Chapter IV: Doctrinal Controversies and Heresies (2)

I. =Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.=--Cyril’s successor was
=Dioscurus=, who was inferior to his predecessor in
acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty
left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople
called =Eutyches= taught not only that after His incarnation
Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of
Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with
our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without
success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him
a controversial treatise under the title Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι
Πολύμορφος, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches
as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined
in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister
the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had
won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the
Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade
to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop
of Doryläum, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before
an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided
over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under
imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal
to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to
an œcumenical Synod and betook himself to =Leo the Great=
(§ 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman
bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to
that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness
the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor,
however, convoked an œcumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449,
at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had
no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for
the first time there was a representative of the monastic
order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot
Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary
and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected,
and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians
shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as
he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed
to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the
sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang
forward, and embracing Dioscurus’ knees entreated him to
desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to
his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into
the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout
parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured
by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment.
The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment
only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches
was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas,
Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated.
Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest
against the decisions of this =Robber Synod=, _Latrocinium
Ephesinum_, σύνοδος ληστρική. The result was that Theodosius
quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and
dismissed his minister. Flavian’s body was now taken in
state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius’
death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken.
His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended
the throne. A new =Œcumenical Council= (the so-called
=fourth=) =at Chalcedon in A.D. 451=, deposed Dioscurus,
who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the
other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned
Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril’s synodal
rescripts against Nestorius and Leo’s Epistle were
made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox
doctrine: “that Christ is true God and true man, according
to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father
in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary
the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in
everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation
the unity of the person consists in two natures which
are conjoined without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without
change (ἀτρέπτως), but also without rending (ἀδιαιρέτως)
and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).” In this Synod too
there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were
little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example,
Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals,
the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (δι’ εὐσέβειαν
κράζομεν, said they): “Away with the Jew, the blasphemer
of God!” A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed
which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by
the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session,
when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special
condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person
of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm
broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their
point, but they were again defeated after violent debate,
in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person
and writings of Ibas.[162]

§ 52.5.

II. =Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.=--The supporters
of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of
resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They
were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was
now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the
monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager
empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into
rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent.
Timotheus Aëlurus assumed the position of an opposition
patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius.
The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus
[Peter] Fullo (ὁ γραφεύς). In order to give a Monophysite
colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3),
which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the
formula θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς. Party violence meanwhile
went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both
sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474,
a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about
a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most
distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders
of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal
sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after
Leo’s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in
A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476,
under the name of an =Encyclion=, by which the Chalcedonian
Symbol, along with Leo’s Epistle, was condemned, and
Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national
religion. Fullo and Aëlurus were also reinstated. The
patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand,
organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was
overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the
throne in A.D. 477. About this time Aëlurus died, and his
party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (μογγός, stammering) as
his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes
Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position
towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed
upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the
emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called =Henoticon=
of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism
and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril’s anathematisms
were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated,
and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all
controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching
and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides.
The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were
now called Ἀκέφαλοι. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the
Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius.
Thus arose a 35 years’ schism, A.D. 484-519, between East
and West. Only the Acoimetæ monks in Constantinople (§ 44, 3)
continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship
between the parties was not restored until Justin I.,
who thought that the schism would hinder his projected
reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop
Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed
those who adhered to it.

§ 52.6.

III. =Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.=--During the violent
conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long
and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565.
He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish
orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above
all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor,
who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions
of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by
the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations
of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly
a Monophysite. The =Theopaschite Controversy= first called
forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion
by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς,
had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy
about A.D. 512. The Acoimetæ pronounced it heretical, and
Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of
being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned
it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora
used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to
the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop
Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador
of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition.
Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor
in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be
burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their
hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas,
secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at
court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at
an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the
condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court
theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in
concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had
long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary
of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify
the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora
persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied
if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore,
the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the
controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated
Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors
of these were collected before him in the _Three Chapters_.
The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded
the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The
orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown
on all sides, and thus broke out the violent =Controversy
of the Three Chapters=. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of
Theodora (§ 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation,
but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he
broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople
in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration,
the so-called _Judicatum_, in which he agreed to the
condemnation of the _Three Chapters_. The Africans,
under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor
of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of
the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus]
wrote _Pro tribus capitt._, Facundus of Hermiane, _Defensío
III. capitt._, and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage,
a _Breviarium causæ Nestorian. et Eutychianorum_, an
important source of information for the history of the
Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened
the =Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553=,
which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued
a _Constitum ad Imp._, in which he indeed rejected the
doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn
the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable,
and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his
return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally
acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North
Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured
chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much
difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end.

§ 52.7.

IV. =The Monophysite Churches.=--Justinian, however, did not
thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites
continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian
Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them
than the persecutions of the orthodox national church
were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves.
First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and
Severus, became heads of rival parties. The =Severians= or
φθαρτολάτραι taught that the body of Christ in itself had
been subject to corruption (the φθορά); the =Julianists=
denied it. This first split was followed by many others.
By transferring the Monophysite confusion of οὐσία
and ὑπόστασις to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the
Monophysite sect of the =Tritheists=, who taught that
in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity
a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three
persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes
Philoponus (§ 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the
Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that
the present world as to form and matter would perish at the
last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would
be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus,
affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form
only, and that the risen saints would again possess the
same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the
so-called =Cononites= separated from the main stem of the
Tritheists and formed an independent sect.--The Monophysites
were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek
Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in
their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves.
They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in
A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the
Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into
Abyssinia (§ 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia
had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to
the previously oppressed Monophysites (§ 64, 3). In Syria
and Mesopotamia, during Justinian’s persecutions, the
unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly
called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar,
ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the
whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction.
He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were
called =Jacobites=. They called the Catholics Melchites,
_Royalists_. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia.
Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the
title of _Maphrian_, _i.e._ the Fruit-bearer. At the head of
the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag
with the title _Catholicus_. The Abyssinian church had a
metropolitan with the title _Abbuna_[163]--_Continuation_
§ 72, 2.

§ 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The
increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a
union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor
Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of
parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work
of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ
θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing
objectionable in this formula which had already been used by
the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs
Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis
of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of
the Severians attached themselves again to the national church.
Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who
soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came
forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back
to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon
after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the
scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict,
the =Ecthesis=, by which it was sought to make an end of the
strife by substituting for the offensive expression ἐνέργεια the
less objectionable term θέλημα, and confirming the Monothelite
doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (§ 47, 12)
entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook
himself to Africa, where since Justinian’s time zeal for the
maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here
secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial
governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium.
This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage
in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of
Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in
a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from
Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly
submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in
A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church
fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and
demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against
the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis,
Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was
recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople,
but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his
recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen
dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and
was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office.
Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation
as the shield of orthodoxy.--The proper end of the union, namely
the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by
the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt
in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still
persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of
open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved
to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment
about the faith, the =Typus=, A.D. 648, which sought to get back
to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that
neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of
Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned
in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along
with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor.
The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the
bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the
pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished
for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered
hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival.
Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At
the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought
to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year
every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats,
imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge
the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience.
In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk’s
resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to
have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be
sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks
after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity
was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor
Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared
for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it
by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome
in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should
be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these
decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates
appeared at the =Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in
A.D. 680=, called also _Concil. Trullanum I._, because it was
held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial
castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon
the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the
basis of the Council’s doctrinal decrees: δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα
ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, οὐχ ὑπεναντία, ἀλλὰ
ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ. The Synod even
condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and
to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks,
finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals,
contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter
wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of
Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope
Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter
to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council,
expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, “_qui
profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus
est_.”--Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only
in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state
did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist.
Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro
in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as
their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and
with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as
political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (§ 72, 3).

§ 52.9. =The Case of Honorius.=--The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649
and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity
of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho
might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman
chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile
the approaching œcumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But
the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could
not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders’ condemnation
of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have
been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from
Honorius to Agatho in the Roman _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6)
help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead
silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius
in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for
the first time is Honorius’ name mentioned among those of the
condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about
him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of
faith in the _Liber diurnus_ of the Roman church made by every
new pope and in use down to the 11th century (§ 46, 11). From
the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple
name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of
this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had
then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope
was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman
popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only
such cases as those of Liberius (§ 46, 4), Anastasius (§ 46, 8),
Vigilius (§ 52, 6), John XXII. (§ 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced;
that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th
century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that
the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century
when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become
a burning one (§ 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real
Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious
attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out
of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth œcumenical
Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of
later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the
Acts of the Council; so, _e.g._ Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.--The
condemnation actually took place but not at the œcumenical first,
but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692
(§ 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice
of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to
that of the first.--Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before
the sixth œcumenical Council, by means of which it was misled
into passing sentence upon him.--The condemnation of the pope
did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love
of peace.--The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as
to be misunderstood; so _e.g._ the Jesuit Garnier in his ed.
of the _Liber diurnus_, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in
the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.--In the epistles
referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially,
_ex cathedra_.--It is, however, fatal to all such explanations
that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced _ex cathedra_
his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the
only other possible escape by distinguishing the _question du
fait_ and the _question du droit_ has been formally condemned
_ex cathedra_ in connection with another case (§ 156, 5).[164]

§ 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.[165]

While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their origin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts, the West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the decisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every stage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke out, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological controversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even then only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions of sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian _Monergism_ of human freedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian _Synergism_ of divine grace and human freedom, the Augustinian _Monergism_ of divine grace finally obtained the victory.

§ 53.1. =Preliminary History.=--From the earliest times the
actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in
Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment
throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the
moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what
relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty
prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manichæism led the older
fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom
of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well
as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation,
and to account for man’s present condition by bad training,
evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency
was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new
Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect
the universality of sin with Adam’s sin, without going the length
of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology
it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however,
§ 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to
the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of
divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of
inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to
conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget
only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only
sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm
and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does
his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is
unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational
wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism
or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards
the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared
for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (_Tradux animæ,
tradux peccati_) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian,
himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man
from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin,
spoke with great decidedness of a _Vitium originis_. In this
he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these
teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated
from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the
hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give
equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in
conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost
consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius
carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became
scarcely less than human monergism.--Meanwhile Traducianism did
not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West.
Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism,
which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being
begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists,
without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin.
Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (§ 52, 1)
held that it was the cobegotten ψυχὴ ἄλογος, _anima sensitiva_
as opposed to the _anima intellectualis_, while those who
supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and
soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was
infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents
with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which
Origen had brought forward (§ 31, 5) had, even in the East,
only occasional representatives (§ 47, 7m, n, o.).[166]

§ 53.2. =The Doctrine of Augustine.=--During the first period
of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manichæism still
stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity,
Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human
will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the
part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore
refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole
life’s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man’s
natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith
together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The
perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about
by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine’s
doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as
follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined
to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness,
but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the
exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had
he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not
to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying,
the _Posse non peccare et mori_ would have become a _Non posse
peccare et mori_. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it
became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, _non
posse non peccare et non mori_. All prerogatives of the Divine
image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil
righteousness, _Justitia civilis_, and a capacity for redemption.
In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By
generation Adam’s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt,
death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption,
passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can
redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine
image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the
capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary,
in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is
granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe;
for faith too is the work of God’s grace. First of all grace
awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire
for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer
(_gratia præveniens_). By means of faith it thus secures the
forgiveness of sin as _primum beneficium_ through appropriating
the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine
life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ
(in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (_Gratia
operans_) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But
even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is
still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is
continually supported by Divine grace (_Gratia co-operans_)
unto his justification (_Justificatio_) which is completed in
the making righteous of his whole life and being through the
Divine impartation (_Infusio_) of new powers of will. The final
act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom
of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal
of evil desire (_Concupiscentia_) and transfiguration into the
perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal
life (_Non posse peccare et mori_). Apart from the inconsistent
theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace
is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the
doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not
all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself
can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must
be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal
unconditional decree of God, _Decretum absolutum_, according
to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man,
_Massa perditionis_, to save some to the glory of His grace and
to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal
righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and
mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to
man’s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said:
“God wills that all men should be saved,” that can only mean,
“all who are predestinated.” As the outcasts (_Reprobati_)
can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect
(_Electi_) cannot in any way resist it (_Gratia irresistibilis_).
The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed
perseverance in the possession of grace (_Donum perseverantiæ_).
To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation,
but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures.
So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although
over against this he also set down the proposition: _Contemtus,
non defectus sacramenti damnat_, the resolution of this
contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which
secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.[167]

§ 53.3. =Pelagius and his Doctrine.=--Pelagius (§ 47, 21),
a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral
earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life,
without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination
to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian
life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of
monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic
to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to
Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its
unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification,
by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men
as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was
thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome
to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as
he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour.
Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but
spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam’s
fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence
upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created
the first man, _i.e._ without sin and without virtue. By his
wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one
side or the other. The universality of sin results from the
power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may
be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God’s grace
facilitates man’s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore,
not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively
necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in
forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and
in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of
the law and the promise of eternal life. God’s grace is destined
for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest
striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect
teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the
most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of
ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam’s offspring, so in
virtue shall we be Christ’s offspring. He regarded baptism as
necessary (infant baptism _in remissionem futurorum peccatorum_).
Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of
blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers
of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of
ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the
Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent
and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his
anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these
supernaturalistic elements.

§ 53.4. =The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.=--From A.D. 409
Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views
Cœlestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments
than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for
morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without
opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius
went and settled in Palestine. Cœlestius remained behind
and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time
his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (§ 47, 20)
happening to be there formally complained against him, and a
provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on
his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published
his first controversial treatise: _De peccatorum meritis et
remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III._ In =Palestine=
Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides
passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions,
contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy
(_Ep. ad Ctesiphontem_ and _Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III._),
and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20)
complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the
presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals,
however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of
his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the
Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of
Cæsarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine
proved to the Palestinians in _De gestis Pelagii_ that they had
allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius
too published a controversial tract, _Apologeticus c. Pelag._,
in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of
Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, Περὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, φύσει
καὶ οὐ γνώμη πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Then the Africans again
took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in
A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree
to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings
of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and
Cœlestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however,
in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus],
perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed
himself to be won over by Cœlestius and brought severe charges
against the Africans, against which again these entered a
vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his
_Sacrum rescriptum_ against the Pelagians and a general Synod
at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now
Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his
_Epistola tractatoria_. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them
Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist
of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They
sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop
Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop
Cœlestine took part with those who opposed the Christological
views of Nestorius (§ 52, 3), and at the =Œcumenical Council
of Ephesus in A.D. 431=, the orientals condemned along with
Nestorius also Pelagius and Cœlestius, without, however,
determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under
discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius
Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published
two _Commonitoria_ against Pelagius and Cœlestius, and a
controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile
too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413
he wrote _De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum_; in A.D. 415
against Pelagius, _De natura et gratia_; against Cœlestius,
_De perfectione justitiæ hominis_. In A.D. 416, _De gestis
Pelagii_. In A.D. 418, _De gratia Dei et de peccato originali
Lb. II. c. Pelag. et Cœl._ In A.D. 419, _De nuptiis et
concupiscentia Lb. II._, against the charge that his doctrine
was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, _C. duas
epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I._, against the vindicatory
writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, _Lb. VI.
c. Julianum_. And later still, _Opus imperfectum c. secundam
Juliani responsionem_. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.:
Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.

§ 53.5. =The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.=--Bald
Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the
predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth
new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum
in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination
theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into
sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and
carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such
consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work
of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of
the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two
treatises, written in A.D. 427, _De gratia et libero arbitrio_
and _De correptione et gratia_, sought to overcome the scruples
and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern
Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the
doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of
according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation
with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one,
sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head
of this school was Johannes Cassianus († A.D. 432), a disciple
and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery
at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or
Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine’s doctrine,
without naming it, in the 13th of his _Collationes Patrum_
(§ 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius
[Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his
_Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate_
(Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the
catholic faith is, _quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum
est_. Judged by this standard Augustine’s doctrine was by no
means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably
contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed.
But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as
the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (§ 47, 20). What
took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote
against the Massilians _De predestinatione Sanctorum_ and
_De dono perseverantiæ_. He was prevented by his death, which
took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest.
Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman
bishop Cœlestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made
complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself
took up the battle in an able work _De gratia Dei et libero
arbitrio contra Collatorem_, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed
off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened
yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise _De Vocatione
gentium_, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards
pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents
(Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in
the notable work entitled _Prædestinatus_, pretending to be
written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine
of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity,
and these sought to justify their own position. The first book
contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is
predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first
the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third
confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of
the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at
Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium
(§ 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial
treatise _De gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio_, and
also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned
semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate
and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community
of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained
through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but
he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans
banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They
held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe
(§ 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his
_De veritate prædest. et gratia Dei Lb. III._, which made an
impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus
of Vienne and Cæsarius of Arles (§ 47, 20) entered the lists in
behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod
of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism.
Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form,
and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human
act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged,
faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but
predestination in regard to the _Reprobati_ was reduced to
mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as
blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529,
at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome
did the same in A.D. 530.[168]--Continuation § 91, 5.

§ 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.

Manichæism (§ 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far off eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated Marcionite churches (§ 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the countries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent reawakening of Gnostic-Manichæan tendencies arose in Spain under the name of Priscillianism.

§ 54.1. =Manichæism.=--The universal toleration of religion,
which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manichæans
of his empire (§ 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I.
the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them.
The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop
Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petræa, about A.D. 370, to write
his 4 Bks. against the Manichæans. The Manichæan church stood
in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th
and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there,
Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against
the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been
himself an adherent of the Manichæans, expressly answered in
33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: “Ante-Nicene Lib.” Treatises against
Faustus the Manichæan, Edin., 1868). When the Manichæan Felix,
in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo,
Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two
days’ debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted
himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani
and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial
government were the African Manichæans persecuted by the Vandals,
whose king Hunerich (§ 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole
ships’ loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo
the Great († A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His
investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian
views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices.
Also in the time of Gregory the Great († A.D. 604) the church
of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then,
however, nothing more is heard of Manichæan tendencies in
the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again
burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power
(§ 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous
Gnostic-Manichæan remnants continued to exist in secret, and
from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (§ 71).
Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the
Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and
India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (§ 29, 1).

§ 54.2. =Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.=--The first seeds of the
Gnostic-Manichæan creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century
by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian
let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed
it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system.
Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an
outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian
tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect
encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and
dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community.
“_Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli._” Soon Priscillianists
spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop
Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned
the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa
in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of
its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides
an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the
emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists
the sentence of banishment. Priscillian’s bribes, however, not
only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the
arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul.
Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian,
who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the
sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers
beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance
of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop,
Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously
promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and
renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops
who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other
bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus
to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of
martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the
barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they
won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) wrote his
_Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist._ in A.D. 415, looking
for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests
in other directions allowed to take but little part in this
controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference
of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop
Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a _Concilium
Hispanicum_ in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council
at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression
of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has
disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for
some centuries longer.[169]