Part 45

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

Footnote N61:

He is commonly styled _Pelagius the Briton_, to distinguish him from _Pelagius_ of _Tarento_, who lived about the same time[N61.1].

Footnote N61.1:

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

[Sidenote: _Cælestius, his Family, Profession, Parts_, &c.]

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

[Sidenote: _Their Doctrine._]

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

[Sidenote: _Both pass over into_ Africa.]

These Opinions _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ first broached at _Rome_, about the Year 405. and gained there a great many Followers; more, says St. _Austin_, than could be well imagined[1485]. They both left _Rome_ in 410. or 411. and, crossing over into _Africa_, infected many there, says the same Author, especially at _Carthage_, with their new Doctrine[1486]. [Sidenote: Pelagius _repairs to Palæstine_.] _Pelagius_, after a short Stay at _Carthage_, went first into _Egypt_, and from thence into _Palæstine_, where he continued a long time[1487]. _Cælestius_ remained at _Carthage_, hoping to be preferred there to the Priesthood; but as he did not use the due Caution in propagating his Doctrine in that City, he was soon discovered, and accused by one _Paulinus_, a Deacon, before a Council, at which several Bishops were present, and _Aurelius_ of _Carthage_ presided. [Sidenote: Cælestius _accused and condemned in_ Africa.] The Charge brought against him was, That he held the Sin of _Adam_ to have hurt him alone; that it could not be imputed to his Descendents; and that no Sin was cancelled by Baptism. These Tenets he did not own before the Council; but neither would he disown or anathematize them; and therefore the Bishops, provoked at his Obstinacy, not only condemned his Doctrine, but, at the same time, cut him off, as an incorrigible Heretic, from the Communion of the Church[1488]. [Sidenote: _Appeals to_ Rome, _but flies to_ Ephesus.] From this Sentence _Cælestius_ appealed to the Judgment of _Innocent_, then Bishop of _Rome_, summoning _Paulinus_, his Accuser, to make his Charge good at that Tribunal. But _Cælestius_ himself laid, it seems, no Stress on his Appeal; for, instead of repairing to _Rome_, he fled to _Ephesus_[1489], where we shall leave him for the present.

[Sidenote: Pelagius _accused in_ Palæstine _by_ Heros _and_ Lazarus, _two_ Gallican _Bishops_;]

_Pelagius_, in the mean time, was not idle in _Palæstine_, whither he had retired, as I have said above; but, being countenanced by _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, he gained daily such Numbers of Followers there, that _Heros_ and _Lazarus_, Two Bishops of _Gaul_, whom I shall speak of hereafter, happening to be then in _Palæstine_, thought it incumbent upon them to accuse him to _Eulogius_ Bishop of _Cæsarea_, and Metropolitan of _Palæstine_. They drew up a Writing accordingly, containing the chief Heads of the Doctrine which _Pelagius_ taught, together with the Articles, for which his Disciple _Cælestius_ had been condemned by the Council of _Carthage_; and this Writing they presented to _Eulogius_. Hereupon a Council was assembled soon after at _Diospolis_, a City of _Palæstine_, known in Scripture by the Name of _Lydda_. It consisted of Fourteen Bishops, and _Eulogius_ of _Cæsarea_ presided; but neither of the _Gallican_ Bishops was present, the one being prevented by a dangerous Malady, and the other not chusing to abandon him in that Condition. However, their Charge against _Pelagius_ was read, and he examined, by the Fathers of the Assembly, on the Articles it contained. [Sidenote: _and absolved by the Council of_ Diospolis.] But as nobody appeared against him, as none of those Bishops were sufficiently acquainted with the _Latin_ Tongue to understand his Books, and he disowned some Propositions, explained others in a Catholic Sense, and anathematized all who maintained Doctrines repugnant to those of the Catholic Church, the Council pronounced, at the Suggestion of _John_ of _Jerusalem_, the following Sentence: _Since the Monk_ Pelagius, _here present, has satisfied us, as to his Doctrine, and anathematized with us whatever is contrary to the true Faith, we acknowlege him to be in the Communion of the Church_[1490]. This Council St. _Jerom_ styles, _The pitiful Synod of_ Diospolis[1491]. But St. _Austin_, instead of insulting them, calls them _Holy and Catholic Judges_; and will not answer, that he himself might not have been deceived by the Artifices of _Pelagius_, had he been one of his Judges[1492].

[Sidenote: _He is accused by_ Heros _and_ Lazarus _to the Bishops of_ Africa.]

_Heros_ and _Lazarus_, surprised to hear that the Fathers of the Assembly had absolved _Pelagius_, and despairing of ever being able to get him condemned in the East, where his Cause was openly espoused by the Bishop of _Jerusalem_, resolved to apply to their Brethren in the West, especially to the Bishops of _Africa_, who they well knew could not be prejudiced in his Favour, since they had already condemned his favourite Disciple _Cælestius_. Pursuant to this Resolution, they writ, by the famous _Orosius_, who was returning from _Palæstine_ to _Africa_, to the Bishops of that Province, accusing _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ as the Authors of an _Execrable Sect_; giving them a particular Account of what had passed in the Council of _Diospolis_, and acquainting them with the wonderful Progress the new Heresy made in the East, especially in _Palæstine_[1493].

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of_ Pelagius _and_ Cælestius_ condemned anew in_ Africa.]

These Letters were delivered by _Orosius_ to the Bishops of the Province of _Carthage_, who, after having caused them to be read in the Provincial Council, which was then sitting in that City, and, with them, the Acts of the Council, which had been held Five Years before against _Cælestius_, not only condemned the Doctrine ascribed to him and _Pelagius_, but declared, that the same Sentence should be pronounced against them, unless they anathematized, in the plainest and most distinct Terms, the Errors with which they were charged[1494]. The Example of the Bishops of _Africa_ was followed by those of _Numidia_, assembled at _Milevum_, and by _Innocent_ Bishop of _Rome_, as I have related above.

[Sidenote: _They appeal to_ Rome.]

This Condemnation, so solemn and general, was attended with the wished for Effect. It greatly lessened the Reputation of _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_, staggered many of their Followers, and deterred others from embracing their Doctrines. Of this both _Pelagius_ and _Cælestius_ were well apprised; and, at the same time, sensible, that the only means of retrieving their Credit, and maintaining the Ground they had gained, was to justify themselves either to the Bishops of _Africa_, or to the Bishop of _Rome_, they chose the latter, thinking it more easy to gain over one than many. Besides, in _Africa_ they knew St. _Austin_, who was in great Reputation there, and swayed all the Councils as he pleased, to be their declared and irreconcileable Enemy; whereas they had many Friends at _Rome_; and, among the rest, the Presbyter _Sixtus_, who was afterwards raised to that See[1495]. In order, therefore, to persuade the Bishop of _Rome_, as _Pelagius_ had done the Bishops of _Diospolis_, that they had been falsly and maliciously accused, _Pelagius_ writ a Letter to _Innocent_, whose Death he had not yet heard of, while _Cælestius_, trusting to his Eloquence, and depending on the Favour which the Bishops of _Rome_ had always shewn to those who recurred to them, undertook a Journey to that City. He had fled from _Carthage_ to _Ephesus_, as I have related above. On his Arrival in that City he was well received by the Bishop of the Place, and even preferred, after he had staid some time there, to the Priesthood. [Sidenote: Cælestius _is driven from_ Ephesus _and_ Constantinople.] But, in the mean time, his Doctrine giving Offence to some, while it was embraced by others, great Disturbances arose; and he was, in the End, driven out of the City. Being thus expelled from _Ephesus_, he repaired to _Constantinople_; but he no sooner began to discover his Sentiments there, than _Atticus_, who then held that See, and kept a watchful Eye over him, commanded him forthwith to depart the City[1496]. [Sidenote: _Repairs to_ Rome _and presents himself before_ Zosimus.] From _Constantinople_ he went strait to _Rome_; and, finding that _Innocent_ was dead, he presented himself before his Successor _Zosimus_, declaring, that he was come to _Rome_, to defend his oppressed Innocence at the Tribunal of the Apostolic See; not doubting but he should make it appear before so knowing and unprejudiced a Judge, and confute the many groundless Aspersions with which his Enemies had strove to blast his Reputation in the Eyes of the whole Church: he complained of the Judgment given against him by the _African_ Bishops about Six Years before; and, pretending that his Accuser _Paulinus_, conscious of his Innocence, and his own Guilt, had declined the Judgment of the Apostolic See, he summoned him anew to appear, and make good the Charge which he had brought against him. [Sidenote: _He delivers his Confession of Faith to_ Zosimus;] At the same time he presented to _Zosimus_ a Request, containing a Confession of his Faith, with long Descants on the Articles of the Apostolic Symbol, concerning which his Orthodoxy had never been questioned. But as to _Grace_ and _Original Sin_, he said, they were not Matter of Faith; but that he was, nevertheless, ready to acquiesce, even with respect to them, in the Judgment of the _Roman_ See[1497].

_Zosimus_ had at this Time some Affairs of the greater Importance on his Hands[1498]; but, highly pleased with the pretended Submission of _Cælestius_, and thinking this a favourable Opportunity of extending his Authority, and drawing to the Tribunal of the Apostolic See Appeals in Causes that had been judged and decided elsewhere, he postponed the other Affairs to attend to this alone, in his Opinion, the most important of all. A Day was appointed, without Loss of Time, for _Cælestius_ to appear in the Church of St. _Clement_, and there give an Account of his Faith. He appeared accordingly; and the Confession being read, which he had delivered to _Zosimus_, he owned that, and no other, to be his Faith. In that Confession he did not deny Original Sin, but declared, in the clearest Terms, that he was in Doubt about it; and that the Belief of Original Sin was no Article of the Catholic Faith. [Sidenote: _which is approved by him_.] And yet such a Confession was approved by _Zosimus_ as Catholic; which was approving, if not the Doctrine, at least the Doubts which _Cælestius_ entertained of Original Sin[1499]. [Sidenote: _The_ Roman Catholic _Divines strive in vain to excuse_ Zosimus.] The _Roman Catholic_ Divines have taken great Pains to clear _Zosimus_ from this Imputation; but have been attended with no better Success than St. _Austin_ was before them. For that Father, unwilling to condemn one of his Brethren, pretended that _Zosimus_, in approving the Confession of _Cælestius_, did not declare his Doctrine to be Catholic, but only the Disposition of his Mind to condemn whatever should be found amiss in his Doctrine; for such a Disposition, says he, makes a true Catholic[1500]: he might have added, _if sincere, and not feigned_; for it was certainly feigned in _Cælestius_; and consequently _Zosimus_ was no less mistaken in declaring his Disposition of Mind to be Catholic, than if he had made such a Declaration with respect to his Doctrine. St. _Austin_ himself was sensible of the Weakness of his Plea, and therefore immediately added; _But, allowing the Doctrine of_ Pelagius _and_ Cælestius _to have been approved by the_ Roman _Church_, _all we can infer from thence is, that the_ Roman _Clergy was guilty of Prevarication_[1501]; an Inference which he seems to be no-way solicitous about, though he could not have admitted it without giving up the Question, if he had thought the Pope infallible.

[Sidenote: _His Haughty Letter to the_ African _Bishops in favour of_ Cælestius.]

_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].

[Sidenote: _The Characters of_ Heros, Lazarus, _and_ Patroclus.]

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 _Patroculus_, 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. [Sidenote: 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. [Sidenote: _They are both degraded 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].

[Sidenote: _The injustice of this Sentence._]