Natura et Gratia, which he dedicated to two young gentlemen, Timasius and Jacobus, who had recently been converted, from being disciples of Pelagius, to the catholic faith. These two young men had been induced by the persuasions of Pelagius to devote themselves to a monastic life, and at the same time drank in his selfrighteous spirit; but by the exertions of Augustine they were brought back to the acknowledgment of the truth. In the following year, 415, Augustine wrote a particular account of the proceedings in relation to Pelagius which had taken place in the council of Palestine, and addressed it to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage. In the year 416 the council of Carthage met and addressed a letter to Innocent; and Augustine, in addition, wrote one in his own name and that of several of his friends, Aurelius, Alypius, Euodeus and Possidius. As Augustine had already commenced writing against Pelagius, a request was made by this council that he should go on with the controversy; in consequence of which he published this year two books; the one Concerning the Grace of Christ, the other Concerning Original Sin. About this time, also, it is supposed that his letter to Dardanus was written, which is numbered fifty-seven in the collection of his epistles, and, moreover, his book against Cœlestius, addressed to the Bishops Eutropius and Paulus, Concerning the Perfection of Righteousness. In the year 417, Augustine, having heard that there were some persons at Nola who had imbibed the doctrine of Pelagius, wrote to Paulinus, bishop of that place, Concerning the Pelagian heresy, which letter is the one hundred and sixth in the collection. In 418 he wrote two epistles to the Roman presbyter, Sixtus, one of which was intended as an express refutation of the Pelagian heresy. Thus it appears how indefatigable this father was in opposing the heresy of Pelagius. Almost every one of the above works is particularly mentioned in The Retractations of Augustine. Innocent, bishop of Rome, dying about this time, was succeeded by Zosimus, to whom both Pelagius and Coelestius addressed epistles, in which they gave such a complexion to their system, and spoke in language so plausible and ambiguous, that Zosimus was completely deceived by their fair speeches. He accordingly wrote to the bishops of Africa that he considered Pelagius an orthodox man. But they showed in their answer that it was not enough for these men to acknowledge the truth in general terms; but that they should explicitly confess that we need the grace of Jesus Christ in every act. Zosimus did not remain obstinate, but upon receiving accurate information from Augustine of the true nature of the opinions of these men, issued a sentence of condemnation against them. Upon this, the Emperor Honorius also passed a sentence of banishment from Rome against the Pelagians. This was in the year 418. Cœlestius, on being condemned, went to Constantinople where he met with determined opposition from Atticus, the bishop of that city; so that his designs of propagating his opinions there were disappointed. Pelagius still continued in Palestine, and complained grievously of the hard treatment which he received by the decisions and acts respecting him at Rome, and by the books written against him; and again succeeded in imposing on some respectable persons who held a conference with him, by leading them to think that his doctrine did not materially differ from the common belief. These persons, on whom he made this impression, were so much interested in his favour that they wrote to Augustine stating their favourable views of the doctrine of Pelagius. This communication seems to have been the occasion of Augustine's writing his books Concerning Grace and Original Sin. Julian, of whom we have already spoken, having published severe animadversions on the conduct of Zosimus and his clergy, Boniface, the successor of Zosimus, sent them to Augustine, for the purpose of having them refuted; which he did in four books, inscribed to Boniface. And Count Valerius, having received another of Julian's writings, in which he charges the Catholics with condemning marriage, deriving this as an inference from their doctrine of original sin, caused this work to be sent to Augustine, who soon published an answer in his work De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia. To this work Julian replied in four books. To these Augustine opposed six books; in the first three of which he answers what is contained in Julian's first book; but the fourth, fifth and sixth, are employed in refuting the second, third and fourth of Julian; the one answering to the other in order. Julian was not a man to be easily silenced, for he now came out with eight books against the six of Augustine. These the venerable polemic was preparing to answer, when he was called away from all his earthly labours. Only two books of this last work were completed; these have come down to us with his other works. The death of Augustine occurred, according to the testimony of Prosper, in his Chronicon, A. D. 430; the latter was the friend and correspondent of Augustine, from whom this father received particular information of the progress of Pelagianism, or rather SemiPelagianism, at Marseilles, where these opinions took deep root, and continued long to flourish. It may be satisfactory now to give a more particular account of the decisions of the several councils which met for the consideration of this subject, in their chronological order. The first was the council of Carthage, convened, A.D. 407, on account of the dissemination by Colestius of the opinions of Pelagius, which also he pertinaciously defended. Of the proceedings of this council no fragment remains but one preserved in Augustine's work on original sin. Mention is made of this council, however, in the letter of the fathers of the second council of Carthage, addressed to Innocent. From the fragment preserved by Augus tine, we learn that the accusation against Colestius was, that he had taught "that the sin of Adam hurt himself alone." Cœlestius acknowledged that he had doubted concerning the communication of sin by descent from Adam, but professed his willingness to be better instructed by those to whom God had given greater wisdom; yet observed that he had heard from presbyters of the church a doctrine different from that which was held by the council. And being called upon to name one from whom he had heard such an opinion, he mentioned Rufin, a holy presbyter of Rome. On being asked whether he had not asserted that infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before transgression, he would make no other reply but "that infants needed baptism, and ought to be baptized." The council of Diospolis, in Palestine, consisted, as has been mentioned before, of only fourteen bishops. The accusers of Pelagius were not able to attend; one of them being prevented by sickness, and the other by some other cause. Augustine mentions this council in several of his works, and ascribes the acquittal of Pelagius to his artful use of equivocal terms, by which his judges were deceived, and were induced to pronounce him innocent. Jerome, in his seventy-ninth epistle, calls this "a miserable synod;" and says, that although they did not err in doctrine, they were deceived in the man, who deceitfully seemed to condemn his own opinions. Photius, in his Bibliotheca, gives a more particular account of this council; but his information seems to have been derived from the works of Augustine, already referred to. A. D. 416. Another council met at Carthage, which has already been noticed; not convened, indeed, to attend to this controversy, but Prosius, having brought intelligence respecting the proceedings instituted against Pelagius in Palestine, the fathers of this council took up the business, and wrote a letter to Innocent, in which they expressed their opinion freely and fully, relative to the heresy of the opinions of which Pelagius was accused, and of the course which ought to be pursued in regard to him, if he did not explicitly abjure them. Sixty-seven pastors were present at this synod. About the same time, or a little later, a synod met at Milevum, in Numidia, consisting of sixty bishops, or pastors, who took up the subject of the errors of Pelagius and Cœlestius, and, in imitation of the council of Carthage, addressed a letter to Innocent, bishop of Rome. It appears from several notices in the writings of Augustine, that another full synod met in Africa, and addressed letters on this subject to Zosimus, the successor of Innocent; but all traces of the acts and proceedings of this council, except the short notices referred to above, have disappeared. This synod is said to have consisted of two hundred and twenty-four bishops, and is supposed to 1 have been held, A. D. 417 or 418. But great obscurity rests upon the whole matter. A. D. 428. When Coelestinus was bishop of Rome, a council was held in Gaul, occasioned by a deputation from Britain, who represented that the poison of Pelagianism had been imported into that country by one Agricola, the son of Jenerianus, a bishop; and that they greatly needed aid to prevent its diffusion among the people. On this occasion a large council convened, and two eminent men, Germanus and Lupus, were sent on a mission to Britain to check the progress of Pelagianism. By their exertions the catholic doctrine appeared to be everywhere restored; but no sooner had they taken their departure than heresy began again to germinate; so that the request to the Gallican church for help was repeated, and Germanus was again sent, and was accompanied by Severus, a disciple of Lupus, his former colleague. The witnesses for these facts are Constantius, in his life of Germanus, and Bede, in his History of the British Churches, The next council in which the subject of Pelagianism was brought up for consideration, was that of Ephesus, A.D. 431. This is called an ecumenical council. It was convened, not on account of the heresy of Pelagius, but to condemn Nestorianism; but as the followers of Pelagius would not join in the censure of Nestorius, the council expressed their disapprobation of that heresy also, which they denominate the wicked doctrine of Cœlestius. And in their synodical epistle to Calestinus, bishop of Rome, they approve of the sentence of condemnation which had been passed on Pelagius, Cœlestius, Julian, and their abettors, whom they call impious men. The Pelagian doctrine was next condemned in a council which met at Arles, in France; the exact year is not settled. This synod denounced an anathema against the impious doctrines of Pelagius; and especially against the opinion that man was born without sin; and that he could be saved by his own exertions. They considered it a presumption worthy to be condemned for any man to believe that he could be saved without grace. The council of Lyons met soon after that of Arles, and approved its decrees; but some other doctrines were also brought under consideration and subjected to censure. A.D. 494. Gelasius, bishop of Rome, convened a council of seventy bishops in that city, by whom the writings of Augustine and Prosper were approved and recommended; while those of the semi-Pelagians, Cassian and Faustus, were censured. Other councils were held in after ages, which condemned the Pelagian heresy; but our object now is to give a view of this controversy in its first rise in the fifth century. Before we proceed to give a view of the opinions entertained and propagated by Pelagius and his followers, it will be satisfactory to ascertain what were the opinions of the church on this subject. The doctrine of the church, then, on the subject of original sin, may be thus stated. It has ever been the judgment of the catholic church, that the first sin of Adam was imputed to all his posterity by the righteous appointment of God, and that its effects are transmitted to all his children; which effects, the church always believed were, that they were born destitute of original righteousness, subject to the sentence of death, and obnoxious to eternal separation from God. Man being created in the image of God and being fully endued with all powers necessary for obedience; and, moreover, being blessed with everything requisite for his comfort, did transgress the law of his Maker by disobeying that commandment which was given as a test of his whole obedience. This first act of transgression, it is true, was the criminal act of Adam as an individual; but as he was the root and principle of our whole nature, it may be considered the sin of the human race: so that his voluntary act, in opposition to the will of his Creator, may be reckoned that of his descendants; not indeed strictly and properly (for those not yet born could not perform an act), but interpretatively or by imputation; for this act was not only imputed to Adam to condemnation, but to all his posterity. That the above is a correct statement of the commonly received doctrine of the church, at the period of which we treat, will appear from many explicit declarations, not only of Augustine and other individuals, but from the decrees and letters of councils, consisting of numerous bishops, living in every region of the earth to which the universal church extended. Augustine, in book xvi. of his work De Civitate Dei, has these words, "Nascuntur, non proprie, sed originaliter, peccatores." "Men are born, not properly, but originally, sinners." And in book i., c. 15 of his Retractations, he says, " Peccatum eos ex Adam dicimus originaliter trahere; id est, reatu eos implicatos, et ob hoc poenae obnoxios detineri." We affirm that they derive sin originally from Adam; that is, they are involved in guilt, and on this account are held liable to punishment. In his work concerning the demerit and remission of sin, he says, that to impute and to remit are opposites; therefore he asserts, to impute is to subject one to guilt; to remit is, not to impute to condemnation. Here it may be proper to remark, that by imputation Augustine meant, not a transfer of moral acts or moral character, but the opposite of remission; to impute a sin, therefore, according to him, is to hold the person bound to suffer its punishment. And by the word reatus, or guilt, he understood an obligation to suffer the punishment of sin, or a subjection to the penalty of the law. It is necessary to understand accurately the meaning of these terms as used by theologians, or we shall be involved in perpetual perplexity in relation to their opinions. Most of the objections now made to the doctrine of imputation and to the transfer of guilt, proceed from a misapprehension of the true import of these terms. |