finally by the Council of Constantinople ( 553), with the con-
sent of Vigilius, who had previously made a retraction, and
who in a declaration, well known as the Constitutum, with-
drew his sentence of 548. The Western bishops refused to
subscribe to this condemnation, in which they saw--and
they were right--a manœuvre inspired by the Monophysites
to oppose, without appearing to do so, the decisions of
Chalcedon. The attitude of Vigilius and his successors
provoked a feeling which almost produced a schism. Africa,
northern Italy, Dalmatia--as we have already seen--severed
relations with Rome. The Frankish Church did not display
the same animosity; it did not banish Pope Pelagius I. from
its communion, but it subjected him to an investigation.
It charged King Childebert that he should obtain informa-
tion as to the orthodoxy of the Roman pontiff. And on
two different occasions Pelagius was forced to give an
account of his faith to the Frankish prince. ¹ He did not
dare to compel Childebert and his bishops to submit to the
fifth council. He confined himself to affirming his fidelity
to the council of Chalcedon. In short, he confused the
matter, as far as possible, by equivocations and concealments.
Forty years later St. Gregory employed the same tactics. ²
Thanks to these contrivances, and to the conciliatory spirit
of the time, the troubles in Gaul, northern Italy, and
Dalmatia gradually came to an end. In Africa, Justinian
promptly drowned the schism in blood. Hence persecution
and subterfuge were proceedings which acclimatized in the
West the condemnation of the Three Chapters, which tem-
porarily put an end to the dispute raised by the Council
of Constantinople ( 553).

Peace achieved by such means was artificial. Actually
the West rejected Monophysitism, to which the East re-
mained steadfastly attached. Nevertheless, even factitious
peace cannot be secured without some compromises. In this
case the compromises were in the nature of formulas. Rome

-416-