READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
BOOK III.FROM THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I TO THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT.A.D. 395-590.CHAPTER II.
ST. AUGUSTINE.—DONATISM.—PELAGIANISM.
The great light of the western church in his age was
St. Augustine, a teacher of wider and more lasting influence than any since the
apostles. The history of his earlier years is given by himself in the
well-known “Confessions” where he solemnly acknowledges his errors, and
magnifies the gracious Providence which had guided him through many perils and
conflicts to truth and peace.
Augustine was born in 354, at Thagaste,
an episcopal city of Numidia. His father, Patricius, a man of curial rank, but
in indifferent circumstances, was then a heathen; but his mother, Monica, a
devout and exemplary Christian, caused the boy to be admitted in infancy as a
catechumen of the church. He tells us that, when alarmed by a sudden and
dangerous illness in his childhood, he earnestly desired baptism, and that
preparations were made for administering it; but as the danger passed over, it
was considered better that the sacrament should be deferred, lest he should
incur a heavier guilt by falling into sin after having received the baptismal
grace. Patricius, although himself a man of loose habits, and careless of his
son’s moral and religious training, exerted himself even beyond his means to
obtain for him a good literary education, in the hope that it would lead to
some honourable and lucrative employment; and with this view Augustine, after
having acquired the elements of learning at Thagaste,
was sent to pursue his studies at the schools of Madaura and Carthage. It would seem that his abilities were conspicuous from an early
age, but that his application of them was uncertain and capricious; he read the
Latin poets with eager fondness, but disliked the study of Greek; and his
boyish neglect of that language was but very imperfectly remedied in after
life. At the age of seventeen, about the time of his removal to Carthage, he
lost his father, who had at last been persuaded, as much by the discreet and
gentle conduct of Monica as by her arguments, to embrace the Christian faith. A
rich citizen of Thagaste, Romanian, assisted the widow
to bear the expense of her son’s education, and Augustine’s talents promised to
render him distinguished. But he had early fallen into dissolute courses, and
at Carthage he took a concubine, by whom he became, at the age of eighteen, the
father of a boy Adeodatus.
In his nineteenth year, the reading of Cicero’s
Hortensius awakened in Augustine a longing after a higher life; but on turning
to the Scriptures in search of wisdom, he found them simple and uninviting,
while he was attracted in another direction by the specious promises of the
Manichaeans, their ridicule of submission to authority, and their speculations
as to the origin of evil This sect had made considerable progress during
the course of the fourth century; it had profited by the dissensions of the
church, and perhaps in a great degree by receiving accessions from the old and
decaying gnostic parties. Although many laws spoke of it as more abominable
than other heretical societies, and enacted penalties of especial severity
against it, proselytism was actively carried on in
secret, and the Manichean doctrines lurked even among the clergy and the monks.
Augustine became a convert to these doctrines, and was a member of the sect
from his nineteenth to his twenty-eighth year. But after a time he was startled
and disgusted by observing the sensuality and hypocrisy of the “elect”, who
were bound to profess the most ascetic strictness, and also by the discoveries
which he made as to the immoral and revolting maxims of the sectaries. He
looked for a solution of his doubts to Faustus, a Manichean bishop of great
fame, who was expected to visit Carthage; but, when Faustus came, he found him
to be not free from the usual inconsistency between profession and practice,
and his discourse to be as empty as it was fluent and showy
Augustine had taught grammar and rhetoric, first at
his native town and then at Carthage; but he found the disorderly habits of the
Carthaginian students intolerable, and in order to escape from this
annoyance—not (he assures us) from any desire of greater fame or profit—he
removed to Rome in 383. Soon after his arrival he fell seriously ill; but he
felt no inclination to beg for baptism, as in the sickness of his childhood. On
his recovery, his dislike of Manichaeism was stronger than before, and for a
time he was given over to the desolateness of universal scepticism. The
prospect of earning a maintenance at Rome became doubtful; for he found that
the Roman youth, although not so unruly as those of Africa, were apt to desert
a professor without paying for the lectures which they had heard; and after a
residence of about six months in the capital, he was glad to obtain an
appointment as a public teacher of rhetoric at Milan.
Here he attended the sermons of Ambrose—not for the
sake of religious instruction, but in order to ascertain whether the bishop’s
eloquence deserved its fame. But by degrees the words of Ambrose produced an
effect. Augustine found that the Manichean objections against the catholic
faith were mostly founded on ignorance and misapprehension, the preacher’s
allegorical explanations of the Old Testament showed him a way (although in
truth a very dangerous way) by which he might escape from the difficulties of
Scripture—“the letter that killeth”. Monica, who had
strongly opposed his departure from Africa, rejoined him at Milan. She had
watched his errors with deep anxiety and sorrow. Her prayers had been rewarded
by visions which assured her that he would one day be converted; and, in the
hope of bringing about the change, she had begged an aged bishop to converse
with him. The bishop, a man of wisdom and learning, told her that it would be
useless to argue with her son while flushed with the novelty of the Manichean
doctrines, but that, if he were left to himself for a time, he could hardly
fail to discover the vanity and impiety of the system; and he encouraged the
hope by adding that he himself had been a member of the sect in his youth, but
had seen reason to forsake its errors. Monica still continued to urge her petition,
even with tears; but the bishop dismissed her with the assurance that it was
“impossible that the child of those tears should perish”, and the words were
treasured up as if they had been a voice from heaven. She had now the delight
of finding her son no longer a Manichean, but a catechumen of the church; for
he had resolved to resume that character until he could obtain some certainty
of conviction; and she confidently expressed to him the hope of seeing him a
catholic believer before her death. His baser passions, however, were not yet
overcome.
Through various difficulties Augustine struggled
onwards. He had found much support for his mind in the Platonic writings, while
yet they failed to satisfy his cravings. He now devoted himself to the study of
St Paul, with feelings far different from those which in his nineteenth year
had led him to slight the simplicity of the Scriptures; and he found that the
difficulties and seeming inconsistencies, which had once repelled him, vanished
away. On hearing from one of his countrymen, who happened to visit him, some
details as to the lives of Antony and other monks, and as to the monastic
system (which until then had been utterly unknown to him), he was greatly
impressed; the vileness of his own past life rose up before his mind in
contrast, and excited violent agitations. One day, when unable, in the wild
conflict of his thoughts, to bear even the society of his dearest friend,
Alypius, he rushed forth into the garden of his lodging, cast himself down under
a fig-tree, and, with a gush of tears, passionately cried out for deliverance
from the bondage of his sins. While thus engaged, he heard, as if from a
neighbouring house, the voice of a child singing repeatedly, “Take up and
read”. He could not remember that such words were used in any childish game; he
bethought himself of the impression made on St. Antony by the Scriptures which
were read in church, and believed that he was himself now called by a voice
from heaven. Returning to the house, he seized the volume of St. Paul’s
epistles, and opened on the text, “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in
chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying: but put ye on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof”. From that moment Augustine felt himself another man; but,
as he did not wish to attract notice by any display of the change, he continued
to perform the duties of his professorship until the vintage vacation, when he
resigned it, and retired into the country with his mother and some friends. On
Easter-eve 387, he was baptized by St Ambrose, together with his son Adeodatus,
and Alypius his countryman and pupil, whom he had formerly drawn into
Manichaeism, and who eventually became bishop of Thagaste.
In compliance with Monica’s wishes, he soon after set out towards Africa; but
at Ostia the pious matron died, rejoicing that the desire of her heart was
fulfilled in the conversion of her son.
As his mother’s death had done away with Augustine’s
motive for hastening his return to Africa, he now repaired to Rome, where he
resided upwards of a year, and produced, among other works, two books on the
contrast between catholic and Manichaean morality. Towards the end of 388 he
resumed his journey, and, after short stay at Carthage, he settled at his
native place, where he gave up his property to pious and charitable uses, and
for nearly three years lived in studious and devotional retirement, which Was
shared by Alypius and other friends. His earlier history and his conversion,
his sacrifice of worldly goods, his religious life and his writings, spread his
fame far and wide, so that he was afraid to appear in any city where the
bishopric was vacant, lest he should be forcibly seized and compelled to accept
the dignity. He supposed himself, however, to be safe in accepting an
invitation to Hippo the Royal (so called from having been anciently the
residence of the Numidian kings), as the see was filled by Valerius; but as he
was in church, listening to the bishop’s sermon, Valerius began to speak
of the necessity of ordaining an additional presbyter : whereupon the people
presented Augustine, and he was forced to submit to ordination, Valerius admitted
him to his confidence, and gave him a large share in the administration of the
diocese. Being a Greek by birth, the bishop felt a difficulty in preaching in
Latin, and was glad to relieve himself by employing Augustine as his
substitute; and, although it was at first objected to, as a novelty in Africa,
that a presbyter should preach in the presence of a bishop, the example was
soon imitated in other dioceses. At the end of four years, Valerius, on the
ground that his own age and infirmity rendered the assistance of a coadjutor
necessary, desired that Augustine might be consecrated as his colleague in the
see of Hippo; and Augustine was obliged to yield. Both he and Valerius were
then ignorant that the eighth Nicene canon forbade the establishment of two
bishops in the same city, except in cases where one was a reconciled Novatianist. Valerius did not long survive the appointment
of his colleague.
Augustine held the bishopric of Hippo for
five-and-thirty years, and, although the city was inferior in importance to
many others, his genius and character caused him to be acknowledged, without
any assumption on his own part, as the leader of the African church. The vast
collection of his works includes treatises on Christian doctrine and practice,
expositions of Scripture, controversial books against Manicheans, Donatists, Pelagians, and other sectaries, a great number of sermons,
and upwards of two hundred and fifty letters, among which are many elaborate
answers to questions of theology and casuistry. His greatest work, “Of the City
of God” was written, as has been already mentioned, in consequence of the force
with which the old pagan objection against Christianity, as the cause of public
calamities, was urged after the capture of Rome by the Goths. The composition
of this treatise was begun in 412 or 413, and was not finished until 426. In
the first five books, Augustine meets the argument from the calamities of the
times; in the next five, he argues against those who, while they allowed that
paganism had not, in the days of its ascendency, secured its votaries against
temporal evils, yet maintained that it was availing for the next life; and in
the remaining twelve books, he contrasts the two polities—the earthly and
the City of God—in their origin, their course, and their end. Some defects
of the work are obvious : as, that the reasoning is not always satisfactory;
that much of what is said has no visible bearing on the theme; that here, as
elsewhere, Augustine is driven, by his want of acquaintance with the original
languages, to evade questions as to the real meaning of Scripture, and to take
refuge in allegories and forced applications. It is said, also, that the
learning which appears so copious is in great measure borrowed from secondary
sources. But on the whole this elaborate work, which is at once the last and
most important of the apologies against paganism, and the first of professed
treatises on the Church, deserves to be regarded as alike noble in the
conception and in the execution.
The exemplary labours of Augustine in his diocese
cannot be here detailed; but it is necessary to notice at some length the two
principal controversies in which he was engaged—the sequel of that with the
Donatists, and the new controversy which was occasioned by the opinions of
Pelagius.
After their condemnation by Constans in 348, the
Donatists remained in exile until the reign of Julian. As the edict by which
that emperor recalled persons who were suffering on account of religion applied
to such only as had been banished by his immediate predecessor, these sectaries
could not benefit by it. They therefore presented a petition to Julian,
expressing respect for his character and reliance on his justice in terms which
were not only inconsistent with their former attitude towards the civil power,
but afforded their opponents ground for reproaching them with flattery of the
apostate and persecutor. The petition was successful, and they signalized their
return from banishment by triumphant displays of intolerance. “If they obtained
possession of a church which had been used by the Catholics, they washed the
pavement, scraped the walls, burnt the altar, which was commonly of wood,
melted the consecrated plate, and cast the holy Eucharist to the dogs”. The
Donatists were now the stronger party in Numidia, and were powerful throughout
the African provinces; but after the brief reign of Julian, they again became
obnoxious to the government, and several laws were directed against them.
Valentinian I, by an exception to his general policy of abstaining from
interference with religion, enacted penalties against their practice of
rebaptizing (A.D. 373). Gratian ordered, in 377, that their churches should be
given up to the Catholics, and that any places where they should hold meetings
should be confiscated; and in the following year, at the request of a Roman
council, he expelled their bishop from Rome. These laws do not appear to have
been rigidly executed; but in other ways the interest of Donatism suffered
greatly during the latter part of the fourth century.
The working of the schismatical spirit produced many divisions in the sect—each little fraction maintaining
that it alone retained the true baptism, and excommunicating all the rest. The
most considerable separation took place after the death of Parmenian,
who had succeeded Donatus as leader of the party, and for forty years had
guided it with vigour and skill. In 392 he was succeeded by Primian, who soon
after had a violent quarrel with a deacon named Maximian, and excommunicated him.
The original history of the schism was now repeated by rival factions of the
Donatists. Maximian found a new Lucilla in a wealthy lady. Primian was
condemned by two councils,—the second consisting of more than a hundred
bishops; he was declared to be deposed, and twelve bishops joined in
consecrating Maximian to the see of Carthage. But without paying any regard to
these proceedings, Primian assembled at Bagai a council of three hundred and
ten bishops, by which Maximian was condemned. In pursuance of this sentence,
Maximian and his consecrators were ejected from their churches by the
assistance of the civil power, and in some cases not without violence and
cruelty; while the other Maximianist bishops were
invited to rejoin the communion of Primian within a certain time, with a
promise that their baptism and orders should be acknowledged as valid. In this
affair, every principle of the original schism was either violated by the
victorious party or carried out to manifest absurdity by the vanquished; and the
history of it supplied the catholic controversialists with weapons which they
did not fail to turn to account.
The leader in the literary warfare against Donatism
was Optatus, bishop of Milevis, who about 370, in
answer to a book by Parmenian, ably exposed both the
history of the schism and the grounds on which its adherents professed to rest
it. About the same time a grammarian named Tichonius,
although himself a Donatist, did much to injure his party by a treatise in
which he maintained that the church could not be confined to one corner, but
must be diffused throughout the world; that the sins of the evil members do not
cause a failure of God’s promises to it; and that baptism administered without
the true church might be valid. But Augustine became the most formidable and
effective opponent of Donatism.
When ordained a presbyter, he found that the Donatists
were a majority in Hippo, where he tells us, in illustration of the sectarian
spirit, that their bishop would not allow any of his flock even to bake for
their catholic neighbours. Augustine’s first contribution to the controversy
was a psalm or metrical piece, intended to furnish the less educated people
with some knowledge of the question in a form which might assist the memory; it
opens by setting forth the scriptural doctrine as to the mixture of evil with
good in the visible church, sketches the history of the schism, and, after
twenty parts, which begin with the successive letters of the alphabet, it
concludes with exhortations to unity. This attack was followed up from time to
time by treatises in answer to the most eminent Donatistic champions, and by letters to members of the sect, which are usually written in
an admirable spirit of charity and courtesy. Augustine also endeavoured to bring
the Donatists to conferences; but in this he rarely succeeded. Sometimes the
refusal was rested on the ground that his dialectical skill would give him an
unfair advantage; sometimes it was in a more insolent form—that the children of
the martyrs could not condescend to argue with sinners and traditors. His
attempts at conciliation were repelled by the obstinate bigotry of the sect.
With a view to the common maintenance of discipline, he proposed that, when a
person who was under censure of either community applied for admission into the
other, it should not be granted except on condition of his submitting to
penance; but although Augustine himself scrupulously observed this rule, he was
unable to establish a mutual agreement in it, as the Donatists, for the sake of
swelling their numbers, not only belied their profession by retaining notorious
offenders in their communion, but indiscriminately received all sorts of
proselytes.
The councils of the African Catholics made
frequent reference to the Donatists, and generally in a moderate and
conciliatory tone. They offered, even when impeded by decrees which had
forbidden such concessions, to acknowledge the Donatist clergy in their orders
and position. The clergy interposed to moderate the execution of the laws
against the sectaries; and by various means—especially by making known the
earlier documents of the schism—they gained many converts to the church. But
the success of their exertions exasperated the fury of the circumcellions,
who committed barbarous outrages against the catholic clergy, and rendered it
unsafe for Catholics to live in country places; while the bishops of the sect
were either afraid or unwilling to interfere or to grant redress. Augustine
himself had a providential escape from a plot which had been arranged for
waylaying him, and other bishops were so cruelly treated that the council of
Africa, in 404, found it necessary to petition Honorius that the laws against
heretics might be applied to the Donatists. The reports of the outrages which
had been committed, and especially the evidence borne by the appearance of some
of the sufferers, who presented themselves at the imperial court, provoked
severer measures than those which the council had contemplated. The old edicts
against the Donatists were revived and they were sentenced to heavy fines, to
forfeiture of their churches, banishment of their bishops and clergy, and
confiscation of any lands on which they might attempt to hold their worships.
In consequence of this, the church received a large accession of converts, of
whom it is probable that some were insincere, and that others, having inherited
their Donatism, had until then professed it, not from any personal conviction
of its tenets, but merely because they were held in terror by the circumcellions.
The law of February 405 was followed by others of like
purport. On the death of Stilicho, the Donatists, pretending that these laws
were his work and had expired with him, began to resume possession of churches
and to renew their acts of violence. But the laws were reinforced by fresh
edicts, and such of the sectaries as should molest the Catholics were
threatened with capital punishment. On this Augustine wrote to the proconsul of
Africa, begging that the new law might not be executed to the full; if, he
said, Donatism should be punished with death, the catholic clergy, who were the
persons best acquainted with the proceedings of the Donatists, and most
interested in restraining them, would shrink from giving information against
them. In 410, Honorius, alarmed by the pressure of the barbarians, granted a
general freedom of religion for Africa; but at the urgent request of the
Catholics this indulgence was revoked, and banishment and even death were
denounced against those who should hold heretical assemblies.
The Catholics now entreated the emperor to
appoint a conference between the two parties. The request was granted—the
willingness of the Donatists being presumed from their language on some former
occasions—and Marcellinus, a “tribune and notary” (or secretary of state), was
deputed to superintend the discussion. Marcellinus is highly praised for his
piety and virtues by Jerome and by Augustine, and their eulogies appear to be
justified by the patience, moderation, and judgment which he displayed in the
execution of his commission. In the citation addressed to the Donatists, it was
said that such of them as might be willing to attend the conference should in
the meantime enjoy possession of their churches, with an exemption from all laws
against the sect; that, whatever the result of the meeting might be, they
should have liberty to return to their homes; but that, if the party should
refuse to obey the summons, conformity to the catholic church would be
forthwith enforced: and Marcellinus offered, if the Donatists objected to him
as a judge, to associate with himself any person of equal or superior dignity
whom they might choose.
Two hundred and eighty-six catholic bishops were
gradually assembled at Carthage. The Donatists made a display of their strength
by entering the city in a body, to the number of two hundred and seventy-nine,
and asserted, but seemingly without truth, that in their absent brethren they
had a majority over the Catholics. Their leader was Petilian,
bishop of Cirta (or Constantine), who had formerly
been eminent as an advocate, and, when a catechumen, had been forcibly baptized
into the sect and raised to the episcopate. The Catholics announced that, if
convinced of the church’s failure everywhere but in the Donatistic communion, they would submit without requiring an acknowledgment of their
orders; but that, if they should be able to convince their opponents, the
Donatist bishops and clergy should be acknowledged as such, and an arrangement
should be made for the joint government of the churches. Although the former of
these alternatives might have been offered without any risk, the second
deserves the praise of a really liberal and conciliatory spirit.
The conference was held on the 1st, the 3rd, and the
8th of June 411. The first day was taken up by formalities—Petilian’s forensic skill being employed in raising technical difficulties for the purpose
of evading the main subjects of dispute. The commissioner renewed his offer of
admitting an assessor; but Petilian answered that, as
the Donatists had not asked for the first judge, it was not their part to ask
for a second. Marcellinus then proposed that each party should choose seven
disputants, seven advisers, and four other bishops, who should see to the
authenticity of reports and documents; and that, with a view to orderly
discussion, no other persons than those representatives, with the secretaries
and public officers, should be admitted to the place of conference. To this the
Donatists objected, as they supposed themselves to be more numerous than their
opponents, and wished to make a visible display of their superiority; but,
after the lists of bishops on each side had been recited and carefully
verified, the sectaries found it expedient to comply with the proposed
arrangement. Between the reading of the two lists, Marcellinus desired the
bishops to sit down. To this the leader of the Donatists replied, with an
elaborate compliment to the commissioner, that, as our Lord stood before his
judge, it was not for them to sit in the presence of so worshipful a person;
and, as Marcellinus would not sit while the bishops stood, all parties remained
standing throughout the debated Among the catholic disputants were Aurelius of
Carthage, Augustine, his friend Alypius, and his biographer Possidius.
At the next meeting Marcellinus again requested the
bishops to seat themselves, whereupon Petilian produced another scriptural authority for refusing—namely, the words of the
psalmist, “I will not sit with the wicked”. The second day was for the most
part wasted in the same manner as the first; but on the third and last day,
after fresh attempts at evasion and delay on the part of the Donatists, the
real question came into discussion, and Augustine, who until then had spoken
little, stood forward as the leader of the Catholics. It is noted as
characteristic that, when he styled the Donatists “brethren”, Petilian protested against the term as injurious. Each
party wished to throw on the other the burden of opening the case: the Donatists
said that the Catholics were bound to do so, as having demanded the conference;
the Catholics, that the Donatists were the accusers of the church, and
therefore ought to state their charges. When Augustine entered on the history
of the separation, the Donatists objected, and said that the matter ought to be
determined by Scripture : to which the Catholics replied that they were willing
to confine themselves to Scripture if their opponents would refrain from
personal charges; but that, if Caecilian and others were attacked, the
documents necessary for their justification must be admitted. Marcellinus
decided that the acts relating to the commencement of the schism should be
read; and eventually both the doctrinal question of the church’s purity and the
historical question as to the origin of Donatism were discussed. The documents
produced by the Donatists were shown to bear against their own cause; for it
would seem that the sect had forgotten all such parts of its history as were
unfavourable to it. They were at length forced to avow that they did not
suppose the whole church to be limited to their own body in Africa, but only
denied that their African opponents were in communion with the catholic
churches beyond the seas. Marcellinus ended the conference by giving judgment
against the Donatists. The promise of a safe conduct homewards was to be
fulfilled to them, and a certain time was allowed, during which they might join
the church on the terms which the Catholics had offered; but in case of their
refusal the penal statutes against them were to be revived.
It is evident that, if a power of supreme
ecclesiastical jurisdiction had then been supposed to exist in the see of Rome,
an affair such as that of the Donatists would not have been intrusted to a lay
imperial commissioner. But on the other hand, the commission given to
Marcellinus does not imply such a right or claim of jurisdiction on the part of
the civil power as might perhaps be supposed if the circumstance stood by
itself. The Donatistic controversy had arisen at the
very time when Constantine began to show favour to the Christians; it was
originally carried before the emperor by the sectaries; although doctrinal
discussions as to the being of the church were afterwards introduced into it,
it was at first merely a question of disputed facts; and it had continued to
engage the attention of the emperors, not in its doctrinal aspect, but because
the disorders of the circumcellions disturbed the
peace of Africa. Thus it had been throughout regarded as especially belonging
to the imperial cognizance, and the appointment of Marcellinus was a
consequence of that view. Indeed, the arbitration which was urgently needed
could not well have been obtained from ecclesiastical authority; since all the
Africans were parties in the case, and there were difficulties, perhaps
insuperable, in the way of referring it to a synod beyond the seas, while a
reference to the bishop of Rome does not appear to have been thought of as an
expedient which could be admitted to decide the question.
The Donatists asserted that they had been victorious
in argument at the conference, and that Marcellinus was bribed by their
opponents. They appealed to the emperor; but Honorius, without regarding the
appeal, confirmed his commissioner’s judgment, and in the following year
enacted severe penalties against the sect. All who should refuse to conform to
the church were to be heavily fined, in proportion to their rank, and in case
of continued obstinacy they were to forfeit all their property. Slaves and
peasants were to be beaten into conformity, and their masters, if they
neglected to act on this order, were, “although Catholics”, to be liable to the
penalties of Donatism. It was forbidden to harbour the sectaries; their bishops
and clergy were to be banished, and the buildings and estates belonging to the
body were to be confiscated. By another law, two years later, the penalties of
the former were increased; the Donatists were deprived of the right of
bequeathing property, and were subjected to a sort of civil excommunication.
The African councils, however, still held out offers of conciliation, and the
clergy, although they did not deny that such laws were justifiable, urged that
the execution of them might be forborne or mitigated. In consequence of the
measures of the government some Donatists were brought into the church, while
others were driven to the frenzy of desperation. Their outrages became more
violent than ever. Many committed suicide, which they supposed to be an
expiation for all their sins; and to threaten it was a favourite expedient when
they found themselves pressed by the Catholics. Gaudentius, a bishop, who had
been one of the disputants at the conference, declared that, if he were
forcibly required to join the catholic communion, he would shut himself up in a
church with his adherents, set it on fire, and perish in the flames. It was
against this zealot that Augustine wrote his last works in the Donatistic controversy, about the year 420.
Little is known of the Donatists after this time,
although they were still occasionally noticed in imperial edicts. Under the
Vandals their position was improved, but the sect soon dwindled into
insignificance. Some remains of it, however, existed in the time of Gregory the
Great, and it is supposed that it was not extinguished until the Saracenic
invasion of Africa in the seventh century.
The Pelagian controversy was that as to which
Augustine exercised the most powerful influence on his own age, and which has
chiefly made his authority important throughout the succeeding times. The
differences as to doctrine which had hitherto agitated the church originated in
the east, and related to the Godhead; one was now to arise in the west, which
had for its subject the nature of man and his relations to God. On these points
there had as yet been no precise definitions; but it had been generally
acknowledged that the nature of man was seriously injured by the fall of Adam,
and needed the assistance of Divine grace. In the western church, from the time
of Tertullian, it was declared that Adam had transmitted to his posterity an
inheritance of sinfulness; but the Latin teachers, as well as those of the
east, had maintained that the will was free to choose good or evil, to receive
or to reject salvation. Augustine himself, in his earlier writings after his
conversion, maintained against the Manichaeans the freedom of the will in
preparing man for the reception of grace. Faith (he said) depends on man,
although works are of God’s grace; the Divine election is spoken of by St. Paul
as opposed to a foundation of works—not to a foundation of faith; and if there
were no freedom, there could be no responsibility. As early as 397, however, he
had come to regard faith also as an effect of Divine grace; and it would be
more correct to describe Pelagianism as a reaction from Augustine’s doctrine
than to invert this order, although Pelagianism became the occasion by which
Augustine was urged to carry out his system into precision and completeness.
Pelagius was a Briton—the first native of our island
who distinguished himself in literature or theology. His Greek ok Latin name is
traditionally said to be a translation of the British Morgan—sea-born. He is
described as a monk, and it has been supposed that he belonged to the great
monastery of Bangor; but the term most probably means only that he lived
ascetically, without implying that he was a member of any monastic community.
From his acquaintance with the Greek ecclesiastical writers it is inferred that
he had resided in the east; and he has been identified by some with a monk of
the same name who is mentioned in one of Chrysostom’s letters. About the end of
the fourth century he took up his abode at Rome, where he became intimate with
Paulinus of Nola and other persons of saintly reputation. Jerome in controversy
expresses contempt for his abilities, and represents his habits as luxurious;
but such aspersions are matters of course with Jerome, and, although Orosius
also charges Pelagius with luxury and excess, we may rather rely on the
testimony of Augustine, who always spoke with high respect of his adversary’s
character for piety and virtue.
In his tone of thought Pelagius was rather oriental
than western. The course of his religious life appears to have been steady—in
striking contrast to the fierce agitations by which Augustine had been made to
pass through so great a variety of experiences. His indignation was raised by
the manner in which many persons alleged the weakness of human nature as an
excuse for carelessness or slothfulness in religion; in opposition to this he
insisted on the freedom of the will; and he is said to have expressed great
displeasure at hearing a bishop repeat a well-known prayer of Augustine—“Give
what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt”.
But, although he found adherents at Rome, both his age, which was already
advanced, and his temper disinclined Pelagius from any public declaration of
his opinions. In one of his works—an exposition of St. Paul’s epistles, which
has escaped the general fate of heretical books by being included through
mistake among the writings of his enemy Jerome—there are many indications of
his errors; but the objectionable opinions are there introduced in the way of
discussion— not as if they were the author’s own.
At Rome Pelagius became acquainted with Celestius, who, from an expression of Jerome, has been
supposed to have been a Scot—i.e. a native of Ireland. Celestius was a man of family, had practised as an
advocate, and had forsaken that profession for an ascetic life. Whether he
learnt his opinions from Pelagius, or had adopted them from another teacher
before the beginning of his acquaintance with Pelagius, is doubtful. Jerome
bestows his customary abuse on Celestius; Augustine
describes him as bolder and less crafty than his associate.
After the sack of Rome, the two friends passed into
Africa, where Pelagius remained but a short time; and it does not appear that
after this separation they ever met again, or even corresponded with each
other. Celestius endeavoured to obtain ordination as
a presbyter at Carthage, but was charged with heresy by Paulinus, who had
formerly been a deacon of the Milanese church, and is known to us as the
biographer of its great bishop. The matter was examined by a synod, before
which Celestius was accused of holding that Adam
would have died even if he had not sinned; that his sin did not injure any but
himself; that infants are born in the same condition in which Adam originally
was; that neither do all mankind die in Adam nor do they rise again in Christ;
that infants, although unbaptized, have eternal life; that the law admitted to
the kingdom of heaven even as the gospel does; and that before our Lord’s
coming there were men without sin. He defended himself by saying that he
allowed the necessity of infant baptism; that the propositions generally,
whether true or not, related to matters of speculation on which the church had
given no decision; and that consequently they could not be heretical. The
council, however, condemned and excommunicated him, whereupon he appealed to
the bishop of Rome. No attention was paid to this appeal—the first which is
recorded as having been made to Rome from another province; and Celestius, without attempting to prosecute it, left
Carthage for Ephesus. Augustine was now drawn into the controversy. Although he
tells us that he had occasionally seen Pelagius while at Carthage, it would
seem that the two had not held any discussion, as the catholic bishops were then
engrossed by preparations for their conference with the Donatists; nor had
Augustine been present at the synod which condemned Celestius.
But the progress of the new opinions soon drew his attention. He was induced to
compose two tracts against them for the satisfaction of Count Marcellinus; and
at the request of the bishop, Aurelius, he preached in opposition to them at
Carthage.
In the meantime, Pelagius, expecting to find the east
more favourable to his opinions than Africa, had taken up his abode in the Holy
Land. He was at first on friendly terms with Jerome; but disagreements soon
arose between them, and Jerome became his vehement opponents Augustine, little
acquainted with the Greek writers, had spoken of the Pelagian opinions as
novelties of which there had been no example either among Catholics or among
heretics; but Jerome traced them to the hated school of Origen and Rufinus.
Soon after his settlement in Palestine, Pelagius
received an application which may be regarded as an evidence of the high
reputation which he had attained—an urgent request from the mother of
Demetrias, that he would write to her daughter on the occasion of her
professing virginity; and in consequence of this he addressed a letter to
Demetrias. He tells her that it is his practice in such matters to begin by
laying down what human nature can do, lest, from an insufficient conception of
its powers, too low a standard of duty and exertion should be taken; for, he
says, men are careless in proportion as they think meanly of themselves, and
for this reason it is that Scripture so often endeavours to animate us by
styling us sons of God. The powers of man, like the faculties and instincts of
all creatures, are God’s gifts. Instead of thinking, with the vulgar, that the
power of doing evil is a defect in man—instead of reproaching the Creator, as
if He had made man evil—we ought rather to regard the enjoyment of free-will as
a special dignity and prerogative of our nature. He dwells on the virtues of
those who had lived before the Saviour’s coming, and declares the conscience,
which approves or reproves our actions, to be, “so to speak, a sort of natural
holiness in our souls”. In this letter Pelagius shows an earnest zeal for
practical religion, with a keen discernment of the deceits which might arise on
the one hand from an abuse of the doctrine of grace, and on the other hand from
a reliance on formal exercises. But his peculiar tenets appear strongly; and
perhaps the most remarkable feature in the letter is the evidence which it
contains that the monastic idea of sanctity very readily fell in with the
errors which have become distinguished by the writer’s name.
In July 415 Pelagius was charged with heresy before
John, bishop of Jerusalem, and a synod of his clergy, by Orosius, a young
Spanish presbyter, who had lately come into the Holy Land with a recommendation
from Augustine to Jerome. The accuser related the proceedings which had taken
place at Carthage, and read a letter from Augustine. On this Pelagius asked,
“What is Augustine to me?”, but was rebuked for speaking so disrespectfully of
a great bishop, by whom unity had been restored to the church of Africa. John,
however, was inclined to befriend him; he invited him, although a layman, to
take his seat among the presbyters, and exerted himself to put a favourable
construction on his words. When Pelagius was accused of holding that men could
live without sin, the bishop said that there was scriptural warrant for the
doctrine, and cited the instance of Zacharias and Elisabeth, with others
equally irrelevant; and, on receiving from Pelagius an acknowledgment that
divine grace was necessary in order to living without sin, his judges were
satisfied. Pelagius, in truth, used the term grace in such a manner that his
professions sounded orthodox; while he really meant by it nothing more than the
outward means employed by God for instruction and encouragement in
righteousness—not an inward work of the Holy Spirit, influencing the hearts.
The inquiry was carried on under the difficulties that
Orosius could not speak Greek, that the members of the council understood no
Latin, and that the interpreter was either incapable or unfaithful; while
Pelagius, being familiar with the languages and with the doctrinal
peculiarities of both east and west, had an advantage over his accuser and his
judges. Orosius therefore proposed that, as the question was one of Latin
theology, and as the parties were Latins, it should be referred to the bishop
of Rome; and to this John agreed—ordering Pelagius in the meantime to abstain
from publishing his opinions, and his opponents to refrain from molesting him.
It need hardly be observed that the reference to Rome involved no
acknowledgment of the later Roman pretensions, but was merely a resort from
judges unacquainted with the doctrines of the western church to a more
competent tribunal—that of the highest bishop of the west.
In the end of the same year, two Gaulish bishops,
Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, brought an accusation against Pelagius
before Eulogius, metropolitan of Caesarea, who
thereupon summoned a synod December, of fourteen bishops to Diospolis (the ancient Lydda). When, however, this assembly met, one of the accusers was
sick, and the other excused himself on account of his companion’s illness; so
that, as Orosius did not again appear, Pelagius was left to make good his cause
without opposition. He disavowed some of the opinions which were imputed to
him, and explained others (or explained them away) in a manner which the
council admitted as satisfactory. The acts of the Carthaginian synod were read;
whereupon Pelagius declined entering into the question whether Celestius held the doctrines there censured, but declared
that he himself had never held them. And on being desired to anathematize the
holders of these and other errors of which he had been suspected, he
consented—professing, however, that he condemned them, not as heretics, but as
fools. The council, little versed in western questions, and desirous to act
with moderation, acknowledged the orthodoxy of the accused. For this Jerome
stigmatized it as a “miserable synod”. Augustine, however, spoke of it more
respectfully, and expressed his satisfaction that, although from defective
information it had allowed Pelagius to escape, it had yet condemned his errors.
Pelagius was much elated by the result of this
inquiry. In a book which he sent forth on the Freedom of the Will, and in his
letters, he referred triumphantly to his acquittal by the bishops of Palestine;
and he sent Augustine some documents which gave a partial representation of the
affair. Augustine, however, was soon after furnished with more complete
information by Orosius, who returned to Africa with a collection of papers on
the subject; and synods were held there, which condemned Pelagius and Celestius. The African bishops wrote to Innocent, bishop of
Rome, requesting that he would join in the sentence—apparently from a fear
lest the Pelagian party at Rome should contrive to secure his favour by
pressing on him the judgment of the eastern council. An application of this
kind could hardly fail to be welcome to Innocent, and he readily complied with
the request, taking occasion to accompany his consent with much swelling
language about the dignity of his see. But, however desirous the Africans may
have been to fortify themselves by the alliance of Rome, they throughout the
affair treated with the Roman bishops on a footing of perfect equality.
Innocent died soon after, and was succeeded by
Zosimus, who, as being a Greek, was disposed to look favourably on the
suspected teachers. Celestius, who had been ordained
at Ephesus, appeared again at Rome, where he made a profession of orthodoxy,
and requested that his case might be once more examined, declaring that any
speculations which he might have vented did not concern the faith. About the
same time Zosimus received two letters addressed to his predecessor—the one in
favour of Pelagius, from Praylius, who had lately
succeeded to the bishopric of Jerusalem; the other from Pelagius himself,
artfully vindicating his orthodoxy and stating his belief. By these letters,
and by the personal communications of Celestius,
Zosimus was won over, and after having held a council, at which Celestius disavowed all doctrines which the apostolic see
had condemned, he wrote a letter of reproof to the Africans. He blamed them for
having too readily listened to charges against men whose lives had always been
correct, and for having exceeded the bounds of theological determination in
their synods; he spoke strongly against the characters of Heros and Lazarus,
whom he declared to be deposed from their sees; he stated that Celestius made frequent mention of grace; and he required
that either the accusers should appear at Rome within two months, or the charges
against Pelagius and Celestius should be abandoned.
Paulinus, the original accuser, refused to obey this summons. Aurelius, with
two synods (the second consisting of two hundred and fourteen bishops), replied
that the condemnation which they had passed must stand until the objects of it
should have clearly retracted their errors. The African bishops asserted their
dependence of Rome; and a “plenary” African synod, of more than two hundred
bishops, passed nine canons, which were afterwards generally accepted
throughout the church, and came to be regarded as the most important bulwark
against Pelagianism. These canons the council forwarded to Rome, telling
Zosimus that he himself had been hasty in his credulity, and exposing the
artifices by which Celestius had disguised his errors
From this time Augustine spoke of the Pelagians no
longer as brethren, but as heretics.
The civil power had now mixed in the controversy,
probably at the solicitation of the Africans. An imperial rescript was issued,
by which, after strong denunciation of Pelagius and Celestius,
it was ordered that, if at Rome, they should be expelled; that persons
suspected of holding their opinions should be carried before the magistrates,
and, in case of conviction, should be banished. Zosimus, pressed by the court
and by the anti-Pelagian party in his own city, found it expedient to change
his tone. He professed an intention of re-examining the matter, and cited Celestius to appear before a council; whereupon Celestius fled from Rome. Zosimus then condemned the two
heresiarchs, declaring that they might be readmitted to the church as
penitents on anathematizing the doctrines imputed to them, but that otherwise
they were absolutely and for ever excluded; he issued a circular letter,
adopting the African decisions, and he required that this document should be
subscribed by all bishops as a test of orthodoxy
Nineteen Italian bishops refused, and were deposed.
The most noted among them was Julian of Eclanum, a
small town near Beneventum, who from this time became the leading
controversialist on the Pelagian side. Julian was son of a bishop named Memorius, who was on terms of friendship with Augustine; he
had married the daughter of a bishop, and the union had been graced with a
nuptial poem by Paulinus of Nola : and it was perhaps before his deposition
that he obtained reputation and influence by giving all that he possessed to
the poor during a famine. Julian is described as a man of learning and
acuteness, but too confident, and of endless diffuseness and pertinacity as a
writer. The founders of the heresy, wishing to remain within the catholic
communion, had studied to veil their errors under plausible language, and to
represent the points in question as belonging not to theology but to
philosophy. But Julian, with an impetuosity which Augustine ascribes to youth,
disdained to follow such courses : he accused his own party of cowardice; he
taxed the catholics with Manichaeism; he refused to accept any doctrine as
scriptural which did not agree with his own views of reason, and declared that
the very essence of Christianity was at stake,—that the God of the “traducianists”
(as he styled those who held that sin was derived by inheritance) was not the
God of the gospel, inasmuch as the character ascribed to him was inconsistent
with the divine attribute of justice.
The Pelagians attempted to
procure an examination of their case by a general council; whereupon Augustine
told them that the matter had already been sufficiently investigated, and that
the cry for a general council was only a proof of their self-importance. They
repeatedly endeavoured to obtain a reversal of the Roman decisions; they
applied for an acknowledgment of their orthodoxy at Constantinople, Ephesus,
Thessalonica, and elsewhere, and endeavoured to bespeak the sympathy of the
Greeks by representing the Catholics as Manicheans. But their exertions were
all in vain; both ecclesiastical judgments and edicts of the secular power were
directed against them. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia—although
he has been regarded as even the originator of the heresy—although he had
written against Augustine’s views, and had sheltered Julian when banished from
Italy—is said to have taken the lead in anathematizing the Pelagian tenets at a
Cilician synod in 423 and they were condemned by the general council of Ephesus
in 431—perhaps the more heartily because the party had been leniently treated
by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who was the chief object of the
council’s censure.
Pelagius himself disappears from history after the
year 418, and, as he was far advanced in life, may be supposed to have died
about that time. Nothing is known with certainty as to the end of Celestius and Julian. The founders of Pelagianism had made
no attempt to form congregations separate from the church; and although Julian,
in the heat of his animosity, had declared against communicating with those
whom he branded as Manicheans, he found it impossible to establish a communion
of his own. Pelagianism, therefore, never became the badge of a sect, although
its adherents, when detected, were excluded from the orthodox communion.
The fundamental question between Pelagius and his
opponents related to the idea of Free-Will. By this term, Pelagius understood
an unbiassed power of choosing between good and evil; and such a faculty he
maintained that man has, since the power of choice is essential to
responsibility, and there can be no sin or guilt unless where there is
voluntary evil. Augustine, on the other hand, taught that freedom must be
distinguished from the power of choice. God, he said, is free, although his
nature excludes the possibility of his choosing or doing anything that is evil;
hence a natural and necessary limitation to good is higher than a state of
balance between good and evil; and such a balance cannot be, since the
possibility of inclining to evil is a defect. Man is not free to choose between
good and evil, but is governed either by grace or by sin. Our free-will,
without grace, can do only evil; the direction of the will to good must be
God’s gracious gift. Grace does not take away freedom, but works with the will,
whose true freedom is the love of that which is good.
Since Scripture undeniably refers all good to grace,
Pelagius acknowledged this in words; but he understood the term grace in senses
of his own, as meaning merely external gifts and benefits—the being and constitution
of man; free-will itself; the call to everlasting happiness; the forgiveness of
sins in baptism, apart from any influence on the later spiritual course; the
knowledge of God’s will, the law and the gospel; the example of the Saviour’s
life : and if he sometimes used the word to signify the influence of the Holy
Spirit on the soul, he did not represent this influence as necessary to the
work of salvation, but only as rendering it easier. Pelagius laboured to
exclude from the notion of grace anything that might be inconsistent with
free-will; Augustine, everything that might savour of merit on the part of man.
Distinguishing three stages in good,—the capacity, the will, and the
performance,—Pelagius referred the first to God's gift, but regarded the others
as within the power of human nature. Augustine, on the contrary, refused to
admit the idea of a grace bestowed according to the previous receptivity of the
soul because this, as he thought, placed the determination in human merit.
Grace must, by its very name, be gratuitous; the will to do good must be God's
gift, as well as the capacity.
While Augustine held that the fall had injured man
both spiritually and physically; that by communion with God Adam was enabled to
live a higher life; that he might have avoided sin, and, if he had not sinned,
would have been raised to perfection without tasting of death, even as the
angels, after having borne their probation in a lower degree of grace, were
endowed with that higher measure of it which lifts above the possibility of
falling and confers immortality :—Pelagius maintained that man’s original
constitution was mortal; that Adam was originally placed as we are, and that we
are not inferior to him. The passages in which St. Paul speaks of death as the
punishment of sin, he interpreted as meaning spiritual death only. Augustine
taught that in Adam all men sinned; that, in punishment of the first sin, sin
is transmitted by generation to all mankind; that although, under the guidance
of grace directing his free-will, man might live without sin, this sinless life
has never been actually realized. Pelagius, on the contrary, supposed that
Adam’s sin did not affect his posterity otherwise than as an example; that
there is indeed a deterioration of the race through custom of sinning, even as
an individual man becomes worse through indulgence in sinful habits; that this
comes to affect us like a nature, and has required occasional interpositions of
the Divine mercy by revelations and otherwise; but that man had all along been
able to live without sin; that some men had in fact so lived; and that, if this
had been possible under the earlier dispensations—nay, even in heathenism—much
more must it be possible for us under the gospel, which gives additional
motives, higher rules of righteousness, and the light of a brighter Example.
According to Pelagius, the saints of the Old Testament were justified by the
Law; but Augustine held that in spirit they belonged to the New Testament; that
they were justified through faith in Christ, and through his grace which was
bestowed on them by anticipation. Pelagius saw mainly in Christ nothing more
than a teacher and a pattern. His death, although it was allowed to be
efficacious for sinners, could not (it was supposed) confer any benefit on
those who had no sin; the living union of the faithful with him was an idea as
foreign to the system of this teacher as the union of the natural man with Adam
in death. Pelagius, however, did not deviate from the doctrine of the church
with respect to the Saviour’s Godhead.
The practice of infant baptism, which was by this time
universally regarded as apostolical, was urged against Pelagius. His
opponents argued from the baptismal rites—the exorcisms, the renunciation
of the devil, the profession of belief in the remission of sins. Why, they
asked, should infants be baptized with such ceremonies for the washing away of
sin, if they do not bring sin into the world with them? The Pelagians answered that infants dying in their natural state would attain “eternal life”,
which they supposed to be open to all, whether baptized or not; but that
baptism was necessary for the higher blessedness of entrance into “the kingdom
of heaven”, which is the especial privilege of the gospel; that, as baptism was
for all the means of admission to the fullness of the Christian blessings, the
baptismal remission of sin must, in the case of infants, have a view to their
future life on earth. Augustine taught that infants dying without baptism must
fall under condemnation. As to the nature of this, however, he did not venture
to pronounce, and his language respecting it varies; sometimes he expresses a
belief that their state would be preferable to non-existence, but at other
times his views are more severe. With respect to baptism, Augustine held that
it conveys forgiveness of all past sins whatever, whether original or actual :
that by it we receive regeneration, adoption, and redemption; but that there
yet remains in us a weakness against which the regenerate must struggle here
through God's help, and which will not be done away with until that further
“regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory”. The
doctrine of this remaining infirmity was represented by the Pelagians as disparaging the efficacy of the baptismal sacrament
Pelagius supposed that God had furnished man naturally
with all that is needful for living without sin and keeping the commandments,
and that the use of these gifts depends on our own will; Augustine, that at
every point man needs fresh supplies of divine and supernatural aid. Pelagius
understood justification to be merely the outward act of forgiveness; whereas
Augustine saw in it also an inward purification through the power of grace.
Grace, he held, does not constrain the will, but delivers it from bondage, and
makes it truly free; he distinguished it into—(1.) the preventing grace, which
gives the first motions towards goodness; (2.) the operating, which produces
the free-will to good; (3.) the cooperaing,
which supports the will in its struggles, and enables it to carry its desire
into act; and lastly, (4.) the gift of perseverance.
The existence of evil was a great difficulty which
exercised the mind of Augustine. He thought that, as everything must be from
God, and as He can only will what is good, therefore evil is nothing—not, as in
the Manichaean system, the opposite of good, but only the defect or privation
of good, as darkness is the absence of light, or as silence is the absence of
sound. It has, however, been remarked that the power which he ascribes to evil
is hardly consistent with this idea of its merely negative quality—unless,
indeed, his terms be understood in a meaning which they do not naturally
suggest; and some of his arguments on this subject must appear (to ordinary
readers at least) to be little better than a play on words.
Augustine in one of his early works had laid down that
predestination is grounded on foreknowledge—an opinion which had been commonly
held in the church. As his views on the subject of grace became developed, he
had been led to teach a more absolute predestination; but it was not until the
Pelagian controversy was far advanced that he set forth distinctly, and in
connexion with the rest of his system, those doctrines as to predestination
which have entered so largely into the controversies of later times. The
occasion for his treating the subject was given by a report of serious
dissensions which took place about the year 426 at Adrumetum,
where some monks, on the ground (as they supposed) of one of Augustine’s
epistles, disturbed their brethren by denying the freedom of the will and a
future judgment according to works. On this Augustine wrote a letter in which
he laid down the necessity of believing both in the Divine grace and in the
freedom of the will. “If there be no grace of God”, he asks, “how doth He save
the world? if there be no free-will, how doth He judge the world?”, and he
devoted two treatises to the examination of the points in question. In these
books he still maintained the freedom of man’s will; but he held that this
essential freedom was not inconsistent with the existence of an outward
necessity controlling it in the prosecution of its desires. Our will, he said,
can do that which God wills, and which He foresees that it will do; will,
therefore, depends on the divine foreknowledge.
God had from eternity determined to rescue some of
human kind from the misery brought on us by sin. The number of these is fixed,
so that it can neither be increased nor diminished; even before they have a
being, they are the children of God; if they deviate from the right way, they
are brought back to it; they cannot perish. As God, being almighty, might save
all, and as many are not saved, it follows that he does not will the salvation
of all—a tenet which Augustine laboriously tried to reconcile with St. Paul’s
declaration that He “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth” (I Tim. II. 4). The elect are supplied with all gifts
which are requisite for bringing them to salvation, and grace works
irresistibly in them. The ground of their election is inscrutable—resting on
the secret counsel of God. He does not predestine any to destruction; for his
predestination regards such things only as he himself works, whereas sin is not
his work; but he knows who are not chosen and will not be saved. These perish
either through unforgiven original sin, or through actual transgression. That
they have no portion in Christ is no ground for impugning the Divine justice :
for if God do not give grace to all, he is not bound to give it to any; even
among men, a creditor may forgive debts to some, and not to others. “By giving
to some that which they do not deserve, God has willed that his grace shall be
truly gratuitous, and therefore real; by not giving to all, he shows what all
deserve. He is good in benefiting the certain number, and just in punishing the
rest. He is both good in all cases, since it is good when that which is due is
paid; and just in all, since it is just when that which is not due is given,
without wrong to any one”. Those who are lost deserve their condemnation,
because they have rejected grace either in their own persons or in that of the
common father. Persons who are not of the elect may be baptized, and may for a
time live piously, so that in the sight of men they are God’s children; but
they are never such in God’s sight, since he foresees their end. If they go on
well for a time, they are not removed from the world until, lacking the gift of
perseverance, they have fallen away. That God gives to some men faith, hope,
charity, but not perseverance, is astonishing; but it is not so much so as
that, among the children of religious parents, he brings some to his kingdom by
baptism, while others, dying unbaptized, are shut out; nor is it less wonderful
that some perish through not having heard the gospel — (for “faith cometh by
hearing”) — than that others perish through not having received the gift of
perseverance. And, since worldly gifts are variously bestowed, why should it
not be so with this gift also? There are, however, differences of degree in the
condemnation of those who are not elect; thus, although those who have never
heard the gospel will not on account of their ignorance escape the eternal fire,
their punishment will probably be less than that of sinners who have wilfully
rejected knowledge.
In this system there was much of a new and startling
character—the doctrines of absolute predestination, of irresistible grace, of
the limitation of Christ's benefits to the subjects of an arbitrary election.
Augustine himself was able to look on these doctrines as encouragements to
trust in God; he exhorted others to do the same, and teachers to set them forth
in that light, without questioning as to the election of individuals, or
driving any to despair through the apprehension of being hopelessly reprobate.
But we cannot wonder that they were regarded with alarm by many, both on
account of the novelties of the theory and for the sake of practical consequences.
A middle party arose, which is known by the name of
Semipelagian, originally given to it by the schoolmen of the middle ages. Its
leader, Cassian of Marseilles, was a person of considerable note and influence.
He is described as a Scythian—a term which has been variously interpreted, and
notwithstanding which some authorities suppose him to have been a native of
Gaul. He had been trained in a monastery at Bethlehem, and, after a long
residence among the monks of Egypt (as to whose manner of life his works are a
principal source of information), had been ordained a deacon by St. Chrysostom,
after whose banishment he was entrusted by the clergy of Constantinople with a
mission to Innocent of Rome. The occasion and the date of his settlement at Marseilles
are uncertain; he had founded there a monastery for each sex, and had been
raised to the order of presbyter. Unlike Pelagius, whose opinions he strongly
reprobated, Cassian acknowledged that all men sinned in Adam; that all have
both hereditary and actual sin; that we are naturally inclined to evil; and
that for every good thing—the beginning, the continuance, and the ending—we
need the aid of supernatural grace. But, although he maintained that grace is
gratuitous—although he admitted that, in the infinite varieties of God’s
dealings with men, the first call to salvation sometimes proceeds from
preventing grace, and takes effect even on the unwilling—he supposed that
ordinarily the working of grace depends on the determination of man’s own will;
that God is the receiver of the willing, as well as the Saviour of the
unwilling. As examples of those who are called without their own will, he
referred to St. Matthew and St. Paul; for proof that in some cases the will
precedes the call, he alleged Zacchaeus and the penitent thief,—as to whom he
made the obvious mistake of regarding the recorded part of their story as if it
were the whole. He held that God furnishes man’s nature with the seeds of
virtue, although grace be needful to develop them; that Christ died for all
men, and that grace is offered to all; that there is a twofold
predestination—the general, by which God wills the salvation of all men, and
the special, by which he determines the salvation of those as to whom he
foresees that they will make a right use of grace and will persevere; that the
notion of an irrespective predestination is to be rejected, as destructive of
all motive to exertion, alike in the elect and in the reprobate, and as
implying the gnostic error that there are species of men naturally distinct
from each other; and that, in any case, predestination ought not to be
popularly taught, inasmuch as the teaching of it might be mischievous, whereas
the omission of the doctrine could do no practical harm. Faith and good works
(it was said) although they do not deserve grace, are motives to the bestowal
of it. Grace must work with our own will and endeavour; it may be lost, and is
to be retained by man’s freewill—not by a gift of perseverance. God’s purpose
and calling, according to Cassian, bring men by baptism to salvation; yet the
benefits of the Saviour’s death extend to persons who in this life were never
made members of him—their readiness to believe being discerned by God and
reckoned to their credit. In like manner children who die in infancy are dealt
with according to God’s foreknowledge of what they would have become if they
had been allowed to live longer : those who would have used grace rightly are
brought by baptism to salvation; the others die unbaptized.
These opinions found much favour in the south of Gaul,
and reports of their progress were sent by two men, Prosper and Hilary to
Augustine, who thereupon wrote two treatises, which his Jansenist biographer
declares to be nothing less than inspired.
In these books he spoke of his opponents with high
regard; he acknowledged the great and fundamental difference between them and
the Pelagians; he treated them as being united with
himself as to essentials, and he expressed a trust that God would bring them to
the fullness of a sound belief. The further history of Semipelagianism will come under our notice hereafter.
During the last years of Augustine’s life, Africa was
overwhelmed by a barbaric invasion; and the author of the calamity was one with
whom he had long been on terms of friendship,—the imperial general, count
Boniface. Boniface had at one time been so deeply impressed by religious
feeling that he would have entered a monastery but for the dissuasions of
Augustine and Alypius, who told him that he might do better by living
Christianly in his military station, and exerting himself for the safety of his
country. He afterwards, however, married a second wife, of Arian family; and
although she had professed Catholicism, it is said that the general, after
entering into this connexion, declined both in faith and in morals.
Aetius, the rival of Boniface in power and in military
distinction, basely endeavoured to undermine him. By representing him as
engaged in treasonable designs, he persuaded Placidia, the sister of Honorius,
who governed in the name of her son, the young Valentinian, to recall the
general from Africa; and at the same time, by telling Boniface that his ruin
was intended, he induced him to disobey the summons. Boniface fell into the
snare, raised the standard of revolt, and invited to his assistance the
Vandals, who about the year 420 had established themselves in the south of
Spain. A large body of them, under the command of Gieserich or Genseric, passed into Africa, where they were joined by the Moors and by the
fanatical Donatists—eager to take vengeance on the Catholics for many
years of depression. The province was cruelly ravaged; the clergy in particular
were marks for the enmity both of the Donatists and of the Arian invaders.
Boniface, who had been urged by Augustine to return to his allegiance, was
deeply distressed by the savage proceedings of his allies, and, by means of
explanations with the court, he discovered the treachery of Aetius. Vainly
imagining himself able to undo the mischief which he had caused, he requested
the Vandals to withdraw from Africa, but was answered with derision, and found
himself obliged to have recourse to arms as the only hope of delivering his
country from the consequences of his imprudence. But his forces were unequal to
the enemy; and, after having been defeated in the field, he shut himself up in
Hippo with the remains of his army.
Augustine was indefatigable in his labours during the
invasion. He continued a long and elaborate treatise against the Pelagian
Julian of Eclanum; he wrote other controversial
works, and endeavoured by letters of advice and consolation to support the
minds of his brethren in their trials. His pastoral cares were increased by the
multitudes of all classes who had sought a refuge within the walls of Hippo;
and soon after the Vandals had laid siege to the town, he fell sick in consequence
of his exertions. Wishing to secure his devotions from interruption, he
directed that his friends should not be admitted to him, except at the times
when medicine or food was administered. He desired that the penitential psalms
should be hung up within his sight, and read them over and over with a
profusion of tears. On the 28th of August, 430, he was taken to his rest.
CHAPTER III.
|