Information Regarding Lucidus and the Alleged Council of Arles (c. 475)

Sec. 212. Synods at Arles on the Doctrine of Grace in the Years 475–480

Two other Gallican Synods at Arles and Lyons, between 475 and 480, were occasioned by the Gallican priest Lucidus, the first who was known as a Predestinarian.¹ Prosper Tiro indeed says in his Chronicle that, in the twenty-third year of the Emperor Honorius, that is, a.d. 417, the sect of the Predestinarians arose through a misunderstanding of the writings of Augustine on predestination; and many have followed him in this.² On the other hand, the learned Cardinal Noris (Hist. Pelagiana, lib. ii. c. 15, p. 178 sqq. ed. Patav. 1677) showed that this could not possibly be correct, that in the time of Prosper there were as yet no Predestinarians, and that only the Semipelagians had maliciously reproached the true Augustinians with predestinationism. Not until the second half of the fifth century, he argued, were genuine Predestinarians to be found, and these mostly uneducated and unimportant people, who had allowed themselves to be urged on, by the sophistical objections of the Semipelagians, from their original Augustinian point of view to an extreme predestinationism.

Among these Noris numbers especially the priest Lucidus and a certain Monimus from Africa, who maintained that a portion of mankind was predestined by God to sin. On this point he was opposed by S. Fulgentius of Ruspe. The latter mentions that several others had denied human liberty, and ascribed all to grace (see Noris, l.c. p. 184). Such was also the opinion of Lucidus. Unfortunately we know very little of him or of the two Gallican Synods who sat in judgment upon him, and this little only from Faustus of Riez, who himself was not orthodox on the doctrine of grace, and, in opposition to Lucidus, was entangled in Semipelagian error.

From a letter of Faustus to Lucidus we learn that the former had already repeatedly by word of mouth warned the other of his error, but in vain. This letter, however, was written about the time when the Metropolitan Leontius of Arles convoked in his episcopal city a great Synod of thirty bishops, among them several metropolitans, about the year 475, in order to repudiate the predestinarian heresy. Faustus here wrote to Lucidus, representing that, as the bishops were already thinking of his suspension, he would, from love to him, once more endeavour by writing to bring him back from his error, although he thought there was little hope of this. He would quite briefly specify the points which must be recognised by Lucidus. He must (in general) always unite with the grace of God the agency of the baptized man, and condemn whoever excluded the co-operation of man and taught mere predestination on the one hand, just as he must condemn Pelagius on the other. Thus he must anathematise (1) anyone who, like Pelagius, denies original or hereditary sin and the necessity of grace; (2) anyone who maintains that the baptized and orthodox Christian, who becomes a sinner, is lost through Adam and original sin;¹ (3) anyone who maintains that it is through the foreknowledge of God that a man is thrust down to death (of the soul); (4) anyone who maintains that whosoever is lost (i.e. of the baptized, and of the heathen those who could have believed) had not received the grace by which he could have laid hold of salvation; (5) anyone who should say that a vessel of dishonour could not raise itself so as to become a vessel of honour; (6) anyone who should say that Christ did not die for all men, and did not will that all men should be saved.

If Lucidus would come of his own accord to Faustus, the latter said, or were summoned by the bishops, he would lay before him at length the proofs for the orthodox doctrine. He adds: “We, however, maintain that whoever is lost by his own fault, could have obtained salvation through grace if he had co-operated with it; and that, on the other side, whosoever through grace attains, by means of his own co-operation, to the goal of perfection, might also, through his negligence and his own fault, have fallen and been lost. We yet exclude all personal pride, since we maintain that we receive all from the hand of God as a gift, not as a reward.” He intimates that Lucidus should express himself on these points as soon as possible, and that if he did not send back a subscription to the contents of his letter, he should have to appear publicly before the Synod as his accuser.¹

In one manuscript this letter is subscribed by Faustus alone, in another by ten other bishops, so that we may improve upon the supposition of Noris (l.c. p. 185) by the suggestion, that Faustus may have sent it first from himself, and then, in order to give greater importance to the matter, may have had a second copy signed by ten of his colleagues, who perhaps had assembled at a preliminary Synod, held in preparation for the appointed greater Council, and sent it to Lucidus. The latter, seeing the seriousness of the matter, subscribed, as Faustus had wished, and this subscription of his is still found appended to the letter in question.²

Besides this, Lucidus addressed a letter to the thirty bishops assembled at Arles,³ in which he says that the Synod had drawn up certain statuta predicandi (forms of teaching), and that Lucidus, in accordance with these, now condemned (1) the opinion, that the work of human obedience towards God (i.e. human co-operation) must not be united with divine grace; and also (2) the assertion, that through the fall of the first man freewill had been entirely annihilated; (3) the assertion, that Christ did not die for the salvation of all men; (4) the assertion, that the foreknowledge of God powerfully constrains men to spiritual death, and that whoever perishes is lost with (cum) the will of God; (5) the assertion, that whoever sins after valid baptism, dies in Adam (i.e. is not lost in consequence of his own sinful actions; see above); (6) the assertion, that some are destined (deputati) to death, and others predestinated (prædestinati) to life; (7) the assertion, that from Adam to Christ no heathen has obtained salvation through the gratia prima of God, that is, through the natural law, hoping in the coming of Christ, inasmuch as all had lost freewill in their first parents; (8) the assertion, that the patriarchs and prophets and saints had been in Paradise even before the time of redemption. All these propositions, he said, he condemned as impious and sacrilegious, but the doctrine of grace he held fast, in such a sense as not to exclude human effort; and he maintained that the freewill of man was not annihilated, but only weakened and diminished (attenuatam et infirmatam); further, that one who was in a state of salvation should yet be conscious of the danger of falling, and, on the other side, that one who was lost might have obtained salvation. He said he had formerly maintained that Christ had come into the world only for the sake of those of whom He knew beforehand that they would believe; but that now he acknowledged that Christ had also come for the sake of those who are lost, and that they are lost eo nolente. Finally, he said, he maintained that some had obtained salvation through the law of grace, others through the law of Moses, others again through the law of nature, which God had written in the hearts of all, in hope of the coming of Christ; but that from the beginning of the world, on account of our union with our first parents, no one had been saved in any other manner than through the mediation of the holy blood of Christ.¹

We learn further from Faustus of Riez that Archbishop Leontius, in agreement with the Synod of Arles, commissioned him to write out at full length in a book all that was transacted at the Synod on the doctrine of grace and in opposition to the Predestinarians. In fulfilment of this commission, Faustus composed his two books, de gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio, in the prologue to which, addressed to Leontius, he sets forth the matter just referred to;² but his work is composed in a thoroughly Semipelagian sense, and under the show of combating predestinarianism, he carries on a continuous warfare against Augustine. At the end of the prologue he further states: “Because at the end of the Synod of Arles, and after all had subscribed its decrees, new errors emerged (probably new predestinarian views), it was ordered by a fresh Synod at Lyons that something should be added to the treatise de gratia Dei,” etc.

We have no further particulars of this Lugdunense Concilium, unless we are to refer to this Synod the note which is found in some old conciliar manuscripts to this effect: The holy Archbishop Patiens of Lyons laid before this Synod a book, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus.¹ It is supposed that this book was a treatise of Gennadius which bears this very title; and if so, then the Semipelagian tendency, represented by the dominating intellect of Faustus, prevailed no less at the Synod of Lyons than at the Synod of Arles.
_______________
1 Mangin, in his work, Veterum Auctorum, qui ix. Seculo de prædestinatione et gratia scripserunt, etc., Paris 1650, t. ii. p. 165, maintains that this Synod of Arles, as well as that of Lyons (see at the end of this section) were invented by the Semipelagians.
2 In the Biblioth. Max. PP., Lugd. t. viii. p. 201.
1 Faustus, on the contrary, would say that “as original sin is forgiven in baptism, a sinful Christian must fail, not through Adam and original sin, but through misuse of his liberty.”
1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 1007 sqq.; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 806 sqq.; Sirmond, Concilia Galliæ, t. i. p. 147 sqq.
2 Mansi, l.c. p. 1010; Hardouin, l.c. p. 808; Sirmond, l.c. p. 150.
3 Cellotius was of opinion that this letter of Lucidus was addressed to the somewhat later Synod of Lyons; Noris, on the contrary (l.c. p. 186b), thinks it more probable that it was addressed to the earlier Synod at Arles.
1 Mansi, t. vii. p. 1010; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 809; Sirmond, Concilia Galliæ, t. i. p. 150 sq.
2 Noris, l.c. p. 177; Mansi, t. vii. p. 1007; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 805; Sirmond, l.c. p. 147 sq.
1 Mansi, l.c. p. 1011; Hardouin, l.c. p. 810; Sirmond, l.c. p. 152; Noris, l.c . p. 177; Remi Ceillier, l.c. p. 620.

Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. William R. Clark, 5 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895), 4:20–24.

ARLES (475). Held about the year 475. The errors of Lucidus, a priest, having excited the zeal of Faustus, Bishop of Riez, he endeavoured in several conferences to bring him back to the true faith. From the letters of Faustus, we learn what were the errors of Lucidus, for all his exhortations having proved useless, he at last wrote to the latter a letter, containing six articles, which he desired him to anathematize: 1st, the errors of Pelagius, viz., that man is born without sin, that he is able to save himself by his own works, and to be delivered without the grace of God. 2ndly, That which teaches that he who falls after baptism perishes in original sin. 3rdly, That man is made subject to damnation by the foreknowledge of God. 4thly, That those who shall perish have no power to save themselves, including those who have been baptized, and the heathen who might have believed but would not. 5thly, That a “vessel of dishonour” cannot become a “vessel of honour.” 6thly, That Jesus Christ did not die for all men, and does not will that all should be saved. This letter was signed by eleven other bishops, but the see of one only of them is known, viz., Patiens, Bishop of Lyons.² Whilst, therefore, Lucidus delayed making his recantation, this council was assembled at Arles, composed of thirty bishops. The ground for supposing that Arles was the place of assembly is this, that the name of Leontius, who was then bishop of that see, occurs first upon the list, and after his the names of Euphremius, Mamertius, Patiens, Eutropius, Faustus, Basil, &c. According to Faustus, they spoke strongly upon the subject of predestination, condemned the opinions which Lucidus had advanced upon the subject, and further insisted that he should himself condemn them. Lucidus obeyed, and addressed a letter to the bishops composing the council, in which he retracted his errors; which, however, are not identical with the propositions contained in the letter of Faustus.

Some imagine that Faustus himself drew up this recantation of Lucidus. Du Pin asserts that there are many things in it which savour strongly of Pelagianism. The condemnation of the errors of Lucidus, in this council, forms one of the proofs brought forward to show the existence of a sect of Predestinarians. The reader may see long dissertations upon the subject by Cardinal Norris, Pagi, and Alexander: the last shows that the errors of the Predestinarians were the same with those of which the priests of Marseilles accused St Augustine and his disciples. He allows, nevertheless, that the number of those comprising the sect of Predestinarians was very small, and proves such to have been the case, by the wording of this 25th canon of Orange: “Not only do we not believe that some men are predestinated by the Divine power to evil, but further, we, with the utmost detestation, anathematize those, if there be any (si qui sunt), who are willing to believe so grievous a thing.” Upon which words, Alexander remarks, “The fathers used this form of speaking, ‘si qui sunt,’ because the followers and disciples of Lucidus were few and of no repute.”

But to return to Faustus, he adds, after having related what passed in the council, that Leontius gave him a charge to collect together all that had been said upon the subject of Predestination, which he did, in two books upon Grace and Free-will, addressed to Leontius; but, according to Fleury, he erred in the opposite extreme, making too much of man’s natural strength.

The learned Benedictine, Dom. Maur, in his list of certain and known councils, speaks in express terms concerning those of Arles and Lyons; that they are only known to us through the writings of Faustus of Riez,—writings, he adds, which savour strongly of semi-Pelagianism, and which, as such, were ranked amongst apocryphal books by the Council of Pope Gelasius, in 496.—Tom. iv. Conc. p 1041.
_______________
2 In the best MSS. there are no other signatures than that of Faustus.—Du Pin.

Edward H. Landon, A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: John Grant, 1909) 1:48–50.

COUNCIL OF ARLES 475 (?)

[From the letter of submission of Lucidus, the priest]¹

Grace and Predestination

160a [DS 330] Your public reproof is public salvation, and your opinion is medicine. From this I also draw the highest remedy, that by blaming past errors I excuse [them], and by healing confession I wash myself. Just so in consequence of the recent statutes of the Council about to be published, I condemn with you that view which states that the work of human obedience does not have to be united with divine grace; [DS 331] which says that after the fall of the first man the free choice of the will was totally destroyed; [DS 332] which states that Christ our Lord and Savior did not incur death for the salvation of all; [DS 333] which states that the foreknowledge of God violently impels man to death, or that they who perish, perish by the will of God; [DS 334] which affirms that whoever sins after baptism which has been legitimately received dies in Adam; [DS 335] which states that some have been condemned to death, others have been predestined to life; [DS 336] which states that from Adam even to Christ none of the nations has been saved unto the coming of Christ through the first grace of God, that is, by the law of nature, and that they lost free will in the first parent; [DS 337] which states that the patriarchs and prophets or every one of the highest saints, even before the times of the redemption, entered into paradise. [DS 339] All these I condemn as impious and replete with sacrileges.

But I declare that the grace of God is such that I always unite the striving and efforts of man with grace, and I proclaim that the liberty of the human will was not destroyed but enfeebled and weakened, and that he who is saved, was tried; and he who perished, could have been saved.

160b [DS 340] Also that Christ, God and Redeemer, as far as it pertained to the riches of His goodness, offered the price of death for all, and because He, who is the Savior of all, especially of the faithful, does not wish anyone to perish, rich unto all who call upon him [Rom. 10:12].… Now by the authority of the sacred witnesses, which are found in great profusion through the extent of the Divine Scriptures, in accordance with the doctrine of our elders made clear by reason, I freely confess that Christ came also for the lost, because they perished although He did not will [it]. For it is not right that the riches of His boundless goodness and His divine benefits be confined to those only who seem to have been saved. For if we say that Christ extended assistance only to those who have been redeemed, we shall seem to absolve the unredeemed, who, it is established, had to be punished for having despised redemption. [DS 341] I declare further that by reason and through the regular succession of the centuries some have been saved by the law of grace, others by the law of Moses, others by the law of nature, which God has written in the hearts of all, in the expectation of the coming of Christ; nevertheless from the beginning of the world, they were not set free from the original slavery except by the intercession of the sacred blood. [DS 342] I acknowledge, too, that the eternal fires and the infernal flames have been prepared in advance for capital deeds, because divine judgment, which they deservedly incur, who have not believed these [truths] with their whole heart, justly follows those who persist in human sins. Pray for me, holy lords and apostolic fathers.

I, Lucius the priest, have signed this my letter with my own hand, and I affirm the things which are asserted in it, and I condemn what has been condemned.
_______________
1 ML 53, 683 ff.; Hfl sect. 212; Msi VII 1010 f.; Hrd II 809 f.

Henry Denzinger and Karl Rahner, eds., The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1954), 65–66.

LUCIDUS, presbyter (d. after 474). We learn of Lucidus V 2, p 629 from Bishop Faustus of Riez (Ep. 1 and 2, and Grat. prol.). Lucidus was a priest from the S of Gaul who in the 2nd half of the 5th c. aroused the suspicions of Faustus for certain ideas he held regarding grace and predestination, carrying Augustine’s thought to extreme consequences. Faustus attempted, first, to induce him to retract by putting before him certain anathemas to sign, then the question was discussed at a number of councils (Councils of Arles and Lyons, of uncertain dates, between 470 and 474), where the theses of Lucidus were condemned, and to which Lucidus submitted. The whole episode, which is difficult to reconstruct, was part of the long, protracted controversy between Augustinians and anti-Augustinians in the S of Gaul.

CPL 963; PL 53, 681–685; CSEL 21, 3–4 and 161–168; MGH, Auct. ant. 8, 288–291; DTC 5, 1020–1024, and Tables 3036; É. Griffe, La Gaule chrétienne à l’époque romaine, 2, Paris ²1966, 83f. n.44, 145, 289; 3, Paris 1965, 371–372.

Alessandra Pollastri, “Lucidus, Presbyter,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover, trans. Joseph T. Papa, Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2014), 628–29.

After the death of Augustine and Prosper, Lucidus, a Presbyter, seems to have stirred up this question, which had been some time laid asleep. He taught in plain words, That Christ died not for all mankind. Against him arose Faustus, Bishop of Ries, the ringleader of the Semipelagians. He writes to him a terrible Epistle filled with anathemas. Among other things he pronounces an anathema upon those who teach that Christ had not died for all. At the close of this epistle he commands Lucidus to send it back to him subscribed with his own hand; and threatens, if he should refuse, that he would accuse him before the Synod of Arles, which was then sitting, and had subscribed these letters and anathemas of Faustus. Lucidus being frightened at this thundering epistle, subscribed it, and thus condemned with his own hand the opinion which he had promulgated. A short time afterwards, the Synod of Leyden was assembled, which added some things to the decrees of the former Council, to which also Lucidus yielded his assent. There is extant an epistle of Lucidus to this Synod of Leyden, in which he condemns those who say, That Christ our Saviour did not endure death for the salvation of all men; and, according to the new mode of preaching established in this Council, he asserts, That Christ our Saviour, according to the riches of his goodness, suffered death for all men. Both of these letters are extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum (p. 3. tom. 5), the names also of the Bishops being subscribed who are thought to have been at these councils. But the things which are boasted of in the name of these councils are not of much moment, since for the most part they rest merely on the veracity of the heretic Faustus. For if you set aside these letters of Faustus, you may in vain seek elsewhere the afore-mentioned decrees of the Council of Arles, as they are no where else to be found. Nor can those new decrees about preaching, of which Lucidus speaks in his epistle, be found among the canons of any Council of Leyden. The veracity of Faustus in these things is further diminished, because he seems to intimate in his Epistle to Leontius [Leontius, Bishop of Arles, according to Du Pin], that those books on grace and free-will, which are so full of poisonous sentiments, were not only written by the direction of this Council of Leyden, but were also approved of by it. And moreover, he pretends that he inserted nothing in this writing besides the opinion of this Synod. But indeed it is neither true nor credible that so many learned men could be so deceived by Faustus, as to approve of Pelagian doctrine by his vote. I say these things, not because I wish to condemn as errors those things which are thought to be defined in this chapter by Faustus on the death of Christ, under the approbation of those Synods, but lest any one, in a controverted point, should attribute too much to the authority, or rather, to the bare name of Synods, of which we have nothing certain from remains worthy of credit. This also is an argument with me, that those Fathers of Arles and Leyden, could not have sanctioned, under so grievous an anathema, that no one should preach that Christ died only for the elect, because in the commentaries of the Fathers who lived in the subsequent ages, that mode of speaking is often found, or at least is left in doubt.

John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport, 2 vols. (London; Birmingham: Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Beilby, Knott & Beilby, 1832), 2:330–32. See also John Davenant, On the Death of Christ and Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael Lynch (Davenant Press, 2024), 18–20.