¹ For the old opinion of Mereator as the diligent and formidable opponent of both heresies see II. de Noris, Historia Pelagiana, F. Loofs, Nestoriana, Tillemont, Bardenhewer, and the references in theological studies and ecclesiastical histories of the period. The general opinion was recognized by the devotion of the whole of the forty-eighth volume of Migne's Patrologia latina to Mercator's works, in the edition of Father Jean Garnier with the addition of some of the notes and opinions of Etienne Baluze.

² Augustine, , Epistolae, 193Google Scholar, CSEL 57Google Scholar and Jerome, , Epistolae, 154Google ScholarCSEL 56Google Scholar. Augustine also refers briefly to Mercator in the De Octo Duloitii guaestionibus, qu. 3 in Patrologia latina, XL, 159.Google Scholar

³ Schwartz, Eduard, Acta, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (Berlin and Leipzig, 1924–1925), I, 5Google Scholar. This work is hereafter cited as ACO I, 5Google Scholar and the Roman numerals with this citation refer to the first preface, in which Schwartz discusses the Palatine Collection and Mereator's connection with it. For the purpose of the Collectio see also Bark, William, “John Maxentius and the Collectio Palatina”Google Scholar, soon to appear in The Harvard Theological Review.

⁴ An example of Schwartz's method of arriving at his conclusion will be revealing. It seems likely that certain Nestorian writings included by Mereator (ACO, I, 5, 55–50Google Scholar) were part of a group of excerpts from Nestorius made in Alexandria at the order of Cyril and sent by him to the pope (Ep. to Celestine, Mansi, IV, 1016–1017Google Scholar. Since Schwartz had decided that Mereator obtained these works from Cyril, he concluded that Cyril must have sent copies to his agents in Constantinople, who handed them on to Mercator. It may have happened in that way, but at the same time there is nothing against the possibility that Mereator got the excerpts directly from the pope. Schwartz was so firm in his belief that Mercator was living in Thrace, from where he kept in touch with Cyril's representatives in Constantinople, that he overlooked the simpler and easier explanation. For Schwartz's theories and conclusions, see ACO, I, 5Google Scholar, XII–XIV and “Die sogenannten Gegenanathematismen des Nestorius” in Sitzimgsb. d. Bay. Agad. zu München, hist.-phil. Klasse (1922).Google Scholar

⁵ If it is true that Mercator, after becoming a monk, wrote only for the use of monks, it was a striking change, for of his two commonitoria, one had been presented even to Theodosius and the other was an attempt to add to Augustine's work. See ACO, I, 5, 65Google Scholar and ACO, I, 5, 7Google Scholar. Mercator does not say in so many words that he is attempting to finish the work of his illustrious master but he makes it clear, nevertheless, that such is his ambition. What were those works, supposedly written by Mereator as a monk? No original treatises but only a few translations! Schwartz believed they indicated that Mercator had become inflamed against Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, It seems strange that Mercator's hatred and contempt for the Eastern heresy could have stirred him to attack only after Nestorianism had been condemned, as must have been the case if Schwartz is correct, and that such feelings could have provoked him only to translation.

⁶ Duchesne, Louis, Histoire ancienne de l'église (Paris, 1911), III, 408–409Google Scholar, wrote of Mercator as one of the most intransigeant of Cyrulians, but at the time when Duchesne wrote the whole Collectio Palatina was still attributed to Mereator. It was to Rome, it seems to me, that Mercator looked for guidance, rather than Alexandria. Duchesne also considered this more acceptable view that Mereator was a papal agent, op. cit., 331. The same suggestion was put forward by Casper, Erich, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anf ngen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft (Tübingen, 1930), I, 392.Google Scholar

⁷ Cassiodorus, , Inst., I, 23 (ed. Mynors, p. 62).Google Scholar

⁸ Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (1924), IV, 558 and (1932), V, 14–15.Google Scholar

⁹ Eltester in his article, ‘Marins Mercator’, in Pauly- Wissowa (1930), XIV, 1932, who follows Schwartz at almost every point, naturally does not recognize Mercator's primary concern with Pelagianism. He believes that by mingling works against the Pelagians with others against the Nestorians Mercator meant to calumniate both heresies. But neither Schwartz nor Eltester explains why Mercator does not take up the Christological controversy in any of his own writings, but merely calls it ‘impious,’ etc. See below.

¹⁰ ACO, I, 5, 5.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., 23 and see also p. 173, where the Palatine collector names Augustine as the object of an attack by Theodore. In the eyes of Mercator an attack on Augustine would in itself unquestionably be enough to earn condemnation.

¹² Harnaek, A., Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1888), II, 339–340.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid., (1890), III, 169.

¹⁴ von Hefele, C. J., Conciliengeschichte, II, 183–184Google Scholar, and Seeberg, R., Text-book of the History of Doctrines, revised in 1904 by the author, translated by Hay, C. E. (Philadelphia, 1905), I, 264–265.Google Scholar

¹⁵ That one work is the comparison of the doctrines of Nestorius and Paul of Bamosata, written apparently for the purpose of vilifying Nestorius by connecting him with Paul and revealing no remarkable knowledge of Nestorianism. For it see ACO, I, 5, 28Google Scholar. In the following works of Nestorius and Cyril, pp. 28–60, there is no attempt at interpretation whatsoever.

¹⁶ ACO, I, 5, 60–65.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ACO, I, 5, X and 65.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Harnack, , Dogmengeschichte, II, 339–346Google Scholar. The Christologieal dispute, so fascinat ing to the East, had little interest for Western leaders. Celestine ordered his legates to give their support to Cyril not because the pope condemned Nestorius's theology but because he disapproved of Nestorius's refusal to break with the Western heretics. No effects on Nestorius's part to accommodate the pope in the Christologieal matter could assuage the papal wrath.

¹⁹ Cyril had actually received the Pelagians into communion in the East, before he knew or cared what they believed. It was only later that they came to have any significance for him. Collectio Avellana, CSEL, XXXV, 114Google Scholar and Duchesne, , Histoire ancienne I, II, 264, n. 3.Google Scholar

²⁰ That is, Mercator wished to point out that the Western heretics found a warm welcome only with other heretics, viz. Nestorius and Theodore. The Pelagians were belittled for associating with Nestorius and the Nestorians for receiving the Pelagians. Then as a further insult Mereator adds the deceptive, misnamed anti-Pelagian tractates of Nestorius in order to make it look as if the Pelagians were thus attacked by their last friend.