The Ceremony ofanointing the Sickwith Oil.

The last Article ofInnocent’s Letter relates to the Ceremony of anointing the Sick with Oil, agreeably to that of St.James,Is any sick among you, &c.[1463]? As the Apostle directs the Faithful tocall for the Elders of the Church; some took from thence Occasion to question whether Bishops were impowered to perform that Ceremony. Innocent therefore answersDecentius, who had proposed the Question, that there can be no room to doubt whether or no the Bishops have such a Power, since the Priests can have none, which the Bishops have not, of whom they receive all their Power. It is true, saysInnocent, that St.Jamesordered the Faithful to call for the Elders, and not for the Bishops; but that was because he knew that the Bishops could not have so much Leisure from other important Duties as the Priests. He adds, that this Unction must not be applied to Penitents; that the Oil used in it must be blessed by the Bishop; and when it is thus blessed, not the Presbyters only, but all the Faithful, may anoint with it both themselves and others. The Power of anointing, St.Jamesconfined to the Elders or Priests, and that is the present Doctrine of the Church ofRome, thoughInnocentextended such a Power to all the Faithful. This Ceremony, now known by the Name ofExtreme Unction, was, inInnocent’s Time,a kind of Sacrament; for so he styles it[1464]. But it is now a trueSacrament, and such it was declared by the Council ofTrent[1465].

Letters from theCouncils ofCarthageandMilevumtoInnocent.

In the Year 416.Innocentreceived Three Letters from theAfricanBishops;viz.one from the Bishops ofAfrica, properly so called, assembled atCarthage; another from those ofNumidia, assembled atMilevum; and a Third from St.Austin, signed by him and Four other Bishops. The Two Councils writ to acquaintInnocent, that they had condemnedPelagiusand his DiscipleCælestius, of whose Opinions I shall speak hereafter, and desire him to add the Authority of the Apostolic See to their Decrees. The Letter from St.Austin, and the Four other Bishops, was to informInnocent, in a friendly manner, that he was suspected of countenancing those Heretics, and favouring their Doctrine. This Suspicion they themselves seem not to havethought quite groundless: forPossidius, one of the Bishops who subscribed the Letter, writes, that theAfricanBishops took a great deal of Pains to convinceInnocent, and his SuccessorZosimus, that the Doctrine ofPelagiuswas erroneous and heretical, knowing that his Followers were striving to infect the Apostolic See itself with their poisonous Tenets[1466]. They strove in vain, saysBaronius; and perhaps they did; but theAfricanBishops had never taken so much Pains to guard the Apostolic See against that Infection, had they not thought it capable of being infected. The Five Bishops sent toInnocent, together with their Letter, St.Austin’s Answer to a Letter which he had received fromPelagius, his Confutation of a Book composed by that Heretic, and the Book itself, with the Passages marked in it that gave most Offence, and claimed a particular Attention, lest he should overlook them[1467]. This was not treating him as an infallible Judge[N58].

N58.Baroniusobserves here, that their informing him by a private Letter, and not by a public one from the Council, of the Suspicions that some entertained of him, was a Mark of the great Respect and Veneration, they had for the Bishop ofRome, whose Nakedness they were unwilling, as it became dutiful Children, to expose to the Eyes of the World[1]. And who toldBaronius, that, in the like Circumstances, they would not have shewn the same Respect for any other Bishop? He had better have observed, and the Observation is more obvious, that his being suspected at all evidently proves theInfallibilityof the Apostolic See not to have been, in those Days, an Article of the Catholic Faith.1. Bar. ad ann. 416. n. 11.

1. Bar. ad ann. 416. n. 11.

Innocent’s Answer tothe Councils.

The Letters from the Council ofCarthage, from that ofMilevum, and from the Five Bishops, were brought toRomebyJulius, Bishop of some City inAfrica; and, by the sameJulius,Innocentanswered them with Three Letters, all dated the 27th ofJanuaryof the Year 417. The First, which is addressed toAurelius, probably Bishop ofCarthage, and to the other Bishops of that Assembly, he begins with commending them for their Zeal, their Pastoral Vigilance, and the Regard they had shewn for theApostolic See.|He claims the first a Divine Right of finallydecidingdecidingall Controversies.|He thence takes an Opportunity to resume his usual and favourite Subject, the Dignity, Pre-eminence, and Authority of that See; roundly asserting, thatall Ecclesiastical Matters throughout the World are, by Divine Right, to be referred to the Apostolic See, before they are finally decided in the Provinces. This was indeed a very bold Claim, and a direct asserting to himself the Universal Supremacy attained by his Successors. But it was yet tooearly for such a Claim to be granted; and it is plain theAfricanBishops had no Idea of this Divine Right. For, had they entertained any such Notion, they surely would never have presumed finally to condemn and anathematize, as they did,PelagiusandCælestius, without consulting at least the Apostolic See: neither would they have written toInnocentin the Style they did, after they had condemned them: for, in their Letter, they did not leave him at Liberty to approve or disapprove of what they had done; but only desire him to join his Authority to theirs, which they well knew he could not refuse to do, without confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing thePelagians, and their Doctrine.|Which is not ac-knowledged by theAf-ricannor theNumidianBishops.|We have anathematizedPelagiusand Cælestius, say the Fathers of the Council ofCarthage,and thought fit to acquaint you with it, that to the Decrees of our Mediocrity might be added the Authority of the Apostolic See. This is a modest Style, and respectful to the See ofRome; but it is that of Men who plainly thought they had a Right to act in this Matter, by their own Judgment and Power, without waiting for the Award of that See, as they ought to have done, is they had allowed ofInnocent’s Claim. In like manner the Council ofMilevum, after informingInnocentof the Sentence, which they had pronounced against the Two above-mentioned Heretics, adds;And this Error and Impiety, which has every-where so many Followers and Abetters, ought also to be anathematized and condemned by the Apostolic See[1468]; which was puttingInnocentin mind of what he ought to do, and not consulting him what they should do.|An Instance ofIn-nocent’s great Subtletyand Address.|This Conduct of theAfricanBishops gaveInnocentno small Uneasiness. He was at a Loss what to do at so critical a Juncture. For to approve of a Conduct, so derogatory to the pretended Dignity of his See, was giving up his Claim to theDivine Rightof finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies. To disapprove it, was confirming the Suspicion of his countenancing the Doctrine which they had condemned. ButInnocentwas a Man of great Subtlety and Address; and he found out, at last, an Expedient to extricate himself out of that Perplexity, and gratify the Fathers of both Councils, without either approving or condemning their past Conduct. The only thing they required of him was to join his Authority with theirs, in condemning thePelagianHeresy; and thathe readily did. But, lest in so doing he should seem to approve of their having condemned it without first consulting him, in his Answer to their Letters, he supposes them to have actually consulted him; nay, to have referred to him the final Decision of that Controversy; and, agreeably to that Supposition, he commends them for the Deference they had thereby shewn to the Apostolic See.You have well observed, says he,the Ordinances of the antient Fathers, and not trampled under-foot what they, not in human Wisdom, but by Divine Order, have established; viz.That whatever is done in Places, however remote, should, for a final Conclusion, be referred to the Apostolic See. And again,You have had due Regard to the Honour of the Apostolic See, I mean of him who has the Charge and Care of all Churches, in consulting him in these Perplexities, and intricate Cases[1469]. Thus didInnocentmaintain his Claim, and, at the same time, avoid quarrelling, at an improper Season, with those who had acted in direct Opposition to it. A necessary Policy in the first setting up of such extravagant and groundless Pretensions.

He excommunicatesCælestiusandPelag-ius.

In the present Letter he not only approves of the Judgment given againstPelagiusandCælestiusby theAfricanBishops, but alleges several Reasons in Confutation of the Doctrines they taught; and concludes, by declaring them cut off from the Communion of the Church, agreeably to the Sentence of theAfricanBishops, as Men not only unworthy of that Communion, but of human Society, and even of Life[1470]. The same things he repeats in his Answer to the Bishops ofNumidia; but he seems there to have been sensible, upon a more cool Consideration, that, in his Letter to the Council ofCarthage, he had strained his Prerogative too high; and therefore in this he confines to Matters ofFaiththe general Maxim, which he had laid down, concerning the Obligation of referring all Ecclesiastical Matters, for a final Decision, to the Apostolic See. In the same Letter he endeavours to confute, in particular, the Doctrine ofPelagius, allowing Children, who die without Baptism, to partake of eternal Life[1471]. In his Answer to the Five Bishops, he refers them for his real Sentiments, concerning the Doctrine ofPelagius, to the other Two Letters, adding, that he had read the Book ofPelagius, which theyhad sent him, and found nothing in it that he liked, or rather that he did not dislike[1472][N59].

N59. That thePelagianHeresy was first condemned by theAfricanBishops, is a Fact so well attested, that one would think it impossible it should ever have come into any Man’s Thoughts to call it in question. And yetBaronius, upon the Authority of a very doubtful Passage out of St.Prosper, a contemporary Writer, roundly asserts that Heresy to have been first condemned, not by theAfricanBishops, but byInnocent[1]. The Words ofProsperare:--Pestem subeuntem prima recidit sedes Roma Petri[2]. These Words are variously interpreted by the Learned; but all agree in rejecting the Interpretation ofBaronius, as making[3]Prospercontradict a known Truth.1. Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 26.2. Prosp. de Ingratis, l. 1. c. 2.3. Vide Jansenium de Hær. Pelag. p. 16. Merc. t. 1. p. 9.

1. Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 26.2. Prosp. de Ingratis, l. 1. c. 2.

1. Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 26.

2. Prosp. de Ingratis, l. 1. c. 2.

3. Vide Jansenium de Hær. Pelag. p. 16. Merc. t. 1. p. 9.

Cælestiuscondemned bytheAfricanBi-shops, notwithstandinghis Appeal toRome.

Cælestiushad been condemned by a Council held atCarthagein the Year 412. and probably consisting of the same Bishops who composed that of the Year 416. From their Sentence he appealed, asBaroniusobserves[1473], to the See ofRome, summoning his AccuserPaulinusto appear at the same Tribunal. But all we can infer from thence is, that eitherInnocentdid not receive the Appeal, or, if he did, that theAfricanBishops made no Account of it, since they condemned him anew, without waiting for the Judgment ofInnocent, to whom he had appealed.

Innocent’s Letter toJerom.

Innocentwrit Two Letters more, a little before his Death, one of which was to St.Jerom, comforting him in his Distress. For some who favouredPelagius, provoked atJerom’s repeated Invectives against him, had set Fire to his Monastery atBethlehem, and burnt it down to the Ground, agreeably to the Spirit and Methods in which religious Controversies were now carried on. Their Design was to have burntJeromhimself; but he had the good Luck to escape out of the Flames, and save himself in a strong Tower. The Two noble Virgins,Eustochiumand her NiecePaula, who led a retired Life under the Direction ofJerom, met with no better Treatment. For those Fanatics, breaking into the House where they lived, beat some of their Attendants in their Presence, killed others, and threatened them with Fire and Destruction. With this they acquaintedInnocent, who thereupon writ toJerom, offering to exertthe whole Authority of the Apostolic Seeagainst the Authors of such Excesses, provided he knew who they were: for the Two Virgins had concealed their Names, probably to prevent his exerting that Authority, which they had Reason to apprehend would be attended with greater Evils.

Innocentadds, that so long as the Authors and Promoters of those unheard of Barbarities are unknown, he can only condole with those who have suffered by them; but, if they were accused in due Form, at his Tribunal, he would not fail to appoint proper Judges to try them; which, by the way, he had no Right to do.

His Letter toJohnofJerusalem.

Innocent’s other Letter is toJohnBishop ofJerusalem, who hatedJeromon account of his Inveteracy againstOrigen, and was suspected to connive at the cruel Treatment he and his Followers had met with. Him thereforeInnocentreprimands very severely, for suffering such enormous Abuses within the Limits of his Jurisdiction. In his Letter he gives him the Title ofwell-beloved Brother; but, at the same time, treats him with more Haughtiness than was becoming even in a Superior, though he neither had, nor could claim by the Canons, any kind of Jurisdiction or Authority over him.

Innocentdies.

These LettersInnocentwrit in the Latter-end ofJanuary, and died on the 12th ofMarchof the same Year 417. having governed theRomanChurch near Fifteen Years; for his PredecessorAnastasiusdied on the 27th ofApril402. and he was chosen soon after his Decease, as I have observed above. He was generally esteemed a Man of good Parts, and well acquainted with the Laws and Traditions of the Church.|The See ofRomegreatly indebted tohim for its Grandeur.|Hence he was frequently consulted by the Western, and sometimes by the Eastern Bishops, in Points both of Faith and Discipline. Of this general Esteem, and the Deference that was thereupon paid to his Decisions, he took Advantage to lay down, with an Air of Authority, and as undoubted Truths, many false, groundless, and dangerous Maxims, all tending to the Diminution of the Episcopal Power, and the Advancement of the Papal.The Dignity of the Apostolic Seewas, as we have seen, the Burden of almost all his Letters; he even improved it into a Claim of Supremacy; and we may say, with great Truth, that to him the See ofRomewas more indebted for the Grandeur it afterwards gained, than to all his Predecessors together. He formed the Plan of that Spiritual Monarchy, which they, by constant Application, established at last, in spite of the many almost insurmountable Difficulties, which they had to contend with. He was the first who, changing the antient Foundation of the Primacy, claimed it as the Successor of St.Peter,the Prince of the Apostles, as he is styled, and not as the Bishop of the first City, though on that Consideration alone it had been granted bythe Councils. I saidPrimacy, because the WordSupremacywas utterly unknown in those Days. The Council ofSardica, held in the Year 347. had allowed, in some Cases, and under several Restrictions, Appeals to be made to the See ofRome, as has been observed elsewhere[1474]. ButInnocent, scorning to owe any Branch of his Authority to that, or any other Council, claimed, byDivine Right, the Power of finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies and Disputes; which was claiming, by Divine Right, an unlimited Jurisdiction. It is true, no Regard was had to such Claims; nor indeed didInnocentdare to pursue them, being well apprised of the Opposition he would meet with, if he should then have made such an Attempt. He therefore wisely contented himself with laying Foundations, and thought it a great Advance, as it certainly was, to have openly asserted such Notions, and brought the Ears of Men to endure them, if not their Minds. Had he gone farther, he would have been stopped in his Career, and it might have proved fatal to the Power ofRomebefore it was come to an Age of Maturity; but that he went thus far was of great Benefit to it, because it made a Beginning, and furnished his Successors with a Pretence to plead some Antiquity for the Opinions and Principles upon which they proceeded.

His Decretals oftenquoted by the PopishDivines.

Accordingly the Decretals ofInnocentare frequently quoted by the Advocates for the See ofRome, to shew how early the Popes claimed, by Divine Right, and as Successors of St.Peter, an universal Authority and Jurisdiction. But if the Principles, on which they founded their Claims, were false inInnocent’s Time, they are still so in ours; if no Account was then made of such Claims (and that none was made, I have sufficiently shewn), no Account ought to be made of them now; no more than if they were dated but Yesterday. Nor, indeed, ought the Beginning of the Fifth Century to be esteemed an early Time in the Christian Church. Great Corruptions were then crept into it; and, with regard to the Point in Question, it was very late. For had the Bishop ofRomebeen supreme Head of the Church, in Right of St.Peter, how came that Supremacy to be unknown, and unheard of, for above Four hundred Years? If the Four first Centuries could not discover it, on what new Light was it revealed to the Fifth?

Is sainted.

Innocenthas been inrolled, by his Successors, in the Catalogue of Saints; and he is now adored in the Church ofRomeas a Saint of thefirst Rate; an Honour which, it must be confessed, he better deserved at their Hands, in their Estimation of Merit, than any of his Predecessors, or any of his Successors, exceptGregorythe VIIth.

Year of Christ 417.bracket

Zosimus, the Successor ofInnocent, was, according to theBibliothecarian, aGreekby Nation, and the Son of oneAbraham[1475]; which is all we know of him before his Election. He was elected and ordained Six Days after the Death of his Predecessor, that is, on the 18th ofMarch417[N60].

N60.Paschasinus, Bishop ofLilybæum, observes, at the Year 443. that in 417. whenZosimuswas Bishop ofRome,Easter, which ought to have been kept on the 22d ofApril, was, by a Mistake, kept on the 25th ofMarch[1]; so that on the 25th ofMarch,Zosimuswas in Possession of the See; and consequently must have been chosen and ordained on the 18th of that Month, the onlySundayin 417. between the 12th ofMarch, whenInnocentdied, and the 25th. For in those Days Bishops were commonly ordained onSundays, and it is very certain, thatZosimuswas ordained on that Day, since he pretended the Ordination of Two Bishops, whom he deposed, to be null, because they had been ordained on another Day[2].TheodoretmakesBonifacethe immediate Successor ofInnocent[3]. But all the other Writers, without Exception, placeZosimusbetweenInnocentandBoniface.1. Leo, t. 1. p. 413.2. Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.3. Theod. l. 5. p. 751.

1. Leo, t. 1. p. 413.2. Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.

1. Leo, t. 1. p. 413.

2. Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.

3. Theod. l. 5. p. 751.

Pelagius,his Country,Profession,Parts, &c.

The first thing that engaged the Attention ofZosimus, after his Election, was the Heresy ofPelagius, and his chief DiscipleCælestius, which, at that time, made a great Noise in the Church.Pelagiuswas by Birth aBriton, and a Monk by Profession; but one of those who, parting with their Estates, and renouncing all worldly Honours, lived an austere Life; but in no Community, and under no Rule. Such a Monk was the famousPaulinus, suchPammachius, and such probablyPelagius; for I do not find, in any antient Writer, that he ever confined himself to a Monastery; nay, the wandering Life he led is a strong Proof he never did[N61]. As to his Parts,Jerom, who could never discover any thing commendable in those he opposed,speaks of him with the greatest Contempt, as if he had no Genius, and but very little Knowlege[1476]. But St.Austin, a more candid and less passionate Writer, owns him to have been a Man of extraordinary good Sense, of a very sprightly Genius, of great Penetration, and one who was not easily overcome, but rather capable of maintaining, with the strongest Reasons that could be offered, the Opinions which he once embraced[1477]. He lived several Years atRome, at least from the Year 400. to 411. and was there well known, and greatly esteemed. For St.Austin, who first heard of him, while he lived atRome, spoke of him in the first Books, which he writ against him, as of a Man,who passed for a Saint, who had made great Progress in Piety, whose Life was chaste, and Manners blameless, who had sold and given to the Poor all he had, &c[1478]. St.Paulinusand St.Jeromseem to have once entertained a no less favourable Opinion of him in these respects, than St.Austindid; for they too, in some of their Letters, speak of him with the greatest Commendations. But he no sooner began to broach his new Doctrines than he forfeited their good Opinion, and with it every Virtue which he had formerly possessed; nay, they pretend that he abandoned himself, at once, to immoderate Eating and Drinking, and to all manner of Debauchery, passing his whole Time in Revels and Banquets, in caressing and pampering his Body, which by that means, saysJerom, swelled to such an exorbitant Size, that he was more capable of crushing his Adversaries with the Weight of his Carcase than the Weight of his Arguments[1479]. We shall find very few, if any at all, who, upon their teaching Doctrines not approved by the Fathers, have not been immediately transformed by them, out of their great Zeal for the Purity of the Faith, into Monsters of Wickedness, though they themselves had, perhaps, proposed them before for Patterns of every Christian Virtue. It behoves us therefore to be very cautious in giving Credit to what they say of those whom they style Heretics. With respect toPelagius, St.Austin, more moderate than the rest, does not charge him with any Vices, but only ascribes to Hypocrisy the Virtues which he had admired in him before[1480].

N61. He is commonly styledPelagius the Briton, to distinguish him fromPelagiusofTarento, who lived about the same time[1].1. Aug. ep. 106. Prosp. contra Ingrat. l. 1. c. 1.

N61. He is commonly styledPelagius the Briton, to distinguish him fromPelagiusofTarento, who lived about the same time[1].

1. Aug. ep. 106. Prosp. contra Ingrat. l. 1. c. 1.

Cælestius, his Family,Profession, Parts, &c.

Cælestius, the first and chief Disciple ofPelagius, was, according to some, a Native ofScotlandorIreland; according to others, ofCampaniainItaly[1481]; but, with respect to his Country, nothing certain can be advanced. He was descended of an illustrious Family, and had applied himself, from his Youth, to the Study of the Law, and made some Figure at the Bar; but growing weary of that Profession, he retired from the World, embraced a monastic Life, and lived some Years in a Monastery[1482]. St.Jeromspeaks of him as a Man of no Genius or Talents[1483]. But St.Austinentertained a very different Opinion of his Parts; for he commends him as a good Writer, as one who was thoroughly acquainted with all the Subtilties of Logic, and whose Talents would have proved very serviceable, could he have been retrieved from his Errors[1484].

Their Doctrine.

The Tenets ofPelagiusorCælestius(for those, who embraced them, are styled indifferentlyPelagiansandCælestians) may be reduced to the following Heads: 1. That we may, by our Free-will, without the Help of Grace, do Good, and avoid Evil. 2. That if Grace were necessary for either, God would be unjust in giving it to one, and denying it to another. 3. That Faith, which is the first Step to our Justification, depends upon our Free-will. 4. That the Sin ofAdamhurt none but him; that Children are born in the State which he was in before the Fall; that they are not delivered by Baptism from eternal Perdition, but, without Baptism, partake of Life everlasting. By Life everlasting they meant, a middle State between eternal Happiness and eternal Misery. 5. That Grace is only necessary to render the Observance of the Commandments more easy.

Both pass over intoAfrica.

These OpinionsPelagiusandCælestiusfirst broached atRome, about the Year 405. and gained there a great many Followers; more, says St.Austin, than could be well imagined[1485]. They both leftRomein 410. or 411. and, crossing over intoAfrica, infected many there, says the same Author, especially atCarthage, with their new Doctrine[1486].|Pelagiusrepairs toPalæstine.|Pelagius, after a short Stay atCarthage, went first intoEgypt, and from thence intoPalæstine, where he continued a long time[1487].Cælestiusremained atCarthage, hoping to be preferred there to the Priesthood; but as he did not use the due Caution in propagating his Doctrine in that City, he was soon discovered, and accusedby onePaulinus, a Deacon, before a Council, at which several Bishops were present, andAureliusofCarthagepresided.|Cælestiusaccused andcondemned inAfrica.|The Charge brought against him was, That he held the Sin ofAdamto have hurt him alone; that it could not be imputed to his Descendents; and that no Sin was cancelled by Baptism. These Tenets he did not own before the Council; but neither would he disown or anathematize them; and therefore the Bishops, provoked at his Obstinacy, not only condemned his Doctrine, but, at the same time, cut him off, as an incorrigible Heretic, from the Communion of the Church[1488].|Appeals toRome,butflies toEphesus.|From this SentenceCælestiusappealed to the Judgment ofInnocent, then Bishop ofRome, summoningPaulinus, his Accuser, to make his Charge good at that Tribunal. ButCælestiushimself laid, it seems, no Stress on his Appeal; for, instead of repairing toRome, he fled toEphesus[1489], where we shall leave him for the present.

Pelagiusaccused inPalæstinebyHerosandLazarus,twoGallicanBishops;

Pelagius, in the mean time, was not idle inPalæstine, whither he had retired, as I have said above; but, being countenanced byJohnBishop ofJerusalem, he gained daily such Numbers of Followers there, thatHerosandLazarus, Two Bishops ofGaul, whom I shall speak of hereafter, happening to be then inPalæstine, thought it incumbent upon them to accuse him toEulogiusBishop ofCæsarea, and Metropolitan ofPalæstine. They drew up a Writing accordingly, containing the chief Heads of the Doctrine whichPelagiustaught, together with the Articles, for which his DiscipleCælestiushad been condemned by the Council ofCarthage; and this Writing they presented toEulogius. Hereupon a Council was assembled soon after atDiospolis, a City ofPalæstine, known in Scripture by the Name ofLydda. It consisted of Fourteen Bishops, andEulogiusofCæsareapresided; but neither of theGallicanBishops was present, the one being prevented by a dangerous Malady, and the other not chusing to abandon him in that Condition. However, their Charge againstPelagiuswas read, and he examined, by the Fathers of the Assembly, on the Articles it contained.|and absolved bythe Council ofDiospolis.|But as nobody appeared against him, as none of those Bishops were sufficiently acquainted with theLatinTongue to understand his Books, and he disowned some Propositions, explained others in a Catholic Sense, and anathematized all who maintained Doctrines repugnant to those of theCatholic Church, the Council pronounced, at the Suggestion ofJohnofJerusalem, the following Sentence:Since the MonkPelagius,here present, has satisfied us, as to his Doctrine, and anathematized with us whatever is contrary to the true Faith, we acknowlege him to be in the Communion of the Church[1490]. This Council St.Jeromstyles,The pitiful Synod ofDiospolis[1491]. But St.Austin, instead of insulting them, calls themHoly and Catholic Judges; and will not answer, that he himself might not have been deceived by the Artifices ofPelagius, had he been one of his Judges[1492].

He is accused byHerosandLazarustothe Bishops ofAfrica.

HerosandLazarus, surprised to hear that the Fathers of the Assembly had absolvedPelagius, and despairing of ever being able to get him condemned in the East, where his Cause was openly espoused by the Bishop ofJerusalem, resolved to apply to their Brethren in the West, especially to the Bishops ofAfrica, who they well knew could not be prejudiced in his Favour, since they had already condemned his favourite DiscipleCælestius. Pursuant to this Resolution, they writ, by the famousOrosius, who was returning fromPalæstinetoAfrica, to the Bishops of that Province, accusingPelagiusandCælestiusas the Authors of anExecrable Sect; giving them a particular Account of what had passed in the Council ofDiospolis, and acquainting them with the wonderful Progress the new Heresy made in the East, especially inPalæstine[1493].

The Doctrine ofPelagiusandCælest-iuscondemned anewinAfrica.

These Letters were delivered byOrosiusto the Bishops of the Province ofCarthage, who, after having caused them to be read in the Provincial Council, which was then sitting in that City, and, with them, the Acts of the Council, which had been held Five Years before againstCælestius, not only condemned the Doctrine ascribed to him andPelagius, but declared, that the same Sentence should be pronounced against them, unless they anathematized, in the plainest and most distinct Terms, the Errors with which they were charged[1494]. The Example of the Bishops ofAfricawas followed by those ofNumidia, assembled atMilevum, and byInnocentBishop ofRome, as I have related above.

They appeal toRome.

This Condemnation, so solemn and general, was attended with the wished for Effect. It greatly lessened the Reputation ofPelagiusandCælestius, staggered many of their Followers, and deterred othersfrom embracing their Doctrines. Of this bothPelagiusandCælestiuswere well apprised; and, at the same time, sensible, that the only means of retrieving their Credit, and maintaining the Ground they had gained, was to justify themselves either to the Bishops ofAfrica, or to the Bishop ofRome, they chose the latter, thinking it more easy to gain over one than many. Besides, inAfricathey knew St.Austin, who was in great Reputation there, and swayed all the Councils as he pleased, to be their declared and irreconcileable Enemy; whereas they had many Friends atRome; and, among the rest, the PresbyterSixtus, who was afterwards raised to that See[1495]. In order, therefore, to persuade the Bishop ofRome, asPelagiushad done the Bishops ofDiospolis, that they had been falsly and maliciously accused,Pelagiuswrit a Letter toInnocent, whose Death he had not yet heard of, whileCælestius, trusting to his Eloquence, and depending on the Favour which the Bishops ofRomehad always shewn to those who recurred to them, undertook a Journey to that City. He had fled fromCarthagetoEphesus, as I have related above. On his Arrival in that City he was well received by the Bishop of the Place, and even preferred, after he had staid some time there, to the Priesthood.|Cælestiusis drivenfromEphesusandConstantinople.|But, in the mean time, his Doctrine giving Offence to some, while it was embraced by others, great Disturbances arose; and he was, in the End, driven out of the City. Being thus expelled fromEphesus, he repaired toConstantinople; but he no sooner began to discover his Sentiments there, thanAtticus, who then held that See, and kept a watchful Eye over him, commanded him forthwith to depart the City[1496].|Repairs toRomeandpresents himself be-foreZosimus.|FromConstantinoplehe went strait toRome; and, finding thatInnocentwas dead, he presented himself before his SuccessorZosimus, declaring, that he was come toRome, to defend his oppressed Innocence at the Tribunal of the Apostolic See; not doubting but he should make it appear before so knowing and unprejudiced a Judge, and confute the many groundless Aspersions with which his Enemies had strove to blast his Reputation in the Eyes of the whole Church: he complained of the Judgment given against him by theAfricanBishops about Six Years before; and, pretending that his AccuserPaulinus, conscious of his Innocence, and his own Guilt, had declined the Judgment of the Apostolic See, he summoned him anew to appear, and make good the Charge whichhe had brought against him.|He delivers his Con-fession of Faith toZosimus;|At the same time he presented toZosimusa Request, containing a Confession of his Faith, with long Descants on the Articles of the Apostolic Symbol, concerning which his Orthodoxy had never been questioned. But as toGraceandOriginal Sin, he said, they were not Matter of Faith; but that he was, nevertheless, ready to acquiesce, even with respect to them, in the Judgment of theRomanSee[1497].

Zosimushad at this Time some Affairs of the greater Importance on his Hands[1498]; but, highly pleased with the pretended Submission ofCælestius, and thinking this a favourable Opportunity of extending his Authority, and drawing to the Tribunal of the Apostolic See Appeals in Causes that had been judged and decided elsewhere, he postponed the other Affairs to attend to this alone, in his Opinion, the most important of all. A Day was appointed, without Loss of Time, forCælestiusto appear in the Church of St.Clement, and there give an Account of his Faith. He appeared accordingly; and the Confession being read, which he had delivered toZosimus, he owned that, and no other, to be his Faith. In that Confession he did not deny Original Sin, but declared, in the clearest Terms, that he was in Doubt about it; and that the Belief of Original Sin was no Article of the Catholic Faith.|which is approvedby him.|And yet such a Confession was approved byZosimusas Catholic; which was approving, if not the Doctrine, at least the Doubts whichCælestiusentertained of Original Sin[1499].|TheRoman CatholicDivines strive in vainto excuseZosimus.|TheRoman CatholicDivines have taken great Pains to clearZosimusfrom this Imputation; but have been attended with no better Success than St.Austinwas before them. For that Father, unwilling to condemn one of his Brethren, pretended thatZosimus, in approving the Confession ofCælestius, did not declare his Doctrine to be Catholic, but only the Disposition of his Mind to condemn whatever should be found amiss in his Doctrine; for such a Disposition, says he, makes a true Catholic[1500]: he might have added,if sincere, and not feigned; for it was certainly feigned inCælestius; and consequentlyZosimuswas no less mistaken in declaring his Disposition of Mind to be Catholic, than if he had made such a Declaration with respect to his Doctrine. St.Austinhimself was sensible of the Weakness of his Plea, and therefore immediately added;But, allowing the Doctrine ofPelagiusandCælestiusto have been approved by theRomanChurch,all we can infer from thence is, that theRomanClergy was guilty of Prevarication[1501]; an Inference which he seems to be no-way solicitous about, though he could not have admitted it without giving up the Question, if he had thought the Pope infallible.

Back to Index Next