His Haughty Letterto theAfricanBishops in favourofCælestius.
Zosimus, however prejudiced in favour ofCælestius, did not take upon him to restore him to the Communion of the Church, from which he had been cut off by the Bishops ofAfricaSix Years before, or to come to any farther Resolution till he had imparted the Affair to them. He writ accordingly toAureliusofCarthage, and to the otherAfricanBishops; not that he stood in need of their Advice, or wanted to be directed by them, as he let them know in his Letter, but because he was willing to hear what they had to object against one who had been first accused at their Tribunal. He upbraids those Prelates, and with great Bitterness and Acrimony, as if they had acted with too much Haste and Precipitation in an Affair that required the most mature Deliberation. As forHerosandLazarus, the two great Opposers ofPelagiusandCælestius, he inveighs against them with the most abusive Language that an implacable Rage could suggest. He lets theAfricanBishops know, that if the Accusers ofCælestiusdid not appear atRomein Two Months, to make good their Charge against him, he would declare him innocent, and admit him as a true Catholic to his Communion. He styles all such Inquiries, that is, Inquiries concerningGraceandOriginal Sin, empty Speculations, and trifling Disputes, owing to a criminal Curiosity, and an immoderate Desire of speaking and writing; in which perhaps he was not much to blame: he closes his Letter with exhorting them not to trust to their own Judgment, but to adhere in every thing to the Scripture and Tradition[1502].
The Characters ofHeros, Lazarus,andPatroclus.
As forHerosandLazarus, against whomZosimuschiefly vented his Spleen, while he favouredCælestius; St.Prospergives us, in his Chronicle, the following Account of the former: “Heros, says he, was Bishop ofArles, a holy Man, and the Disciple of St.Martin. However, he was driven from his See by his own People, though quite innocent, and not even accused of any Fault. In his room was placed onePatroculusPatroculus, an intimate Friend of CountConstantius, who at that Time, bore a great Sway in the Empire, and whose favour they courted, and hoped to earn by that Violence.” This happened in 412. All we know ofLazarusis, that he was ordainedBishop ofAixinProvence, byProculusBishop ofMarseilles, a Prelate of extraordinary Merit, as appears from the high Commendations bestowed on him by the Council ofTurin[1503], by St.Jerom[1504], and byTiro Prosperin his Chronicle.Patroclus, who was intruded in the room ofHeros, is painted byTiro Prosper, a Writer no-ways prejudiced against thePelagians, or their Friends, as a Man of a most abandoned Life, and one who turned the Episcopacy into a Trade, and sold the Priesthood to all who had Money to purchase it[1505].Baroniusinterprets the violent Death, which he suffered in 426. when he was barbarously murdered by a Military Tribune, as a Punishment from Heaven for his criminal Intrusion[1506]. Such were the Characters ofHeros,Lazarus, andPatroclus; and yet of the latter, who favoured thePelagians,Zosimusentertained the highest Opinion, and often commends him in his Letters as a Man of great Merit and Virtue.|HerosandLazarusfalsly charged withmany Crimes byZosimus.|But the Two former, who had distinguished themselves above the rest in opposing thePelagians, he most outrageously abuses, styling them, in his Second Letter to theAfricanBishops,Two Plagues, who, with their nonsensical Whims, disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church;Whirlwinds and Storms, that could suffer none to enjoy any Quiet. He adds, that he was not at all surprised at their wickedly attempting to defame with false Depositions, and lying Evidences, a Layman, meaningPelagius, who had served God so long with an untainted Reputation, and shining Virtues, since they had raised so many Storms in the Church, had contrived so many Plots, employed so many Engines, to compass the Ruin of their Brethren and Collegues in the Episcopacy[1507]. No Mention is made by the Historians of those Times of any other Storms or Disturbances in the Churches ofGaul, but such as were occasioned by the Expulsion ofHeros, and the Intrusion ofPatroclus; and thesePatroclusprobably exaggerated beyond Measure, laying the whole Blame onHeros. ForPatrocluswas inRomeat the very TimeZosimuswrit his Letter to theAfricanBishops, fraught with Invectives againstHerosandLazarus[1508]. In the same LetterZosimuscharges the Two Prelates with several other Crimes;viz.that they had both been ordained against theCanons, and against the Will of the People as well as the Clergy, whom, however, they had forced by Chains, Prisons, Confiscations, and the Favour of the Tyrant, meaning, no doubt, the UsurperConstantine, toconsent in the End to their Election; thatLazarushad ascended the Episcopal Throne, while his Hands were still reeking with innocent Blood,&c.But, had they been guilty of such Excesses, wouldProsper, who lived at this very Time, and all the other Historians, have passed them over in Silence? Would he have styledHerosan holy Man? Would St.Austinhave called them both his holy Brethren[1509]? Would the Fathers of the Council ofCarthagein 416. have acknowleged them for their Fellow-Labourers and Collegues in the Priesthood[1510]? WouldProculusofMarseilles, one of the most illustrious Prelates at that Time inGaul, have ordainedLazarus, while his Hands were still reeking with innocent Blood? We may therefore, upon the Whole, agree here withBaronius[1511], and ascribe the Crimes, of which the two Prelates were arraigned byZosimus, to the Suggestions of their Enemies, especially ofPatroclus, in whomZosimusreposed an intire Confidence.|They are both de-graded and excommunicatedbyZosimus.|However that be,Zosimus, highly incensed against both, not only declared them deposed, as Men unworthy of the Episcopal Dignity, but cut them off from his Communion,for many Reasons, says he,and, among the rest, because they had deposed themselves[1512].
The injustice of thisSentence.
This Sentence he pronounced in their Absence, without even acquainting them with the Crimes laid to their Charge; not reflecting, in the Height of his Passion, that he was, at that very Time, complaining of theAfricanBishops for having condemnedCælestiusin his Absence, reproaching them with too much Haste and Precipitation, and laying it down as a Rule never to be swerved from, that no Man ought to be condemned before he is heard, let the Crimes laid to his Charge be ever so great. As for theirdeposing themselves, or voluntarily abdicating their Dignity, it is very certain, ifProsperis to be credited, thatHerosdid not abdicate, but was violently driven from his See. IfLazarusabdicated (for CardinalNoris[1513]and others[1514]are of Opinion he did not), that ought not to have been imputed to him as a Crime, any more than it was toNazianzenBishop ofConstantinople, and many others, who were not even censured by their Enemies on that Account.|The other Bishopsmake no Account ofthe Anathemas ofZosimus.|The other Bishops seem to have made no Account of the Anathemas ofZosimus; for they still continued to communicate with them, and acknowlege them for their Collegues[1515];the Name ofHeroswas inserted into the Diptychs of the Church ofArlesafter his Death; andLazaruswas, according to some, even restored to his See[1516].
PelagiustransmitstoZosimusaConfession of his Faith;
Not long afterZosimushad written the Letter, which I have mentioned above, to the Bishops ofAfricain favour ofCælestius, he received one fromPrayliusBishop ofJerusalem, warmly recommending to him the Cause ofPelagius; and another fromPelagiushimself, in his own Vindication, and with it a Confession of his Faith. These Letters were directed toInnocent; but he being dead before they reachedRome, they were delivered toZosimus. In the Confession of FaithPelagiusowned, thatBaptism ought to be administered to Children as well as to the Adult; and that,notwithstanding our Free-will, we want the Assistance of Grace[1517]. Neither of these Propositions was inconsistent with, or repugnant to, his Doctrine; for though he denied Original Sin, he allowed Baptism to be administred even to Children, butonly for their Sanctification. He admitted the Necessity ofGrace, but not Grace as that Word was understood by St.Austin, and the other Bishops who opposed him; for by Grace he meant no more than the Remission of Sins, Instruction, the Example of Christ. In this Confession he did not disown any of his Tenets; but, not thinking it safe or adviseable openly to own them, he industriously declined explaining himself more distinctly on either of the above-mentioned Heads.|which he approves of,|Zosimus, however, fully satisfied with his Confession, and quite astonished (to use his own Words) at the rash Proceedings of theAfricanBishops, in condemning, as Heretics, Men whose Doctrine was so sound and orthodox, immediately transmitted toAureliusofCarthage, and his Collegues inAfrica, the Confession as well as the Letter which had been sent him byPelagius. On this Occasion he writ himself a second Letter to theAfricanBishops, which we may justly style a Panegyric onPelagiusandCælestius, and a bitter Invective against their Accusers,HerosandLazarus.|and censures theAfricanBishops forcondemning him.|This Letter he concludes with exhorting the Bishops ofAfricato the Love of Peace and Unity, and condemning, as guilty of an Injustice unknown even to the PaganRomans, those who gave Judgment in the Absence of the Persons accused, what Crimes soever were laid to their Charge[1518], as I have observed above.
TheAfricanBishopsmaintain their formerJudgment.
TheAfricanBishops were no less surprised to findZosimusso warmly engaged in favour ofPelagiusandCælestius, thanZosimuswas surprised at their having condemned them. However, they were determined to stand to the Judgment which they had given, though sensible that such a Determination would not fail to produce, ifZosimusdid not yield, a Misunderstanding, and perhaps an intire Separation, betweenRomeandAfrica. This St.Austinseems chiefly to have apprehended, and to have been resolved, if it should so happen, to abdicate and retire[1519]. To prevent this Evil, which would have proved very detrimental to the common Cause, many Letters passed betweenRomeandAfrica[1520]: but as none of those that were written at this Juncture by theAfricanBishops have reached our Times, having been probably destroyed by those whose Interest it was to destroy them; all we know concerning this Affair is, that theAfricansmaintained, with great Steadiness, their former Judgment against the Pretensions ofZosimus; and would never allow a Cause, that had been determined inAfrica, to be re-examined atRome, the rather asInnocent, the Predecessor ofZosimus, had concurred with them in condemning bothCælestiusand his Doctrine[1521].|Paulinus,summoned toRome,refuses toobey the Summons.|The Letter fromZosimusto theAfricanBishops was carried by oneBasilius, Subdeacon ofRome, who was charged with a verbal Order for the DeaconPaulinus, the first who accusedCælestius, to repair toRome. To this SummonsPaulinusreturned Answer, that as the Bishops ofAfricahad condemnedCælestiusupon his Accusation, it was no longer incumbent upon him, but upon them, to shew that his Accusation was well grounded; and therefore he could not conceive whyZosimusshould require him to take a Journey toRome[1522].
The Council ofCarthagecondemnsanew thePelagianDoctrine withoutwaiting for the Judg-ment ofZosimus.
In the mean timeAureliusofCarthagewas under the greatest Apprehension, lestZosimusshould be prevailed upon byCælestius, and the otherPelagiansatRome, to take some hasty Step in their favour. Having therefore assembled, with all possible Expedition, a Council atCarthage, he first writ, in his own and their Name, toZosimus, earnestly intreating him to suspend all further Proceedings in an Affair of such Moment, till he was more fully informed. This Letter was written, and a Messenger dispatched with it toRome, while the Council was yet very thin; the HasteAureliuswas in to stop the Proceedings ofZosimusnot allowing him to wait the Arrival of all. Whenthe rest came, and they were in all Two hundred and Fourteen, they unanimously confirmed their former Sentence, and, without waiting for the Judgment ofZosimus, condemned anew the Doctrine ofPelagiusandCælestius[1523]. The Decrees which they made on this Occasion against thePelagianswere received, saysProsper, byRome, by the Emperors, no doubt,HonoriusandArcadius, and by the whole World[1524]. And yet, in the making of these Decrees, the Bishop ofRomehad no Hand; so that it was notRome, butAfrica, it was not the Pope, but the Bishops ofAfrica, or more truly St.Austin(for he governed intirely that Council), who taught the Church what she was to believe, and what disbelieve, concerningGraceand Original Sin. One of these Decrees is related byProsper[1525], wherein the Two hundred and Fourteen Bishops declare, thatwe are aided by Grace, not only in the Knowlege, but in the Practice, of Virtue; and that without it we can neither think, speak, or do any thing whatsoever that is pious or holy[1526]. This, and the other Decrees of the Council, were sent immediately toRomeby the Fathers, who composed them, with a Letter forZosimus, declaring that they were determined to adhere to the Judgment, which his PredecessorInnocenthad formerly given againstPelagiusandCælestius, till such time as both owned, and in the most plain and unexceptionable Terms, the Necessity of Grace, and abjured the opposite Doctrine.|The Policy of theAfricanBishops.|It was the Effect of a refined Policy in theAfricanBishops not to mention their own Judgment, but to lay the whole Stress on that ofInnocent, though his was not only preceded, but produced, or rather extorted, by theirs. They hoped that the Regard, which they pretended to have forInnocent, would bringZosimusto a better Temper, and divert him from absolving those whom his Predecessor had so lately condemned. AsZosimushad reproached them in his Letter for believing too easily those who had appeared againstCælestius, they in their turn represented to him, that he ought not so easily to have believedCælestius, and those who spoke in his Favour. In the same Letter they gave him a particular Account of all that had passed inAfricaconcerningCælestius. No wonder therefore, thatZosimusshould have complained of the Length of the Letter, calling it a Volume, and saying,[1527]thathe had got through it at last. With this LetterMarcellinus, Subdeacon of the Church ofCarthage, was dispatched toRome, and he arrived there in the Beginning ofMarch418.
Zosimusbegins toyield.
Zosimuswas alarmed at the Steadiness of theAfricans. He plainly saw from their Letter, and more plainly from their Decrees, that they were determined not to yield; and therefore, apprehending the evil Consequences that would infallibly attend his continuing to protectPelagiusandCælestiusagainst them, he resolved to yield, and withdraw, by Degrees, his Protection from both.|His boasting Letter totheAfricanBishops.|Hence, in his Answer to the Council, he contented himself with setting forth and boasting the Pre-eminence, Authority, and Prerogatives of the Apostolic See; which however, more modest than his Predecessor, he did not ascribe to Divine Institution, but to the Canons of the Church, and Prescription. He tells theAfricanBishops, that though he is vested with a Power of judging all Causes, though his Judgment is irreversible, yet he had chosen to determine nothing without having first consulted them; and this he dwells upon as an extraordinary Favour. He expresses great Surprize at their seeming to be persuaded, that he had given an intire Credit toCælestius; assures them that he had not been so hasty, being well apprised that the last and definitive Judgment ought not to be given but with the greatest Caution, and after the most mature Deliberation; and in the Close of his Letter lets them know, that, upon the Receipt of their first Letter, he had suspended all further Proceedings; and, to gratify them, left Things in the State they were in before[1528].
The Doctrine ofPel-agiuscondemned againin a Council atCarthage.
In the mean time theAfricanBishops, assembling in Council atCarthage, from all the Provinces ofAfrica, and some even fromSpain, the more effectually to oppose and defeat any further Attempts ofZosimus, in favour ofPelagiusandCælestius, condemned their Doctrine anew, and more distinctly than they had hitherto done. This Council met on the 1st ofMay418. consisted of 225 Bishops, and enacted Eight Canons, anathematizing thePelagianDoctrine concerning Grace and Original Sin[1529]. To these Eight Canons they added Ten more, calculated to establish some Points of Discipline. Among the latter the Ninth deserves particular Notice; for it is there decreed, That Presbyters, Deacons, and inferior Clerks, if they complain ofthe Judgment of their own Bishop, may appeal, with his Consent, to the neighbouring Bishops, and from them to the Primate or Council ofAfrica.|Appeals beyond Seaforbidden by theCouncil, on Pain ofExcommunication.|But, if any one should presume, say they,to appeal beyond Sea, let no Man receive him to his Communion[1530]. To this DecreeGratianhas added, to save the Jurisdiction of the Pope,unless they appeal to the See ofRome; than which nothing can be more absurd, since it was to restrain the encroaching Power of the See ofRomethat this Canon was made. We must not forget, that St.Austinwas present at this Council, and signed this, as well as the other Canons and Decrees, that were, on this Occasion, enacted by the 225 Bishops.
Law enacted byHonoriusagainst thePelagians.
TheAfricanshad dispatched, the Year before, the BishopVindemialisto the Court ofHonorius, with the Decrees of the Council held againstPelagius, of which I have spoken above. And those Decrees the Emperor not only approved, but enacted this Year 418. a severe Law against thePelagians, dated fromRavenna, the 30th ofApril, and addressed toPalladiusthenPræfectus Prætorio.Honoriusthere declares, he had been informed, thatPelagiusandCælestiustaught, in Opposition to the Authority of the Catholic Church, that God had created the first Man mortal; that he would have died, whether he had or had not sinned; that his Sin did not pass to his Descendents; and several other impious Errors, that disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church. To put a Stop therefore to the growing Evil, he commandsPelagiusandCælestiusto be driven fromRome; orders it to be every-where notified, that all Persons shall be admitted before the Magistrates, as Informers against those who are suspected of holding their wicked Doctrines; and such as are found guilty shall be sent into Exile[1531]. In virtue of this Law, an Order was issued by thePræfecti Prætorio,viz.byJunius Quartus PalladiusPrefect ofItaly,MonaxiusPrefect of the East, andAgricolaPrefect ofGaul, commandingPelagiusandCælestiusto be driven out ofRome, and the Accomplices of their Errors to be stript of their Estates, and condemned to perpetual Banishment[1532]. A most barbarous Treatment for holding Opinions, which, if erroneous, were certainly harmless. But it is usual for a persecuting Spirit to be asviolent upon the most unessential as the most weighty Points: and the Rage of Disputation is never more keen, than when the Disputants can hardly define what they quarrel about; especially when the Sword of the Magistrate is drawn on that Side which has least to say for itself in Reason and Argument. I do not affirm this was the Case in the present Dispute; but this is certain, that ifPelagiuswent too far in his Opinion, so did his Opposers in theirs: and so far his Conduct was infinitely better than theirs, that he declared his own Notions to be Matters very indifferent to Catholic Faith, and professed a general Assent to that Faith; whereas they anathematized his Opinions as execrable Errors, and punished them with all the Severity that the most implacable Malice could exert[N62].
ZosimussummonsCælestiusto appearbefore him, and tocondemn his Doctrine.
PelagiusandCælestiusbeing thus condemned by the Decrees of theAfricanBishops, by the Law of the Emperor, and even by the Voice of the People, or rather of the Populace, who were everywhere ready, but no-where more than atRome, to rise against theEnemies of Grace, as they were styled, and their Abetters;Zosimusthought it not safe to afford them any further Protection, unlessCælestius, who was still atRome(the Imperial Law not being yet published there), consented to anathematize the Doctrines ascribed to him andPelagius, in such clear and precise Terms as should leave no room, even for his Enemies, to question his Sincerity. He therefore appointed a Day for theRomanClergy, and the neighbouring Bishops, to assemble; and, acquaintingCælestiuswith this Resolution, he summoned him to appear at the Time appointed, that, by condemning whatever he should be required to condemn, he might be publicly restored to the Communion of the Church, from which he had been cut off by theAfricanBishops.|Cælestiusinstead ofappearing retiresfromRome.|Cælestiuswas greatly perplexed with this Summons: he conceived it impossible to dissemble any longer his real Sentiments; but, at the same time, thinking it base to renounce them, and foreseeing the Consequences that would infallibly attend his avowing them, after he had been long in Suspense what Expedient to resolve on, he concluded at last, that the best and safest was, privately to withdraw fromRome, and keep himself concealed till the present Storm was blown over. This Expedient he chose, and put it in Execution with such Secrecy, that hewas no more heard of till Three Years after, when he appeared again inRome[1533].
Zosimuscondemnsthe Confession, whichhe had approved be-fore.
ExcommunicatesPel-agiusandCælestius;
In the mean time the appointed Day came; butCælestiusdid not appear: he was summoned a new, and the Proceedings were adjourned for a few Days; but as he still absented himself, and no Tidings could be heard of him,Zosimuswas so provoked in seeing himself thus deluded, that, without further Examination, he condemned the Confession of Faith, which he had approved before; confirmed the Sentence of theAfricans, which he had so sharply censured; and, anathematizing the Doctrine both ofPelagiusandCælestius, declared the one and the other cut off from the Communion of the Church, if they did not publicly renounce and abjurethe poisonous Tenets of their impious and abominable Sect[1534]. He did not stop here; but, to retrieve his Reputation, which had suffered greatly on this Occasion, and to atone by an opposite Zeal, for that which he had hitherto exerted in their Favour, he writ a long circular Letter to all the Bishops, anathematizing the Doctrine ofPelagius, and exhorting them to follow his Example.|and writes a circularLetter against them.|Copies of this Letter were sent into all the Provinces of the Christian World, and out of so great a Number of Bishops Eighteen only were found, who refused to receive it, and confirm, with their Subscriptions, the Anathemas it contained[1535].
Some Bishops refuseto sign it,
and send a Confes-sion of their Faith to-Zosimus.
As for the Eighteen Bishops, who refused to join the rest, they alleged, that they could not, in Conscience, condemn any Man in his Absence, and that it was but just they should first hear what he had to plead in his Defence, quoting to that Purpose the very Passages of Scripture whichZosimushad quoted in his Letter to theAfricans, censuring them for condemningPelagiusin his Absence. They added, that, as forPelagiusandCælestius, they had both condemned, in their Writings, the Errors imputed to them; and therefore did not deserve, in their Opinion, the Anathemas thatRomeandAfricahad, perhaps too hastily, thundered against them.Julian, Bishop ofEclanainCampania, one of the Eighteen, and the most distinguished among them, writ Two Letters on this Subject toZosimus, one of which was signed by them all, and contained aConfession of their Faith, agreeing, in the most material Points, with the Confessions ofPelagiusandCælestius. For there they absolutely reject, and in the strongest Terms, Original Sin, under the Name ofNatural Sin; but allow (and in this Article alone they differ fromPelagius) that by the Sin ofAdamDeath was let into the World. They intreatZosimusto acquaint them with what should be found amiss in their Confession; but beg that he would not think of employing Force, since no Force, but that of Conviction, could produce in them a Change of Sentiments. They let him know, in the End of their Letter, that they have already appealed to the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1536].|They are condemned anddegraded byZosimus.|Zosimuswas so provoked at this Appeal, that, upon the Receipt of the Letter, he assembled, in great Haste, a Council, consisting of theRomanClergy, and the neighbouring Bishops; and, having caused the Letter to be read in their Presence, he condemned anewPelagiusandCælestius, and with themJulian, and the other Bishops, who signed it, declaring them guilty of the same Errors, and in Consequence thereof degraded, as incorrigible Heretics, from the Episcopal Dignity.|They recur to the Emp-eror for a General Coun-cil.|The Prelates, thus degraded, had recourse to the EmperorHonorius, complaining of the undeserved Severity ofZosimus, and intreating him to convene, by his Authority, an Oecumenical Council, to the Judgment of which they were ready to submit both themselves and their Doctrine. The Emperor seemed at first inclined to grant them their Request. But CountValerius, a great Friend of St.Austin, and then very powerful at Court, not only divertedHonoriusfrom it, but prevailed upon him to enact a Law, banishing fromItalyJulian, and with him all the Bishops, whomZosimushad deposed[1537].|Who issues severalLaws against them.|This Law was soon followed by another, commanding all Bishops to sign the Condemnation ofPelagiusandCælestius, on Pain of Deposition, and perpetual Banishment[1538]. ThePelagiansinterpreted their being refused a Council, as a Token of Victory; whenceJulian, in a Letter which he writ to his Friends inRome, insults his Adversaries, as if they had distrusted their Cause, and therefore declined the Judgment of an Oecumenical Council[1539]. In another Place he reproaches St.Austin, in particular, for courting the Friendship of Men in Power, especially of CountValerius, with no other View but to crush, by their means,those whom he could not convince. St.Austinanswered,That Recourse indeed had been had to Men in Power; but that thePelagiansought rather to be thankful, than to complain, on that Score, since it was not to crush them, or to do them the least Hurt(for they were only driven from their Sees, and banished for Life),that the Interest and Power of great Men had been made use of, but merely to reclaim them from their sacrilegious Temerity[1540]. Might not aDecius, aDioclesian, or any other Persecutor of the Church, have used the same Plea to justify his Persecution?
ThePelagianDoctrinecondemned by TwoCouncils in the East.
About this time, that is, in the Latter-end of the Year 418. or the Beginning of 419. the Doctrine ofPelagiuswas condemned in a Council held atAntioch, at which presidedTheodotiusBishop of that City; and in another, that met about the Year 421. inCilicia, under the famousTheodorusofMopsuestia, who had been hitherto an avowed Patron of thePelagians, had receivedJulianwhen driven out ofItaly, and even written a Book against St.Austin, in Defence of thePelagianDoctrine[1541]. His Conversion was perhaps owing, as that of many others certainly was, to the severe Laws enacted against thePelagians. Soon after the Council ofAntioch,Pelagius, whomJeromstyles theSecond Catiline, was driven fromJerusalem, where he had lived a long time, and obliged to fly to some other Place for Shelter[1542]. Whither he retired, or what became of him afterwards, is not recorded. St.Austinsupposes both him andCælestiusto have been still alive, while he was writing againstJulian, that is, about the Year 421[1543].|Pelagiusdriven fromJerusalem.|As forCælestius, it appears from a Rescript, or rather a Letter, of the EmperorConstantiustoVolusianus, Prefect ofRome, in 421. that he was then in that City.|Cælestiusreturns toRome.|ForConstantiuswrites toVolusianus, that though he had enacted some Laws against the antient as well as the modern Heresies, yet he was informed, that they made daily great Progress; and therefore, to prevent the Disturbances that must arise from thence, he commands the Laws to be put in Execution, and the Enemies of the true Religion to be carefully sought for, especiallyCælestius, and to be banished, if apprehended, an Hundred Miles fromRome.|Law issued againsthim.|To this Letter the Emperor added, with his own Hand, by way of Postscript, that the Reputation ofVolusianusdepended on the punctual Execution of this Order[1544]. In Obedience to the Emperor’s Commands,Volusianusissued a Proclamation,banishingCælestiusan Hundred Miles fromRome, and threatening with Proscription all who should presume to conceal him[1545].Cælestiushowever appeared again inRomeThree Years after, and even applied toCælestine, then in that See, to have his Cause examined anew.Is banished allItaly. ButCælestine, rejecting his Request with Indignation, caused him to be banished allItaly[1546]. FromRomehe repaired toConstantinople, withJulian, and the other Bishops of thePelagianParty, who all met there with a more kind Reception.|Is driven fromConstantinopletogether withJulian,and the otherPelagianBishops.|The EmperorTheodosiusthe younger was even inclined to assemble, at their Request, a great Council; andNestorius, then Bishop ofConstantinople, writ to the Pope in their Favour. But, in the mean time,Marius Mercatorhaving composed, and presented to the Emperor, a Memorial against them, they were ordered byTheodosius, in virtue of that Memorial, to depart the City[1547]. OfCælestiusno farther Mention is made by any of the Antients. As forJulian, he wandered, for several Years, from Place to Place, being every-where abhorred, detested, and driven out by the Populace, as if his Presence had been enough to draw down from Heaven some remarkable Judgment upon them.|Juliandies inSicily.|However, he found an Asylum at last in a small Village ofSicily, where he earned a Livelihood by keeping a School, till the Year 455. when he died, after he had divested himself of all he had, to relieve the Poor of the Place in a great Famine[1548]. He was a Man of a sprightly Genius, thoroughly acquainted with the Scriptures, well versed in all the Branches of polite Literature, especially in theGreekandLatinPoets, and once famous among the Doctors of the Church[1549].|His Birth, Education, &c.|He was descended from an illustrious Family. His Father was anItalianBishop, for whom St.Austin, notwithstanding his irreconcileable Aversion to the Son, professed the greatest Friendship and Veneration[1550]. His Mother was a Lady of the first Quality, and yet more commendable for her Virtue than her Birth[1551]. His Enemies, envying him even his noble Descent, strove to rob him of that Honour, small as it is, in Comparison of his other Endowments, by giving out, that he was a supposititious Child[1552]. He was admitted by his Father among the Clergy, when he was yet very young, and married, when he was of a more mature Age, to a Lady namedJa, of a Senatorial, nay, of theÆmilianFamily, and theDaughter ofÆmiliusBishop ofBenevento[1553]. St.Paulinus, Bishop ofNola, did not think it beneath him to write an Epithalamium on this Occasion, of a most singular kind; for he advises him and his Bride to continue Virgins, and observe Continency[1554]. A very extraordinary Advice on a Wedding-Day! That the married Couple agreed to it then, we are not told; but, not long after, probably on the Death of his Wife,Julianbound himself to the Observance of Continency; for he was ordained Deacon, and soon after raised to the See ofEclana[1555]. He had, long before, embraced thePelagianDoctrine; and was so fully convinced of the Truth of it, that he often declared, ifPelagiushimself should renounce his Doctrine, yet he would not[1556]. These Sentiments he maintained to the last, chusing rather to be driven from his See, and deprived of all the Comforts of Life, than to abjure Opinions, which he thought true, or admit Opinions, which he thought false. He was buried in the Place where he died; and his Tomb was discovered in the Ninth Century, with the following Epitaph;Here rests in PeaceJuliana Catholic Bishop. From this Epitaph some have concluded, that he renounced at last thePelagianDoctrine, and died a good Catholic. But they were not, it seems, aware, that thePelagiansconstantly styled themselves Catholics, stigmatizing St.Austin, and the rest who opposed them, with the Name ofManichees.
TheSemipelagianDoctrine.
Julianis supposed to have dissented in some Points fromPelagius, in those especially that relate to Grace, and thereby to have introduced, or laid down such Principles as naturally tended to introduce, theSemipelagianDoctrine; which may be reduced to the following Heads: 1. That when the Truth has been sufficiently declared, we may, by our own Free-will, without the Help of preventing Grace, begin to believe it; so that the first Beginning of our Faith cannot be properly calleda Gift of God, but,our own Act. 2. That for all other good Works Grace is necessary (and here they differed from thePelagians); but is never denied to a Man, who, by the good Use of his Free-will, has begun to believe. Thus, according to them, Grace was the Reward of Faith, and not Faith the Effect of Grace, which was the Doctrine of St.Austin. 3. That, by Grace preceding our Merits, no more can be meant, than the natural Grace and Bounty of God, given to Man in his Reason, and thenatural Faculties of his Soul; by the good Use of which, he may render himself worthy of the extraordinary Grace that is necessary for him to work out his Salvation. 4. That the Children who die before they attain to the Years of Discretion, are eternally rewarded or punished, according to the good or bad Life they would have led, had they attained to the Years of Discretion. A most impious Tenet! making God punish Sins with eternal Misery that were never committed: yet not quite so impious as that of St.Austin; who, without having recourse to the Supposition of Crimes foreseen, supposed innocent Children to be eternally damned for a Crime committed byAdam, if, by the Fault of their Parents, they were not baptized. Other Tenets of theSemipelagianswere these: 5. That the Notion of Election and Reprobation, independent on our Merits or Demerits, is maintaining a fatal Necessity, is the Bane of all Virtue, and serves only to render good Men remiss in working out their Salvation, and to drive Sinners to Despair.|The System of theJesuitsfounded on theSemipelagianDoctrine.|6. That the Decrees of Election and Reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of our good or evil Works, as foreseen by God from all Eternity. On these Two last Propositions theJesuitsfound their whole System ofGraceand Free-will, agreeing therein with theSemipelagiansagainst theJansenistsand St.Austin; though, not daring to contradictthe Doctor of Grace, as he is styled, they pretend their Doctrine, and not that of theJansenists, to be the true Doctrine of St.Austin; which has occasioned endless Disputes, and endless Volumes. The latter Popes have all favoured theSemipelagiansorJesuitsagainst theJansenistsand St.Austin; andClementXI. above all the rest, by his famous BullUnigenitus. But the Popes who lived nearer those Times, especiallyGelasiusandHormisda, were all zealous Asserters of the Doctrine of St.Austin; nay,Hormisdadeclared the Doctrine contained in the Books of that Father, namely, in those he writ onPredestinationandPerseverance, to be the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which was declaring every true Catholic to be aPredestinarian[1557]. For the Doctrine of Predestination (as Predestination has been since understood byCalvinand his Followers) is there laid down in the plainest Terms; which so shocked some Persons, otherwise eminent for their Piety, sayProsperandHilarius[1558], that they could not help censuring it, as a Doctrine repugnant to the Sense ofthe Church, and the Fathers; nay, as a Doctrine, which, were it even true, ought not to be made public, since it was not necessary that Men should know it; and if they did, it would render all Exhortations to good Works vain and useless[1559]. But these, say theJesuits, pretending their System to be the pure Doctrine of St.Austin, misunderstood that Father, as didFaustusthe famous Abbot ofLerins, when he writ,That if it be true, that some are predestined to Life, and others to Destruction, as a certain holy Man(St.Austin)has said, we are not born to be judged, but we are judged before we are born; so that there can be no Equity in the Day of Judgment[1560]. To speak impartially, it is no easy Matter to determine what System St.Austinhad formed to himself, with respect to Grace, Free-will, and Predestination: for, in one Place, he seems to reject and condemn what he had been labouring to prove and establish in another. HenceJulian, whose Understanding was far more methodical, used often to quote him against himself, as theJesuitsandJansenistsstill do in maintaining their Systems, though diametrically opposite, to be intirely agreeable to his Doctrine. He was apt to run into Extremes, and, in confuting one Error, to lay a Foundation for many others. Hence even his greatest Admirers are often at a Loss how to make him agree either with the Church or himself. However, his great Knowlege in those Days, his extraordinary Zeal for what he called the Catholic Doctrine, and, above all, his heaping daily Volumes upon Volumes against all who opposed it, so dazled the Understandings of the Popes themselves, that, looking upon him as an inspired Writer, they suffered him to dictate even to them, as if he had been Pope, and they common Bishops; as if Infallibility had been transferred fromRometoHippo, and no longer vested in them, but in him.