Zosimus, however prejudiced in favour of Cælestius, did not take upon him to restore him to the Communion of the Church, from which he had been cut off by the Bishops of Africa Six Years before, or to come to any farther Resolution till he had imparted the Affair to them. He writ accordingly to Aurelius of Carthage, and to the other African Bishops; not that he stood in need of their Advice, or wanted to be directed by them, as he let them know in his Letter, but because he was willing to hear what they had to object against one who had been first accused at their Tribunal. He upbraids those Prelates, and with great Bitterness and Acrimony, as if they had acted with too much Haste and Precipitation in an Affair that required the most mature Deliberation. As for Heros and Lazarus, the two great Opposers of Pelagius and Cælestius, he inveighs against them with the most abusive Language that an implacable Rage could suggest. He lets the African Bishops know, that if the Accusers of Cælestius did not appear at Rome in Two Months, to make good their Charge against him, he would declare him innocent, and admit him as a true Catholic to his Communion. He styles all such Inquiries, that is, Inquiries concerning Grace and Original Sin, empty Speculations, and trifling Disputes, owing to a criminal Curiosity, and an immoderate Desire of speaking and writing; in which perhaps he was not much to blame: he closes his Letter with exhorting them not to trust to their own Judgment, but to adhere in every thing to the Scripture and Tradition[1502].
As for Heros and Lazarus, against whom Zosimus chiefly vented
his Spleen, while he favoured Cælestius; St. Prosper gives us, in his
Chronicle, the following Account of the former: “Heros, says he,
was Bishop of Arles, a holy Man, and the Disciple of St. Martin.
However, he was driven from his See by his own People, though
quite innocent, and not even accused of any Fault. In his room
was placed one PatroculusPatroculus, an intimate Friend of Count Constantius,
who at that Time, bore a great Sway in the Empire, and whose
favour they courted, and hoped to earn by that Violence.” This
happened in 412. All we know of Lazarus is, that he was ordained
Bishop of Aix in Provence, by Proculus Bishop of Marseilles, a
Prelate of extraordinary Merit, as appears from the high Commendations
bestowed on him by the Council of Turin[1503], by St. Jerom[1504],
and by Tiro Prosper in his Chronicle. Patroclus, who was intruded
in the room of Heros, is painted by Tiro Prosper, a Writer no-ways
prejudiced against the Pelagians, or their Friends, as a Man of a most
abandoned Life, and one who turned the Episcopacy into a Trade, and
sold the Priesthood to all who had Money to purchase it[1505]. Baronius
interprets the violent Death, which he suffered in 426. when he was
barbarously murdered by a Military Tribune, as a Punishment from
Heaven for his criminal Intrusion[1506]. Such were the Characters of Heros,
Lazarus, and Patroclus; and yet of the latter, who favoured the
Pelagians, Zosimus entertained the highest Opinion, and often commends
him in his Letters as a Man of great Merit and Virtue. |Heros and Lazarus
falsly charged with
many Crimes by
Zosimus.| But
the Two former, who had distinguished themselves above the rest in
opposing the Pelagians, he most outrageously abuses, styling them, in
his Second Letter to the African Bishops, Two Plagues, who, with
their nonsensical Whims, disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the
whole Church; Whirlwinds and Storms, that could suffer none to
enjoy any Quiet. He adds, that he was not at all surprised at their
wickedly attempting to defame with false Depositions, and lying Evidences,
a Layman, meaning Pelagius, who had served God so long
with an untainted Reputation, and shining Virtues, since they had
raised so many Storms in the Church, had contrived so many Plots,
employed so many Engines, to compass the Ruin of their Brethren
and Collegues in the Episcopacy[1507]. No Mention is made by the Historians
of those Times of any other Storms or Disturbances in the
Churches of Gaul, but such as were occasioned by the Expulsion of
Heros, and the Intrusion of Patroclus; and these Patroclus probably
exaggerated beyond Measure, laying the whole Blame on Heros. For
Patroclus was in Rome at the very Time Zosimus writ his Letter to the
African Bishops, fraught with Invectives against Heros and Lazarus[1508].
In the same Letter Zosimus charges the Two Prelates with several other
Crimes; viz. that they had both been ordained against the Canons,
and against the Will of the People as well as the Clergy, whom, however,
they had forced by Chains, Prisons, Confiscations, and the Favour
of the Tyrant, meaning, no doubt, the Usurper Constantine, to
consent in the End to their Election; that Lazarus had ascended the
Episcopal Throne, while his Hands were still reeking with innocent
Blood, &c. But, had they been guilty of such Excesses, would Prosper,
who lived at this very Time, and all the other Historians, have
passed them over in Silence? Would he have styled Heros an holy
Man? Would St. Austin have called them both his holy Brethren[1509]?
Would the Fathers of the Council of Carthage in 416. have acknowleged
them for their Fellow-Labourers and Collegues in the Priesthood[1510]?
Would Proculus of Marseilles, one of the most illustrious
Prelates at that Time in Gaul, have ordained Lazarus, while his
Hands were still reeking with innocent Blood? We may therefore,
upon the Whole, agree here with Baronius[1511], and ascribe the Crimes,
of which the two Prelates were arraigned by Zosimus, to the Suggestions
of their Enemies, especially of Patroclus, in whom Zosimus reposed
an intire Confidence. |They are both de-
graded and excommunicated
by Zosimus.| However that be, Zosimus, highly incensed
against both, not only declared them deposed, as Men unworthy
of the Episcopal Dignity, but cut them off from his Communion,
for many Reasons, says he, and, among the rest, because they had deposed
themselves[1512].
This Sentence he pronounced in their Absence, without even acquainting
them with the Crimes laid to their Charge; not reflecting,
in the Height of his Passion, that he was, at that very Time, complaining
of the African Bishops for having condemned Cælestius in
his Absence, reproaching them with too much Haste and Precipitation,
and laying it down as a Rule never to be swerved from, that
no Man ought to be condemned before he is heard, let the Crimes
laid to his Charge be ever so great. As for their deposing themselves,
or voluntarily abdicating their Dignity, it is very certain, if Prosper
is to be credited, that Heros did not abdicate, but was violently driven
from his See. If Lazarus abdicated (for Cardinal Noris[1513] and others[1514]
are of Opinion he did not), that ought not to have been imputed to
him as a Crime, any more than it was to Nazianzen Bishop of Constantinople,
and many others, who were not even censured by their
Enemies on that Account. |The other Bishops
make no Account of
the Anathemas of
Zosimus.| The other Bishops seem to have made no
Account of the Anathemas of Zosimus; for they still continued to
communicate with them, and acknowlege them for their Collegues[1515];
the Name of Heros was inserted into the Diptychs of the Church of
Arles after his Death; and Lazarus was, according to some, even
restored to his See[1516].
Not long after Zosimus had written the Letter, which I have mentioned
above, to the Bishops of Africa in favour of Cælestius, he received
one from Praylius Bishop of Jerusalem, warmly recommending
to him the Cause of Pelagius; and another from Pelagius himself,
in his own Vindication, and with it a Confession of his Faith.
These Letters were directed to Innocent; but he being dead before
they reached Rome, they were delivered to Zosimus. In the Confession
of Faith Pelagius owned, that Baptism ought to be administered
to Children as well as to the Adult; and that, notwithstanding
our Free-will, we want the Assistance of Grace[1517]. Neither of these
Propositions was inconsistent with, or repugnant to, his Doctrine;
for though he denied Original Sin, he allowed Baptism to be administred
even to Children, but only for their Sanctification. He admitted
the Necessity of Grace, but not Grace as that Word was understood
by St. Austin, and the other Bishops who opposed him; for
by Grace he meant no more than the Remission of Sins, Instruction,
the Example of Christ. In this Confession he did not disown any of
his Tenets; but, not thinking it safe or adviseable openly to own them,
he industriously declined explaining himself more distinctly on either
of the above-mentioned Heads. |which he approves of,| Zosimus, however, fully satisfied with
his Confession, and quite astonished (to use his own Words) at the
rash Proceedings of the African Bishops, in condemning, as Heretics,
Men whose Doctrine was so sound and orthodox, immediately transmitted
to Aurelius of Carthage, and his Collegues in Africa, the
Confession as well as the Letter which had been sent him by Pelagius.
On this Occasion he writ himself a second Letter to the African
Bishops, which we may justly style a Panegyric on Pelagius and
Cælestius, and a bitter Invective against their Accusers, Heros and Lazarus.
|and censures the
African Bishops for
condemning him.| This Letter he concludes with exhorting the Bishops of
Africa to the Love of Peace and Unity, and condemning, as guilty
of an Injustice unknown even to the Pagan Romans, those who gave
Judgment in the Absence of the Persons accused, what Crimes soever
were laid to their Charge[1518], as I have observed above.
The African Bishops were no less surprised to find Zosimus so warmly
engaged in favour of Pelagius and Cælestius, than Zosimus was
surprised at their having condemned them. However, they were determined
to stand to the Judgment which they had given, though sensible
that such a Determination would not fail to produce, if Zosimus
did not yield, a Misunderstanding, and perhaps an intire Separation,
between Rome and Africa. This St. Austin seems chiefly to have
apprehended, and to have been resolved, if it should so happen, to
abdicate and retire[1519]. To prevent this Evil, which would have proved
very detrimental to the common Cause, many Letters passed between
Rome and Africa[1520]: but as none of those that were written at this
Juncture by the African Bishops have reached our Times, having been
probably destroyed by those whose Interest it was to destroy them;
all we know concerning this Affair is, that the Africans maintained,
with great Steadiness, their former Judgment against the Pretensions
of Zosimus; and would never allow a Cause, that had been determined
in Africa, to be re-examined at Rome, the rather as Innocent,
the Predecessor of Zosimus, had concurred with them in condemning
both Cælestius and his Doctrine[1521]. |Paulinus, summoned to
Rome, refuses to
obey the Summons.| The Letter from Zosimus to
the African Bishops was carried by one Basilius, Subdeacon of Rome,
who was charged with a verbal Order for the Deacon Paulinus, the
first who accused Cælestius, to repair to Rome. To this Summons
Paulinus returned Answer, that as the Bishops of Africa had condemned
Cælestius upon his Accusation, it was no longer incumbent
upon him, but upon them, to shew that his Accusation was well
grounded; and therefore he could not conceive why Zosimus should
require him to take a Journey to Rome[1522].
In the mean time Aurelius of Carthage was under the greatest Apprehension,
lest Zosimus should be prevailed upon by Cælestius, and the
other Pelagians at Rome, to take some hasty Step in their favour.
Having therefore assembled, with all possible Expedition, a Council at
Carthage, he first writ, in his own and their Name, to Zosimus, earnestly
intreating him to suspend all further Proceedings in an Affair of
such Moment, till he was more fully informed. This Letter was written,
and a Messenger dispatched with it to Rome, while the Council
was yet very thin; the Haste Aurelius was in to stop the Proceedings
of Zosimus not allowing him to wait the Arrival of all. When
the rest came, and they were in all Two hundred and Fourteen, they
unanimously confirmed their former Sentence, and, without waiting
for the Judgment of Zosimus, condemned anew the Doctrine of Pelagius
and Cælestius[1523]. The Decrees which they made on this Occasion
against the Pelagians were received, says Prosper, by Rome, by
the Emperors, no doubt, Honorius and Arcadius, and by the whole
World[1524]. And yet, in the making of these Decrees, the Bishop of
Rome had no Hand; so that it was not Rome, but Africa, it was not
the Pope, but the Bishops of Africa, or more truly St. Austin (for
he governed intirely that Council), who taught the Church what she
was to believe, and what disbelieve, concerning Grace and Original
Sin. One of these Decrees is related by Prosper[1525], wherein the Two
hundred and Fourteen Bishops declare, that we are aided by Grace, not
only in the Knowlege, but in the Practice, of Virtue; and that
without it we can neither think, speak, or do any thing whatsoever
that is pious or holy[1526]. This, and the other Decrees of the Council,
were sent immediately to Rome by the Fathers, who composed them,
with a Letter for Zosimus, declaring that they were determined to adhere
to the Judgment, which his Predecessor Innocent had formerly
given against Pelagius and Cælestius, till such time as both owned,
and in the most plain and unexceptionable Terms, the Necessity of
Grace, and abjured the opposite Doctrine. |The Policy of the
African Bishops.| It was the Effect of a
refined Policy in the African Bishops not to mention their own Judgment,
but to lay the whole Stress on that of Innocent, though his was
not only preceded, but produced, or rather extorted, by theirs. They
hoped that the Regard, which they pretended to have for Innocent,
would bring Zosimus to a better Temper, and divert him from absolving
those whom his Predecessor had so lately condemned. As
Zosimus had reproached them in his Letter for believing too easily
those who had appeared against Cælestius, they in their turn represented
to him, that he ought not so easily to have believed Cælestius,
and those who spoke in his Favour. In the same Letter they gave him
a particular Account of all that had passed in Africa concerning Cælestius.
No wonder therefore, that Zosimus should have complained
of the Length of the Letter, calling it a Volume, and saying,[1527] that
he had got through it at last. With this Letter Marcellinus, Subdeacon
of the Church of Carthage, was dispatched to Rome, and
he arrived there in the Beginning of March 418.
Zosimus was alarmed at the Steadiness of the Africans. He plainly
saw from their Letter, and more plainly from their Decrees, that they
were determined not to yield; and therefore, apprehending the evil
Consequences that would infallibly attend his continuing to protect
Pelagius and Cælestius against them, he resolved to yield, and withdraw,
by Degrees, his Protection from both. |His boasting Letter to
the African Bishops.| Hence, in his Answer
to the Council, he contented himself with setting forth and boasting
the Pre-eminence, Authority, and Prerogatives of the Apostolic See;
which however, more modest than his Predecessor, he did not ascribe
to Divine Institution, but to the Canons of the Church, and Prescription.
He tells the African Bishops, that though he is vested with a
Power of judging all Causes, though his Judgment is irreversible, yet
he had chosen to determine nothing without having first consulted
them; and this he dwells upon as an extraordinary Favour. He expresses
great Surprize at their seeming to be persuaded, that he had
given an intire Credit to Cælestius; assures them that he had not been
so hasty, being well apprised that the last and definitive Judgment
ought not to be given but with the greatest Caution, and after the
most mature Deliberation; and in the Close of his Letter lets them
know, that, upon the Receipt of their first Letter, he had suspended
all further Proceedings; and, to gratify them, left Things in the State
they were in before[1528].
In the mean time the African Bishops, assembling in Council at Carthage,
from all the Provinces of Africa, and some even from Spain,
the more effectually to oppose and defeat any further Attempts of
Zosimus, in favour of Pelagius and Cælestius, condemned their Doctrine
anew, and more distinctly than they had hitherto done. This
Council met on the 1st of May 418. consisted of 225 Bishops, and
enacted Eight Canons, anathematizing the Pelagian Doctrine concerning
Grace and Original Sin[1529]. To these Eight Canons they added
Ten more, calculated to establish some Points of Discipline. Among
the latter the Ninth deserves particular Notice; for it is there decreed,
That Presbyters, Deacons, and inferior Clerks, if they complain of
the Judgment of their own Bishop, may appeal, with his Consent,
to the neighbouring Bishops, and from them to the Primate or Council
of Africa. |Appeals beyond Sea
forbidden by the
Council, on Pain of
Excommunication.| But, if any one should presume, say they, to appeal
beyond Sea, let no Man receive him to his Communion[1530]. To this
Decree Gratian has added, to save the Jurisdiction of the Pope, unless
they appeal to the See of Rome; than which nothing can be
more absurd, since it was to restrain the encroaching Power of the
See of Rome that this Canon was made. We must not forget, that
St. Austin was present at this Council, and signed this, as well as
the other Canons and Decrees, that were, on this Occasion, enacted
by the 225 Bishops.
The Africans had dispatched, the Year before, the Bishop Vindemialis to the Court of Honorius, with the Decrees of the Council held against Pelagius, of which I have spoken above. And those Decrees the Emperor not only approved, but enacted this Year 418. a severe Law against the Pelagians, dated from Ravenna, the 30th of April, and addressed to Palladius then Præfectus Prætorio. Honorius there declares, he had been informed, that Pelagius and Cælestius taught, in Opposition to the Authority of the Catholic Church, that God had created the first Man mortal; that he would have died, whether he had or had not sinned; that his Sin did not pass to his Descendents; and several other impious Errors, that disturbed the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church. To put a Stop therefore to the growing Evil, he commands Pelagius and Cælestius to be driven from Rome; orders it to be every-where notified, that all Persons shall be admitted before the Magistrates, as Informers against those who are suspected of holding their wicked Doctrines; and such as are found guilty shall be sent into Exile[1531]. In virtue of this Law, an Order was issued by the Præfecti Prætorio, viz. by Junius Quartus Palladius Prefect of Italy, Monaxius Prefect of the East, and Agricola Prefect of Gaul, commanding Pelagius and Cælestius to be driven out of Rome, and the Accomplices of their Errors to be stript of their Estates, and condemned to perpetual Banishment[1532]. A most barbarous Treatment for holding Opinions, which, if erroneous, were certainly harmless. But it is usual for a persecuting Spirit to be as violent upon the most unessential as the most weighty Points: and the Rage of Disputation is never more keen, than when the Disputants can hardly define what they quarrel about; especially when the Sword of the Magistrate is drawn on that Side which has least to say for itself in Reason and Argument. I do not affirm this was the Case in the present Dispute; but this is certain, that if Pelagius went too far in his Opinion, so did his Opposers in theirs: and so far his Conduct was infinitely better than theirs, that he declared his own Notions to be Matters very indifferent to Catholic Faith, and professed a general Assent to that Faith; whereas they anathematized his Opinions as execrable Errors, and punished them with all the Severity that the most implacable Malice could exert[N62].
Pelagius and Cælestius being thus condemned by the Decrees of
the African Bishops, by the Law of the Emperor, and even by the
Voice of the People, or rather of the Populace, who were everywhere
ready, but no-where more than at Rome, to rise against the
Enemies of Grace, as they were styled, and their Abetters; Zosimus
thought it not safe to afford them any further Protection, unless Cælestius,
who was still at Rome (the Imperial Law not being yet published
there), consented to anathematize the Doctrines ascribed to
him and Pelagius, in such clear and precise Terms as should leave
no room, even for his Enemies, to question his Sincerity. He therefore
appointed a Day for the Roman Clergy, and the neighbouring
Bishops, to assemble; and, acquainting Cælestius with this Resolution,
he summoned him to appear at the Time appointed, that, by condemning
whatever he should be required to condemn, he might be
publicly restored to the Communion of the Church, from which he
had been cut off by the African Bishops. |Cælestius instead of
appearing retires
from Rome.| Cælestius was greatly perplexed
with this Summons: he conceived it impossible to dissemble
any longer his real Sentiments; but, at the same time, thinking it
base to renounce them, and foreseeing the Consequences that would
infallibly attend his avowing them, after he had been long in Suspense
what Expedient to resolve on, he concluded at last, that the
best and safest was, privately to withdraw from Rome, and keep himself
concealed till the present Storm was blown over. This Expedient
he chose, and put it in Execution with such Secrecy, that he
was no more heard of till Three Years after, when he appeared again
in Rome[1533].
In the mean time the appointed Day came; but Cælestius did not
appear: he was summoned a new, and the Proceedings were adjourned
for a few Days; but as he still absented himself, and no Tidings
could be heard of him, Zosimus was so provoked in seeing himself
thus deluded, that, without further Examination, he condemned the
Confession of Faith, which he had approved before; confirmed the
Sentence of the Africans, which he had so sharply censured; and,
anathematizing the Doctrine both of Pelagius and Cælestius, declared
the one and the other cut off from the Communion of the
Church, if they did not publicly renounce and abjure the poisonous
Tenets of their impious and abominable Sect[1534]. He did not stop here;
but, to retrieve his Reputation, which had suffered greatly on this
Occasion, and to atone by an opposite Zeal, for that which he had
hitherto exerted in their Favour, he writ a long circular Letter to
all the Bishops, anathematizing the Doctrine of Pelagius, and exhorting
them to follow his Example. |and writes a circular
Letter against them.| Copies of this Letter were sent
into all the Provinces of the Christian World, and out of so great a
Number of Bishops Eighteen only were found, who refused to receive
it, and confirm, with their Subscriptions, the Anathemas it contained[1535].
As for the Eighteen Bishops, who refused to join the rest, they
alleged, that they could not, in Conscience, condemn any Man in
his Absence, and that it was but just they should first hear what
he had to plead in his Defence, quoting to that Purpose the very
Passages of Scripture which Zosimus had quoted in his Letter to
the Africans, censuring them for condemning Pelagius in his Absence.
They added, that, as for Pelagius and Cælestius, they had
both condemned, in their Writings, the Errors imputed to them; and
therefore did not deserve, in their Opinion, the Anathemas that
Rome and Africa had, perhaps too hastily, thundered against them.
Julian, Bishop of Eclana in Campania, one of the Eighteen, and the
most distinguished among them, writ Two Letters on this Subject
to Zosimus, one of which was signed by them all, and contained a
Confession of their Faith, agreeing, in the most material Points, with
the Confessions of Pelagius and Cælestius. For there they absolutely
reject, and in the strongest Terms, Original Sin, under the Name of
Natural Sin; but allow (and in this Article alone they differ from
Pelagius) that by the Sin of Adam Death was let into the World.
They intreat Zosimus to acquaint them with what should be found
amiss in their Confession; but beg that he would not think of employing
Force, since no Force, but that of Conviction, could produce
in them a Change of Sentiments. They let him know, in the End
of their Letter, that they have already appealed to the Judgment of
an Oecumenical Council[1536]. |They are condemned and
degraded by Zosimus.| Zosimus was so provoked at this Appeal,
that, upon the Receipt of the Letter, he assembled, in great Haste,
a Council, consisting of the Roman Clergy, and the neighbouring
Bishops; and, having caused the Letter to be read in their Presence,
he condemned anew Pelagius and Cælestius, and with them Julian,
and the other Bishops, who signed it, declaring them guilty of the
same Errors, and in Consequence thereof degraded, as incorrigible
Heretics, from the Episcopal Dignity. |They recur to the Emp-
eror for a General Coun-
cil.| The Prelates, thus degraded,
had recourse to the Emperor Honorius, complaining of the undeserved
Severity of Zosimus, and intreating him to convene, by his
Authority, an Oecumenical Council, to the Judgment of which they
were ready to submit both themselves and their Doctrine. The Emperor
seemed at first inclined to grant them their Request. But
Count Valerius, a great Friend of St. Austin, and then very powerful
at Court, not only diverted Honorius from it, but prevailed upon
him to enact a Law, banishing from Italy Julian, and with him
all the Bishops, whom Zosimus had deposed[1537]. |Who issues several
Laws against them.| This Law was soon
followed by another, commanding all Bishops to sign the Condemnation
of Pelagius and Cælestius, on Pain of Deposition, and perpetual
Banishment[1538]. The Pelagians interpreted their being refused a Council,
as a Token of Victory; whence Julian, in a Letter which he
writ to his Friends in Rome, insults his Adversaries, as if they had
distrusted their Cause, and therefore declined the Judgment of an
Oecumenical Council[1539]. In another Place he reproaches St. Austin,
in particular, for courting the Friendship of Men in Power, especially
of Count Valerius, with no other View but to crush, by their means,
those whom he could not convince. St. Austin answered, That
Recourse indeed had been had to Men in Power; but that the Pelagians
ought rather to be thankful, than to complain, on that Score,
since it was not to crush them, or to do them the least Hurt (for they
were only driven from their Sees, and banished for Life), that the
Interest and Power of great Men had been made use of, but merely
to reclaim them from their sacrilegious Temerity[1540]. Might not a Decius,
a Dioclesian, or any other Persecutor of the Church, have used
the same Plea to justify his Persecution?
About this time, that is, in the Latter-end of the Year 418. or the
Beginning of 419. the Doctrine of Pelagius was condemned in a
Council held at Antioch, at which presided Theodotius Bishop of that
City; and in another, that met about the Year 421. in Cilicia, under
the famous Theodorus of Mopsuestia, who had been hitherto an
avowed Patron of the Pelagians, had received Julian when driven
out of Italy, and even written a Book against St. Austin, in Defence
of the Pelagian Doctrine[1541]. His Conversion was perhaps owing, as
that of many others certainly was, to the severe Laws enacted against
the Pelagians. Soon after the Council of Antioch, Pelagius, whom
Jerom styles the Second Catiline, was driven from Jerusalem, where
he had lived a long time, and obliged to fly to some other Place for
Shelter[1542]. Whither he retired, or what became of him afterwards, is
not recorded. St. Austin supposes both him and Cælestius to have
been still alive, while he was writing against Julian, that is, about
the Year 421[1543]. |Pelagius driven from
Jerusalem.| As for Cælestius, it appears from a Rescript, or rather
a Letter, of the Emperor Constantius to Volusianus, Prefect of
Rome, in 421. that he was then in that City. |Cælestius returns to
Rome.| For Constantius writes
to Volusianus, that though he had enacted some Laws against the antient
as well as the modern Heresies, yet he was informed, that they
made daily great Progress; and therefore, to prevent the Disturbances
that must arise from thence, he commands the Laws to be put in
Execution, and the Enemies of the true Religion to be carefully
sought for, especially Cælestius, and to be banished, if apprehended,
an Hundred Miles from Rome. |Law issued against
him.| To this Letter the Emperor added,
with his own Hand, by way of Postscript, that the Reputation of Volusianus
depended on the punctual Execution of this Order[1544]. In
Obedience to the Emperor’s Commands, Volusianus issued a Proclamation,
banishing Cælestius an Hundred Miles from Rome, and
threatening with Proscription all who should presume to conceal
him[1545]. Cælestius however appeared again in Rome Three Years after,
and even applied to Cælestine, then in that See, to have his Cause
examined anew. Is banished all Italy. But Cælestine, rejecting his Request with Indignation,
caused him to be banished all Italy[1546]. From Rome he repaired
to Constantinople, with Julian, and the other Bishops of the Pelagian
Party, who all met there with a more kind Reception. |Is driven from Constantinople together with Julian, and the other Pelagian Bishops.| The Emperor
Theodosius the younger was even inclined to assemble, at their
Request, a great Council; and Nestorius, then Bishop of Constantinople,
writ to the Pope in their Favour. But, in the mean time,
Marius Mercator having composed, and presented to the Emperor, a
Memorial against them, they were ordered by Theodosius, in virtue
of that Memorial, to depart the City[1547]. Of Cælestius no farther
Mention is made by any of the Antients. As for Julian, he wandered,
for several Years, from Place to Place, being every-where abhorred,
detested, and driven out by the Populace, as if his Presence
had been enough to draw down from Heaven some remarkable Judgment
upon them. |Julian dies in
Sicily.| However, he found an Asylum at last in a small
Village of Sicily, where he earned a Livelihood by keeping a School,
till the Year 455. when he died, after he had divested himself of all
he had, to relieve the Poor of the Place in a great Famine[1548]. He
was a Man of a sprightly Genius, thoroughly acquainted with the
Scriptures, well versed in all the Branches of polite Literature, especially
in the Greek and Latin Poets, and once famous among the
Doctors of the Church[1549]. |His Birth, Education, &c.| He was descended from an illustrious Family.
His Father was an Italian Bishop, for whom St. Austin, notwithstanding
his irreconcileable Aversion to the Son, professed the
greatest Friendship and Veneration[1550]. His Mother was a Lady of the
first Quality, and yet more commendable for her Virtue than her
Birth[1551]. His Enemies, envying him even his noble Descent, strove to
rob him of that Honour, small as it is, in Comparison of his other
Endowments, by giving out, that he was a supposititious Child[1552]. He
was admitted by his Father among the Clergy, when he was yet very
young, and married, when he was of a more mature Age, to a Lady
named Ja, of a Senatorial, nay, of the Æmilian Family, and the
Daughter of Æmilius Bishop of Benevento[1553]. St. Paulinus, Bishop
of Nola, did not think it beneath him to write an Epithalamium on
this Occasion, of a most singular kind; for he advises him and his
Bride to continue Virgins, and observe Continency[1554]. A very extraordinary
Advice on a Wedding-Day! That the married Couple
agreed to it then, we are not told; but, not long after, probably on
the Death of his Wife, Julian bound himself to the Observance of
Continency; for he was ordained Deacon, and soon after raised to
the See of Eclana[1555]. He had, long before, embraced the Pelagian
Doctrine; and was so fully convinced of the Truth of it, that he
often declared, if Pelagius himself should renounce his Doctrine, yet
he would not[1556]. These Sentiments he maintained to the last, chusing
rather to be driven from his See, and deprived of all the Comforts of
Life, than to abjure Opinions, which he thought true, or admit Opinions,
which he thought false. He was buried in the Place where he
died; and his Tomb was discovered in the Ninth Century, with the
following Epitaph; Here rests in Peace Julian a Catholic Bishop.
From this Epitaph some have concluded, that he renounced at last
the Pelagian Doctrine, and died a good Catholic. But they were
not, it seems, aware, that the Pelagians constantly styled themselves
Catholics, stigmatizing St. Austin, and the rest who opposed them,
with the Name of Manichees.
Julian is supposed to have dissented in some Points from Pelagius, in those especially that relate to Grace, and thereby to have introduced, or laid down such Principles as naturally tended to introduce, the Semipelagian Doctrine; which may be reduced to the following Heads: 1. That when the Truth has been sufficiently declared, we may, by our own Free-will, without the Help of preventing Grace, begin to believe it; so that the first Beginning of our Faith cannot be properly called a Gift of God, but, our own Act. 2. That for all other good Works Grace is necessary (and here they differed from the Pelagians); but is never denied to a Man, who, by the good Use of his Free-will, has begun to believe. Thus, according to them, Grace was the Reward of Faith, and not Faith the Effect of Grace, which was the Doctrine of St. Austin. 3. That, by Grace preceding our Merits, no more can be meant, than the natural Grace and Bounty of God, given to Man in his Reason, and the natural Faculties of his Soul; by the good Use of which, he may render himself worthy of the extraordinary Grace that is necessary for him to work out his Salvation. 4. That the Children who die before they attain to the Years of Discretion, are eternally rewarded or punished, according to the good or bad Life they would have led, had they attained to the Years of Discretion. A most impious Tenet! making God punish Sins with eternal Misery that were never committed: yet not quite so impious as that of St. Austin; who, without having recourse to the Supposition of Crimes foreseen, supposed innocent Children to be eternally damned for a Crime committed by Adam, if, by the Fault of their Parents, they were not baptized. Other Tenets of the Semipelagians were these: 5. That the Notion of Election and Reprobation, independent on our Merits or Demerits, is maintaining a fatal Necessity, is the Bane of all Virtue, and serves only to render good Men remiss in working out their Salvation, and to drive Sinners to Despair. |The System of the Jesuits founded on the Semipelagian Doctrine.| 6. That the Decrees of Election and Reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of our good or evil Works, as foreseen by God from all Eternity. On these Two last Propositions the Jesuits found their whole System of Grace and Free-will, agreeing therein with the Semipelagians against the Jansenists and St. Austin; though, not daring to contradict the Doctor of Grace, as he is styled, they pretend their Doctrine, and not that of the Jansenists, to be the true Doctrine of St. Austin; which has occasioned endless Disputes, and endless Volumes. The latter Popes have all favoured the Semipelagians or Jesuits against the Jansenists and St. Austin; and Clement XI. above all the rest, by his famous Bull Unigenitus. But the Popes who lived nearer those Times, especially Gelasius and Hormisda, were all zealous Asserters of the Doctrine of St. Austin; nay, Hormisda declared the Doctrine contained in the Books of that Father, namely, in those he writ on Predestination and Perseverance, to be the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; which was declaring every true Catholic to be a Predestinarian[1557]. For the Doctrine of Predestination (as Predestination has been since understood by Calvin and his Followers) is there laid down in the plainest Terms; which so shocked some Persons, otherwise eminent for their Piety, say Prosper and Hilarius[1558], that they could not help censuring it, as a Doctrine repugnant to the Sense of the Church, and the Fathers; nay, as a Doctrine, which, were it even true, ought not to be made public, since it was not necessary that Men should know it; and if they did, it would render all Exhortations to good Works vain and useless[1559]. But these, say the Jesuits, pretending their System to be the pure Doctrine of St. Austin, misunderstood that Father, as did Faustus the famous Abbot of Lerins, when he writ, That if it be true, that some are predestined to Life, and others to Destruction, as a certain holy Man (St. Austin) has said, we are not born to be judged, but we are judged before we are born; so that there can be no Equity in the Day of Judgment[1560]. To speak impartially, it is no easy Matter to determine what System St. Austin had formed to himself, with respect to Grace, Free-will, and Predestination: for, in one Place, he seems to reject and condemn what he had been labouring to prove and establish in another. Hence Julian, whose Understanding was far more methodical, used often to quote him against himself, as the Jesuits and Jansenists still do in maintaining their Systems, though diametrically opposite, to be intirely agreeable to his Doctrine. He was apt to run into Extremes, and, in confuting one Error, to lay a Foundation for many others. Hence even his greatest Admirers are often at a Loss how to make him agree either with the Church or himself. However, his great Knowlege in those Days, his extraordinary Zeal for what he called the Catholic Doctrine, and, above all, his heaping daily Volumes upon Volumes against all who opposed it, so dazled the Understandings of the Popes themselves, that, looking upon him as an inspired Writer, they suffered him to dictate even to them, as if he had been Pope, and they common Bishops; as if Infallibility had been transferred from Rome to Hippo, and no longer vested in them, but in him.