A Souter Pelagius Commentary Restoration

THE BRITISH ACADEMY
The Commentary of Pelagins on

the Epistles of Paul
The Problem of its Restoration
Bv
Alexander Sotiter, D.Litt.

s Professor of New Testament
Mansfield C
BRARY
[From the Proceedings wffi&British Academy, Vol. II]
London
Published for the British Academy
By Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press
Amen Corner, E.C.
P'rice One Shilling and Sixpence net

THE COMMENTARY OF PELAGIUS ON
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL:
THE PROBLEM OF ITS RESTORATION
ALEXANDER SOUTER, D.Lrrr.
YATES PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK AND EXEGESIS
MANSFIELD COLLEGE, OXFORD
Read December 12, 1906
IN the fourth century of our era the Roman province of Britain

was divided into two well-marked parts. The northern and western
parts were occupied only by troops, whereas the eastern and southern
lowlands contained nothing but purely civilian life. 1 The former
districts were the scene of camps, the latter of towns and villas.The
civilian part was thoroughly Romanized. The language of the people
was Latin, and had been so for about two centuries, as the evidence
provided by the excavations at Silchester shows. Latin was the
official language Latin was also the spoken language. As Mr. Haver-
:
'
field puts it, Latin was employed freely in the towns of Britain,
not only on serious occasions, or by the upper classes, but by servants
and work-people for the most accidental purposes. It was also used,
at least by the upper the country.' 2 The same is true with
classes, in
regard to the civilization in general all the evidence points to the

:
fact that the earlier trades and arts succumbed to the conquering
Roman influence.
The third century and the first half of the fourth century were
periods of progressive prosperity, but about 350 the decline of Roman

influence began, and in 406 or 407 Britain, much to its regret, was
severed from Rome. Before this happened, however, the long process
of Romanization had culminated, as it might have been expected to
culminate, in the production of a great writer, and this great writer was,
like all the really great writers of the third and succeeding centuries
in the West, a Christian. The Church had followed the march of
Roman civilization ever since the days of St. Paul; it had come,
doubtless through Gaul, to Britain ; and there had been settled
Christian communities in Britain from the end of the third century at
1
Haverfield, Romanization of Roman Britain (Proceedings of the British
Academy, vol. ii) [Lond. [1906], p. 8].
a
Op. cit.,p. 11.
2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
latest. Now one of the sons of the British Church was to write what
appears to be the oldest surviving book by
a native of this country,
and was to give utterance in it to some words by which the Christian
thought of all succeeding ages has been affected.
It has been debated whether Pelagius was a citizen of the Roman
Empire, belonging to the province of Britain, or an Irishman. The

ancient evidence is Sometimes he is spoken of as Britto,
conflicting.
sometimes as Scottus. The former epithet seems more likely to be
correct, if we take all the circumstances into account. It is more
often given to him than the title Scottus, which may have been
applied to him by the contempt and hatred of his enemies, as the Irish
were amongst the destroyers of Roman civilization in Britain. The
character of his works shows also that he had received an excellent
education, and would have been easier for a Briton to obtain
this it
than for an Irishman. But Professor Bury's solution of the difficulty
may be the right one. He supposes that Pelagius was descended from
Irish settlers in Somerset, or Devonshire, or Cornwall, or the south-
west coast of Wales. 1 There is evidence for the existence of such
settlers there, and if Pelagius did indeed belong to that stock, we have
an excellent explanation of the double tradition. It was the practice
of the Romans to apply the ethnic name to the inhabitants of their
provinces, irrespective of race ; the term Brittones would thus cover

Irish people resident in Britain.
But whether Briton or Irishman, he appears to have found his way
to Rome inthe closing years of the fourth century. We
may suppose
that he was animated by a thirst for learning, was possessed of con-
siderable private means, and was naturally drawn to the centre of
things. In Rome he lived the life of a monk and a student. He

occupied himself mainly with the study of the Bible, of which favourite
portions appear to have been The Book of Wisdom and the Epistle
of James. But Paul's Epistles attracted him most of all, and he
projected and completed a commentary on these epistles. He chose
the Vulgate text of Jerome, which had been issued in 383 and 384, as
the basis of his comments, and published the text and commentary
at Rome, the great book-mart of the world, somewhat before the
year 410.
From Rome the commentary circulated over the Western world,
and was quoted not long after publication by two contemporaries,
Augustine and Marius Mercator. It will be convenient at this point
to collect references to, and
quotations from, the commentary to be
1
Hermathena for 1904.
PELAGIUS ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL 3
found in the works of these two authors. Augustine tells us that the
'
work consisted of very brief expositions fi *
; Mercator that he aimed
2
at explaining individual words or thoughts of the
apostle. The
former makes the following quotations :
hi autem qui contra traducem peccati sunt, ita illam inpugnare nituntur si :
Adae, iuquiunt, peccatum etiam non peccantibus nocuit, ergo et Christi iustitia
etiam non credentibus prodest quia similiter, immo et magis dicit per unum
;
saluari quam per unum ante perierunt (De peccatorum mentis, III. ii. 2 (partim
bis) iii. 5
; De Peccato Originali, xxi. 24).
;
deinde aiunt sed si baptismus mundat antiquum illud delictum, qui de duobus
;
baptizatis nati fuerint, debent hoc carere peccato : non enim potuerunt ad
posteros transmittere quod ipsi minime habuerunt. illud quoque accedit quia
si anima non est ex traduce, sed sola caro,
ipsa tantum habet traducem peccati,
et ipsa sola poenam meretur iniustum esse dicentes, ut hodie nata anima non
:
ex massa Adae tarn antiquum peccatum portet alienum. dicunt etiam nulla
ratione concedi, ut deus qui propria peccata remittit imputet aliena (ibid.
III. iii. 5 ; cf. vii. 15, 16 ix. 18). ;
[non uolentis neque currentis, sed miserentis est dei.] (Rom. ix. 16.)
non ex persona Pauli (adserit) dictum ; sed eum uoce interrogantis et
redarguentis usum fuisse, cum hoc diceret, tamquam hoc dici utique non
deberet (De Gestis Pelagii, xvi. 39).
The latter cites the following passages (on Rom. v. 12 if.) :
[per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum, et per peccatum mors.]

exemplo seu imagine usus est, quia, sicut, cum non esset peccatum, per Adam
subintrauit, sic et, cum non remansisset iustitia apud aliquem, uita per Christum
reparata est (Common, ii. 2).
[et in omnes homines mors pertransiit.]
cum sic qui peccant similiter et moriuntur, neque enim aut in Abraham aut
in Isaac aut in lacob mors pertransiit, de quibus dominus ait huic [Bal. hi] :
omnes uiuunt [Luc. xx. 38]. Hie autem propterea dicit omnes mortuos, quoniam
multitudine peccatorum non excipiuntur pauci iusti, sicut et ibi inquit non est :
quifaciat bonitatem, non est usque ad unum (Ps. Hi. 2, 4). et iterum illud inquit :
omnis homo mendax (Ps. cxv. 11), aut certe in illos omues pertransiit [Bal. inquit],
qui humano ritu, non caelesti, sunt conuersati (Common, ii. 3).
[sed regnauit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysen, etiam in eos qui non prae-
uaricauerunt (v. 1. peccauerunt) in similitudinem praeuaricationis Adae.]
siue cum non esset, qui inter iustum et iniustum discerneret, putabat mors se
omnium dominari, siue in eos qui mandatum tamquam Adam praeuaricati sunt,
hoc est de filiis Noe, quibus praeceptum est ut animam in sanguine non mandu-
carent, et de filiis Abraham, quibus circumcisio mandata est, sed [Bal. add. et]
in eos qui praeter mandatum legem contempserant naturalem (Common, ii. 4).
[qui est forma futuri.]

quoniam, sicut Adam praeter coitum a deo formatus est, sic et Christus a
(Bal. ex) uirgine, fabricante spiritu sancto, processit ; siue, sicut quidam dicunt,
forma a contrario, hoc est [Bal. add. ut], sicut ille caput peccati, sic etiam
[Bal. om. etiam] iste caput iustitiae est (Common, ii. 5).
1 f
Expositiones breuissimas,' Aug. De pecc. mer. III. i. 1.
2 '
Explanare singula apostoli uerba uel sensus/ Mercator, Common,
. . . c. 2. 1
(Migne, P. L. xlviii. 83).

Nl*
[sed non, sicut delictum, ita et donum.]
ne in forma aequalitas putaretur (Common, ii. 6).
[si enim in unius praeuaricatione multi mortui sunt, multo magis donum et
gratia dei per unum hominem Christum in multos abundauit.]
plus ualuit, inquit apostolus, gratia in uiuificando quam peccatum in occi-
dendo, quia Adam non se solum sed et suos posteros interfecit, Christus
uero et eos qui tune erant in corpore et eos qui postea futuri erant liberauit
(Common, ii. 7).
hi autem, qui contra traducem
peccati sentiunt, acriter (v. I. aliter) eos qui
defendunt traducem inpugnare conantur. ' si peccatum/ inquiunt, ' Adae etiam
non peccantibus nocuit, ergo et Christi iustitia non credentibus prodest, quoniam
similiter, immo plus dicit apostolus per unum liberari quam per unum ante
perierat.' deinde dicunt ' si baptismus mundat antiquum illud ueternosumque
:
peccatum, qui de duobus baptizatis nati fuerint debent hoc carere peccato ; non
enim poterunt ad posteros transmittere quod ipsi minime habuerint [Bal.
f
habuerunt].' In (v. 1. ita) hoc addunt quoniam (v. I quia) si anima non
:
est ex traduce sicut nee est , sed sola caro habet traducem peccati, sola
et poenam meretur. iniustum est enim ut hodie nata anima non ex massa
Adae tarn antiquum peccatum portet alienum, quin et rationabile est ut deus,
'
qui propria peccata dimittit, non [v. I. unum] inputet alienum (Common, ii. 9).
sed imitatione, quia prior ille in genere humano peccauit, et ilium reum et
obnoxium fieri, qui hunc propria uoluntate non nascendo sed peccando fuerit
imitatus (Lib. Subnot. praef. 3).
Possibly there are other quotations lurking in the works of these

two authors, but these appear to be all that are declared to be taken
from the commentary. It will be observed that, where both authors
quote the same passages, the texts do not verbally agree. This is
sufficiently explained by the fact that Mercator first wrote his work
in Greek and then translated it from Greek into Latin. 1
The so-called Praedestinatus, a work attributed to the middle of
the fifth century, makes one quotation from the commentary. 2 It is
rather a paraphrase, however, than a quotation, as comparison with
the first and second quotations in Augustine and the seventh in
Mercator shows. It reads as follows :
8 '
hi qui contra traducem ueniunt, ita illam si Adae
inpugnare nituntur :
peccatum etiam non peccantibus obfuit, ergo et Christi gratia non credentibus
prodest.' addunt etiam hoc si baptismus tollit originate illud
:
peccatum, de
duobus baptizatis nati debent hoc carere peccato. quo modo enim mittunt ad
posteros quod ipsi in se minime habuerunt ?
It not necessary to suppose that Praedestinatus actually had the
is
commentary in his hands. He may quite well have derived the

extract from some other anti-Pelagian treatise, if not from
Augus-
tine or Marius Mercator.
1
Garnier's preface in Migne, P. L. xlviii. 13-14 ; Zimmer, Pelagius in Irland,
p. 449.
3
Bruckner, Quellen Gesch. Pelag. Str. (Tubingen, 1906), p. 55.
8
ilium (Bruckner).
These appear to be the only contemporary or nearly contemporary

quotations made from the commentary, but they are sufficient as
a means of identification. If any commentary survives in which all
of these appear, it is to be regarded as a form of the
commentary of
Pelagius. Further quotations could be added from works of the
seventh, ninth, and tenth centuries, but an enumeration of these may
be deferred at this stage. There is, however, a passage in a sixth-
century work which must be quoted now, as it has an important
bearing on our problem.
Cassiodorus in the eighth chapter of his Training in Sacred and
Secular Literature, written about the middle of the sixth century,
mentions those complete commentaries on the epistles of Paul which
existed in his seminary library at Vivarium in South Italy. Let me
quote two sections of this chapter :
In epistulis tredecim sancti Pauli adnotationes conscriptas in ipso initio meae

lectionis inueni, quae in cunctorum manibus ita celebres babebantur, ut eas
a sancto Gelasio papa urbis Romae doctissimi uiri studio dicerent fuisse con-
scriptas. Quod solent facere qui res uitiosas cupiunt gloriosi nominis auctoritate
defendere ; sed nobis ex praecedentibus lectionibus diligenti retractatione patue-
runt subtilissimas quidem esse ac breuissimas dictiones, sed Pelagiani erroris
uenena illic esse seminata. Et ut procul a uobis fieret error hereticus, epistulam 1
ad Romanos qua potui curiositate purgaui, reliquas in chartaceo codice con-
scriptas uobis emendandas reliqui. Quod facile subiacebit, quando praecedenti
exemplo audacior redditur sequentis imitatio.
After mention of another commentary, which by common consent is
our Ambrosiaster, and some further notes on the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the Catholic Epistles, he proceeds :
Tertium uero codicem repperi epistularum sancti Pauli, qui a nonnullis beati
Hieronymi adnotationes breuissimas dicitur continere, quern uobis pariter Christo
largiente dereliqui.
The of these two passages means that he possessed an anonymous

first
commentary of such repute that it was considered to be by Pope

Gelasius. On examination he found that this could not be so, as,
though the notes were acute and brief, they showed here and there
traces of the Pelagian heresy. He therefore worked over the com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, and eradicated all traces of
do the same with the rest of
this heresy, leaving it to his pupils to
the commentaries. The second passage is quite clear. He found
a commentary which some said consisted of brief notes by St. Jerome ;
this also he left to his pupils. From the place and manner in which
he mentions this commentary it appears that he had paid little or no
attention to it.
1
Cod. Sang. 199 (saec. x) has primam before epistulam.
We must now pass over a period of nearly a thousand years, and
endeavour as far as possible to trace the history of the attempts
which have been made since the invention of printing to recover the
in other words, to enumerate
original commentary of Pelagius, or,
those publications which, whether professedly or not, have contributed
to a solution of this difficult question. We
conclude with an account
of the progress I have been enabled to make in dependence partly
on these and partly on fresh material, which has become accessible
to me.
In the second decade of the sixteenth century there appeared at
Frankfurt and Leipzig an edition of the works of St. Jerome. The
ninth volume, which was published in 1516, contains a commentary
on the thirteen epistles of St. Paul. This commentary the editor,
Bruno Amorbach, had found, attributed to Jerome, in a very old
MS. in Merovingian characters, which in any case would have
been difficult to decipher, and in this case were especially so, as they
had in many places almost vanished out of sight through age. He
copied out this MS. as far as he could, and, where he was not content
to leave nonsense, rewrote the commentary himself. The manner of
his working and the neglect of all succeeding editors, who have been
content practically to reprint his text, have had a confusing effect on
investigation into the history of the commentary ; and scholars who
have worked at the problem have good cause to bear a grudge to
their memory. I shall have to illustrate this later meantime, we :
are more concerned with opinions about the authorship of this com-
mentary. Its whole style is utterly alien to Jerome's, and genuine

commentaries by him on four of these epistles are extant. Amorbach
rejected Jerome's authorship distinctly, in spite of a letter to a certain
Heliodorus which forms a sort of preface to the commentary, and in
this rejection almost allhave followed him. He was disposed to
attribute the authorship to some mediaeval glosser. Succeeding
scholars who took an interest in the question made various guesses,
more or less sensible. Some attributed it to Primasius, some to
Sedulius but Gamier says that these opinions had been given up by
;
1673. 1 Catarin, quoted by Sixtus Senensis, 2 judged Pelagius to be

the author on account of the doctrine in it that
predestination depends
on merits, which God has foreseen by His prescience. But, as was
pointed out, this reason proves nothing, because that view was pre-
valent in the Church before Pelagius's
day, and to hold it does not
1
Cf. Migne, P. L. xlviii. 83 B.
3
Bibliotheca Sancta (Colon. ,1626),
pp. 239 f., 309, quoted by Riggenbach, Unbeachtet
gebliebene Fragments des Pelagius-Kommentars , p. 14 (for which see below).
constitute one a Pelagian. 1 Bellarmine (in 1613) 2 proved that some

extracts quoted by Augustine from Pelagius were to be found in this
commentary, and argued that the pseudo- Jerome commentary was

3
really that by Pelagius. Labbe rightly objected that there were
quotations in Augustine from Pelagius that were not to be found in
this commentary. ,
Gamier 4 and
after him Simon, perhaps the most
masterly critic has who

ever dealt with patristic commentaries, got
over this difficulty by supposing that our pseudo-Jerome is Pelagius
after he had been revised by Cassiodorus, as described in the extract
6
just given. Simon added that Sedulius, Primasius , Haymo, and some
others had copied the best part of his commentary in making their
own commentaries, that he commonly follows the Vulgate text, and
adopts ordinarily the opinions of the Greek Fathers, principally those
of Chrysostom. The view of Gamier as to the origin of the pseudo-
Jerome commentary ruled for two though he felt that the
centuries,
continued presence in it of passages of Pelagian import was a real
difficulty.
To Professor Heinrich
Zimmer, the Berlin expert in Celtic
languages, we owe the the whole question from
recovery of
the state of stagnation it had into which
fallen. Klasen in
1885 had disputed Pelagius's authorship of the pseudo- Jerome
6
commentary, but without obtaining any following. Zimmer in
the course of his study of early Irish history found a large number
of references to, and professed quotations from, Pelagius in Latin
MSS. of Irish provenance, and, on the eve of publishing his material,
had the good fortune to discover at St. Gall an anonymous com-
7
mentary in MS., which appeared to be the original Pelagius.
This MS. he collated with the published pseudo-Jerome, and in
1901 the combined results of his investigations were published at
Berlin in a volume to which he gave the title Pelagic in Irland.
It is necessary for us to show in some detail what Zimmer achieved,
1
For this and what follows I am indebted to Richard Simon, Histoire Critique
des principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, &c. (Rotterdam, 1693),
chap, xvi, p. 236 ff.
2
De Scriptoribus Ecclesiastids liber unus (Rome, &c., 1613) = Opera, torn. vii.
(Colon., 1617), p. 73B-D.
1 *
Cf. Gamier, 1. c. Migne, P. L. xlviii. 588 D.
6
See also Simon, p. 336 if. (Primasius), p. 380 (Sedulius). For Primasius's con-
nexion see also an earlier reference in the Benedictine Augustine torn, x (Paris,
'
1690) praef. Primasium ex hoc commentario (i. e. ps.-Hier.)now pauca desumsisse,
:
fonte interim, unde ilia duceret, non indicate, ab eruditis observatum est.'
6
Theol Quartalschr. Ixvii. 244-317, 531-77.
7
No. 73 of the Stiftsbibliothek (saec. ix).
reserving criticism of his results for the concluding portion of this
paper.
Hepoints out that the Book of Armagh, the well-known biblical
MS. of Trinity College, Dublin (No. 5), of the early ninth century,
contains a prologue to the epistles of St. Paul, a prologue to the
Epistle to the Romans, and a set of arguments to all the epistles,

one for each, all of them attributed to Pelagius. He draws attention
also to a MS. of the seventh or eighth century in Wurzburg
(M. th. f. 12). This is a MS. of the epistles of Paul in Latin,

which is Most of the glosses, actually 949, * are
heavily glossed.
stamped pi, and one of them coincides with a comment quoted by
Marius Mercator. 2 The majority of these, actually 840, are to be
found in our pseudo-Jerome commentary, but some, actually 109,
are not to be found there. There are also, however, numerous
glosses, actually 348, with no author's name attached, which are to
be found in our pseudo -Jerome commentary. The total reaches
3
altogether 131 1. Zimmer has published a list of the glosses which
are connected with the Pelagian commentary, and has added con-
venient symbols, first, to show when the gloss, though denominated
p29 is not to be found in our pseudo-Jerome, and, second, when,

though anonymous, it is to be found there. He has also discovered
on examination that some of the glosses, labelled pl are not really 9
by Pelagius, but are derived from the commentary which was printed
as a work of Primasius in 1537. 4 The MS. is really a copy of an
earlier MS., glosses and all, and the original compiler appears to
have possessed an unmutilated Pelagius, since many passages, which
we cannot find in pseudo -Jerome, are to be found either in pseudo-
Primasius or in Sedulius Scottus, both of whom used Pelagius very
5
greatly. Some of these passages are to be found in both of those
compilers.
Fromhis study of the anonymous glosses in this MS., Zimmer
has found that the so-called Primasius commentary was some-
times used by the compiler, though not cited by any name.
This commentary Haussleiter proved to have no connexion with
Primasius, and Zimmer claims to be the first to point out that the
6
principal source used in it is the Pelagius commentary ; but, as we
have seen, this discovery is older than the end of the seventeenth
1
Zimmer, Pelagius in Irland, p. 112, for statistics.
2
On Rom. v. 15 (see above) ; Zimmer, p. 40.
3 *
Zimmer, p. 132. Ibid. pp. 45, 68, 129.
8
As Simon (see above, p. 7) had pointed out.
'
e (
His words are : was bisher nocb nirgends erkannt wurde (p. 122).
century, though the Primasian authorship was not then doubted.

Zimmer, however, deserves all credit for the detailed manner in
which he has dealt with the question. He shows inter alia that
the borrowing is much easier to detect in the later epistles than
in the Epistle to the Romans, and the importance of this will appear
later. His conclusion with regard to the commentary as a whole,
that it is an anonymous anti-Pelagian revision of the Pelagius com-
mentary, cannot be disputed.
1
He also allows that in the Wiirzburg
codex a portion of the anonymous glosses, which ultimately belong
to Pelagius, may have come to it through pseudo-Primasius, shows
that sometimes there are errors in the citations, 2 and, further, proves
that the compiler of the glosses sometimes abridged his sources. 3
As to the date and place of origin of the pseudo-Primasius
commentary Zimmer argues that Pelagianism on the Continent ended
with the decrees of the Synods of Orange and Valence in 529, and
that this date provides a terminus ad quern for a commentary
containing polemics against the Pelagians. He seeks further to
draw from the allusion 'fuerunt Hunni usque ad Attilam' 4 an
argument that the compiler could not have lived long after the
death of Attila (454), and that the last third of the fifth century
is the latest
possible date for the commentary. He thinks it came
into being in South Gaul or North Italy in connexion with the
semi-Pelagian controversies, and identifies it with the commentary

which Cassiodorus knew as attributed by some to Pope Gelasius
and which he himself afterwards revised. We shall see later that
this view must be given up, but there is no need to disagree with
Zimmer as to the date when the pseudo-Primasius commentary came
to Ireland, namely in 641. 6 He further says this commentary is used
in the Haymo-Remigius commentary of the ninth century. 6
Besides the Wiirzburg codex, Zimmer has drawn attention to
two other MSS. of the epistles in Latin, which provide similar
material, though much inferior in bulk. They are Vienna MS. 1247,
written in 1079, and Berne MS. A
73, of the thirteenth century.
The former contains 203 direct citations from Pelagius of these :
167 are to be found in pseudo- Jerome, while 36 are there lacking.

In 57 places also, where no name is attached, words are given
which appear in our pseudo-Jerome. Both MSS. give the same
prologue to the epistles as is given by the Boole of Armagh, and
under Pelagius's name. The total number of independent glosses
1 a
Cf. p. 123. pp. 127 ff., 133.
8
p. 133.
*
Migne, P. L. Ixviii. 441 B ; Zimmer, p. 135.
6 6
Zimmer, p. 137. Ibid. pp. 135, 162.
in the Wurzburg and Vienna MSS. together reaches 1535. 1 Zimmer
from Pelagius in the Irish Canons of the end
also refers to citations
of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century. 2
He next points out that there is evidence for the existence in
the ninth and tenth centuries of MSS. of
Pelagius's commentary
them connected with the Irish mission to the
in three libraries, all of
3
Continent, at St. Gall, Lorsch, and St. Ricquier. Of these the
St. Gall MS. has certainly survived in the anonymous No. 73, and
to it we return presently.
Meantime Zimmer has shown quite clearly, in opposition to the
ruling view of Gamier and Simon, that the pseudo-Jerome com-
4
mentary shows no prevailing anti-Pelagian tendency, and that
it cannot therefore be the revision of Cassiodorus. In this respect
pseudo- Jerome is to be contrasted with pseudo-Primasius, Sedulius,

the Wurzburg and Vienna glosses, to mention the other com-
mentaries which employ Pelagius throughout. He proceeds to
show by copious illustrations that frequently all other authorities
are right against pseudo- Jerome, and suggests quite rightly, as
my researches show that many of the errors of that form
6
will vanish when MSS. of it are collated. One of the best parts
of Zimmer's book is his proof that Pelagius wrote no commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews, though he regarded it as Pauline. 6
Fresh arguments are now at my disposal to confirm his conclusion.
Zimmer identifies the pseudo-Jerome commentary with that
mentioned by Cassiodorus as containing short notes which were
ascribed by some to Jerome. In this he must be right, as there
could hardly be at that date two short commentaries on the epistles
of Paul, both of them attributed to Jerome. The second commentary
mentioned by Cassiodorus he identifies with Ambrosiaster ; in this
also he is no doubt right. The first of the three anonymous
commentaries mentioned by Cassiodorus, which Gamier and others
have believed to be the unmutilated commentary of Pelagius, Zimmer
considers to be our pseudo-Primasius. His skilful arguments in
support of the last conclusion need not be recapitulated, as we shall
see later conclusive proof that he is wrong. With regard to the
revision by Cassiodorus and his pupils, he is of opinion that it has
perished.
1 a s
Zimmer, p. 155. Ibid. p. 162, &c. p. 157.
4 6
Zimmer,
p. 164 ff. Ibid. pp. 169-75.
6
Ibid. p. 178 ff. In this connexion lie gives Haussleiter the credit of
observing that the commentary on Hebrews in ps.-Primasius is identical with
that in Haymo-Remigius ; but Simon had observed this two centuries before
(Hist, des Comm. p, 338).
Before referring to Zimmer's great discovery, I must say a word or

two about his view of the manner of production of the pseudo-
Jerome commentary. He considers that some one in the first half
of the fifth century, before the suppression of Pelagianism, wrote
out notes from the Pelagius commentary into a copy of the epistles
of Paul in Latin, that these notes fell into the hands of a man who
knew nothing of Pelagius and was no heretic-hunter, about the end
of the fifthor the beginning of the sixth century, and that this man
ascribed them to Jerome and edited them as his.
St. Gall MS. 73, of the ninth century, contains a commentary on
1
the epistles of Paul which is
anonymous. Its special characteristics
are illustrated in great detail by its discoverer, who compares it with
pseudo-Jerome. It has some distinct differences from the form
attributed to Jerome. For example, it gives a long quotation in its
2
proper place which was already known from Augustine and Mercator,
but is wanting in pseudo- Jerome, and in text it agrees with Augus-
tine as against Mercator. In the commentary on First Corinthians
it frequently drops one of the two explanations which pseudo-Jerome
frequently offers for one verse, and this Zimmer attributes to the
editing of some Irish scholar. The St. Gall MS. is not a pure
Pelagius. It is
heavily interpolated from known sources, especially
in on Ephesians, Titus, and Philemon, where
the commentaries
passages from the genuine commentaries of Jerome on those epistles

are interwoven with the Pelagian original, without acknowledgement.
There are also citations from Augustine and Gregory. These
additions Zimmer regards not as specialities of the Irish recension of
Pelagius, but as peculiar to the St. Gall MS. or its original. The
Irish appear from early times to have added notes to their copies of
Pelagius,and thus in Irish circles passages came to rank as Pelagius

which were not really by him. Zimmer suggests that Sedulius and
the Wiirzburg and Vienna MSS. are thus interpolated. 3 After
sketching the only plan by which an edition of Pelagius can now
be made, Zimmer presents his readers with a collation of the St. Gall
MS. made with the text of pseudo-Jerome. By this publication he
did a great service to the study both of pseudo-Jerome and of
Pelagius, as he at once removed a large number of the corruptions of
the printed text of the former.
Zi miner's services to the study were recognized in a valuable
review by C. H. Turner 4, who joined issue with him on one point
1 a
Zimmer, pp. 219-79. See pp. 3, 4 above.
8
See pp. 268-71.
4
Journ. TheoL Stud. Oct. 1902 (pp. 132-41).
only, namely his view as to the pseudo-Primasius commentary. This
commentary, as we have seen, Zimmer seeks to identify with the
first commentary mentioned by Cassiodorus, from which Cassiodorus
says he afterwards removed the Pelagian characteristics. Turner objects

that the pseudo-Primasius is 'definitely and consciously anti-Pelagian
throughout ', and that it is in the commentary on Romans that Pela-
gius has been specially re- written. He proceeds :
<
Pseudo-Primasius
is based on Pelagius if Gamier : who have followed
and the scholars
him are right, Cassiodorus revised Pelagius. Pseudo-Primasius is an
anti-Pelagian edition of Pelagius so was that of Cassiodorus.
:
Pseudo-Primasius has revised his original more on the doctrinal than

on the linguistic side, more in the Epistle to the Romans than in the
other I " in order to remove far the error of
Cassiodorus,
epistles ;
heresy," purged the Epistle to the Romans with all the curwsitas that
he could, leaving the rest of the revision to his pupils, whose work
will doubtless have been much more perfunctory than their master's.
Pseudo-Primasius adds to the genuine Pelagius on the thirteen
epistles a commentary on the Hebrews, which depends on Chrysos-
tom's Homilies 2 but it was Cassiodorus who, in order to provide a
:
commentary on an epistle which both Ambrosiaster and Pelagius had

neglected, caused a certain Mutianus to translate these Homilies of
3
Chrysostom into Latin. The correspondence appears to be exact :
pseudo-Primasius is
surely nothing else than the new and standard
commentary on the completed Pauline epistles evolved out of
Pelagius and Chrysostom by Cassiodorus and his monks of Vivarium.
The hypothesis seems to me to be at any rate worthy of further
consideration.' Thus far Turner. Haussleiter in his article ' Prima-
'
sius in Herzog-Hauck's Real-Encyclopadie, vol. 16 (1905), took no
notice of the suggestion.
Though Zimmer had very fully reviewed the mediaeval authorities

which made use of Pelagius, there was one which escaped him.
Zmaragdus, abbot of St. Mihiel in N. E. France at the end of the
eighth century and the beginning of the ninth, had compiled out of
the writings of some twenty authors a commentary on the lessons
read in Church, and indicated his borrowings by symbols in the
margins. This commentary was published at Strasbourg in 1536,
and reprinted in Migne's Latin Patrology, vol. cii, in 1851. In this
reprint Dom Pitra had called attention to the fact that Pelagius was
one of the authors used and named by Zmaragdus, and Primasius
another, and had brought into clear relief some instances of disagree-
1 2
Zimmer, p. 122. Ibid. pp. 183-95.
8
Ibid. p. 202.
ment between his quotations and the pseudo-Jerome. Pitra's work

had been overlooked by Zimmer, and the connexion of Zmaragdus
with Pelagius was rediscovered about the same time by Riggenbach,
Hellmann, Morin, and myself.
Riggenbach, in 1905, published an article calling attention to the
value of Zmaragdus in this connexion. 1 He was able to identify the
original editor of Zmaragdus as Caspar Hedio. He very acutely
observed, from Pitra's collation of the symbols in a Boulogne MS. of
Zmaragdus, that the symbol P was used by Zmaragdus only in com-
menting on the epistles of Paul and PRI or PR only in comments
on the Apocalypse, and .that P therefore means Pelagius, PRI or PR
Primasius. He concludes that Zmaragdus knew no Primasius on the
epistles, and that the first editor had resolved the symbol P wrongly.
Riggenbach's paper, though brief, is also in other respects ex-

tremely suggestive. He shows that Zmaragdus and pseudo-Primasius
agree on occasion in providing a text of Pelagius, which is different
from and obviously better than that provided by either pseudo-
Jerome or the St. Gall MS., and he conjectures that the two last
authorities represent a definite recension of the original commentary.
He also draws up a very useful list of the quotations in Zmaragdus
labelled P, as far as he could learn them from Pitra's reports. He has
examined some attributions to ' Primas.' in the printed text, and has
rejected them on internal evidence. On the whole he is disposed to
regard pseudo-Jerome as an abridged form of the original Pelagius.
He adds a new glossed MS. to the list provided by Zimmer, namely
Berlin Codex Phillippicus 1650 (saec. x xi), which introduces some
'
'
glosses with the letters Pel this MS. I had also noted.
:
Hellmann
in his Sedullus Scottus, published early this year (1906),
has given careful study to the use of Pelagius made by Sedulius in
his own commentary. The value of his work is heightened by the
fact that he has examined the MSS. of Sedulius as well as the
printed text. He overthrows Zimmer's contention that the St. Gall
MS. with Sedulius and the Wurzburg and Vienna MSS. represent the
Irish tradition of Pelagius, as against the Continental tradition repre-
sented by pseudo-Jerome and pseudo-Primasius, and shows on the
contrary that there is a real relationship between the St. Gall MS.
and pseudo-Jerome as against all other authorities for Pelagius.
This relationship shows itself in community of corruption, in cases
where the right text can be elicited from pseudo-Primasius, Zmarag-
1
Unbeachtet gebliebene Fragmente des Pelagius-Kommentars zu den Paulinischen
Briefen (Beitrage zur Forderung- christlicher Theologie,, ix. 1. Gutersloh, 1905) :
Prof. John E. B. Mayor first drew my attention to this pamphlet.

dus, and Sedulius Scottus. Hellmann has handled much material of
varying quality with great skill, and has made many suggestive
remarks on his difficult subject. He has shown also that Isidore
used Pelagius in one form or another, 1 that several glossed MSS. of
2
St. Paul's Epistles contain Pelagian matter (Clm. 9545 (saec. x),
18530 (saec. xi-xii), Berl. Theol. fol. 481, Einsiedeln 16, Karlsruhe
3
Aug. Ixxxiii ),
and that the so-called Pelagian prologues occur in the
oldest Vulgate MSS. we possess.
I have now brought down the history of the investigation of the
Pelagius commentary to the point at which my own researches begin.

Evidence of its use has been found in different quarters, but the reports
of various authorities were conflicting, and the commentary itself was
still to seek. I began by ransacking catalogues of MSS., and noted such
as were likely to be helpful in this investigation, and published my

result in the Journal of Theological Studies for July, 1906. Having
received generous help from the Hort Fund at Cambridge and the
Revision Surplus Fund at Oxford, I spent nearly the whole Long
Vacation at close quarters with MSS. at Paris, Berlin, Karlsruhe,
Zurich, Einsiedeln, and St. Gall, and of the results which I appear
to have attained I would speak. now
We must postulate that the MSS. of Pelagius's commentary
first
were anonymous. All the early evidence points this way, and the
later does not contradict it. Augustine, in 417 (De Gestis
Pelagii, xvi. 39), speaks of 'certain expositions of the Epistle
of Paul to the Romans, which are said to be by Pelagius himself :
4
said to be,' because they bore no name. Again, if they had not been
anonymous, they could not, even if modified, have been put out
under the name of Jerome. Further, no one could have mistaken
them work of Gelasius, nor would Cassiodorus have been so
for the
indefinite about the authorship, unless the commentaries had borne
no name. Modern evidence points the same way. No MS. of the
commentaries has survived bearing Pelagius's name. It is true that
Irish and other authorities affix the name to a large number of
extracts, but there is no reason to suppose that their MSS. bore

the name. It became clearer as investigations
proceeded that
any commentary could be called Pelagius, which was based on the
original commentary of that author, with the possible exception of the
pseudo-Jerome. There were various reasons why the name of the

author should not be affixed ; and the ultimate authorship of the
commentaries would be known to all persons of learning, into whose
hands they might fall, to all in fact who took an interest in the earlier
1 2 8
pp. 152, 184. pp. 186-90. p. xv.
literature of the Church. It is this anonymity of Pelagius's commen-

taries, in whatsoever form they were, which has caused the great
confusion in the form of the citations. If this principle be accepted,
it helps to elucidate the whole history of the
commentary.
MS. No. CXIX of the Reichenau collection in 'the Grand-Ducal
Library at Karlsruhe was described as an anonymous copy of
the pseudo-Primasius commentary in the catalogue of the MSS. in
the library, which until three months ago was unpublished. 1 The
entry was copied by Mr. C. H. Turner early last year and communi-
cated to me by him. Early in the present year I applied to the
librarian for a description of the contents of the MS., which he
courteously granted me.I saw at once that the title given by him
was wrong, and wrote to him to the effect that it was either an
anonymous pseudo-Jerome or a pure Pelagius, more probably the
2
latter. I have since collated the MS. entire, and believe it to be
a pure Pelagius, perhaps the only copy in existence.
The MS. was written in the ninth century, probably the earlier
half of that century, at Reichenau, as Dr. Holder knows from
the script. Five scribes took part in the writing: the first wrote
ff. 3-33 (gentium pknitudo ut\ the second ff. 34-57 b (pater films ad
ettate\ the third and the most beautiful of all, showing the Reichenau
hand at its best, ff. 59 va-100 a (et ideo ipse paries ini-), the fourth
3
ff. 100b-106a, 1. 4 (uere est in uobis\ the fifth, obviously Irish,
a careful copyist enough, but he has made as many mistakes as all the
others put together, ff. 106, 1. 4 the end (f. 148 b). The correctness
of the orthography and the extreme purity of the text, which excels
that of the St. Gall MS. as much as the latter excels the published
pseudo-Jerome, would argue a high antiquity for the original of the
Reichenau MS. This general impression is confirmed on closer study.
The long form idololatria is found almost without
exception (e. g. 676,
40 4
),
a very rare thing in MSS. of the ninth century. The contraction
dom for cases of dominus occurs five times (733, 28 ; 734, 53 ; 739,
21 ; 752, 18 ; 818, 8), and this must be taken straight from the
original in front of the scribe. Istrahel occurs twice (687, 53, and
690, 23), and must have the same origin, being the most ancient of
all Latin spellings of that word. Above all, the letter n occurs as
1
Now published (with the entry corrected at my suggestion) : Die Reichenauer
Handschriften beschrieben und erlautert, von Alfred Holder. Bd. i
(Leipzig, 1906),
p. 303 f.
2
The collation was completed Aug. 14, 1906.
8
His capitals P, B, and S betray him there are many other indications also.
:
4
These are the columns and lines of the pseudo-Jerome in Migne, P. L. xxx
(later issue).
a contraction for oblique cases of noster three times, twice for nostri
(868, 11 932, 41) and once for nostrum (789, 2), and Traube has
;
shown that was not used after the middle of the sixth century. 1
this
It may be regarded as certain, then, that the original of our MS. was
not later than the middle of the sixth century, and very probable that
it belonged to the fifth century, the very century in which Pelagius
wrote. It is improbable that there is more than one medium between

our MS. and the copies which the author put out at the first.
The MS. is, as I have said, anonymous, and contains the Primum
quaeritur quare post euangelia prologue, which is attributed to Pelagius
in the Book of Armagh? under the title Argumentum omnium
epistularum ;followed by the prologus epistulae ad romanos,

this is
beginning with the words Romani ex ludaeis gentilibusque, which is

also attributed to Pelagius in the Book of ^Armagh? After this the
commentary on Romans begins at once, the short arguments to all
the epistles which the Book of Armagh gives as also by Pelagius
4
being entirely absent at this point. After the commentary on
Romans comes the commentary on First Corinthians without argu-
ment then the commentary on Second Corinthians, also without
:
argument. Then follow Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, First and

Second Thessalonians, Colossians (in this, the regular, order in
Pelagian MSS.), First and Second Timothy, Titus and Philemon, each
preceded by an 'argumentum'. These arguments are sometimes
shorter, sometimes longer, than the corresponding arguments in the
Book of Armagh or the pseudo-Primasius commentary, but in most
cases the relationship between all three is
perfectly clear. They
follow the present paper in an Appendix.
There are several reasons for regarding this MS. as a copy of
the genuine Pelagius commentary. We
have noted its very early
date. It is the shortest of all commentaries which have any claim
to be considered Pelagius and expansions in such cases are much
:
commoner than abridgements. It is uniform throughout it has no :
additional comments introduced by item, like the pseudo-Jerome in

the first four epistles, but it has plenty of alternative explanations,
these being almost always introduced by siue9 once or twice by aliter.
It iswithout interpolation of any sort. It contains all the quotations
in Augustine and Marius Mercator, which were given at the be-
ginning of this paper. Finally, it has the text in by far the purest
form, which explains the corruptions and variations of pseudo- Jerome,
1
Sitz.-Ber. Bayer.Akad., 1900, i. p. 500.
1
See Zimmer, p. 26 ff. for the text.
3
Zimmer, p. 29 ff. for the text. *
Ibid. p. 34 ff. for the text.
pseudo-Primasius and other authorities. It is a norm by which all
other adaptations of the commentary must be judged.

The exegetical merits of the commentary even in its imperfect
form were sufficiently clear to Simon these do not concern
:
us here it is the literary

:
quality of our author that I desire
to appraise. He has his mannerisms, such as a fondness for
conmoneo, nitor (with infinitive), corrigo (intransitive), rationem
reddo, prqfectus (in the sense 'moral progress'), the adverb uere^
indebitus and indebite, moralis ; for such phrases as unit ostendere
(ostendere uult\ (simul) (ei) notandum (or adtendendum, or consideran-

dum) quod (or quia) in introducing his notes ; also for the ablative
of the gerund. He is somewhat given to repeating himself: thus he
is fond of referring to Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, the
appointment of Barnabas and Saul, and praise as an incentive to
progress. There are very few solecisms. Such are adiuuamus coli :
del agrum (754, 50), ad inquiete ambulantes (916, 30), and three
examples of a construction curiously like English, which ought not
perhaps to be called a solecism, but a development habent unde :
gloriari (685, 35), habeant quod timere (732, 31), auctoritatem legis
non habet quam proferre (780, 31). He appears to use only two
words which are not elsewhere found :
propitmtus (subst.) (824, 59)
and inimpetrabilis (838, 23). There appear to be no traces of know-
ledge of classical literature in this commentary, though in another,
much work, the Letter to Demetrias, there is at least
smaller,
one reminiscence of Juvenal. 1 The commentary is written with
a simplicity of style which no writer in that age has surpassed. It
raises the question where the author obtained his rhetorical training.
The text on which the commentary is based is the Vulgate, as was
recognized long ago by Simon in the case of the pseudo-Jerome, and by
Zahn in the case of the St. Gall MS. 2 It is obvious, however, that if
I am
right about this Karlsruhe MS., that it is an almost correct
copy of the commentary of Pelagius, we are provided by it with
an authority of the highest value for constituting the Vulgate text
of Paul's Epistles. Perhaps it would not be wrong to say that we
are thereby provided with the very highest authority which exists.
The oldest MS. of the epistles in the Vulgate text which survives
isthe Codex Fuldensls of date about 541-546. But here is a MS.
which carries us back a hundred and fifty years behind that, to before
1
uacuus uiator et nudus non timet latronis insidias, c. 25 (Migne, P. L. xxx. 40 D) :
'
cf. luu. x. 22 cantabit uacuus coram latrone uiator : a (
saecularis auctor (Cicero ?)
is quoted c. 11 (Migne, P. L. xxx. 28
B).
9
In the introduction to his commentary on Galatians (Leipzig, 1904).
410 A.D., to within thirty years of the original publication of the
Vulgate itself. It provides a complete Vulgate text, except for the

omission of some salutations, &c., near the end of some of the epistles.
The evidence shows clearly that Pelagius omitted some of these, as
1
having a purely historical interest and not ministering to edification.
The presence of a commentary with a text is a valuable means for
the purification of such a text, if scribes have tampered with it, for
the commentary often shows what the text must have been. But
such a protection is
hardly necessary in the present case. I have
carefully compared the text with the valuable Fuldensis and Amiatinus
(of date about 700) for the whole of Romans and about half of
Corinthians, and find a close agreement between all three against
the Sixto-Clementine readings. Sometimes Pelagius supports Amia-
tinus against Fuldensis, sometimes Fuldensis against Amiatinus, more
often the former than the latter. This would seem to indicate that
Amiatinus more nearly represents the original Vulgate in the epistles
than Fuldensis does.
The study of the pseudo-Jerome has suffered very greatly since the
invention of printing, as we have seen, through the neglect of
Amorbach and all succeeding editors. The latest text, that in
Migne's Patrology, still
depends on the ancient, mutilated, and
frequently illegible MS., which was alone accessible to its first editor.
In his and all succeeding editions many passages are left so corrupt as
to be quite unintelligible. The notes on the ninth and tenth verses of
the eleventh chapter of Second Corinthians are ^,n excellent example.
Amorbach frequently smoothed
difficulties somewhat by writing
something of his own. But the following can only be characterized

as fraudulent interpolations the insertion of the word instrumento,
:
in the sense of testament ', due to Amorbach's own knowledge of

c
Tertullian (703, 5), and the words Cattimachus scilicet (941, 49). In
three cases the editors have failed to print a clause of and
scripture,
have not noticed its absence 1 Thess. iii. 5 (last clause) ; part of
:
Titus i. 15 and Philemon 17. They have also left at least two
;
hundred and twenty-nine quotations or reminiscences of scripture

unidentified.
All these defects have made
extremely difficult to realize what
it
the pseudo-Jerome commentary exactly is. There are at least

eleven complete MSS. of it in existence. 2 Of these, three belong to
1
e. g.Rom. xvi. 21-3 a 23 c ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3-4 6 b-7 11 (last two words), 12.
; ; ;
2
See Journ. Theol Stud. (July, 1906), p. 568 f., where strike out St. Gall
330,
which is
incorrectly described in the catalogue.
the ninth century, Paris B. N. 185S, Epinal 6, and Munich 13038. 1

The first and second are both copies of the same lost MS., and their
text is on the whole distinguished by omissions. These do not occur
in the Munich MS., which must be regarded as the best of the three.
It alone contains the supposititious letter to Heliodorus, and has it
twice. They contain the usual Pelagian prologues Primum intellegere

nos oportet, &c., and Romani ex ludaeis^ &c., which shows that these
prologues are an integral part of the pseudo- Jerome commentary,

though entirely wanting in the printed editions. It is possible now
to say something as to the procedure of the author. Some time
before the middle of the sixth century he took the Pelagian com-
mentary, and, finding it too brief on the longer epistles, though

apparently doctrinally unobjectionable, he added further notes on
Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, at frequent
intervals, generally introducing them by Item. He took away very
little one example I have already mentioned. Further, whereas
:
Pelagius's custom is to give a small clause, and then the comment on

it,pseudo-Jerome appears to have preferred giving a bundle of clauses
or sentences together, and to have allowed the comments to follow
them. A
certain amount of irregularity has thus crept in. It is
possible that he arranged the text in a mass, and allowed the com-
ments to follow one another between the lines or in the margins, or
in both of these places, using signs to indicate the place to which
each comment referred. signs were misunderstood, or
If these
omitted, this would account for the confused order which now
presents itself in many cases in our MSS. He edited the Pelagian
argumenta, generally curtailing them to that form which is frequent
in Vulgate MSS. These also are absent from the printed pseudo-
Jerome. Possibly he added the particulars of stichometry which
we find in some pseudo-Jerome MSS. as well as in the St. Gall
MS. He divided the text up into the capitula, which Riggenbach
has shown to be pre- Vulgate in origin, 2 and provided the work with
lists of the titles of these capitula. He occasionally modified the
citations of scripture in the commentary ; occasionally also the
language, we can trust our MSS., and generally for the worse.
if
He then composed a letter purporting to be from Jerome to

one Heliodorus, and issued the whole under the name of Jerome.
The pseudonymous authority attached to this form of the commen-
tary accounts for the comparatively large number of MSS. in which
1
Perhaps it would be more correct to attribute this MS. to the tenth century.
2
Neue Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Theologie, i. (1892) p. 529 if. ; cf. also iii.
(1894) p. 350 ff. I owe my copies of these articles to the author's kindness.
N3*
it ispreserved. It should be added that while the Munich MS. con-
tains no commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Paris and
Spinal MSS. do.
1
The origin of this commentary does not fall
within my province, but is to be discussed in
a forthcoming work by
Riggenbach.
The origin of the pseudo-Primasius commentary will henceforth
cease to be a subject of debate. Turner, as we have seen, suggested
that it was the revision of the Pelagian commentary made by Cassio-
dorus and his pupils. The words of Cassiodorus himself, when

brought face to face with the internal evidence of the commentary
prove this to be the case. After he has enumerated complete
itself,
commentaries on Paul's Epistles, he proceeds to mention commentaries
on single epistles. In referring to commentaries on Romans, he
mentions that Augustine's is well known to be incomplete, but that
it can be supplemented by many valuable comments scattered up and
down the works of that Father. He proceeds [Aiigustinus] Qui
:
etiam scribens ad Simplicianum episcopum Mediolanensem sublimes et
exquisitas de eadem epistula (i. e. Romans) tractauit dliquas quaestiones,

quas nos praedicto codici iudicauimus inserendas, ne, dum
expositio diuisa
quaeritur, legentis noxie differatur.
intentio The
* '
pracdictus codex is the revised

Pelagian commentary. Let us turn
to the pseudo-Primasius. In the commentary on Romans, chap, x,
we find two large extracts, one very large, from this very work of
'
Augustine's to Simplician, headed Incipit expositio de libro sancti
2
Augustini excerpta e loco ad sanctum Simplicianum, &c.' They
may be sought in vain in other commentaries. The pseudo-
Primasius does not, then, belong to South Gaul, and is not a product
of the fifth century, but belongs to South Italy and is a work of the
sixth century, being in fact the revision
by Cassiodorus.
The commentary is
3
preserved in one MS. only, No. 270 at
Grenoble, of the twelfth century. This MS. I have not been
able to see, but my fellow-traveller, Mr. E. J. Turner, formerly of
Trinity College, Cambridge, and now of His Majesty's India Office,
had the kindness to go to Grenoble and examine it on my behalf.
He a portion of the first leaf has been cut out, that the
finds that
prefatory matter is absent, and that the

commentary is anonymous,
as a modern title containing the words sine nomine auctoris
distinctly
shows. The MS. contains all the long extracts from Augustine
1
As do some later MSS. , Riggenbach informs me (the Arras and Troyes MSS.,
for example).
3 a a
pp. 47 to 54 of the edition of Paris, 1543.
3
Correct Journ. Theol Stud, (July, 1906), p. 569.
exactly as the printed text does, It is likely that this is the

very MS.
from which the editio princeps of Gagney was printed in 1537.
He tells us about his MS. '
in coenobio diui Theuderici,
:
apud
oppidum reperimus, quod vidgo Sanctum caput appellant : Colonia est
Viennensis archiepiscopi, non procul Lugduno in DelphinatuS This
town is not far from Grenoble. Gagney has not been slavishly
faithful to the MS., and, in at least one place collated for me by my
friend, has deserted it
wrongly Gal. iv. 4, where Nam aliter ludaei
:
should be read with the MS., not Nam si aliter.

If this, then, be the MS. from which
Gagney printed the
commentary, how came he to call it Primasius ? I conjecture that it
was due to the fact that he had been reading the first edition of
Zmaragdus which appeared in the year before his own book, and had
found there various extracts labelled Primasius which were obviously
taken from the anonymous commentary he had in his hands. As
we have seen, the repeated occurrence of the name Primasius in the
editions of Zmaragdus is due to the wrong resolution of the symbol P,
which means Pelagius. The accident that the name Primasius
occurred in the list of authorities in Zmaragdus's preface caused his
first P wrongly, and it was on this very

editor to expand the symbol
shaky foundation that the commentary was attributed to Primasius.

I believe that all
copies were anonymous, as the original Pelagius
itself was. No name was found attached to the commentary when it
came into Cassiodorus's hands when it left his hands it remained
:
without a name. Further, it is not impossible that Gagney used the

printed Zmaragdus to improve the text of his pseudo-Primasius this :
may on investigation be found to be the case.

There is a MS. of the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, No. 653, of
the ninth century, which contains an anonymous commentary that
is not a
pure Pelagius, nor a pseudo-Jerome, nor a pseudo-Primasius.
It is written in Caroline minuscules, but apparently by an insular
scribe,and very likely from an insular original. 1 I conjecture it to be

the Pelagius which was in the monastery of Corbie, near Amiens, and
disappeared in the seventeenth century.

2
It begins with the Primum
quaeritur prologue, followed by the Romani ex ludaeis, and the

small Pelagian argument on Romans, which actually appears twice.
Then comes an extract on The Word was made Flesh
'
after-
'
:
wards a long prologue to Romans, which is based on the Romani ex

ludaeis and is in fact an expanded edition of it. Then the commen-
tary on Romans, and so on down to, and including, Hebrews, though
1 V V
There are Anglo-Hibernian initials on fols. 217, 248 , 253 , 265, 279, 287.
8
See Pitra in Migne, P. L. cii. 1126 B.
it is obvious, from the character of the commentary on Hebrews, that
it has no connexion with the others. 1 The chief characteristic of the
commentary, as
compared with those
discussing, we have been
is its increased There are large blocks in it, especially in the
size.
Epistle to the Romans, that are not to be found in any of these.

The compiler appears to have possessed both Pelagius and pseudo-
Jerome, and to have combined them to make a larger commentary,
selecting now from one, now from the other, and drawing at the same
time from other sources, of which pseudo-Primasius does not appear
to have been one. Where its text can be compared with the Karls-
ruhe MS. it appears to be very pure. Pelagian It contains the
passage missing in
pseudo-Jerome. is a The commentary
really
learned production. Though I have introduced it after the Pseudo-
Primasius, I am not certain that it ought not to be put earlier. It
appears to me that it is worth printing, and until it is printed it will

be rather difficult to discuss. It has its defects, which seem to mark
it out as not belonging to the
early period. For instance, in the
commentary on First Corinthians, chapter xiii, there are at least three
cases where the same comment is
given twice over in the same words.
It appears as if the whole had been put together on a copy of the
epistles. This would account both for the confusion in the order of
the comments and for the duplication of certain of them. There are
two interesting cases where the compiler appears to have had at his
disposal passages from other works of Pelagius now lost. At least,
he twice introduces Jerome and Pelagius as combatants. The passages
are given in full in the Appendix.
There are two points about the Wiirzburg and Vienna glosses
which appear worthy of mention. The first is the close connexion
between them and the citations in Sedulius Scottus. 2 It would
appear as if Sedulius had used either the Wiirzburg codex itself or its
parent or some other allied MS. The probability of this is increased
if we remember the Irish
origin both of Sedulius and these MSS.
The second point is that it might be worth while comparing the
glosses in these MSS. that cannot otherwise be traced with the
enlarged Pelagius in the Paris MS. I have just called attention to.
There is an anonymous Latin commentary on the Catholic Epistles
in a Karlsruhe MS. (Aug. ccxxxiii, saec. ix), which has never been
printed. Internal evidence proves it to be of Irish origin, and from
1
Two folios are lost (at the beginning of a quaternion), containing et ebrietate
(943, 26) gaudium enim (945, 28) most of the commentary on Hebrews is also
;
lost (the text reaches to chap. iv. 3).

2
See Hellmann's Sedulius Scottus, p. 165 f.
the fact that Bede's commentary on these epistles is nowhere quoted,

I should
conjecture it to be a compilation of the end of the seventh
or the beginning of the eighth century. The compiler quotes
Gregory (in the Irish form grigorius\ Augustine, Jerome, Eucherius,
and once Pelagius (in the Irish form pilagius). The quotation is
from the note on Epji. vi. 14, 1 and this is a fresh Irish testimonium
to the commentary to add to Zimmer's list. It is of interest to
mention that he cites also three Irish teachers, Brec(c)anu3 (at least
four times), Bercanus son of Aido (once), and Manchianus (once).
Dr. Holder conjectures that the last is identical with St. Mochonna,
who died March 8, 704 Dr. Quiggin suggests that Breccanus is
:
perhaps the contemporary of St. Enda who lived in Arran at the

end of the fifth century.
With regard to the St. Gall commentary I have not much more to
say. Zimmer has sufficiently shown its composite character. It is
apparently the work of some Irish mediaeval scholar. It is in the
main pseudo-Jerome, but for First Corinthians the author appears to
have used Pelagius only, as the second explanations in this letter are
commonly absent. There is one remark I am compelled to make, and
that is that the collation of Zimmer is less full and accurate than
scientific purposes demand. Thus, on the last line of p. 295 of his
book, similitudinem should be similitudine on p. 296, 1. 23 baptizati$
; 9
not babtizatis, is the reading of the MS. more serious are such errors
:
as peccatores (p. 296, 1. 5 from foot) for peccantes, and confirmatu?
(p. 298, 1. 14) for coiifirmetur. As Zimmer's collation fills 140 pages,
and these errors are contained within four pages, I may perhaps be
excused from judging the St. Gall MS. at this stage.
A few words about Zmaragdus, to whose MSS. considerable
attention has been devoted. Internal evidence seems to show that
British Museum Additional MS. 21914 bought in Paris in
(saec. x),
1857, was the imperfect MS. known to the and one of the
first editor,
only three known to him. Zmaragdus quotes both the original

Pelagius and the anonymous pseudo-Primasius indiscriminately as P,
i.e.Pelagius. Sometimes, but rarely, he quotes pseudo- Jerome, as H.
Occasionally he uses the Pelagian commentary without any acknow-
ledgement whatever. The list of quotations given by Riggenbach

might be increased. Sometimes Zmaragdus adds clauses or sentences
to his extracts, but as a whole his work is a catena from the writings
of earlier authors. The editor did his work fairly well, but the text
1 V uirtutum
f. 13
quod pilagius loquitur de iustitia dicens sicut lurica mu/tis arnit'l/is
texitur ita iustitia multis uirtutibus ornatur.
can be considerably improved from MSS. that were not accessible
to him.
Riggenbach has recently noted, as Hellmann kindly informs me in

a letter, that the commentary of (Atto or) Hatto, of Vercelli, who
died in 960, quotes Pelagius on 1 Cor. xv. 31 with the words
Pelagius dicit V
2
I have compared the Karlsruhe MS. of this com-
'
mentary, and find that at this point it exactly agrees with the
published text, which was printed from the only other known MS.,
that at Verona.
At this point I must conclude. I am far from claiming to have
solved everything connected with the history of this, the earliest,
British book, but I trust that I have contributed something, and
I hope to do more in the edition which has been undertaken for
Cambridge Texts and Studies.

1
Migne, P. L. cxxxiv. 402 C.
2
Aug. cl (saec. x-xi).
APPENDIX
A.
PROLOGUES IN COD. AUG. CXIX (SAEC. IX).

AD CORINTHEOS SECUNDA EXPLICIT INCIPIT AD GALATAS ARGUMENTUM
l 2
Quos pseudo apostoli hac substantia subuertebant, quo dicerent
omnes Christ! apostolos aliter praedicare, Paulum quoque ipsum alibi
docere homines circumcidi, 'denique discipulos suos,' dicebant,
4
quos bene diligit, circumcidit,' sed nee apostulum ilium esse
dicentes, uidelicet quia neque ex XII electis esset, neque Christum
cum Petro et ceteris fuisset aliquando secutus. quia 3 ueri similibus
argumentis et callidae derogationi, quibus paruuli decipiebantur,
necesse habet ex auctoritate spiritus sancti ad singula per ordinem
respondere, ne despectu eius et odio capti Galatae penitus interirent.
( '
The pseudo-Primasius argument consists of the Pelagian argument in the
Book of Armagh, followed by the present argument without interval to form one
argument, though the language of the present argument is considerably modified.
Wanting in ps.-Hier. (Clm. 13038 [saec. x]).
EXPLICIT AD GALATAS INCIP AD EPHESIOS, ARGUMENTUM.
Ephesii ex ludaeis et gentilibus Paulo apostolo praedicante credi-
derunt, quibus firmiter stantibus scribit et in principio quidem:
epistulae ludaeos appellans incarnationis Christi sacramenta exponit ;

4
post ad gentes conuersus hortatur ut tantis beneficiis non sit ingrati ;
deinde communiter usque ad finem moralia praecepit instituta.
'
'
Agrees with Pelagian argument in the Book of Armagh, and the argument
in ps.-Hier. Clm. 13038 (saec. x), with some slight differences. It forms also the
latter part of the St. Gall argument and of the pseudo-Primasius argument, the
former part of which is in the Wiirzburg codex.
AD EPHESIOS EXPLICIT INCIPIT AD PHILIPPENSES ARGUMENTUM.

In Actibus Apostulorum legimus quod ipso praedicante crediderint
Philippesses in Christo. hii ergo tantum in fide ac scientia pro-
fecerunt ut euangelium praedicarent et defenderent a pseudo apostolis
impugnatum. quapropter ab his tantum sumptus se memorat
accepisse, etiam cum alibi praedicaret. hos ergo conlaudans monet
ne eius passionibus terreantur, quibus non destruitur Christi euan-
gelium sed firmatur, dum intellegi datur eum tanta pata (corr. pati)
pro re falsa uel dubia omnino non posse, ideoque hortatur exemplo
suo eos libenter usque ad mortem certare pro Christo.
With some slight differences, this constitutes the last portion of the pseudo-
Primasius and St. Gall arguments. The Book of Armagh argument corresponds
to the middle portion, and the first portion is borrowed from genuine Jerome.
Ps.-Hier. in Clm. 13038 (saec. x) consists of the above down to euangelium Christi.
1 3 *
Read sententia*
2
Read qua. Read gui. Read rint.
EXPL AD PHILIPPENSES INCP AD THESSALONICENSES PRIMA.
Thessalonicenses non solum ipsi in omnibus perfect! erant, sed
etiam alii eorum uerbo profecerant et exemplo. laudando ergo illos
apostolus ad maiora prouocat et inuitat.
There is nothing corresponding to this in ps.-Pr., but it is closely related to
the second half of the Booh of Armagh argument, and is added by another hand
in the Wurzburg MS.
EXPL AD THESSALONICENSES PRIMA INCIPIT AD EOSDEM SECUNDA

ARGUMENTUM.
lustum erat ut superius crescente eorum fide et caritate et illorum
quoqtie laudatio augeretur. simul et illut eis praenuntiat, quod
nouo argumento eos quidam a fide depellere temptaturi essent, quo
dicerent Christum uelociter adfuturum, et quern uellent pro Christo
facile inducerent ad suadendum.
Ps.-Pr. contains no argument. The above corresponds to the second half of

the Booh of Armagh argument.
EXPL AD THESSALONECENSES SECUNDA INCP AD COLOSSENSES.
Quorum auditam fidem in principiis laudat, deinde monet ne per

philosophiam uel legis caerimonias seducantur.
The above is in ps.-Hier. (Clm. 13038 [saec. x]), and corresponds to last part
in ps.-Pr., and more closely to the middle part in the Booh of Armagh. It is
omitted by the Wurzburg and Vienna MSS.
EXPLI AD COLOSSENSES INCIP AD TIMOTHEUM PRIMA ARGUMENTUM.

Hie episcopus huic per litteras dat
fuit discipulus apostoli Pauli.
auctoritatem corrigendi omnem ecclesiasticam disciplinam et epi-
scopos ac diaconos ordinandi. praeterea instruit eum quo modo
nde
pseudo apostolis detrahentibus resporet, rationem reddens quod
sibi
non sit mirum si ipse ex persecutore saluatus sit, cum Christus
peccatores uenerit liberare. ad extremum aliter docentes monet esse
uitandos.
Above is in ps.-Hier. (Clm. 13038 [saec. x]) and is nearly the whole of St. Gall
argument. Ps. -Pr. consists of the Booh of Armagh argument immed iately followed
by the above.
AD TIMOTHEUM PRIMA EXPL INCP SECUNDA.

Cum esset Romae
in uinculis constitutus, scribit Timotheo con-
monens eum ne per eius absentiam uel propriis uel magistri tribula-
tionibus terreatur aut testimonium domini erubescat,
pro quo ipse
usque ad mortem certauit, simul et de haereticis uitandis atque his
fl
qui suis magis fabulas quam dei praedicant ueritatem.
Ps.-Pr. consists of the Book of Armagh argument immediately followed by the

above. Ps-Hier. (Clm. 13038 [saec. x]) consists of the above down to certauit.
AD TIMOTHEUM SECUNDA EXPL INCP AD TITUM ARGUMENTUM.

Discipulum suum episcopum, queni conmonet et instruit de
constitutione praesbiterii et de spiritali conuersatione et haereticis
uitandis, qui in scripturis ludaicis alios seducebant.
Book of Armagh and ps.-Pr. and St. Gall have practically the same.
EXPLICIT AD TITUM INCIPIT AD PHILEMOXEM.

Cui apostolus a Roma scribit de carcere pro Honesimo seruo
eius,quern apostolus erudiens baptizauit sciens eum facilius a domino
suo ueniam promereri quam iam a deo fuerat consecutus promittens
ilium de cetero correcturum. nihil magis est in hac epistula atten-
dendum nisi quanta humilitate discipulum depraecetur dans nobis
exemplum quid aput aequales facere debeamus.
[at end of commentary, EXPL AD PHILIMONEM].
Ps.-Pr., St. Gall MS. and Book of Armagh have only the first clause, slightly
altered. Clm. 13038 of ps.-Hier. (saec. x) gives the above with slight differences ;
the omission of cui, a, suo, iam, dans nobis exemplum quid aput aequales facere
debeamus, and eum for ilium.
B.
Documents in Cod. Paris. B. N. 653 (saec. ix).
(f. 5) UERBUM CARO FACTUM EST. Sic accipimus quod hominem

sibi adsumpserit deus, quo se ut ita dicam pro quodam habitu
induerit propriaque semper manente substantia ita habitaret in
interiore 1 natura, ut nibil de sua amitteret summitate. uelut si
2 3
quis imperator regalis potestate sublimis belli tempore occultatae
purpurae nobilitate sumat militis habitum et cum neque potestatis
suae dignitate priuetur et nihilo minus tamen militis fungatur officio,
facile et recte dici potest *
imperator miles factus est.'
: non enim
ille per hunc habitum
priuilegia sui honoris amisit nee omnino
transmit in militis uilitatem et cessaret esse quod fuerat quin immo :
hinc multo etiam excellentior habetur atque sublimior, quia contra

4
suam quodam modo dignitatem pro humile aliquid pro populi sui
salute suscepit.
Ita ergo et dei filius dum pro remedio generis humani carne
hominis induitur caro factus asseritur et, quamuis ad deitatem uerbi
perfecta substantia humanitatis accesserit, non tamen filii persona
geminata est, sed hoc a filio susceptum quod ante non habuit. ne
cui autem uideatur obscurum, quod homo deitati iunctus est, et per
hoc duos uelit filios estimare, intellectum sibi de comparatione
suscipiat.
Arte animae 5 et corpus duae sunt diuersaeque substantiae et unum
tamen ex utroque hominem faciunt adque interdum solius animae
interdum tantum corporis appellatione integer nominatur. quamuis
enim gemina substantia sit, tamen una persona est. ita et dei
1 a 5
Read inferiore. Read regali. Read occultata.
4 6
Omit pro. Read anima.
uerbum, licet se integro homine uestierit aliamque probetur
suscepisse
siibstantiam, unus tamen filius esse non desinit.
(f.
De numero apostolorum quaeritur, quos inuenimus XIIII
6)
nam locum ludae Mathias ordinatus est, deinde Barnabas et Paulus
in
ad gentes mittuntur non sine domini uoluntate, nam ipse dicit :
segregate mihi Barnaban et Paulum in opus quod elegi eos

1
deinde :
quare uoluerit apostolus Paulus scribere post euangelia, cum noui

testamenti doctrina per euangelia sufficeret. sed non sine exemplo
hoc fecit nam et cum lex Mosi esset, prophetae nihilo minus populum
docuerunt, uel propter existentes nouas causas in quibus populum
2 3
corrigi necesse erat uel recentioribus semper praedicationibus adsint
fquemammodum et positae quod ratio excludit. nam cum multo
:
ante crediderint ut Corrinthii et qui in illis partibus, hoc est

alii
orientis, morantur, quo modo Romanis prioribus *# scribitur ? non

ordine sed merito digeruntur, ut quidam gradus uel doctrinae uel
4
profectum inueniatur: nam a leuioribus inchoans ad perfectiora
5
progreditur, ut in singulis epistulis si perpexeris recognosces.
Causa epistulae haec est. cum ex duobis populis credidissent, hoc est
ex ludaeis et gentibus, uenientes in unam fidem praeponi se sibi
"
alterutrum cupiebant, dicentibus ludaeis ' nos semper " populus dei
:
uocati sumus nobis prophetae Christum anuntiauerunt ex nostro

: :
1
certe genere natus est. uos autem idolorum cultores fuistis.
'
respondebant hi, qui ex gentibus uenerant eo magis indigni estis,:
qui, cum fuissetis populus dei, totiens ab illo per praeuaricationem

recessistes, eligentes idola quibus seruistis obliti beneficiorum dei :
nam et prophetas qui uobis filium dei annuntiabant, alios lapidastes

alios occidistis, ipsum etiam lesum Christum, qui ex uestro genere
natus est, non agnoscentes esse filium dei, cruci fixistis. nos autem,
quam uis per ignorantiam idola coluerimus et per errorem nescierimus 1
uerum deum, tamen ubi nobis annutiatus est, statim credidimus. his
inter se contentionibus dissentiebant.
Apostolus utriusque partis causam similem ostendens adimit simul-
tatem dicendo de gentibus quod, quam uis legem non habuerint,
naturaliter potuerint deum intellegere, dicendo inuisibilia enim ipsius :
acreatura mundi perea quaefacta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur 6 ; ludaeis

autem non profuisse legis obseruationem, cum Christo non crediderint,
ait: Jinis enim kgis Christus ad iustitiam omni credent*? et ita
utrumque populum sub peccato positum dei gratiam consecutum, ut
ipse dicit omnes enim peccauerunt et egent gloria dei, 8 et iterum
: :
conclusit omnia sub peccato, ut omnibus misereatur? ergo reuocantur

in gratiam, cum par utriusque partis meritum repperitur.
1
Act xiii. 2 (Vigilius (?) contra Varimadum is the only authority for elegi in
Wordsworth and White).
3
Add
ut here.
8
After this word there is evidently a passage lost about the relative position
of the letters of St. Paul.
4 6
Read profectus. Read perspexeris.
6 7
Rom. i. 20. Rom. x. 4.
8 9
Rom. iii. 23. Rom. xi. 32.
[Between this prologue and the beginning of the commentary

proper a fourteenth-century hand has written 'Incipit expositio in
epistola ad romanos '.]
It isobvious that this prologue is a later production , manufactured out of the
Primnm quaeritur and the Romani ex Inducts combined the borrowing is some- :
what disguised by a recasting of the expression.
191. [For spirituale desiderium (857, 22

f.
< '
= 820, 44 = in Gal. v
17) reads ' spiritalem \ which is followed by
it :
' '
ALITER :
qui nouit,"' inquid, aliam esse carnis fragili-
Hieronymus,
tatem, aliam spiritus fortitudinem caro enim concupiscit aduersus :
l
spiritum, spiritus autem autem aduersus carnem : haec enim inuicem
2
aduersantur, ut non, quaecumque uultis, illafaciatis.
Pelagius ut autem ex hoc quoque agnoscas loco apostolum hoc
:
non in sua 3 sed in carnalium hominum dixisse personam, non dixit :
' '
ut non, quae uolumus, ilia faciamus sed ait ' ut non, quaecumque :
2
uultis, illafaciatis''. si autem generaliter omnes homines a bono
opere carnis necessitate retrauntur, quur non etiam suam personam
simul miscuit, quam eiusdem naturae carnem gerens no quae uellet, ut
dicis, sed quae nolet cogeretur efficere ? caro enim concupiscit aduersus
4 2
spiritum et spiritus autem aduersus carnem. nullus peritorum
'
dubitat apostoli esse consuetudinem ' carnem pro carnalibus
operibus nuncupare et substantiae nomine rem conuersationis
exprimere idque auctoritatem uertere scripturarum. legimus enim
in Genesi dicentem deum et non permanebit spiritus mem in hominibus
:
istis, propter quod caro stint, non despicit creaturam quam fecit, sed
praua opera creaturae, et tarn en ita loquitur ut si non rectae intellecta
5
si uideatur damnare naturam hominis ipse qui condidit. unde et
'
apostolus, ut multi prudentium intellegunt, ' etsi in alterius persona

6
dicat, non habitat in came mea bonum ,
non indagit 7 ut naturam
carnis malam esse demonstret, ne, ut tu putas, Manicheorum aplaudat
errori, sed in consuetudine atque opere carnali habitare bonum negat,
cumque ait cam concupiscit aduersus spiritum,, spiritus autem aduersus
:
carnem : haec enim inuicem aduersantur, ut non quaecumque uultis ilia

2
faciatis, non contrarias inter se compugnantesque substantias a deo
credit esse coniunctas, sed spiritalem uoluntatem a carnali consue-
tudine impugnari docet, quae, quam diu per spiritus fortitudinem et
assidue sanctitatis usum uicta non fuerit, rediuiua proelia semper
instaurat.
Alioquin, si hoc de carne
id est, de substantia carnis intellegen-
dum est, quod semper aduersa sit, ut non quae uolumus ilia
spiritui
2
faciamus uidetur deus non ad ministerium boni operis carnem
spiritui copulasse, sed ad peccandi necessitatem. etiam non nostro
uitio bonam non efficimus uoluntatem, si in malum opus necessitate
compellimur sed ut ostendat peccati necessitatem non esse, subiungit

: :
1
Omit the second autem. 2
Gal. v. 17. 8
Read suam.
4
Omit et. Read recte intellect-its.
6
Rom. vii. 18. 7
Read inde agit.
T
quod si spiritus ducimini, non estis sub legef et superius ait spiritu :
ambulate et desideria camis non perficietis.* ergo poterant hanc

inpugnationem carnis uincere, si ad implendam domini uoluntatem
solo spiritu id est, spiritali consuetudine ducerentur. manifesta,
inquit, sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio immunditia luxoria
idolorum seruitm uenejicia inimicitiae contentiones aemulationes irae
rixae dissensiones sectae inuidiae homecidia ebrietates et his similia,
quae praedico uobis, sicut et praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum
del non consequentur* si ita omnia per necessitatem et inpugna-
5
tione non possumus, quo modo nobis, si haec agamus,
carnis uitare
caelorum regnum negabitur? quur etiam e diuerso ad uirtutem
praemiorum desiderio prouocamur, si necessitate uitiis seruiendum
est? sed aperte apostolicus sermo demonstrat non omnes carnali
consuetudine esse deuinctos, ut propriae neglegentiae deputemus, qui
spiritus fortitudinem carnis desideriis subiugamus. cum enim dicit :
qui talia agunt, regnum dei non consequentur? ostendit esse alios, qui
talia non agentes consecuturi sint regna caelorum. et si sunt aliqui,
qui non carnaliter sed spiritaliter conuersando digni efficiantur
7
proemio futurorum, quo modo, quod alii sunt, non omnes posse
credamus ?
'
Et ut euidentius apostoli consuetudinem esse doceamus carnem '
8
opera uelit carnis intellegi, legamus ad Colosenses epistulam, in qua
euidentius atque signatius 9 singula carnis opera/ membra 10 nominat
'
:
mortificate autem membra uestra, quae sunt super terram, non utique
oculos manos aures et cetera, sed fornicationem, inquid, libidmem :
10
concupiscentiam malam et auaritiam, quae est simulacrorum seruitus.
quo modo ista possunt mortificare membra uitiorum, sic etiam omnia
ilia quae carnis esse
opera nominauit, ut, quemammodum ipse dixit :
destruatur corpus peccati, ut ultra non seruiamus peccato. 11 [After

this 1. 23 (=1. 55) Haec aduersantur is omitted.]
. . .
f. 228 [After <re' (888, 41 = 849, 24 = in Phil. iii.

12)].
' 1 '
AL(ITER) Hieronymus unde et apostolus, ait, ex parte accepisse
:
et ex parte conpraehindisse se dicit, et necdum esse perfectum, prae-

teritorum quoque obliuiscit 12 et in futurum se extendere. qui semper
praeteritorum obliuiscitur et futura desiderat, ostendit se praesentibus
non esse contentum.'
Pelagius si tuam hoc quoque loco uelimus considerare sententiam
:
\margin has hoc loco Pelagii sensum non ad probandum sed ad

detegendos callidos eius errores legendum], etiam ex hoc ipso proba-
bimus apostolum fuisse perfectum, quo se imperfectum fatetur. ais
enim hanc esse in hominibus summam perfectionem siue perfecto 13
esse se nouerint. sed, cum idem apostolus statim subiungat et dicat :
1 2
Read spiritu. Gal, v. 18. Gal. v. 16.
4 6
Gal. v. 19-21. Read inpugnationem.
6 1 8
Gal. v. 21. Read praemiorum. Read uelut.
9 10 n Rom. vi. 6.
Perhaps read signantius. Col. iii. 5.
12 13
Read obliuitci ; cf. Phil. iii. 12, 13. Read si imperfectos.
quicumque ergo perfecti surrnis, hoc sentiamus? non eum confessione

inperfectionis perfectum fuisse credimus, sed possessione uirtutum,
et quo modo inquies ipse nondum se dicit esse perfectum,' et
:
'
quo modo ipse non solum se sed etiam alios dicit esse
'
e contrario :
perfectos'? qui utrumque legimus, utrumque intellegere debemus,

non ex unius obscuritate alteri praeiudicare. duas enim, quantum
ex hoc ipso loco intellegi datur, species perfectionis ostendit una 2 ; ,
3
quam aliquis omnia dei mandata seruando perfectus est et tamen,
quia longum adhuc uiuendi spatium superest, necdum perfectionis
possidet securitatem, alteram uero, qua consummate iam curso uitae
finis in proximo est, nee tarn de periculo perfectionis timetur quam
de solo iam praemio cogitatur ; ad quam consummationem tune
beatum apostolum credimus peruenisse, cum dixit certamen bonum
:
certaui, corsum consummaui, Jidem seruaui ; de cetera reposlta est mihi

corona iustitiae*
The above two passages have never been printed before, as far as I know.
Ihave no reason to regard them as anything but genuine pieces of Pelagius.
The orthography of the MS. is intentionally retained.
2
1
Phil. iii. 15. Read unam.
3 4
Read qua. 2 Tim. iv. 7-8.
Oxford
Printed by Horace Hart, at the University Press
ro
o\
u>
\J1
g
g&
Souter, A. BS
2635
Commentary of Pelagius on .Pk
the Epistles of Paul S68
PONTIFICAL
OF MEDIAEVALINSTITUTE
59
STUDIES
QUEEN'S PARK
TORONTO 5, CANADA

A Souter Pelagius Commentary Restoration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Souter Pelagius Commentary Restoration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Souter Pelagius Commentary Restoration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE BRITISH ACADEMY

The Commentary of Pelagins on

Alexander Sotiter, D.Litt.

[From the Proceedings wffi&British Academy, Vol. II]

P'rice One Shilling and Sixpence net

Read December 12, 1906

IN the fourth century of our era the Roman province of Britain

regard to the civilization in general all the evidence points to the

periods of progressive prosperity, but about 350 the decline of Roman

Empire, belonging to the province of Britain, or an Irishman. The

provinces, irrespective of race ; the term Brittones would thus cover

things. In Rome he lived the life of a monk and a student. He

The latter cites the following passages (on Rom. v. 12 if.) :

[per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum, et per peccatum mors.]

[qui est forma futuri.]

(Migne, P. L. xlviii. 83).

Possibly there are other quotations lurking in the works of these

commentary in his hands. He may quite well have derived the

These appear to be the only contemporary or nearly contemporary

In epistulis tredecim sancti Pauli adnotationes conscriptas in ipso initio meae

The of these two passages means that he possessed an anonymous

commentary of such repute that it was considered to be by Pope

mentary. Its whole style is utterly alien to Jerome's, and genuine

1673. 1 Catarin, quoted by Sixtus Senensis, 2 judged Pelagius to be

constitute one a Pelagian. 1 Bellarmine (in 1613) 2 proved that some

commentary, and argued that the pseudo- Jerome commentary was

masterly critic has who

Epistle to the Romans, and a set of arguments to all the epistles,

(M. th. f. 12). This is a MS. of the epistles of Paul in Latin,

p29 is not to be found in our pseudo-Jerome, and, second, when,

century, though the Primasian authorship was not then doubted.

semi-Pelagian controversies, and identifies it with the commentary

167 are to be found in pseudo- Jerome, while 36 are there lacking.

pseudo- Jerome is to be contrasted with pseudo-Primasius, Sedulius,

Before referring to Zimmer's great discovery, I must say a word or

passages from the genuine commentaries of Jerome on those epistles

Pelagius,and thus in Irish circles passages came to rank as Pelagius

says he afterwards removed the Pelagian characteristics. Turner objects

Pseudo-Primasius has revised his original more on the doctrinal than

commentary on an epistle which both Ambrosiaster and Pelagius had

Though Zimmer had very fully reviewed the mediaeval authorities

ment between his quotations and the pseudo-Jerome. Pitra's work

Riggenbach's paper, though brief, is also in other respects ex-

Prof. John E. B. Mayor first drew my attention to this pamphlet.

Pelagius commentary to the point at which my own researches begin.

as were likely to be helpful in this investigation, and published my

extracts, but there is no reason to suppose that their MSS. bore

original commentary of that author, with the possible exception of the

pseudo-Jerome. There were various reasons why the name of the

literature of the Church. It is this anonymity of Pelagius's commen-

wrote. It is improbable that there is more than one medium between

epistularum ;followed by the prologus epistulae ad romanos,

beginning with the words Romani ex ludaeis gentilibusque, which is

argument. Then follow Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, First and

commoner than abridgements. It is uniform throughout it has no :

additional comments introduced by item, like the pseudo-Jerome in

pseudo-Primasius and other authorities. It is a norm by which all

other adaptations of the commentary must be judged.

us here it is the literary

(ostendere uult\ (simul) (ei) notandum (or adtendendum, or consideran-