*

and banished into Paphlagonia; the acts of the council of Ephesus were annulled; the epist]: of Leo was received as a rule of faith;† Euty ches, who had been already sent into banish ment, and deprived of his sacerdotal dignity by the emperor, was now condemned, though absent; and the following doctrine, which is at this time almost generally received, was incul cated upon Christians as an object of faith, viz. "That in Christ two distinct natures were unit. ed in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion."

Hence he was thought to deny the existence of || quest, and demanded of Theodosius a general the human nature in Christ, and was accused council, which no entreaties could persuade of this, by Eusebius of Dorylæum, in the coun- this emperor to grant. Upon his death, howcil that was assembled by Flavianus at Con- ever, his successor Marcian consented to Leo's stantinople, probably in this same year. By a demand, and called, in 451, the council of docree of this council he was ordered to re- Chalcedon, which is reckoned the fourth genounce the above mentioned opinion, which he neral or œcumenical council. The legates of obstinately refused to do, and was, on this ac- Leo, who, in his famous letter to Flavianus count, excommunicated and deposed: unwill- had already condemned the Eutychian doe ing, however, to acquiesce in this sentence, he trine, presided in this grand and crowded as appealed to the decision of a general council.sembly. Dioscorus was condemned, deposed, XIV. In consequence of this appeal, the emperor Theodosius assembled an œcumenical council at Ephesus, in 449, at the head of which he placed Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, the successor of Cyril, the faithful imitator of his arrogance and fury, and a declared enemy to the bishop of Constantinople. Accordingly, by the influence and caballing of this turbulent man, matters were carried on in this assembly with the same want of equity and of decency that had dishonoured a former Ephesian council, and characterised the proceedings of Cyril against Nestorius. Diosco- XVI. The remedy applied by this council, rus, in whose church a doctrine, almost the to heal the wounds of a torn and divided same with that of the Eutychians, was cor-church, proved really worse than the disease, stantly taught, confounded matters with such artifice and dexterity, that the doctrine of one incarnate nature triumphed, and Eutyches was acquitted of the charge of error that had been brought against him. Flavianus, on the other hand, was, by the order of this unrighteous council, publicly scourged in the most barbarous manner, and banished to Epipas, a city of Lydia, where he soon after ended his days.* The Greeks called this Ephesian council, a band or assembly of robbers, σuvodov Anorρn, to signify that every thing was carried in it by fraud or violence;† and many councils, indeed, both in this and the following ages, are equally entitled to the same dishonourable appellation. XV. Affairs soon changed, and assumed an aspect utterly unfavourable to that party which the Ephesian council had rendered triumphant. Flavianus and his followers not only engaged Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, in their interests (for the Roman pontiff was the ordi-pal dignity. After the death of Elurus, the nary refuge of the oppressed and conquered defenders of the council of Chalcedon chose, party in this century,) but also remonstrated as his successor, Timotheus, surnamed Saloto the emperor, that a matter of such an ardu- phaciolus, while the partisans of the Eutychious and important nature required, in order to an doctrine elected schismatically Peter Mogits decision, a council composed out of the gus to the same dignity. An edict of the emchurch universal. Leo seconded the latter re-peror Zeno obliged the latter to yield. The

been falsely attributed to him. See Mich. Le Quien, Dissert. ii. in Damascenum; and Christ. Aug. Salig, de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, p. 112. It appears, by what we read in the Biblioth. Orient., that the Syrians expressed themselves in this manner before Eutyches, without intending thereby to broach any new doctrine, but rather without well knowing what they said. We are yet in want of a solid and accurate history of the Eutychian troubles, notwithstanding the labours of the learned Salig upon that subject.

for a great number of Oriental and Egyptian doctors, though of various characters and dif ferent opinions in other respects, united in opposing, with the utmost vehemence, the council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo, which that assembly had adopted as a rule of faith, and were unanimous in maintaining an unity of nature, as well as of person, in Jesus Christ. Hence arose deplorable discords and civil wars, whose fury and barbarity were carried to the most excessive and incredible lengths. On the death of the emperor Marcian, the populace assembled tumultuously in Egypt, massacred Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus, and substituted in his place Timotheus Ælurus, who was a zealous defender of the Eutychian doctrine of one incarnate nature in Christ. This latter, indeed, was deposed and banished by the emperor Leo; but, upon his death, was restored by Basilicus both to his liberty and episco

triumph, however, of the Chalcedonians, on this occasion, was but transitory, for, on the death of Timotheus, John Talaia, whom they had chosen in his place, was removed by the

* This council was first assembled at Nice, but afterwards removed to Chalcedon, that the emperor, who, on account of the irruption of the Huns into Illyricum, was unwilling to go far from Constantinople, might assist at it in person.

* See the Concilia Jo. Harduini, tom. i. p. 82.-LiThis was the letter which Leo had written to berati Breviarium, cap. xii. p. 76.-Leonis M. Epist. Flavianus, after having been informed by him of what xciii-Nicephori Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. xiv. cap. lxvii. had passed in the council of Constantinople. In this Though Flavianus died soon after the council of epistle, Leo approves the decisions of that council, de Ephesus, of the bruises he had received from Dioscorus, clares the doctrine of Eutyches heretical and impious, and the other bishops of his party in that horrid assem- and explains, with great appearance of perspicuity, the bly, yet, before his death, he had appealed to Leo; and doctrine of the catholic church upon this perplexed subthis appeal, pursued by the pontiff, occasioned the coun-ject; so that this letter was esteem a masterpiece, both cil; in which Eutyches was condemned, and the san- of logic and eloquence, and was exstantly read, during guinary Dioscorus deposed. the Advent, in the western churches.

same emperor;* and Moggus, or Mongus, by an imperial edict, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, was, in 482, raised to the see of Alexandria.

interpreted this addition to the above-mentioned hymn in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified; and hence those who approved his addition were called Theopaschites. The consequence of this dispute was, that the western Christians rejected the addition inserted by Fullo, which they judged relative to the whole Trinity, while the Orientals used it constantly after this period, without giving the least offence, because they applied it to Christ alone.*

XIX. To put an end to this controversy, which had produced the most unhappy divisions both in church and state, the emperor Zeno, by the advice of Acacius, bishop of Con

XVII. The abbot Barsumas (whom the reader must be careful not to confound with Barsumas of Nisibis, the famous promoter of the Nestorian doctrines,) having been condemned oy the co incil of Chalcedon,† propagated the Eutychian opinions in Syria, and, by the ministry of his disciple Samuel, spread them amongst the Armenians about the year 460. This doctrine, however, as it was commonly explained, had something so harsh and shockng in it, that the Syrians were easily engaged to abandon it by the exhortations of Xenaias, otherwise called Philoxenus, bishop of Hiera-stantinople, published, in 482, the famous Hepolis, and the famous Peter Fullo. These doctors rejected the opinion, attributed to Eutyches, that the human nature of Christ was absorbed by the divine,‡ and modified matters so || as to form the following hypothesis: "That in the Son of God there was one nature, which, notwithstanding its unity, was double and compounded." This notion was not less repugnant to the decisions of the council of Chalcedon than the Eutychian doctrine, and was therefore strongly opposed by those who acknowledged the authority of that council.§

XVIII. Peter, surnamed Fullo, from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, had usurped the see of Antioch, and, after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople. This troublesome and contentious man excited new discords in the church, and seemed ambitious of forming a new sect under the name of Theopaschites; for, to the words, "O God most holy," &c. in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agium, he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, "who hast suffered for us upon the cross." His design in this was manifestly to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply, in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Felix the Roman pontiff,

*See Liberati Breviarium, cap. xvi. xvii. xviii.-Evagr. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. viii. lib. iii. cap. iii.-Le-Quien,|| Oriens Christianus, tom. ii. p. 410.

The Barsumas, here mentioned, was he who assisted the bishop of Alexandria (Dioscorus) and the soldiers, in beating Flavianus to death in the council of Ephesus, and to shun whose fury, the orthodox bishops were forced to creep into holes, and hide themselves under

benches, in that pious assembly.

Eutyches never affirmed what is here attributed to him; he inaintained simply, that the two natures, which existed in Christ before his incarnation, became one after it, by the hypostatical union. This miserable dispute about words was nourished by the contending parties having no clear ideas of the terms person and nature, as also by an invincible ignorance of the subject. Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Vat. tom. ii.; and the Dissertation of the same author, de Monophysitis.

Valesii Dissertatio de Pet. Fullone, et de Synodis adversus eum collectis, which is added to the third volume of the Scriptor. Hist. Ecclesiast.

This word expresses the enormous error of those frantic doctors, who imagined that the Godhead suffered a and with Christ.

Vor I -20

noticon, or Decree of Union, which was designed to reconcile the contending parties.This decree repeated and confirmed all that had been enacted in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, without making any particular mention of the council of Chalcedon;t for Acacius had persuaded the emperor, that the present opposition was not carried on against the decrees that had passed in the council of Chalcedon, but against the assembly itself; with respect to which, therefore, an entire silence was undoubtedly prudent in a proposal, which, instead of reviving, was designed to put an end to all disputes, and to reconcile the most jarring principles.

In the mean time, Mongus and Fullo, who filled the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and headed the sect of the Monophysites, subscribed this Decree of Union, which was also approved by Acacius, and by all those of the two contending parties who were at all remarkable for their candour and moderation. But there were on all sides violent and obstinate bigots, who opposed, with vigour, these pacific measures, and complained of the Henoticon as injurious to the honour and authority of the most holy council of Chalcedon.§ Hence arose new contests and new divisions not less deplorable than those which the decree was designed to suppress.

XX. A considerable body of the Monophysites, or Eutychians, looked upon the conduct of Mongus, who had subscribed the decrce, as highly criminal, and consequently formed themselves into a new faction, under the title of Acephali, i. e. headless, because, by the submis sion of Mongus, they had been deprived of their chief. This sect was afterwards divided into three others, who were called Anthropomorphites, Barsanuphites, and Esaianists; and these again, in the following century, were the

*See Norris, Lib. de uno ex Trinitate carne passo. tom. iii. op. diss. i. cap. iii. 782.-Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. i. p. 516; tom. ii. p. 36, 180. Evagrii Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xiv.--Liberati Breviarium, cap. xviii.

This word express the doctrine of those who believed, that in Christ there was but one nature, and is in most respects, the same with the term Eutychians. § See Facund. Hermian. Defers. trium Capitulor. lik xií. cap. iv.

Evagr. Hist. Eccles. b. cap. xiii.-Leontius Byzant. de Sectis, tom. i. Lertion, utiq. Canisii, p. 537.Timoth. in Cotelerii Mont. Ecclesiæ Græca tom iii. P. 409,

unhappy occasion of new factions, of which the ancient writers make frequent mention.* It is, however, necessary to observe here, for the information of those whose curiosity interests them in inquiries of this nature, that these subdivisions of the Eutychian sect are not to be adopted with too much facility.Some of them are entirely fictitious; others are characterised by a nominal, and not by a real difference; the division is in words, and not in things; while a third sort are distinguished, not by their peculiar doctrines, but by certain rites and institutions, and matters of a merely circumstantial nature. Be that as it will, these numerous branches of the Eutychian faction did not flourish long; they declined gradually in the following century; and the influence and authority of the famous Baradæus contributed principally to their total extinction by the union he established among the members of that sect.

names of Acacius and Fullo were erased from the diptychs, or sacred registers, and thus branded with perpetual infamy.*

XXII. These deplorable dissensions and contests had, for their object, a matter of the smallest importance. Eutyches was generally supposed to have maintained, "That the divine nature of Christ had absorbed the human, and that, consequently, in him there was but one nature, namely, the divine;" but the truth of this supposition is destitute of sufficient evidence. However that may have been, this opinion, and also Eutyches, its pretended author, were rejected and condemned by those who opposed the council of Chalcedon, and principally indeed by Xenaias and Fullo, who are, therefore, improperly called Eutychians, and belong rather to the class of the Monophysites. They, who assumed this latter title, held, "That the divine and human nature of Christ were so united, as to form only one nature, yet without any change, confusion, or || mixture, of the two natures:" and that this caution might be carefully observed, and their meaning be well understood, they frequently expressed themselves thus: "In Christ there is one nature; but that nature is two-fold and compounded." They disowned all relation and

XXI. The Roman pontiff, Felix II., having assembled an Italian council, composed of sixty-seven bishops, condemned and deposed Acacius, and excluded him from the communion of the church, as a perfidious enemy to the truth. Several articles were alleged against him, to furnish a pretext for the severity of this sentence; such as his attachment to the Mono-attachment to Eutyches; but regarded, with physites, and their leaders Mongus and Fullo, the contempt with which he treated the council of Chalcedon, and other accusations of a like nature. But the true reasons of these proceedings, and of the irreconcileable hatred which the Roman pontiffs indulged against him, were his denying the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, his opposing throughout the whole course of his ministry, and his ambitious efforts to enlarge, beyond all bounds, the authority and prerogatives of the see of Constantinople. The Greeks, however, defended the character and memory of their bishop against all the aspersions which were cast upon him by the Romans. Hence arose a new schism, and a new contest, which were carried on with great violence, until the following century, when the obstinacy and perseverance of the Latins triumphed over the opposition of the oriental Christians, and brought about an agreement, in consequence of which, the

* These sects are enumerated by Basnage, in his Prolegom. ad Canisii Lection. Antiq. cap. iii. and by Asseman, in his Dissertatio de Monophysitis.

the highest veneration, Dioscorus, Barsumas, Xenaias and Fullo, as the pillars of their sect; and rejected, not only the Epistle of Leo, but also the decrees of the council of Chalcedon. The opinion of the Monophysites, if we judge of it by the terms in which it is here delivered, does not seem to differ in reality, but only in the manner of expression, from that which was established by the council. But, if we attend carefully to the metaphysical arguments and subtilties which the former employed to confirm their doctrine,§ we shall, perhaps, be induced to think, that the controversy between the Monophysites and Chalcedonians is not merely a dispute about words.

XXIII. A new controversy arose in the church during this century, and its pestilential effects extended themselves through the following ages. The authors of it were Pelagius and Cœlestius, both monks; the former a Briton, and the latter a native of Ireland. They lived

* Hen. Valesius, Dissert. de Synodis Roman. in quibus damnatus est Acacius, ad calcem, tom. iii. Scriptor. Eccles. p. 179.-Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. This again is one of the periods of ecclesiastical 301, 380, 381.-Bayle's Dictionary.-David Blondel, de history, in which we find a multitude of events, which || la Primaute dans l'Eglise, p. 279.-Acta Sanctorum, tom. are so many proofs how far the supremacy of the pope iii. Februar. p. 502.

Many learned men treat this controversy as a mere dispute about words. Gregory Abulpharajius, himself a Monophysite, and the most learned of the sect, declares this as his opinion. See the Biblioth. Italique, tom. xvii. p. 285.-La Croze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, p. 23; and the Histoire du Christianisme d'Ethiopie p. 14. Asseman, though a Roman by birth and by religion, seems, in a good measure, to have adopted the same way of thinking, as appears by p. 297 in his second volume.

was from being universally acknowledged. Felix II. de- See the passages drawn from the writings of the Moposes and excommunicates Acacius the patriarch of Con-nophysites by the most learned, and, frequently, imparstantinople, who not only receives this sentence with tial Asseman, in his Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. iii. p. contempt, but, in his turn, anathematises and excommuni- 25, 26, 29, &c. cates the pope, and orders his name to be stricken out of the diptychs. This conduct of Acacius is approved by the emperor, the church of Constantinople, by almost all the eastern bishops, and even by Andreas of Thessalonica, who was at that time the pope's vicar for East Illyricum. This was the occasion of that general schism, which coninued for twenty-five years, between the eastern and western churches. It is here worthy of observation, that the eastern bishops did not adhere to the cause of Acacius, from any other principle, as appears from the most authentic records of those times, than a persuasion of the illegality of his excommunication by the Roman pontiff, who, in their judgment, had not a right to depose the first bishop of the east, without the consent of a general council

See the subtile argumentation of Abu.Ţharajius, 12 the Biblioth. Orient. tom. ii. p. 288.

Nothing very certain can be advanced with re spect to the native country of Cœlestius, which some say was Scotland, and others Campania in Italy. We know

XXIV. Things went more smoothly with Pelagius in the east, where he enjoyed the protection and favour of John, bishop of Jerusa lem, whose attachment to the sentiments of Origen led him naturally to countenance those of Pelagius, on account of the conformity that seemed to exist between these systems. Under the shadow of this powerful protection, Pelagius made a public profession of his opinions, and formed disciples in several places; and though, in 415, he was accused by Orosius, a Spanish presbyter, whom Augustin had sent into Palestine for that purpose, before an as

he was dismissed without the least censure; and not only so, but was soon after fully acquitted of all errors by the council of Diospolis.*

at Rome in the greatest reputation, and were universally esteemed for their extraordinary piety and virtue.* These monks looked upon the doctrines, which were commonly received, "concerning the original corruption of human nature, and the necessity of divine grace to enlighten the understanding, and purify the heart, as prejudicial to the progress of holiness and virtue, and tending to lull mankind in a presumptuous and fatal security. They maintained, that these doctrines were as false as they were pernicious; that the sins of our first parents were imputed to them alone, and not to their posterity; that we derive no corrup-||sembly of bishops who met at Jerusalem, yet tion from their fall, but are born as pure and unspotted as Adam came out of the forming hand of his Creator; that mankind, therefore, are capable of repentance and amendment, and of arriving at the highest degrees of piety and This controversy was brought to Rome, and virtue by the use of their natural faculties and referred by Colestius and Pelagius to the decipowers; that, indeed, external grace is neces- sion of Zosimus,t who was raised to the pontisary to excite their endeavours, but that they ficate in 417. The new pontiff, gained over have no need of the internal succours of the by the ambiguous and seemingly orthodox condivine Spirit." These notions, and others in- fession of faith, that Cœlestius, who was now timately connected with them,† were propa-at Rome, had artfully drawn up, and also by gated at Rome, though in a private manner, by the letters and protestations of Pelagius, prothe two monks already mentioned, who, retir-nounced in favour of these monks, declared ing from that city, in 410, upon the approach them sound in the faith, and unjustly perseof the Goths, went first into Sicily, and after-cuted by their adversaries. The African bishops, wards into Africa, where they published their with Augustin at their head, little affected with doctrine with greater freedom. From Africa this declaration, continued obstinately to mainPelagius passed into Palestine, while Cœlestius tain the judgment they had pronounced in this remained at Carthage with a view to prefer-matter, and to strengthen it by their exhortament, desiring to be admitted among the presbyters of that city. But the discovery of his opinions having blasted his hopes, and his errors being condemned in a council holden at Carthage, in 412, he departed from that city, and went into the east. It was from this time that Augustin, the famous bishop of Hippo, began to attack the tenets of Pelagius and Cœlestius in his learned and eloquent writings; and to him, indeed, is principally due the glory of having suppressed this sect in its very birth.

however, that he was descended of an illustrious family; and that, after having applied himself to the study of the law for some time, he retired from the world, and embraced the monastic life. See Gennad. de Script. Eccles. cap. xliv.

The learned and furious Jerome, who never once thought of doing common justice to those who had the misfortune to differ from him in opinion, accused Pelagius of gluttony and intemperance, after he had heard of his errors, though he had admired him before for his exemplary virtue. Agustin, more candid and honest, bears impartial testimony to the truth; and, even while he writes against this heretic, acknowledges that he had made great progress in virtue and piety, that his life was chaste and his manners were blameless; and this, indeed,

is the truth.

tions, their letters, and their writings. Zosimus yielded to the perseverance of the Africans, changed his mind, and condemned, with the utmost severity, Pelagius and Cœlestius, whom he had honoured with his approbation, and covered with his protection. This was followed by a train of evils, which pursued these two . monks without interruption. They were condemned by the same Ephesian council which had launched its thunder at the head of Nestorius; in short, the Gauls, Britons, and Africans, by their councils, and the emperors, by their edicts and penal laws, demolished this sect in its infancy, and suppressed it entirely before it had acquired any tolerable degree of vigour or consistence.‡

XXV. The unhappy disputes about the opinions of Pelagius occasioned, as usually happens, other controversies equally prejudicial to

* See Daniel, Histoire du Concile de Diospolis, which. is to be found in the Opuseula of that eloquent and learned Jesuit, published at Paris in 1724. Diospolis was a city of Palestine, known in Scripture by the name of Lyd da; and the bishop who presided in this council was Eulogius of Cæsarea, metropolitan of Palestine.

To preserve the thread of the history, and prevent the reader's being surprised to find Pelagius and Cœlestius appealing to Rome after having been acquitted at Diospolis, it is necessary to observe, that these monk; were condemned anew, in 416, by the African bishops sembled at Carthage, and those of Numidia assembled a Milevum; upon which they appealed to Rome.

The Pelagian controversy has been historically treat- See the Historia Pelagiana of Ger. J. Vossius, lib. i. ed by many learned writers, such as Usher, in his Anti-cap. lv. p. 130; as also the learned observations that have quit. Eccles. Britannica; Laet; Ger. Vossius; Norris; been made upon this controversy, in the Bibliotheque Garnier, in his Supplement. Oper. Theodoreti; Janse-Italique, tom. v. p. 74. The writers on both sides are nius in Augustino, and others. Longueval also, a French Jesuit, wrote a History of the Pelagians. See the preface to the ninth volume of his Historia Eccles, Gallicanæ. After all, it must be confessed, that these learned writers have not exhausted this interesting subject, or treated it with a sufficient degree of impartiality.

mentioned by Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his Isagoge ad Theologiam, tom. ii. 1071. The learned Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, vol. i. chap. xix. has given a concise and elegant account of the Pelagian controversy; an ac count which, though imperfect in several respects abounds with solid and useful eruditi

the peace of the church, and the interests of || by the mere power of his natural faculties, as true Christianity. In the course of this dis- also of exercising faith in Christ, and forming pute, Augustin had delivered his opinion, con- the purposes of a holy and sincere obedience. cerning the necessity of divine grace in order But they acknowledged, at the same time, to our salvation, and the decrees of God with "That none could persevere or advance in that respect to the future conditions of men, with- holy and virtuous course which they had the out being always consistent with himself, or power of beginning, without the perpetual supintelligible to others. Hence certain monks port and the powerful assistance of the divine of Adrumetum, and others, were led into a no- grace."* The disciples of Augustin, in Gaul, tion, "That God not only predestinated the attacked the Semi-Pelagians with the utmost wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the vehemence, without being able to extirpate of guilt and transgression for which they are pun- overcome them. The doctrine of this sect ished; and that thus both the good and bad ac- was so suited to the capacities of the generalitions of all men were determined from eternity of men, so conformable to the way of thinkty by a divine decree, and fixed by an invinci-ing that prevailed among the monastic orders, ble necessity." Those who embraced this opin- and so well received among the gravest and ion, were called Predestinarians. Augustin most learned Grecian doctors, that neither the used his utmost influence and authority to pre- zeal nor industry of its adversaries could stop vent the spreading of this doctrine, and ex- its rapid and extensive progress. Add to its plained his true sentiments with more perspi- other advantages, that neither Augustin, nor cuity, that it might not be attributed to him. his followers, had ventured to condemn it in His efforts were seconded by the councils of all its parts, or to brand it as an impious and Arles and Lyons, in which the doctrine in pernicious heresy. question was publicly rejected and condemned.* But we must not omit observing, that the existence of this Predestinarian sect has been denied by many learned men, and looked upon as an invention of the Semi-Pelagians, designed to decry the followers of Augustin, by attributing to them unjustly this dangerous and pernicious error.t

XXVII. This was the commencement of those unhappy contests, those subtile and perplexing disputes concerning grace, or the nature and operation of that divine power, which is essentially required in order to salvation, that rent the church into the most deplorable divisions through the whole course of the succeeding age, and which, to the deep sorrow and XXVI. A new and different modification regret of every true and generous Christian, was given to the doctrine of Augustin by the have been continued to the present time. The monk Cassian, who came from the east into doctrine of Augustin, who was of opinion, that. France, and erected a monastery near Mar- in the work of conversion and sanctification. seilles. Nor was he the only one who attempt- all was to be attributed to a divine energy, and ed to fix upon a certain temperature between nothing to human agency, had many followers the errors of Pelagius and the opinions of the in all ages of the church, though his disciples African oracle; several persons embarked in have never agreed entirely about the manner this undertaking about the year 430, and hence of explaining what he taught on that head.‡ arose a new sect, the members of which were The followers of Cassian were, however, much called, by their adversaries, Semi-Pelagians. more numerous; and his doctrine, though vaThe opinions of this sect have been misre-riously explained, was received in the greatest presented, by its enemies, upon several occasions; such is usually the fate of all parties in religious controversies. Their doctrine, as it has been generally explained by the learned, amounted to this: "That inward preventing grace was not necessary to form in the soul the beginnings of true repentance and amendment; that every one was capable of producing these

* See Jac. Sirmondi Historia Prædestinatiana, tom. iv. op. p. 271.-Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. livr. xii. cap. ii. p. 698. Dion. Petavius, Dogmat. Theol. tom. vi. p. 168, 174, &c.

See Gilb. Mauguini Fabula Prædestinatiana confutata, which he subjoined to the second tome of his learned work, entitled, Collectio variorum Scriptorum qui Sæc. x. de Prædestinatione et Gratia scripserunt.-Fred. Spanhemius, Introd. ad Historiam Eccles. tom. i. op. p. 993.-Jac. Basnag. Adnot. ad Prosperi Chronicon et Præf. ad Faustum Regiensem, tom. i. Lection. Antiqu. Canisii, p. 315, 348. Granet (who wrote the life of Launoy) cbserves, that Sirmond had solicited Launoy to write against Mauguin, who denied the existence of the predestinarian sect; but that the former, having examined the matter with care and application, adopted the sentiment of Mauguin. The whole dispute about the existence of this sect will, when closely looked into, appear to be little more, perhaps, than a dispute about words. It may be very true, that, about this time, or even from the time of St. Paul, certain persons embraced the predestinarian opinions here mentioned; but there is no solid proof, that the abettors of these opinions ever formed themselves into a sect. See Basnage, tom. i. p. 700.

part of the monastic schools in Gaul, whence it spread itself through other parts of Europe. As to the Greeks, and other Eastern Christians, they had embraced the Semi-Pelagian doctrine before Cassian, and still adhere firmly to it The generality of Christians looked upon the opinions of Pelagius as daring and presumptu

* The leading principles of the Semi-Pelagians were the five following: 1. That God did not dispense his grace to one, more than another, in consequence of predestination, i. e. an eternal and absolute decree, but was willing to save all men, if they complied with the terms of his Gospel; 2. That Christ died for all men; 3. That the grace purchased by Christ, and necessary to salvation, was offered to all men; 4. That man, before he received grace, was capable of faith and holy desires; 5. That man, born free, was consequently capable of resisting the influences of grace, or complying with its sug gestions. See Basnage, tom. i. livr. x11.

† Basnage, tom. i. livr. xii.-Hist. Literaire de la France, tom. ii. præf. p. 9.-Vossii Histor. Pelagiana, lib. v. p. 538.-Scipio Maffei (under the fictitious name of Irenæus Veronensis,) de Hæresi Palagiana, tom. xxix.-Opuscul. Scientif. Angeli Calogeræ, p. 399.

It is well known that the Jansenists and Jesuits both plead the authority of St. Augustin, in behalf of their opposite systems with respect to predestination and grace. This knotty doctrine severely exercised the pretended infallibility of the popes, and exposed it to the laughter of the wise upon many occasions; and the fa mous bull Unigenitus set Clement XI. in direct opposi tion to several of the most celebrated Roman pontif Which are we to believe?