the Western Catholics, he might have had some expectation of being heard. The associations of the land befriended him. He was where the Saviour had lived and suffered. It must have seemed as if the light of the past would shine upon him as he pleaded for the liberty which Christ had assured. But close behind the fugitive there came a messenger from the great African Bishop, Augustine. The envoy, Orosius, bore the charge of stirring up the Eastern prelates against Cælestius and Pelagius.

Orosius gives an account of the council convened at Jerusalem by John, the Bishop of that city. Pelagius, on hearing himself accused on the authority of Augustine, asks, "And what has Augustine to do with me?" Orosius cannot repress his indignation. But the presiding Bishop replies, “I am here for Augustine." The charge is then adduced. "He teaches," says Orosius, "that man can live sinless and easily obey, if he will, the commandments of God." "I cannot deny," answers the accused, "that I have taught this and that I still teach it." The prosecutor grows warm. "This, then, hath been condemned by the Synod of Africa. This hath Augustine rejected. This hath Jerome confuted." Bishop John is again obliged to interfere. But it is soon announced that "messengers and letters shall be sent to the holy Innocent of Rome, pledging us to abide by his decrees." As he had already repelled Pelagius, the decision of the council at Jerusalem was equivalent to a condemnation of the reformer. Yet there seems to have been a lurking feeling in favor of Pelagius amongst his brethren of the East. Or he may have found it possible to make concessions to them which he could not have made to the severer prelates of the West. all events a second council, held some months later, declared Pelagius blameless. It must have been amid circumstances that stripped the declaration of all its encouragement to him.

At

Still graver encounters awaited him. To the head of the power which he had virtually denied, appeal had been made from the East. It was made from the West by councils held in Africa immediately after those in Palestine. Four Bishops united with Augustine in supporting the appeals by a letter to the Roman Bishop, stating that "the question was no

longer confined to Pelagius, but to a multitude of reformers." At the same time they presented the new charge, brought by the Catholics against the doctrine of Pelagius. "He says,' ""

wrote the African prelates, "that the nature of man is free, in order to prevent the desire of a Redeemer-that it is secure of salvation, in order to prove a Saviour superfluous." To these appeals Bishop Innocent soon issued his reply: "By the authority of our apostolic power we do adjudge Pelagius and Cælestius to be deprived of our ecclesiastical communion.” It was but carrying out the determination that had long been formed and expressed at Rome.

Of those supporting the Catholic power through the recent controversies, the master-spirit was Augustine. Fifteen years had passed since his ordination, when the monk from Rome landed in Africa. Up to that time the Bishop of Hippo had been engaged in the various questions agitating the African Church. All that he with his ardent passions thought serviceable to the cause espoused by him, he had employed. If it was a sentence of a council that promised success against the foe, Augustine had it passed. If it had been an edict from the imperial tribunal that he wanted, he would have availed himself of it with equal readiness. Prepared to use any means then considered lawful, trained to contention, and with a nature of itself prone to strife, Augustine stood fiery and resolved upon the soil which Pelagius sought in flight.

The fugitive had no chance with the prelate. At first in sermons, then in letters and in lengthy treatises, in public bodies and in private deliberations, the purpose of Augustine to uphold the Catholic power assumed its full proportions. To defend this was to defend the power on which the doubting visionary and the uncontrolled debauchee—Augustine himself had relied for conversion. To defend the Catholic doctrine against that which Pelagius urged, was still more natural with Augustine. He who had been so polluted, so sinful in his early years, could not but believe in the dependence of the individual on human grace as well as on that which was Divine. Not even on the Church alone had Augustine depended. He had leaned upon his mother before he learned to lean upon the Church. Could he bear with the

plea of Pelagius, that every man had his inherent capability of being virtuous? It might be arguing the right of every one to liberty. But it was against all the experience of Augustine.

But if Augustine combated for authority, he could also combat for liberty. He had a spirit in which progressive as well as conservative elements were perpetually at work. To turn against the assailants of the Catholic power was hardly more frequent with him than to lead its supporters out from its narrow boundaries. "This is liberty," he wrote, "when we are subject to truth." He would have had the Catholic power prove itself true by its influence upon men. "When we have an army," he writes, "such as Christ's law requires; when we have subjects, husbands, wives, parents, sons, masters, slaves, kings, judges, tax-payers, tax-gatherers, such as Christ's law demands, then none can doubt the blessings wrought by our Christianity." No one could have expressed clearer views of the laws by which nations and ages advanced in a continual progress under an eternal Providence. "I determined to write it," says Augustine in reference to his great work, "The City of God," "against the blasphemies ascribing the irruption of Alaric and the overthrow of Rome to the Christian religion. . . . The first books refute the opinion that human affairs were so prosperous of old as to have met with their present reversions in consequence of our having abjured the heathen deities. . . . . Then I go on to describe the origin, the rise, and the appointed end of the two cities, whereof the one is of God and the other is of this world." How vividly he depicts the doom of the latter, how heartfully he foretells the glory of the former, must be seen in his own pages.-S. ELIOT.

INTERATOR

FRIDERIG

FREDERIC I., who was called Barbarossa, or Red-Beard, by the Italians, was one of the grandest figures of the Middle Ages, and one of the greatest of German sovereigns. He was the son of Frederic, the Oneeyed, of Hohenstaufen, Duke of Swabia, and of Judith, daughter of Henry the Black, Duke of Bavaria, and thus united in himself the blood of the great rival families, the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. He was born in 1123 (or perhaps a year earlier), and succeeded his father in the dukedom of Swabia in 1147. He soon accompanied his uncle, Emperor Conrad III., in the disastrous Second Crusade.

Conrad, when dying, showed his recognition of Frederic's great abilities by nominating him as his successor, and this choice was unanimously ratified in the assembly at Frankfort. Frederic was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 9th of March, 1152. He is said to have taken Charlemagne as his model; but the times were far different, and while he was successful in confirming the strength and unity of the empire in Germany, he was not able to subdue completely the turbulent Italian republics. It was to this task he devoted most of his energies, first leading his army against Milan in 1154. He received the iron crown of Lombardy, and marched to Rome, where he was crowned by the pope as Holy Roman Emperor on the 18th of June, 1155. Pestilence in the army compelled

him to return to Germany before he had accomplished his purposes.

The troubled state of Germany gave him abundant occupation. He put down the robber-barons; reconciled Henry the Lion by restoring the duchy of Bavaria; raised Austria to the rank of a duchy. Having divorced his first wife Adelaide, he married Beatrice, daughter of the Count of Burgundy, and thus obtained the homage of the Burgundian nobles. He compelled the rulers of Poland and Bohemia to swear fealty as vassals, and raised the latter to the rank of king for faithful services. Part of Franconia, under the name of the Palatinate, he gave to his half-brother Conrad.

After three years thus spent in restoring order and reorganizing Germany, Frederic returned to his unfinished task in Italy, and especially Lombardy. Here the prosperous cities were desirous of managing their own affairs; they had thrown off the rule of bishops and counts, and the principal had formed a league with Milan as its head. Frederic aimed to quell the pride of Milan. With an army of 100,000 foot and 15,000 horse he laid siege to it, and after a month of furious assaults, it was compelled to surrender from want of provisions. Frederic wished to restore the imperial power as it existed in the days of Charlemagne. At a great assembly held in the Roncalian Fields the prerogatives of the emperor were defined; he was proclaimed to be "Lord of the world." In every city a chief magistrate, called Podesta, was to be appointed to represent his authority.

On the death of Pope Adrian IV., in 1159, the emperor gave his support to Victor IV. as his successor; but the courageous Alexander III. did not hesitate to excommunicate the emperor. Proud Milan now rose in rebellion; but after a siege of two years surrendered, and was by imperial order demolished. But the other cities of Lombardy formed a league and expelled their podestas. On the death of Victor IV., Frederic promoted the election of a new anti-pope, Pascal III. He was then in Germany and did not return to Italy until 1166, when he marched on Rome and attacked and captured the Vatican, while Alexander took refuge in the Colosseum. On the following Sunday, August 1, 1167, the empress was