by Chrysostom, Epiphanius hastily left the city, and died on the voyage back to his diocese, Salamis, in Cyprus.

When Epiphanius had gone John was informed by some person that the Empress Eudoxia had set Epiphanius against him. Being of a fiery temperament and of ready utterance, he soon after pronounced to the public an invective against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the Empress, and so the speech, laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, was brought to the knowledge of those in authority. At length the Empress, having been informed of it, immediately complained to her husband of the insult offered her, saying that the insult offered her was an insult to him. He therefore gave orders that Theophilus should speedily convoke a synod against John; Severianus also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his grudge [i.e., against Chrysostom. See DCB, art. "Severianus, bishop of Gabala."]. No great length of time, accordingly, intervened before Theophilus arrived, having stirred up many bishops from different cities; but this, also, the summons of the Emperor had commanded. Especially did they assemble who had one cause or another of complaint against John, and there were present besides those whom John had deposed, for John had deposed many bishops in Asia when he went to Ephesus for the ordination of Heraclides. Accordingly they all, by previous agreement, assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia.… Now none of the clergy [i.e., of Constantinople] would go forth to meet Theophilus or pay him the customary honors because he was openly known as John's enemy. But the Alexandrian sailors—for it happened that at that time the grain-transport ships were there—on meeting him, greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called "The Placidian." Then, in consequence of this, many accusations began to be poured forth against John, and no longer was there any mention of the books of Origen, but all were intent on pressing a variety of absurd accusations. When these preliminary matters were settled the bishops were convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, which is called "The Oak," and immediately cited John to answer charges which were brought against him.… And since John, taking exception to those who cited him, on the ground that they were his enemies, demanded a general council, without delay they repeated their citation four times; and as he persisted in his refusal to answer, always giving the same reply, they condemned him, and deposed him without giving any other cause for his deposition than that he refused to obey when summoned. This, being announced toward evening, incited the people to a very great sedition, insomuch that they kept watch all night and would by no means suffer him to be removed from the church, but cried out that the charges against him ought to be determined by a larger assembly. A decree of the Emperor, however, commanded that he should be immediately expelled and sent into exile. When John knew this he voluntarily surrendered himself about noon, unknown to the populace, on the third day after his condemnation; for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and he was accordingly led away.

(h) Theophilus of Alexandria, Ep. ad Hieronymum, in Jerome, Ep. 113. (MSL, 22:932.)

Theophilus on the fall of Chrysostom.

To the well-beloved and most loving brother Jerome, Theophilus sends greeting in the Lord.

At the outset the verdict of truth satisfies but few; but the Lord, speaking by the prophet, says, "My judgment goeth forth as the light," and they who are surrounded with a horror of darkness do not with clear mind perceive the nature of things, and they are covered with eternal shame and know by their outcome that their efforts have been in vain. Wherefore we also have always desired that John [Chrysostom], who for a time ruled the church of Constantinople, might please God, and we have been unwilling to accept as facts the cause of his ruin in which he behaved himself rashly. But not to speak of his other misdeed, he has by taking the Origenists into his confidences,(184) by advancing many of them to the priesthood, and by this crime saddening with no slight grief that man of God, Epiphanius, of blessed memory, who has shone throughout all the world a bright star among bishops, deserved to hear the words, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen."

88. The Christological Problem and the Theological Tendencies

The Arian controversy in bringing about the affirmation of the true deity of the Son, or Logos, left the Church with the problem of the unity of the divine and human natures in the personality of Jesus. It seemed to not a few that to combine perfect deity with perfect humanity would result in two personalities. Holding fast, therefore, to the reality of the human nature, a solution was attempted by Apollinarius, or Apollinaris, by making the divine Logos take the place of the human logos or reason. Mankind consisted of three parts: a body, an animal soul, and a rational spirit. The Logos was thus united to humanity by substituting the divine for the human logos. But this did violence to the integrity of the human nature of Christ. This attempt on the part of Apollinaris was rejected at Constantinople, but also by the Church generally. The human natures must be complete if human nature was deified by the assumption of man in the incarnation. On this basis two tendencies showed themselves quite early: the human nature might be lost in the divinity, or the human and the divine natures might be kept distinct and parallel or in such a way that certain acts might be assigned to the divine and certain to the human nature. The former line of thought, adopted by the Cappadocians, tended toward the position assumed by Cyril of Alexandria and in a more extreme form by the Monophysites. The latter line of thought tended toward what was regarded as the position of Nestorius. In this position there was such a sharp cleavage between the divine and the human natures as apparently to create a double personality in the incarnate Son. This divergence of theological statement gave rise to the christological controversies which continued in various forms through several centuries in the East, and have reappeared in various disguises in the course of the Church's theological development.

Additional source material: There are several exegetical works of Cyril of Alexandria available in English, see Bardenhewer, 77, also a German translation of three treatises bearing on christology in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenvaeter, 1879. For the general point of view of the Cappadocians and the relation of the incarnation to redemption, see Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (PNF, ser. II, vol. V), v. infra, 89 and references in Seeberg, 23.

(a) Apollinaris, Fragments. Ed. H. Lietzmann.

His Christology.

The following fragments of the teaching of Apollinaris are from H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Texte und Untersuchungen, 1904. Many fragments are to be found in the Dialogues which Theodoret wrote against Eutychianism, which he traced to the teaching of Apollinaris. The first condemnation of Apollinaris was at Rome, 377, see Hefele, 91; Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 10, gives the letter of Damasus issued in the name of the synod.

P. 224 [81]. If God had been joined with a man, one complete being with another complete being, there would be two sons of God, one Son of God by nature, another through adoption.

P. 247 [150]. They who assume a twofold spirit in Christ pull a stone out with their finger. For if each is independent and impelled by its own natural will, it is impossible that in one and the same subject the two can be together, who will what is opposed to each other; for each works what is willed by it according to its own proper and personal motives.

P. 248 [152]. They who speak of one Christ, and assert that there are two independent spiritual natures in Him, do not know Him as the Logos made flesh, who has remained in His natural unity, for they represent Him as divided into two unlike natures and modes of operation.

P. 239 [129]. If a man has soul and body, and both remain distinguished in unity, how much more has Christ, who joins His divine being with a body, both as a permanent possession without any commingling one with the other?

P. 209 [21, 22]. The Logos became flesh, but the flesh was not without a soul, for it is said that it strives against the spirit and opposes the law of the understanding. [In this Apollinaris takes up the trichotomy of human nature, a view which he did not apparently hold at the beginning of his teaching.]

P. 240 [137]. John [John 2:19] spoke of the destroyed temple, that is, of the body of Him who would raise it up again. The body is altogether one with Him. But if the body of the Lord has become one with the Lord, then the characteristics of the body are proved to be characteristics of Him on account of the body.

(b) Apollinaris, Letter to the Emperor Jovian. Lietzmann, 250 ff.

We confess the Son of God who was begotten eternally before all times, but in the last times was for our salvation born of Mary according to the flesh; … and we confess that the same is the Son of God and God according to the spirit, Son of man according to the flesh; we do not speak of two natures in the one Son, of which one is to be worshipped and one is not to be worshipped, but of only one nature of the Logos of God, which has become flesh and with His flesh is worshipped with one worship; and we confess not two sons, one who is truly God's Son to be worshipped and another the man—who is of Mary and is not to be worshipped, who by the power of grace had become the Son of God, as is also the case with men, but one Son of God who at the same time was born of Mary according to the flesh in the last days, as the angel answered the Theotokos Mary who asked, "How shall this be?"—"The Holy Ghost will come upon thee." He, accordingly, who was born of the Virgin Mary was Son of God by nature and truly God … only according to the flesh from Mary was He man, but at the same time, according to the spirit, Son of God; and God has in His own flesh suffered our sorrows.

(c) Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. I ad Cledonium. (MSG, 37:181.)

In this epistle Gregory attacks Apollinaris, basing his argument on the notion of salvation by incarnation, which formed the foundation of the most characteristic piety of the East, had been used as a major premise by Athanasius in opposition to Arianism, and runs back to Irenaeus and the Asia Minor school; see above, 33.

If any one trusted in a man without a human mind, he is himself really bereft of mind and quite unworthy of salvation. For what has not been assumed has not been healed; but what has been united to God is saved. If only half of Adam fell, then that which is assumed and saved may be half also; but if the whole, it must be united to the whole of Him that was begotten and be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the semblance of humanity. For if His manhood is without soul [ἄψυχος], even the Arians admit this, that they may attribute His passion to the godhead, as that which gives motion to the body is also that which suffers. But if He had a soul and yet is without a mind, how is He a man, for man is not a mindless [ἄνουν] animal? And this would necessarily involve that His form was human, and also His tabernacle, but His soul was that of a horse, or an ox, or some other creature without mind. This, then, would be what is saved, and I have been deceived in the Truth, and have been boasting an honor when it was another who was honored. But if His manhood is intellectual and not without mind, let them cease to be thus really mindless.

But, says some one, the godhead was sufficient in place of the human intellect. What, then, is this to me? For godhead with flesh alone is not man, nor with soul alone, nor with both apart from mind, which is the most essential part of man. Keep, then, the whole man, and mingle godhead therewith, that you may benefit me in my completeness. But, as he asserts [i.e., Apollinaris], He could not contain two perfect natures. Not if you only regard Him in a bodily fashion. For a bushel measure will not hold two bushels, nor will the space of one body hold two or more bodies. But if you will look at what is mental and incorporeal, remember that I myself can contain soul and reason and mind and the Holy Spirit; and before me this world, by which I mean the system of things visible and invisible, contained Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For such is the nature of intellectual existences that they can mingle with one another and with bodies, incorporeally and invisibly.…

Further, let us see what is their account of the assumption of the manhood, or the assumption of the flesh, as they call it. If it was in order that God, otherwise incomprehensible, might be comprehended, and might converse with men through His flesh as through a veil, their mask is a pretty one, a hypocritical fable; for it was open to Him to converse with us in many other ways, as in the burning bush [Ex. 3:2] and in the appearance of a man [Gen. 18:5]. But if it was that He might destroy the condemnation of sin by sanctifying like by like, then as He needed flesh for the sake of the condemned flesh and soul for the sake of the soul, so also He needed mind for the sake of mind, which not only fell in Adam but was first to be affected, as physicians say, of the illness. For that which received the commandment was that which failed to observe the commandment, and that which failed to observe the commandment was that also which dared to transgress, and that which transgressed was that which stood most in need of salvation, and that which needed salvation was that which also was assumed. Therefore mind was taken upon Him.

(d) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, Epistula Synodica. Hefele, 98.

Condemnation of Apollinarianism.

At the Council of Constantinople held the year after that which is known as the Second General Council, and attended by nearly the same bishops, there was an express condemnation of Apollinaris and his doctrine, for though Apollinaris had been condemned in 381, the point of doctrine was not stated. The synodical letter of the council of 382 is preserved only in part in Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 9, who concludes his account with these words:

Similarly they openly condemn the innovation of Apollinarius [so Theodoret writes the name] in the phrase, "And we preserve the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that the dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless, nor mindless, nor imperfect."

(e) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Creed. Hahn, 215.

The position of the Nestorians.

The following extracts are from the creed which was presented at the Council of Ephesus, 431, and was written by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the greatest theologian of the party which stood with Nestorius. Although it does not state the whole doctrine of Theodore, yet its historical position is so important that its characteristic passages belong in the present connection. Bibliographical and critical notes in Hahn, loc. cit.

Concerning the dispensation which the Lord God accomplished for our salvation in the dispensation according to the Lord Christ, it is necessary for us to know that the Lord God the Logos assumed a complete man, who was of the seed of Abraham and David, according to the statement of the divine Scriptures, and was according to nature whatsoever they were of whose seed He was, a perfect man according to nature, consisting of reasonable soul and human flesh, and the man who was as to nature as we are, formed by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem us all from the bondage of the law [Gal. 4:4] who receive the adoption of sonship which was long before ordained, that man He joined to himself in an ineffable manner.…

And we do not say that there are two Sons or two Lords, because there is one God [Son?] according to substance, God the Word, the only begotten Son of the Father, and He who has been joined with Him is a participator in His deity and shares in the name and honor of the Son; and the Lord according to essence is God the Word, with whom that which is joined shares in honor. And therefore we say neither two Sons nor two Lords, because one is He who has an inseparable conjunction with Himself of Him who according to essence is Lord and Son, who, having been assumed for our salvation, is with Him received as well in the name as in the honor of both Son and Lord, not as each one of us individually is a son of God (wherefore also we are called many sons of God, according to the blessed Paul), but He alone in an unique manner having this, namely, in that He was joined to God the Word, participating in the Sonship and dignity, takes away every thought of two Sons or two Lords, and offers indeed to us in conjunction with the God the Word, to have all faith in Him and all understanding and contemplation, on account of which things also He receives from every creature the worship and sacrifice of God. Therefore we say that there is one Lord, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, understanding principally God the Word, who according to substance is Son of God and Lord, equally regarding that which was assumed, Jesus of Nazareth, who God anointed with the Spirit and power, as in conjunction with God the Lord, and participating in sonship and dignity, who also is called the second Adam, according to the blessed Apostle Paul, as being of the same nature as Adam.

(f) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragments. Swete, Theodori epis. Mops. in epistulas b. Pauli commentarii, Cambridge, 1880, 1882.

In the appendix to the second volume of this work by Theodore there are many fragments of Theodore's principal dogmatic work, On the Incarnation, directed against Eunomius. The work as a whole has not been preserved. In the same appendix there are also other important fragments. The references are to this edition.

P. 299. If we distinguish the two natures, we speak of one complete nature of God the Word and a complete person (πρόσωπον). But we name complete also the nature of the man and also the person. If we think on the conjunction (συνάφεια) then we speak of one person.

P. 312. In the moment in which He [Jesus] was formed [in the womb of the Virgin] He received the destination of being a temple of God. For we should not believe that God was born of the Virgin unless we are willing to assume that one and the same is that which is born and what is in that which is born, the temple, and God the Logos in the temple.… If God had become flesh, how could He who was born be named God from God [cf. Nicene Creed], and of one being with the Father? for the flesh does not admit of such a designation.

P. 314. The Logos was always in Jesus, also by His birth and when He was in the womb, at the first moment of his beginning; to His development He gave the rule and measure, and led Him from step to step to perfection.

P. 310. If it is asked, did Mary bear a man, or is she the bearer of God [Theotokos], we can say that both statements are true. One is true according to the nature of the case; the other only relatively. She bore a man according to nature, for He was a man who was in the womb of Mary.… She is Theotokos, since God was in the man who was born; not enclosed in Him according to nature, but was in Him according to the relation of His will.

(g) Nestorius, Fragments. Loofs, Nestoriana.

The fragments of Nestorius have been collected by Loofs, Nestoriana, Halle, 1905; to this work the references are made. It now appears that what was condemned as Nestorianism was a perversion of his teaching and that Nestorius was himself in harmony with the definition which was put forth at Chalcedon, a council which he survived and regarded as a vindication of his position after the wrong done him at Ephesus by Cyril; cf. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, Cambridge, 1908.

P. 252. Is Paul a liar when he speaks of the godhead of Christ and says: "Without father, without mother, without genealogy"? My good friend, Mary has not born the godhead, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh.… A creature has not born the Creator, but she bore a man, the organ of divinity; the Holy Ghost did not create God the Word, but with that which was born of the Virgin He prepared for God the Word, a temple, in which He should dwell.