Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (17)

_Innocent_’s other Letter is to _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who hated _Jerom_ on account of his Inveteracy against _Origen_, and was suspected to connive at the cruel Treatment he and his Followers had met with. Him therefore _Innocent_ reprimands very severely, for suffering such enormous Abuses within the Limits of his Jurisdiction. In his Letter he gives him the Title of _well-beloved Brother_; but, at the same time, treats him with more Haughtiness than was becoming even in a Superior, though he neither had, nor could claim by the Canons, any kind of Jurisdiction or Authority over him.

[Sidenote: Innocent _dies_.]

These Letters _Innocent_ writ in the Latter-end of _January_, and died on the 12th of _March_ of the same Year 417. having governed the _Roman_ Church near Fifteen Years; for his Predecessor _Anastasius_ died on the 27th of _April_ 402. and he was chosen soon after his Decease, as I have observed above. He was generally esteemed a Man of good Parts, and well acquainted with the Laws and Traditions of the Church. [Sidenote: _The See of_ Rome _greatly indebted to him for its Grandeur_.] Hence he was frequently consulted by the Western, and sometimes by the Eastern Bishops, in Points both of Faith and Discipline. Of this general Esteem, and the Deference that was thereupon paid to his Decisions, he took Advantage to lay down, with an Air of Authority, and as undoubted Truths, many false, groundless, and dangerous Maxims, all tending to the Diminution of the Episcopal Power, and the Advancement of the Papal. _The Dignity of the Apostolic See_ was, as we have seen, the Burden of almost all his Letters; he even improved it into a Claim of Supremacy; and we may say, with great Truth, that to him the See of _Rome_ was more indebted for the Grandeur it afterwards gained, than to all his Predecessors together. He formed the Plan of that Spiritual Monarchy, which they, by constant Application, established at last, in spite of the many almost insurmountable Difficulties, which they had to contend with. He was the first who, changing the antient Foundation of the Primacy, claimed it as the Successor of St. _Peter_, _the Prince of the Apostles_, as he is styled, and not as the Bishop of the first City, though on that Consideration alone it had been granted by the Councils. I said _Primacy_, because the Word _Supremacy_ was utterly unknown in those Days. The Council of _Sardica_, held in the Year 347. had allowed, in some Cases, and under several Restrictions, Appeals to be made to the See of _Rome_, as has been observed elsewhere[1474]. But _Innocent_, scorning to owe any Branch of his Authority to that, or any other Council, claimed, by _Divine Right_, the Power of finally deciding all Ecclesiastical Controversies and Disputes; which was claiming, by Divine Right, an unlimited Jurisdiction. It is true, no Regard was had to such Claims; nor indeed did _Innocent_ dare to pursue them, being well apprised of the Opposition he would meet with, if he should then have made such an Attempt. He therefore wisely contented himself with laying Foundations, and thought it a great Advance, as it certainly was, to have openly asserted such Notions, and brought the Ears of Men to endure them, if not their Minds. Had he gone farther, he would have been stopped in his Career, and it might have proved fatal to the Power of _Rome_ before it was come to an Age of Maturity; but that he went thus far was of great Benefit to it, because it made a Beginning, and furnished his Successors with a Pretence to plead some Antiquity for the Opinions and Principles upon which they proceeded.

[Sidenote: _His Decretals often quoted by the Popish Divines._]

Accordingly the Decretals of _Innocent_ are frequently quoted by the Advocates for the See of _Rome_, to shew how early the Popes claimed, by Divine Right, and as Successors of St. _Peter_, an universal Authority and Jurisdiction. But if the Principles, on which they founded their Claims, were false in _Innocent_’s Time, they are still so in ours; if no Account was then made of such Claims (and that none was made, I have sufficiently shewn), no Account ought to be made of them now; no more than if they were dated but Yesterday. Nor, indeed, ought the Beginning of the Fifth Century to be esteemed an early Time in the Christian Church. Great Corruptions were then crept into it; and, with regard to the Point in Question, it was very late. For had the Bishop of _Rome_ been supreme Head of the Church, in Right of St. _Peter_, how came that Supremacy to be unknown, and unheard of, for above Four hundred Years? If the Four first Centuries could not discover it, on what new Light was it revealed to the Fifth?

[Sidenote: _Is sainted._]

_Innocent_ has been inrolled, by his Successors, in the Catalogue of Saints; and he is now adored in the Church of _Rome_ as a Saint of the first Rate; an Honour which, it must be confessed, he better deserved at their Hands, in their Estimation of Merit, than any of his Predecessors, or any of his Successors, except _Gregory_ the VIIth.

-----

Footnote N50.4:

Idem ep. 410, 411.

Footnote 1392:

Collect. Rem. ab Holsten. p. 45.

Footnote 1393:

Anast. c. 41.

Footnote 1394:

Hier. ep. 8.

Footnote 1395:

Theod. l. 5. c. 35.

Footnote 1396:

Prosp. in Col. c. 10.

Footnote 1397:

Pec. orig. c. 9.

Footnote 1398:

Oros. l. 7. c. 39.

Footnote 1399:

Hier. ubi supra.

Footnote 1400:

Aug. ep. 92.

Footnote 1401:

Coll. Rom. p. 46, 47.

Footnote 1402:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1252.

Footnote 1403:

Ibid. p. 1249.

Footnote 1404:

See above, p. 120, 121.

Footnote 1405:

Bar. ad ann. 404. num. 130.

Footnote 1406:

See Natal. Alex. hist. eccles. t. 10. p. 14.

Footnote 1407:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1249-1252.

Footnote 1408:

Concil. t. 5. p. 858. & 866.

Footnote 1409:

See Blond. Decr. p. 55.

Footnote 1410:

Aug. cp. 50.

Footnote 1411:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1412:

See above, p. 247.

Footnote 1413:

Pall. Dial. c. 2.

Footnote 1414:

Idem ib. c. 8.

Footnote 1415:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1416:

Idem ib. c. 3.

Footnote 1417:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1418:

Pallad. ibid. c. 2.

Footnote 1419:

Pall. ubi supra. Soz. l. 8. c. 26. Hist. Lausiac, c. 121.

Footnote 1420:

Soz. ubi supra, & ep. Rom. Pont. Inn. 15.

Footnote 1421:

Pall. ibid.

Footnote 1422:

Pall. in dial. ubi supra.

Footnote 1423:

Idem ibidem.

Footnote 1424:

Bar. ann. 407. n. 19-22.

Footnote 1425:

Vid. Bar. ubi sup. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. & Glyc. l. 4. p. 259, 260.

Footnote 1426:

Chrysos. ep. 122.

Footnote 1427:

Pall. dial. 2.

Footnote 1428:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1429:

Bar. ad ann. 404. n. 20.

Footnote 1430:

Bell. Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 1431:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1254-1256.

Footnote 1432:

1 Corinth. vii. 5.

Footnote 1433:

Holsten. Coll. Rom. t. 1. p. 49-51.

Footnote 1434:

Zos. l. 5. c. 40.

Footnote 1435:

Soz. l. 9. c. 6.

Footnote 1436:

Zos. l. 5. p. 819, 820. Soz. l. 9. c. 7.

Footnote 1437:

Hier. ep. 16.

Footnote 1438:

Vid. sup. p. 263-266.

Footnote 1439:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1271.

Footnote 1440:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1441:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1272-1276.

Footnote 1442:

Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.

Footnote 1443:

Theodoret. l. 5. c. 34.

Footnote 1444:

Niceph. l. 14. c. 27.

Footnote 1445:

Bar. ad ann. 48. n. 32.

Footnote 1446:

Niceph. c. 26.

Footnote 1447:

Idem, c. 27.

Footnote 1448:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1449:

See above, p. 105, & seq.

Footnote 1450:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1269.

Footnote 1451:

Vid. Ell. Du Pin de antiq. eccles. disciplin. differt. prim. n. 12.

Footnote 1452:

Vide supra, p. 310.

Footnote 1453:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1265-1269.

Footnote 1454:

Vide Petr. de Marc. dissert. de primat. p. 227.

Footnote 1455:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1245. Ugh. t. 1. p. 676.

Footnote 1456:

Socrat. l. 6. c. 8.

Footnote 1457:

Greg. l. 7. ep. 64.

Footnote 1458:

Cypr. ep. 72.

Footnote 1459:

Aug. de diver. serm. 33.

Footnote 1460:

Vide Iren. l. 1. c. 21-24. & Epiph. hæres. 21-28. & 41, 42.

Footnote 1461:

Apost. const. can. 55.

Footnote 1462:

Aug. ep. 86.

Footnote 1463:

James v. 14, 15.

Footnote 1464:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1248.

Footnote 1465:

Conc. Trid. sess. 14. can. 1.

Footnote 1466:

Possid. Aug. vit. c. 18.

Footnote 1467:

Aug. ep. 95.

Footnote 1468:

Aug. ep. 90-95.

Footnote 1469:

Idem ib.

Footnote 1470:

Aug. ep. 93.

Footnote 1471:

Idem ep. 91. 93.

Footnote 1472:

Idem ep. 96.

Footnote 1473:

Bar. ad ann. 412. n. 25.

Footnote 1474:

Vide p. 121.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HONORIUS, ZOSIMUS, THEODOSIUS
_Fortieth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 417. ]

_Zosimus_, the Successor of _Innocent_, was, according to the _Bibliothecarian_, a _Greek_ by Nation, and the Son of one _Abraham_[1475]; which is all we know of him before his Election. He was elected and ordained Six Days after the Death of his Predecessor, that is, on the 18th of _March_ 417[N60].

-----

Footnote N60:

_Paschasinus_, Bishop of _Lilybæum_, observes, at the Year 443. that
in 417. when _Zosimus_ was Bishop of _Rome_, _Easter_, which ought to
have been kept on the 22d of _April_, was, by a Mistake, kept on the
25th of _March_[N60.1]; so that on the 25th of _March_, _Zosimus_ was
in Possession of the See; and consequently must have been chosen and
ordained on the 18th of that Month, the only _Sunday_ in 417. between
the 12th of _March_, when _Innocent_ died, and the 25th. For in those
Days Bishops were commonly ordained on _Sundays_, and it is very
certain, that _Zosimus_ was ordained on that Day, since he pretended
the Ordination of Two Bishops, whom he deposed, to be null, because
they had been ordained on another Day[N60.2]. _Theodoret_ makes
_Boniface_ the immediate Successor of _Innocent_[N60.3]. But all the
other Writers, without Exception, place _Zosimus_ between _Innocent_
and _Boniface_.

Footnote N60.1:

Leo, t. 1. p. 413.

Footnote N60.2:

Conc. t. 2. p. 1569.

Footnote N60.3:

Theod. l. 5. p. 751.

-----

[Sidenote: Pelagius, _his Country_, _Profession_, _Parts_, &c.]

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._]

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. [Sidenote: _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].

[Sidenote: Pelagius _transmits to_ Zosimus _a Confession of his Faith_;]

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. [Sidenote: _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_. [Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _The_ African _Bishops maintain their former Judgment_.]

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]. [Sidenote: 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].

[Sidenote: _The Council of_ Carthage _condemns anew the_ Pelagian _Doctrine without waiting for the Judgment of_ Zosimus.]

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. [Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: Zosimus _begins to yield_.]

_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. [Sidenote: _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].

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of_ Pelagius _condemned again in a Council at_ Carthage.]

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_. [Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _Law enacted by_ Honorius _against the_ Pelagians.]

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].

-----

-----

[Sidenote: Zosimus _summons_ Cælestius _to appear before him, and to condemn his Doctrine_.]

_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. [Sidenote: 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].

[Sidenote: Zosimus _condemns the Confession, which he had approved before_.]

[Sidenote: _Excommunicates_ Pelagius _and_ Cælestius;]

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. [Sidenote: _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].

[Sidenote: _Some Bishops refuse to sign it_,]

[Sidenote: _and send a Confession of their Faith to_Zosimus.]