 Chapter 11 Part 5 of History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Sean F. Sawyers. History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries by S. Cheetah. Chapter 11, Controversies on the Faith, Part 5. The Originistic Controversy. Origin was, as we have seen in the third century, the great teacher of theology in the Christian Church. The time, however, came when they who had followed in his footsteps turned against their guide. Origin's teaching was that of a time of seeking and forming, and seemed to some of those who looked back to it from the standpoint of a more definite system to transgress the bounds of Orthodoxy. All the great party leaders of the fourth century had appealed to him. The Arians claimed his support for their doctrine that the Lord was a created being, and subordinate to the Father. Their opponents found in his works the assertion that the Son was begotten of the Father from all eternity. He had, in fact, for several generations many distinguished adherents, both in Antioch and in Alexandria. These no doubt studied and understood him, but many joined in the fray who did not. Men whose conceptions of God and of the soul of man were, however little they were conscious of it, materialistic, naturally hated his spiritual teaching, and regarded him as the most subtle and the most dangerous of heretics. Many of the monks were of this anthropomorphic school, yet it was among monks and hermits that Epiphanias detected what he thought a heresy derived from the teaching of Origin, and he felt himself bound as the champion of Orthodoxy to try to close the source of error. His first steps with this view were taken on a visit which he paid to Jerusalem. Here, in the later years of the fourth century, had been formed a group of men devoted equally to aesthetic life and to the study of theology. The center of this group was John, the Bishop of Jerusalem, himself an ardent admirer of Origin. Among its members were Rufinus, who during his stay in Egypt had been a pupil of the Originist Denimus, and Jerome, then an eager student of the works of Origin, whose fame, whether as a theologian or as an exposter of Scripture, he desired to emulate. He had already begun to make his master known to the West by means of Latin translations. When murmurs against his orthodoxy reached his ears, and soon afterwards Epiphanias came into his neighborhood and preached against his errors. Epiphanias was generally reverenced as a saint, and great regard was paid to his opinions. Bishop John, however, who seems to have regarded him as a narrow-minded fanatic, was not won over. Epiphanias, therefore, broke off communion with him and required Jerome and his monks at Bethlehem to do the same. He himself, ignoring the Episcopal rites of John, ordained Jerome's brother, Paulin Anias, to the priesthood. Jerome now found many errors in the author whom he had lately admired, and so severed himself from his old friend, Raphynus, who could not so readily lead his first love. By the intervention of Theophilus of Alexandria, the strife in Palestine was for the time appeased, but Raphynus, after his return to the West, published a translation of Pamphilus' defensive origin, in the preface to which he glanced at his detractors, but at the same time guarded himself against the supposition that he himself shared the opinions attributed to him on the Trinity and on the Resurrection. These opinions, he contended, were not origins, but interpolated by heretics into his works. Further, in the preface to his translation of origin, Dacron Kippus, he attempted to defend his practice of toning down certain risky expressions of his author, alleging that Jerome in his originistic period had done the same. Jerome, greatly provoked, replied, denying the truth of some of Raphynus' allegations and trying by all means to clear himself of the charge of originism. The principle false opinions, which he attributed to the incriminated teacher, were these. Origin declares that as it is a proper to say that the son can see the father, so it is underfitting to suppose that the spirit can see the son, and that souls are in this body bound as in a prison house. While the foreman was created, they were among the blessed beings of heavenly places. He asserts that the devil and the evil spirits will sometimes repent and be numbered among the blessed ones. He interprets the coats of skins which were given to Adam and his wife after the fall to mean human bodies. He denies the resurrection of the flesh. He allegorizes paradise in such a way as to deprive it of all historical reality, making the trees, angels, and the rivers the heavenly virtues. The waters which were above the heavens he understands to be divine and supernal powers. The waters on and under the earth devilish and infernal powers. He asserts that man, after his expulsion from paradise, lost the image and likeness of God in which he had been made. Thereupon arose a painful literary contest between Jerome and Raphynus, exasperated probably by the former friendship of the combatants. The Roman bishop Anastasius, instigated by Marcella and other friends of Jerome, summoned Raphynus to appear and answer for himself before his tribunal. Raphynus, however, though he sent a written defense, did not appear. An Anastasius proceeded to condemn origin of whose works he had foully knew nothing and to express strong disapproval of Raphynus. Theophilus himself had, in 399, declared himself opposed to the anthropomorphism which, in the strongest opposition to the views of origin, attributed to God in human form. God, he contended, alone of all existing things, was to be conceived as purely immaterial. In consequence of this declaration he was fiercely attacked by some of the fanatical monks of the Egyptian desert and so cowed that he consented to condemn the works of origin. On this change of views he attacked the nitrogen monks who were for the most part devoted to origin and with whom he had once been in entire sympathy. Against these men and all who held their views he proceeded with unrelenting harshness. At a Synod in Alexandria about the year 400 a sentence of condemnation was passed on all who taught the doctrines of origin or even read his books. When the originistic monks refused to obey the decrees of the Synod, Theophilus incited the anthropomorphists among them who were the majority to drive out these originist brethren. These escaping with some difficulty found no refuge even with their friend John of Jerusalem for Theophilus in an encyclical letter had stigmatized them as wild and dangerous fanatics. They at last resolved to present themselves at the imperial court at Constantinople where they hoped for the support of its bishop, John Chrysostom. The bishop received them kindly and took measures for their maintenance. As they were for the present under Anathema he felt himself precluded from admitting them to communion but he wrote to Theophilus begging him to absolve the refugees. These however had no mind to submit tainly to Theophilus' proceedings and desire to bring a formal charge against him before the emperor. It was at the same time falsely reported to Theophilus that John had admitted the monks to communion. Chrysostom was anxious to keep clear of a violent controversy but the aggrieved monks gained the ear of the Empress Eudoxia and brought it to pass that the emperor summoned a Synod to Constantinople over which the bishop of that city was to preside to pass judgment on the proceedings of Theophilus who was duly cited to appear. The effect of this citation was that he conceived a violent hatred for Chrysostom whom he had determined to ruin. He worked upon Apophanias, now a very old man, to take a fresh step in his opposition to the opinions of Origen. This bishop summoned a Synod of his diocese Cyprus which anathematized the writings of Origen. He then took a journey to Constantinople where he requested Chrysostom to withdraw his protection from the monks and join in the condemnation which had just been pronounced in Cyprus. Chrysostom, though by no means an undiscriminating admirer of Origen not unnaturally resisted this attempt at dication and Apophanias, a man of honest and straightforward character finding that he had been misled as to the views of his opponents probably began to suspect that he was being made the tool of an intriguer. He therefore left the capital and sailed for Cyprus but died before he reached home. The further proceedings of Eudoxia and Theophilus against the good bishop of Constantinople do not belong to the Origenistic controversy. His enemies were determined to accomplish his ruin and the charges brought against him without any regard to their truth were such as gave the civil power a pretext for interfering. Theophilus, in spite of all he had said against him continued to devote himself to the study of Origen and for this and other reasons incurred the contempt of all right-minded men. In spite of official condemnation the influence of Origen's genius lived on. In the sixth century there were many Origenists among the monks of the great monasteries founded by St. Saba's in Palestine and four of these were expelled from the New Laura by their abbot, Logopicus, on account of their opinions. His successor, Mamas, reinstated them but in the year 530 Saba's himself visited Constantinople and begged the Emperor Justinian to expel the Origenists. Before however any steps could be taken to effect this Saba's died and Origenism continued to spread in Palestine especially through the influence of a monk named Domitian and of Theodore Ascados who was prominent in the Monophysite controversy. Both of these men had influence at court and under their protection the Origenists gained the upper hand in the Laura's and expelled their opponents. The latter were however favored by Ephraim, Patriarch of Antioch and the Emperor Justinian when the dispute was brought before him was induced by the Roman legate Pelagius afterwards Pope to put forth a theological treatise against Origen ending with a list of opinions which he held to deserve anathema. This was subscribed by Menace the Patriarch and by those bishops who were in Constantinople at the time that is by those who constituted the home synod of that city. The same synod appears to have anathematized 15 propositions found or said to be found in the works of Origen. As however Cyril of Scythopolis and Avogrius agree in stating that the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople condemned Origen these anathemas had been attributed to that council even by authorities as early as the latter part of the 8th century. But as three Popes of the 6th century attribute to the Fifth Council only the decision on the three chapters and say nothing of any canon affecting Origen while the acts of the council contained no mention of any discussion of Origen's opinions we may fairly presume that the anathemas have the sanction only of the home synod of Constantinople which was simply the echo of Justinian. Origen appears indeed to be condemned in the 11th canon of the Fifth Council but the name is probably interpolated. Theodorus Ascaras seems in fact to have diverted the emperor's attention from the Origenists whom he favored though he had subscribed to the emperor's edict against them and under his protection they became dominant in Palestine. They were soon however divided against themselves. One party considering the soul of Christ to have existed before the incarnation and to be itself divine received from their friends the name of Prototiste but from their enemies that of Tetrodite as making four persons in the divine essence. Another was that of the Isochrist who taught that in the end all souls would become like that of Christ. A representative of the latter, Macarius the second of that name was even elected to the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem. The Prototiste now seeing the danger of being crushed gave up their theory of pre-existence and rejoined the Orthodox Church. Macarius was driven from his sea by Justinian who caused the Catholic Eustachius to be appointed in his stead. The laurels of Palestine were purged of Origenists. From this time the Origenists as a party vanished from history but there have never been wanting distinguished men who have honored Origen as one of the leaders of Christian thought. Prisilianism A western echo of eastern error is probably to be found in the Spanish sect of Prisilianists. This derived its origin and its name from Prisilian a man of wealth, family and education and evidently a enthusiastically religious temperament. In his works Prisilian shows himself an earnest believer in Christ the only God. In fact, he so emphasizes the Godhead of Christ and the unity of God as to suggest that he regarded the Holy Trinity somewhat as Swindon Bork in later days regarded it. And he seems to have taken a view of the Incarnation which did not much differ from that of a Polinaris. He insisted with great earnestness on the wide distribution of the gift of prophecy in the Church of Christ. It was he talked by no means limited to the prophets of the canonical scriptures. Everywhere and at all times might God raise up witnesses for himself. Doubtless he regarded himself as such a witness. From his exposition of the Creed it may probably be inferred that he believed in the immortality of the soul hardly in the resurrection of the flesh. Whatever dogma he may have held it is clear that he was possessed by a strong ascetic spirit. He felt keenly the contrast between the Church and the world that the friendship of the world is enmity with God was a living principle with him. He seems to have been influenced by origin perhaps also by the Luciferans the disciples of Lucifer of Cagliari who were numerous in Spain. Whatever may have been the errors of Priscilla we can hardly fail to recognize in him one of those eager spirits which can draw to them sympathetic souls. Not finding the Church of his own day sufficiently pure from the world he established meanings of his disciples not with the view it would appear of separating them from the Catholic Church but of raising them to a higher level of Christian life. These conventicles had however probably the effect of making the Prisilianists less regular attendants at the public worship of the Church. At all events they gave offense to those in authority. The Bishop of Cordova, Hygienus informed the Metropolitan Odysseus of Moreta of the spread of this irregular worship and a council at which 12 bishops attended was held at Saragasa to consider the matter. It passed eight canons intended principally to check the irregular meanings. They forbade women to be present at conventicles where men exhorted or themselves to meet for mutual instruction. They forbade all persons to go into seclusion during Lent or during the three weeks preceding the Epiphany and strictly enjoined them to attend the services in their churches regularly during those periods. They forbade such ascetic practices as fasting on Sunday or walking barefoot. They forbade any man to assume the title of teacher, doctor without authority. That these canons were directed against the Prisilianists, there is no doubt though they are nowhere named in them. They do not impute false doctrine to those whom they have in view but censure irregularities and excessive asceticism. An asceticism which probably disinclined those who practiced it as did the English Puritans in later days to take part in the festivities of Christmastide. The Prisilianists were not present at the council having apparently not been summoned but in their absence two bishops, instantias and salveanus who had been won over to the side of the aesthetics with Elpidias and Prisilian himself who were laymen were condemned and excommunicated. Ithachias, bishop of Sausaba, who was probably the more ready to proceed vigorously against aesthetics as he was himself a man much given to self-indulgence, was commissioned to bring this decree to the knowledge of all bishops and especially of Hygienus who had received the heretics to Communion. Adacius, after his return to Merida was accused of some unnamed transgression upon which many of his clergy withdrew from Communion with him. Prisilian, now bishop of Avila coming to Merida with a view to make peace was beaten by some of Ithachias's partisans but seems nevertheless to have found some favor with the laity of the place. There now was serious division and heated controversy in several cities of Spain and, as is usual in such cases charges and countercharges flew thickly about. It was discovered that the Prisilianists were Gnostics or Manicheans and given to magical arts a charge to which some plausibility was given by their seclusion and asceticism. Prisilian himself repudiated and condemned Manas in the most emphatic matter as he did also the Arians, the Patropasians and many other heretics but it is not improbable that consciously or unconsciously he agreed with some of the Gnostics in regarding the soul as having left the realms of light and purity and become entangled in the chains of evil matter. He not only adopted the curious fancy which appears in Almanacs even to our own time that the several signs of the zodiac influenced each some particular part of the human body as Aries the head, Taurus the neck, Gemini the arms, Cancer the breast and so forth. He recognized a similar correspondence in the 12 patriarchs to the parts of the soul as Ruben to the head, Judah to the breast Levi to the heart and the rest. As he was followed by certain ladies who were devoted to him it is not wonderful that charges of immorality were made against him. Whatever was his guilt his enemies were powerful and procured from the weak banishing the Prisilianists from the empire. Prisilian then with the bishops of his party he took himself to Italy hoping to convince the masses of Rome and the great Ambrose one of the chief advisors of the young emperor of his innocence. In this he failed but he succeeded it was said by bribery in procuring a rescript repealing that which had been issued against him and his followers ordering the restitution of their churches to which they accordingly returned. Ithacaus now became an exile just at this crisis Maximus, a Spaniard put Gratian to flight and seized the imperial power to him Ithacaus turned and induced him to order Ithacaus and Prisilian to be brought before a senate at Bordeaux Ithacaus was deposed from his bishopric using to admit the authority of the council appealed to the usurping emperor. He deputed Ivaudius a man of harsh and stern character to hold the trial at which Ithacaus who had so keen a scent for heresy that he discovered it even in the saintly martin of Tours appeared as his accuser. Ithacaus found the accused guilty of sorcery and the emperor sentenced him to death together with some of his followers Ithacaus was banished to the Sicily islands the remains of those who were put to death were carried to Spain where the devotees who had before honored Prisilian as a saint now referenced him as a martyr. The charge on which Prisilian was condemned was fairly within the cognizance of an imperial tribunal but as everyone knew that he had in fact suffered as a heretic many of the best men of the time were offended that spiritual error should have been punished by a civil court and that even to the shedding of blood martin of Tours remonstrated in the most energetic manner both with maximus and with Ithacaus and public feeling was so strong against the latter that he was deposed from his scene. Ithacaus acquitted by his voluntary resignation the whole proceeding had in the opinion of a contemporary Slapulchius Severus a very unfortunate effect upon the church. Prisilian and his companions had the long and dreary list of those who have suffered for their opinions at the hands of Christians, the same pains and penalties which Christians had once endured at the hands of pagans. Chapter 11 Part 5 Recording by Sean F. Sawyers of Fallon, Missouri Chapter 11 Part 6 of History of the Christian Church during the first 6 centuries This is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org This recording by Anna Roberts Chapter 11 Controversies of the Church Part 6 Pelagianism The relation of man's will to God's will is a mystery which has exercised the wood of man in almost all ages though it did not become the occasion in the Church until the beginning of the 5th century. Up to that time theologians and simple Christians had alike been contented to believe that both human effort and divine grace were necessary for the work of salvation without attempting to allot to each its exact influence. This acquiescence was brought to an end by St. Augustine. He, a man of warm feeling and vivid imagination supremely conscious of the divine mercy by which he had been brought from darkness to light, eminently capable and intellectual form to his convictions and of stating a belief in a definite proposition, gave in his teaching so much weight to the grace of God in leading us to good that he left or seemed to leave nothing to the will of man. The great problem of grace and free will had not indeed presented itself to him in the early days after his conversion with the force with which it came upon him later in life, but before he wrote his confessions he had reached, perhaps through his neoplatonic studies, the conclusion that as all good comes from God, from him comes even the gift of faith, the beginning of good in man. His opinions were developed and defined in the course of controversy, but they did not originate in it. It was probably about the year 405 that Pelagius, a British monk of ascetic life, began at Rome to exhort men to leave the worldly and frivolous life which too many of them led. Often he received a reply, it is too hard for us, we cannot do it, we are but men, sinful flesh doth close us in. He heard text missing, famous words repeated, grant what thou commandest and command what thou wilt, and was offended thereat. This view seemed to him to leave nothing for man to do obedience became almost mechanical. Here two great principles are found opposed. St. Augustine's was, in the main, that of St. Paul, that not he himself lived, but Christ lived in him, but his early Manichean training had given his mind a bias which led him to regard too much of the sport of hostile forces, a good and an evil. Pelagius's view of life tended to approximate to that of the old pagan philosophers, especially to that of the Stoics. In ancient philosophic systems man is always regarded as the master of his own destiny. It is always presumed that if he sees the right he will pursue it. No account is taken of the weakness which arises from the defects of human nature. And this contrast of principles was no doubt heightened by the character of those who were the most prominent students. St. Augustine was eager and earnest, sympathizing keenly with the weakness and the struggles of the multitude who sought his counsel. Pelagius was a monk. So far as we can gather from our imperfect sources he was a man of calm temperament to whom the great struggle of the spirit against the flesh was comparatively unknown. He was anxious to promote virtuous living, to rouse an innervated generation to the need of strenuous effort and self-denial, to forward the half-stoical teaching which had unconsciously influenced so many related Christians. He had studied Greek theology to an extent very unusual in the West and is thought to have derived some of his opinions from Theodore of Mopsuestia. Colestius, whom we constantly find by the side of Pelagius and who probably exaggerated his opinions, had been an advocate in Rome until he was converted by Pelagius. Both Pelagius and Colestius were laymen when they first became known to us. When Pelagius controverted to St. Augustine's opinions his opposition does not seem to have any excitement at Rome. He appears to have been cautious and circumspect but his pupil, Colestius, was younger, bolder, full of the zeal of a new convert and not afraid of the logical consequences of his principles. In him appears a new feature of the great controversy. He was understood to deny the transmission of Adam's sin to his descendants and from this to draw the inference that in the baptism of infants there is no remission of sins. About the year 411 we find both Pelagius and Colestius in Africa. Pelagius, who was no lover of strife, seems to have left that province when he found that his presence there occasioned dissension but Colestius sought to be appointed a presbyter in Carthage. There in the year 412 Paulinus, a deacon of Milan before a synod over which the bishop of Carthage presided, charged him with holding the following erroneous opinions, that Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he had not sinned, that the sin of Adam injured himself alone and not mankind, that newborn children are in the same state of innocency in which Adam was before his fall, that all do not die through the death or fall of Adam nor through the resurrection of Christ shall all rise, that the kingdom of heaven may be attained through the law as well as through the gospel, that even before the coming of the Lord a man might live without sin if he would. Colestius, admitted to plead his own cause, declared that he held that infants ought to be baptized. The transmission of Adam's sin he considered an open question since he had heard Catholics both affirm and deny it. In the end he was excommunicated by the council and passed over to Ephesus whence after becoming a presbyter he betook himself to Constantinople. Pelagius, meantime, had gone into Palestine once he wrote a conciliatory letter to Augustine who replied if with considerable reserve at any rate amicably. He also attempted to become friendly with Jerome but as he had already been admitted to the friendship of John of Jerusalem with whom had a quarrel he found there no favour. Jerome wrote fiercely against him connecting him, probably not unjustly, with the already suspected origin. A statement of his own opinions which Colestius had circulated and which became widely known also tended to bring the more cautious Pelagius into ill repute. Oroceus, the well-known pupil and friend of Augustine, at last brought it to pass that John cited Pelagius to answer for himself before a meeting of the Presbyteria of Jerusalem. Before this assembly, Pelagius declared that he believed a sinless life to be impossible without the grace of God and was thereupon acquitted. Oroceus had to speak through an interpreter and probably failed to make his audience understand the importance of a speculation altogether unfamiliar to them, but the opponents of Pelagius did not rest. In December of the same year they brought his doctrines before a Palestinian synod at Diospolis, the ancient Lidda. He did not deny that he held the opinions attributed to him but was able to understand that they assembled prelates, fourteen in number, declared his orthodoxy unimpeachable. The propositions of Colestius, which had been condemned at Carthage, were then produced and Pelagius was asked whether he assented to them. Some of them he expressly rejected. As to others he held that he ought not to be questioned, since the sayings were none of his, but he nevertheless anathematized those who held them. The synod thereupon decided that he was a true Catholic and worthy of God. He was, in fact, much more constant than St. Augustine's with that prevailing in the East. But in Africa the decisions of Diospolis were very far from satisfactory. In the year 416 synods assembled at Carthage and at Milivis, at Milivis, Augustine was present. But these assemblies condemned Pelagius and appealed for support to Innocent, Bishop of Rome. He received the appeal with delight regarding it as an acknowledgement that nothing could be finally concluded by a provincial synod to the mercy of Rome, and at once decided that Pelagius and Colestius should be excommunicated until they had extricated themselves from the snare of the devil. Upon this Pelagius sent to Rome his ably drawn confession of faith with a treatise in defence of it. Some of the things laid to his charge he declared to be inventions of the enemy, others he explained away, but he adhered to his main proposition that all men had received from God such a power of will as to enable them to perform good works while in silence. This document never came into the hands of Innocent. He was dead before it reached Rome. It was received by his successor, Zosimus. At the same time, Colestius softened some of his more offensive propositions especially with regard to infant baptism, and the result was that Zosimus, out of Roman synod, restored both him and Pelagius to communion, and blamed the Africans for their too hasty zeal. In Carthage there was great indignation and a synod convened to consider the appeal of the former decision. This energetic resistance daunted the Pope who now wrote that the Africans had misunderstood him if they supposed that he had come to a final decision in the matter of Colestius. The case was still undecided. Immediately on the receipt of this epistle a council was held attended by more than 200 bishops from all the provinces of Africa at which not only was Pelagianism condemned in the most direct and unambiguous terms, but appeals to Rome were forbidden on the scene. A fresh person now appeared on the scene, the emperor put forth a re-script condemning the new heretics. Zosimus thereupon faced about. He joined in the excommunication of Pelagius and Colestius, having discovered that such matters as grace, free will, and original sin were of the essence of the faith and required all bishops to subscribe his circular letter of condemnation. Eighteen refused, among them a very notable person, Julian of Eclanum. He was more vigorous and downright as Pelagius and more wary than the fiery Colestius. He had considerable dialectic power and was never weary of discussing and defining. This prelate wrote in the name of the Eighteen dissenting bishops two very frank letters to the Pope, not however maintaining all the propositions of Colestius. From this time Julian becomes a prominent figure. St. Augustine, who was a friend of Julian's family, replied to his letters with gentleness and moderation. But Julian, a rash youth as St. Augustine calls him reverence for the greatest man in Christendom. He drew remorselessly all the logical consequences of his doctrines and pointed out the Manichean mode of thought which was latent in them. Augustine protested that he had no conscious leaning to Manicheism, but it was not easy to show that no relics of his Manichean training lingered in his mind. From this arose a controversy which lasted as long as Augustine lived and in the stress of which he developed the decidedly predestinarian views which are found in his later life. In fact, when the Pelagius is obscure, he simply vanishes from history. The unwirried Colestius, though banished from Italy, was able to induce Pope Colestinus to investigate the matter refresh. By this, however, he gained nothing and departed to Constantinople, which, as Julian and other friends also settled there, became the headquarters of the Pelagian camp. The friendship which the patriarch Nestorius showed them had important consequences. On the one hand it drew on Nestorius the displeasure of him. On the other it brought upon the Pelagian the suspicion of Nestorianism. It was perhaps in consequence of this supposed connection that the followers of Nestorius and of Colestius were condemned together at the Council of Ephesus in 431. In spite, however, of this mention in an ecumenical council, there were probably few theologians in the east who had studied Pelagianism and still fewer who sided with Augustine. The positions of the Pelagians, which were condemned were, in brief, one, that the grace of God is not absolutely necessary for every man, whether before or after baptism, in order to his eternal salvation, and, two, that there is no hereditary transmission of the sin of Adam, and therefore that in the baptism of infants there is not strictly any remission of sins. On the other hand, the doctrine of St. Augustine was that mankind has become, through the fall of Adam, a mass of sin, so that man cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength to faith in calling God, and that we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God, through Christ, preventing us that we may have a goodwill, and working with us when we have that goodwill. We need for our salvation to use the common terms, grace, prevenient, and grace co-operant. This grace is freely given, not for any merit in them, to a certain fixed number of persons who are called, chosen, justified, sanctified, and brought to everlasting life in accordance with God's eternal grace. In baptism, the laver of regeneration, the taint of original sin is washed away, but the capacity for actual sin remains. Renewal is still needed. Pelagianism was condemned, but Augustinianism was not received as the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of predestination, of irresistible grace given to a limited number, seemed to many something new and startling. Even in the lifetime of Augustine, the opposition to his innovation, as many thought it, made progress. Was then the human will, it was asked altogether inoperative in the work of salvation? Were good works altogether superfluous? Was it possible for men to sit with their hands in their laps, making no effort to obey their Lord's commands, and yet be saved? The monks of Hadramentum in North Africa in particular seemed to have held that such was St. Augustine's teaching, and to have drawn the inference that it was useless to attempt the conversion of a sinner except by intercessory prayer. The conversion, as he deemed it of his words, wrote to them explaining that he was by no means indifferent as to the life of believers, that a child of God must feel himself impelled by the Holy Spirit to do right, that men who have not such grace ought to pray that they may receive it, but he still maintained that the bestowal of such grace depends wholly upon God's eternal decree. Soon afterwards, Prosper and other friends informed him that in Marseilles, and elsewhere in Southern Gaul, the doctrine of irresistible because it seemed to leave no room for exhortations to Christian life. Augustine replied in such a way as to strengthen the hands of his friends while he gave fresh offence to his opponents. Soon afterwards he died, leaving disciples to carry on the war who resembled their master rather in zeal than in ability. The monks of Southern Gaul now broke out into more open opposition. It is easy to understand how St. Augustine's doctrine presented itself to ascetics trained mainly under Greek influence. Among distinguished were John Cassian, the father of South Galican monasticism, and Vicentius of Larens, a monastery on an island not far from Antibes. The former had already stated his views on absolute predestination in the doctrines which follow from it. He was offended at unconditional predestination, limited grace, and the bondage of the human will. The grace of God is, he said, indispensable necessary to our salvation. Still, the good will, good thoughts, right belief which prepare for the reception of the grace of God, are attainable by man. Grace is necessary for the perfecting, but not for the beginning of our faith. It is only those who strive to enter in who are helped by grace. It works with man's will. It is only exceptionally that God's grace goes before, occasioning the first exertion of man's will, and even then it is not irresistible. It is a fundamental truth that God wills the salvation of all men, and not of a certain limited number only. As to the fact that the sin of Adam and Eve has corrupted the whole race, an occasioned and irresistible propensity to sin. Still, man's nature is not so wholly corrupt that it retains no capacity for good. In short, Cassian was more alive than most of his contemporaries to the truth that God's judgments are far above out of our sight, and that the mystery of the coexistence of man's free will and God's omnipotence cannot be explained by a sharply defined theory. Perhaps in his anxiety to avoid fatalism, he denies God's justification by our own works. Vincentius, in a treatise which is now probably the best known of all the writings of that age, discussed the whole question of the test of heresy. His general teaching may be summed up in the words, innovation is heresy. Innovators may quote scripture to their purpose, but if their opinions differ from those of the fathers who have lived holily, wisely, and consistently in the faith and communion of the Catholic Church, they are heretics. Against such a consent, no holy learned man, bishop, confessor, or martyr though he be, is to be listened to for an instant. And he condemns under his canon those who declare that in their society there is so great, so special, so personal in influx of the grace of God, that without toil, without zeal, without earnestness, though they neither ask nor seek nor knock, their votaries are held up by angels, so that they dash not their foot against a stone. The reference to some who held a perversion of Augustinian theology is manifest, but it is also tolerably clear that Vincentius refers to a sect, and not to those doctors within the church who defended the views of Augustine. After the death of Augustine, his friend, Prosper of Aquitaine, became the principal champion of Augustinianism. He admitted that his master had spoken somewhat harshly when he said that God did not will the salvation of all men, and he represented that predestination was to life and not to death, that God's choice was not capricious, but just and righteous. He failed to convince the monks, but he succeeded in obtaining a letter from Pope Chalice Dines, in which the opponents of Augustinism were blamed while little was said as to the main points in the dispute. After this, Prosper again replied to Cassian, maintaining with considerable ability his Augustinian views, and then retired from the conflict. The unknown writer of the treatise on the calling of the Gentiles sought to reconcile the proposition that God wills that all men should be saved and that the book shows at any rate that some of the Augustinians were conscious of the difficulty of their position, and it was no doubt written in the interest of peace. On the other hand, there appeared, probably about the year 445, a book called Predestinatus, in which a forged Augustinian treatise setting forth fatalist doctrine in a form which no genuine Augustinian would recognize, was criticized from a Pelagian point of view. What was the effect of this unprincipled doctrine? We know that the monks of Southern Gaul held their ground, and produced in Faustus Bishop of Ries, their ableist champion. This able and excellent prelate, who took part in all the controversies of his time, had been abbot of Larens, and in his sea never forgot his love for the monastic life. He opposed both the teaching of the Pelagians and the immoral doctrine, as he held it to be, of absolute predestination and the utter annihilation of the human will. It was no doubt under his influence that a synod at Arles throughout the year 475, and another at Lyons, condemned the predestinarian error, and it was to defend their decision that he wrote his treatise on grace and free will. His contention is that, granting that man, since the fall is unable to attain salvation by his own power, he is still capable of resisting or yielding to the grace of God. Though it be true that without grace man cannot turn to God, still grace will be given through means, such as preaching, and the threatening of the law. To those who, like the monks, handed themselves on their works, he says, what have we that we have not received? While in Gaul the middle-party with the powerful aid of Faustus held its own, in Africa the tradition of Augustine was still lively, and in Rome his name at least carried weight. In the early years of the fifth century, certain Scythian monks, who had already fomented dissension in Constantinople, mingled in the fray in the west. Their leader was Maxentius. These monks handed to the legate of Popormistus in Constantinople a letter of their belief in which they emphatically rejected the views of those Faustus of Ries is especially censured, who denied the absolute necessity of divine grace to begin the work of salvation, and said that it is for man to will, for God to finish the work. Four of their number journeyed to Rome, where they found no favor. Their statement, however, found much acceptance among the African bishops who, under pressure of the vandal invasion of Africa, had found refuge in Sardinia, especially with their champion, a man of considerable intellectual power. He wrote not only against Pelagius, but against Faustus, whom, without naming, he accused of depreciating God's grace in comparison with man's powers. When possessor, an African bishop, wrote to Hormistus, asking his judgment on the matters stirred by the Scythian monks, the pope replied with very great caution, referring to Augustine as an exponent of the belief of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to grace and free will. His caution brought out from Accentius, which was at any rate sufficiently outspoken, if, as he said, the writings of Augustine were to be taken as a standard, Faustus was beyond all doubt a heretic. Fulgentius continued the controversy against the middle party, in certain treatises in which, while strongly maintaining Augustinian predestination, he attempted to show that it did not involve predestination to sin. The African bishops, also from their Sardinian exile, sent a declaration to Constantinople, in which they paid attention to Hormistus's acceptance of Augustine as a standard and drew the inference that Faustus, so far as he differed from him, must be a heretic. Gradually, even in Gaul itself, the very focus of the opposition, there arose a reaction in favour of Augustinism, the leaders of which were Avatus of Vien and Caesarius of Arles, the latter of whom was favoured by Pope Felix IV. In the year 529, on the occasion of the consecration of a church, a council held at Orange in the province of Arles over which Caesarius presided as Metropolitan. The conclusions were subscribed by fourteen bishops and eight men of illustrious rank, including Liberius, the prefect of the Gauls and founder of the church. These canons, which follow the general lines of a document sent down from Rome, contain an unambiguous acceptance of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and of the impotence of man's will to turn to good, so that faith itself is a gift of grace. But they made a predestination to evil. Those who do evil do it of their own free will. And they lay down that all baptized persons received through Christ such a gift of grace that they may, if they will, fulfill all the conditions necessary for salvation. These conclusions were confirmed by the Roman bishop Boniface II. A council at Valencia, which took place about the same time, and was attended not only by the bishops of the province of Vien, but by representatives of the province of Arles, made this in a similar sense. Pelagianism was thought to be at an end. The Pelagian controversy constitutes an epoch in the history of dogma. Hitherto dogmatic contests had been almost wholly about the object of Christian faith, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The opinions of Pelagius were, in fact, not recognized at first as dogmatic, either by himself or by others. They belonged, it was thought, to that region of theological opinion within which men may lawfully differ. And the language used on both sides was full of unobserved ambiguities. Liberty was sometimes taken to mean the power of willing freely, sometimes to mean the power of acting as one wills. It is commonly used to designate freedom from external coercion, but St. Augustine uses it to designate freedom from the power of sin. The time had not yet come for men to recognize an antimony of reason, to admit that the laws of the human mind may force us to acknowledge truths which are to our limited faculties incompatible. Since the existence of antimonies has been admitted, it has come to be felt by the thoughtful everywhere that they who discuss fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute will find no end in wandering mazes lost. The extreme predestinarian views have consequently come to be merely opinions of sex and parties. Even the immense authority of St. Augustine could not induce men to accept, frankly, all the consequences which were drawn from his theory of man's lost and ruined condition. His views and their origin did not satisfy the rule of Vincentius. They had not been accepted at all times by all men in all places, and in fact they never became Catholic. We see plainly enough, in the works of Gregory the Great, that he labors in vain to adopt Augustine's views in their integrity, almost in spite of himself, he addresses men as if they were free to receive and obey his exhortations, and so to attain salvation. CHAPTER XII. PART I. Discipline and Life of the Church It has already been observed that the precepts of Christian morality tended to become a code of positive law, having its own interpreters in the rulers of the church. This tendency becomes more prominent in the fourth and following centuries. Men came to look more and more to the authority of the church to determine both the special acts and the general conduct which were to be required of Christians. Hence there arose a more systematic treatment of moral questions, and a more regular method of dealing with sin and disorder. In the early part of the period of which we are treating, each province had its own code and customs, but local peculiarities were gradually eliminated, and the whole church within the empire came to have one law. A kind of public opinion was formed on the matter before any actual codification took place. It was generally agreed that the cannons of ecumenical synods and certain imperial decrees accepted by the church were of universal obligation. But there were some synods of too much importance to be regarded as simply provincial, and yet scarcely universal, about the cannons of which there was doubt. Several of these, in course of time, came to be recognized as everywhere valid. The codes of Theodosius and of Justinian contained many provisions relating to matters ecclesiastical. And it was perhaps the example of the imperial codification which induced Joannes Scholasticus, originally a lawyer, afterwards patriarch of Constantinople, about the year 570 to arrange systematically the whole ecclesiastical law of the Eastern Church. This became the standard book of reference and manual of instruction for oriental students. He also added to his collection of cannons the imperial laws relating to the several matters treated of in the cannons. This work, called the Nomocannon, was composed apparently within the year after Justinian's death. A later hand added four laws of Heraclius relating to matters ecclesiastical. The Roman church at the beginning of the 5th century recognized only the cannons of Nicaea, under which name, however, those of Sardica were included as of universal obligation. Others said innocent the first. The church does not accept. But in the latter half of the same century we find extant a Latin translation of a Greek collection of cannons. The imperfection and obscurity of this translation however induced Dionysus Exidius, a Scythian monk who understood both Greek and Latin to undertake a new addition which probably appeared in the time of Pope Simacus between the years 498 and 514. The first part of this collection contains a careful translation of those cannons which were generally acknowledged by the Greeks, together with the Latin cannons of Sardica and the code which was sanctioned by a council at Carthage in the year 419 for the use of the African church. The second part contains the decretals of the Popes so far as they could then be discovered in Rome. From Ceresius, who became Pope in 385 to Anastasis who died in 497. These decretals are for the most part letters giving opinions on cases submitted by distant authorities. The code of Dionysus came to be received in Rome and in the West generally as having the authority of law and was completed by the addition from time to time of later documents. A collection of cannons for the use of the Spanish church was made probably in the first half of the 7th century by Isidore of Seville. This contains in its first division together with the greater part of the current Greek church law, certain cannons of Spanish and of Galician councils. In the second division, the decretals of the Dionysian code with the addition of certain letters of the Popes relating to Spanish and Galician affairs, the quote Bravarium, unquote, drawn up by Fulgencius Farandus, a deacon of Carthage, about the year 547, independently of the Dionysian code, seems to have attained less vogue. Another source of church law was the penitential system, the beginnings of which we have already seen. They who sinned against the law of God were at once punished and purified by passing through a course of humiliation and mortification before they could be re-admitted to the full privileges of the faithful. This course was called by the general name of penitence, or penance, and those who were undergoing it were penitence. This system brought with it the necessity of instruction in the application of appropriate remedies, for penalties might vary from a short period of fasting or abstinence to a sentence which hardly permitted the offender to receive the sacrament on his deathbed. Many directions on these matters are given in the canons of councils, but instructions were also issued from time to time by distinguished ecclesiastics with a view of securing uniformity in the administration of penitential discipline. The penitence, as the epistles of St. Basil, and his brother Gregory of Nissa on the subject of penitence were held in such respect as to have almost the force of law. That of St. Gregory is rather a treatise on what we may call the psychology of sin than an attempt to assign special penalties to special sins. While those of Basil, dealing mainly with the sins of idolatry, murder, and fornication, allot to each form of sin its appropriate punishment. In the West, the Papal Decretals sometimes deal, though not systematically, with sins for which penitence is prescribed. Fragments still exist of British and Irish penitentials of great antiquity, mainly devoted to the enforcement of purity of life and the discharge of Christian duty, and to the extirpation of the ferocious and licentious passions of the old heathen life. Sixteen canons are extent of the book of St. David of Menevia, now called from him St. David's, and similar canons of councils held under the same bishop, which imply a rude and impure state of life among those for whom they were intended. Another ancient penitential, bearing the name of Vinias, Arfinian, and probably contemporary, or nearly so with St. David's, enumerates the principal sins of clergy and laity of about the same date is Profatio Guilde de Penitencia, which gives a more detailed account of the several penances than the other early books. Among the earliest existing penitentials are those of Ireland, some possibly drawn up by or under the influence of St. Patrick himself. In these appears the system of compounding for sins by the surrender of money or other worldly goods, which was afterwards conspicuous to the ecclesiastical and the civil codes of the northern nations of Europe. The numerous and interesting English penitentials do not fall within the chronological limits of this work. In the fourth and fifth centuries a great change crept over the whole penitential system, the old rule that an excommunicated person could only once in his lifetime be readmitted to the church after confession and penance fell into disuse. The same person was more than once in the hope of restoration. It was one of the charges made against Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak that he said, quote, If thou sinnest again, again repent as often as thou sinnest come to me and I will heal thee, unquote. In the days immediately following the Decian persecution when large numbers of the laps flock to obtain absolution from the church so that their public confessions became a scandal, a discreet presbyter was chosen to decide in private hearing what penance the offenders should undergo before admission to communion. Such a penitentiary presbyter was generally appointed in the several churches until Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople in 391, abrogated the office in his own church in consequence of a scandal which had arisen, and many other bishops followed his example. Socrates seems to imply that after this it was left to each man's conscience to decide whether he was worthy of his own mysteries. In Rome, Pope Simplicius appointed a penitentiary in the latter part of the fifth century. This private confession was the natural result of the extension of Christianity to society in general. Sins which might be confessed to a small assembly of friends bound together by the most intimate union of thought and feeling could hardly be uttered before a large congregation of comparatively indifferent persons. Moreover some of the sins which excluded communion were also crimes which might bring him under the cognizance of the law of the land, and some sins as adultery involved others besides the person confessing. Augustine contemplates the daily prayer as sufficient atonement for the little sins which we inevitably commit in daily life, while the more deadly sins which separate men from the body of Christ require public and formal penance. Those more deadly sins are those against the majesty of God himself as blasphemy, idolatry, heresy, and sorcery, or actual offenses against one's neighbor as murder, adultery, theft, and perjury, and openly expressed hatred. No layman who had done penance could ever be admitted to the ranks of the clergy, and no cleric could be admitted to penance without previous deposition from his office. The general principle which Augustine laid down that secret sins might be confessed secretly while open sins must be confessed openly and probably largely adopted by bishops in their penitential discipline. Leo the Great, however, condemned in vigorous language the conduct of those bishops who compelled penitents to read aloud in the church a complete list of their sins, holding that it was sufficient for the relief of the conscience if men confessed their sins to the priests alone, and that this course was also desirable for the avoiding of scandal. From this time, probably, public confession of sin became rare. The quests to the church also came to be recognized as a means of atoning for sin. Quote, if thou hast money, says St. Ambrose, Quote, buy off thy sin. The Lord is not for sale, vinalis, but thou thyself art for sale, buy thyself off by thy works, buy thyself off by thy money. Vile is money, but precious is mercy. Salvian insists that the only thing which a man can do on his deathbed for the good of his soul is to leave all his goods to the church, but the offering must be accompanied by real contrition of heart in order to be efficacious. Men like St. Augustine warned their flocks against leaving money to the church in a fit of anger against their natural heirs, but still the practice grew of making the church the ligati of at least a portion of a man's worldly goods. And not only did the dying leave their goods to the church, offerings were also made for the departed. Quote, it cannot be denied, says St. Augustine, that the souls of the departed are comforted by the piety of their surviving friends when the mediatorial sacrifice is offered for them and alms are given on their behalf in the church. But these things only profit those who so live as to deserve to be benefited by them. As few would believe that their friends had lived so ill as to receive it from their offerings, or so well as not to require them, the effect of this principle was that offerings were made for almost all the departed. The Christian church brought comfort to an age in the throes of dissolution. Before a generation which had fallen into moral laxity, it held up a standard of nobler and purer life. It handed on to the new world which arose on the ruins of the Western Empire, the torch of truth which it had received from above. It diffused through society a more tender feeling for the weak and suffering, and so in the end introduced a more humane spirit into general legislation and popular customs. The gladiatorial shows which had delighted the Romans were forbidden indeed by Constantine, but they were not really put down until the noble self-sacrifice of the monk Telemachus produced so deep an impression that the rescript against the practice which Honorius issued immediately afterwards really brought it to an end. Attempts were made to restrain cynical representations within the bounds of decency and good order. The wretched lot of slaves and captives was mitigated. The almost unlimited power which the old Roman law gave to a father over his children was restricted. Above all the condition of women was changed and the same chastity was looked for in men which had once been expected only from women. The laws which inflicted disabilities on the unmarried were repealed and placed on inequality with the married while difficulties were placed in the way of second marriages. With regard to divorce a discrepancy arose between the law of the empire and the law of the church which had never recognized any ground for divorce except adultery. The great freedom of separation which prevailed in pagan times was indeed restrained but the civil law permitted many divorces which the church did not sanction and from this permission scandals arose. Quote, here ye now unquote cries a preacher at the end of the fourth century quote, ye that change your wives as readily as your cloaks ye that so often and so easily build bridal chambers ye that on a small provocation write a bill of divorcement ye that leave many widows while ye still live be ye fully assured that marriage is dissolved only by death and by adultery unquote. Jerome also bewails the difference of the laws the laws of Caesar unquote he says quote differ from those of Christ Papinian the great jurist lays down one thing Paul a different thing unquote the duty of beneficence whether to ascetics or to others who were in need came into prominence in the church and produced great results the church become rich through the privileges bestowed upon it was the principal protector of the poor and helpless in the needful time of trouble the bishops had generally the chief control of ecclesiastical funds and they were rarely found wanting in their due administration in large cities the lists of those who were supported or suckered by the alms of churchmen often included some thousands of names Rome was divided for the purpose of poor relief into seven regions each under the care of a deacon and in each region a special edifice was built for his use in distributing relief when Saint Chrysostom was at Antioch the names were on the list of those who depended on the church for daily bread and in Constantinople the same excellent prelate fed the 7000 special institutions were developed for the care of the stranger the sick, the helpless of every kind the great hospital which Saint Basil founded at Caesarea was no doubt a model for many others similar hospitals were soon erected in many cities both of the east and the west the well-known friends of Jerome, Fabiola and Macius founded hospitals in Rome and in neighboring Portis Polynes established one in Nola such institutions were maintained either from the common funds of the church or from special donations of land and money the income of the church in its earlier and simpler ages was derived from the offerings of the faithful but when under the privilege granted by Christian emperors the church itself became possessive considerable property these oblations became relatively important still rich offerings were made especially on saint's days and other high festivals which were devoted partly to the maintenance of the clergy partly to the sucker of the poor the bishops who disposed of great riches generally lived very simply though there were no doubt some who justified the sneer of Amiana's Marcellinus that it was no wonder that men fought for the possession of the sea of Rome seeing the wealth and splendor which they enjoyed who attained it but while there was in the church no lack of Christian virtues evils also appeared which were perhaps inseparable from a time of transition when Constantine gave his favor to the church a multitude pressed into it who were still pagan at heart taking with them many of the vices and superstitions of heathenism Constantine seems to have contemplated this bringing over of the common herd from impure motives as one end of his liberality to the church few he said were influenced by a real love of truth he could draw men to the doctrine of salvation more readily by abundant largesse than by preaching he bestowed honors and privileges upon cities which accepted Christianity Christian writers did not deny that many entered the church who were Christian only in name Eusebius tells us that he had himself observed the injury done by the flocking in of greedy and worthless men who lowered the standard of social life and by the dissimulation of those who slunk into the church in the near outward show of Christianity Augustine declares that few sought Jesus for Jesus' sake most sought their own ends in their profession of the faith when Christians said these things it is not wonderful if a pagan declared that many of those who filled the churches were no more Christians than a player king as a king he was necessary to forbid even men in holy orders to use art magic or incantations to cast horoscopes or to practice astrology against all persons against practicing secret idolatry and attending heathen festivals nor was the church altogether free from superstitions of Jewish origin and the clergy did not in all cases give to the laity an example of the highest Christian life when office in the church no longer brought with it trouble and danger but honor and power it was eagerly sought for and that sometimes by unworthy means Gregory of Nazianzis laments and Jerome declaims of ambitious and self-seeking men into places of honor in the church the luxury, the flattery, the legacy hunting the trading of some unworthy members of the clergy we must of course bear in mind that the language of Gregory is that of a sensitive man weary of the strife of tongues and the wiles of intrigue while Jerome's is that of a bitter and unsparing satirist himself devoted to the ascetic life but neither one nor the other is likely to have spoken utterly without warrant and if confirmation of their words be required it is unfortunately to be found in a law of the emperor Leo of the year 469 which forbids men to gain holy orders by bribery and rebukes the avarice which hung as a cloud over the altar far from seeking the sacred office a man should not accept it unless compelled we have here the germ of Nolo episcopari two causes it is to be feared tended to demoralize the clergy as the excessive prevalence of dogmatic disputes which sometimes withdrew men's thoughts from the necessity of a holy life it is easier and perhaps more profitable to be a partisan than a saint the other was, for the east the imperial court at Constantinople when the emperor perpetually interfered in affairs of dogma and it was of the last importance to gain his ear bishops and priests jostled with courtiers and lackeys in the enter rooms of the palace but lost in spirituality what they gained in power end of chapter 12 part 1 chapter 12 part 2 of history of the Christian church during the first six centuries this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org history of the Christian church during the first six centuries by Aschium chapter 12 discipline and life of the church part 2 when the world mingled with the church the question could scarcely fail sometimes to arise can an organization be said to be the church of Christ when not only many of its members but some even of its priests are leading lives which shoe no trace of Christian holiness are the sacraments efficacious which are administered by impure hands what amount of corruption in an existing church justifies those of its members who desire purity informing a separate society can anything justify separation these were the questions which underlay the wretched conflict in the African church in the fourth and fifth centuries though the controversy first arose on a special point and that one which could not emerge except in an age of persecution the schism referred to arose out of the last persecution when they who delivered up the sacred books to the persecutors were stigmatized as quote tredators Mancerius, bishop of Carthage is said to have given up heretical books to the agents of the government instead of those which they sought an act which to the more rigorous appeared an unworthy evasion but he and his archdeacon Sicilian had probably given deeper offense by opposing the extravagant honors given to confessors and the belief in the efficacy of relics when Mancerius died Sicilian was somewhat hastily elected as his successor by the bishops of the Carthaginian province only and at once consecrated by Felix bishop of Aptunga as the bishop of Carthage had primatial jurisdiction over Numidia also the bishops of that province were naturally agreed that the election had taken place without them in their anger they declared that the newly consecrated bishop was almost a tredator but the new consecrator was no better the offer of Sicilian to be reconsecrated by Numidian bishops if anything had been done irregularly was received by them with scorn and contumely passion was already too hot to listen to the words of truth and soberness they chose as bishop a reader named Majoranus and on his death in 315 Donatus who headed the schism with so much zeal and ability that it came to be known by his name but in Africa Sicilian was recognized as the legitimate bishop of Carthage in Africa the party which had chosen Majoranus soon after the battle of the Milvian bridge had made Constantine master of western Europe applied to him to name Galician judges who might decide the question at issue between them and Sicilian Constantine was very unwilling to interfere in the affairs of the church but nevertheless named Maternus of Cologne Reticius of Atun and Marinus of Arles to adjudicate these three with 15 Italian bishops met at Rome under the presidency of the bishop of that city and finding that the charges were not proved fully acquitted Sicilian to the dissident bishops the proposal was made that if they would return into the fold of the church each bishop should retain his office and that in a city where there were two bishops the senior should remain while for the other a sea should be provided elsewhere when the synod broke up both Sicilian and Donatus were for a time detained in Italy while two of its members were deputed to carry the official tidings of its decision into Africa the Donatus were in no way appeased but complained that their charge against Felix of Aptunga the consecrator of Sicilian had not been heard he was accordingly brought before the proconsul at Carthage and the falsehood of the charge against him was abundantly clear by the evidence of the imperial officials who had been concerned in the persecution further the whole matter was referred to a consul at Arles the first ever called by imperial authority which decided again in favor of Sicilian and against his accusers the proposal which had been made in the previous year by the synod at Rome to Donatus bishops who renounced their schism was renewed on the point especially at issue the ordination by a traditor was valid if the person ordained was duly qualified it was also enacted no doubt with a view to the Donatus that false accusers should incur the penalty of excommunication and declared that baptism in the name of the holy trinity was valid even when conferred by a heretic in these decisions as to ordination and baptism the principle is of course affirmed that the sacraments are effectual because of Christ's institution and promise though they be ministered by evil men the Donatus were still dissatisfied and again appealed to the emperor who now determined to hear the parties in person he sat for this purpose at Milan and after hearing the pleadings on both sides acquitted Sicilian and declared the charges against him to be columnese Constantine however soon became aware that the Donatus far from respecting his sentence were more active and aggressive than ever under their vigorous head and was at last moved to take secular measures against them he decreed that their churches should be taken from them and their most distinguished bishops driven into exile these measures roused the schismatics to fury and probably first caused the formation of the bands of ruffians who were afterwards so notorious under the name of Circumcellians they did not fail also to try to gain the ear of the emperor to whom they wrote that they would never hold communion with his blaggert of a bishop and requested full freedom for their worship and the recall of the banished Donatus in a few years the emperor seems to have become convinced that it was impossible to crush the sect by violence and that it was worthwhile to try the effect of gentle treatment he repealed therefore all the edicts against them permitted the return of their bishops and declared in a re-script to his vice-gerent in Africa that these frantic people must be left he also exhorted the Catholics to patience which was indeed much required as the schismatics not only behaved in the most outrageous manner towards them generally but even drove them out of their own churches of any further measures of Constantine with reference to the Donatists we know nothing but we know that in his lifetime they so increased and multiplied in Africa that at a synod which they held in the year 330 270 bishops of their party were present inside Africa they found few adherents we hear only of two Donatist congregations in Europe one in Spain, the other in Rome they seem to have been particularly anxious to establish themselves under the shadow of the Apostolic Sea but here they were only able to hold a meeting on a hill outside the city once they were nicknamed Montenses Campite and Rupite when Constance succeeded to that portion of the empire to which Africa belonged and attempted to put down the Donatists the Circumcelians burst out into new fury Contemporary authorities described them as gangs of fanatics generally of the lowest class who misled by some of better condition under pretense of extraordinary zeal declined all honest labor and held a kind of communism they begged or seized food and led a vagabond life haunting and plundering the farmers barns and granaries once they derived the name by which they are best known they called themselves Agonistasy combatants for Christ with the help of these sturdy marauders the Donatist chiefs resisted the agents of the civil power and not infrequently seized the churches of the Catholics by main force they often scoured the highways in great companies treated those whom they met especially priests of the Catholic party with the greatest brutality committed burglaries and indulged in drunkenness and all kinds of violence they had a morbid longing for martyrdom they interrupted the worship both of Christians and of pagans in the most outrageous manner with the deliberate purpose of being killed by the incensed worshippers nay, it is even said that they bribed men to put them to death their war cry of quote, deo laudes unquote, was heard with terror this state of lawlessness continued with some intermission up to and during the time when Augustine was bishop of Hippo it is not to be supposed that all the Donatists many of whom were undoubtedly men of pure life looked with favor upon the conduct of these vagabonds far from it about the year 345 some of the Donatist bishops besought the Imperial General Tarinus to put them down by force of arms and he did his best to comply about the year 343 died Sicilian of Carthage whose election to the Bishopric had been the beginning of strife as however a Catholic Gratis was chosen to succeed him the Donatist continued in schism Africa was at this time in a wretched and impoverished condition and the Circumcelian bands had probably been swelled by the addition of many whose principal desire was at any rate to get food Constance therefore in 348 sent two commissioners Paulus and Macarius to that country to relieve the distress and to attempt the restoration of peace but Donatis and other leaders of this party roused a rebellion which compelled the commissioners to assert their authority by force and so to bring about a state of things of which the Donatis bitterly complained Macarius caused several to be executed and others to be driven into exile among the latter the great Donatis himself the effect of these measures was that so long as Constance and after him Constantius reigned the Donatis were reduced to silence and secrecy a change took place under Julian who did not interfere in ecclesiastical quarrels and allowed exile the ecclesiastics of all parties to return to their homes among these the Donatis returned and the apostasy of their deliverer did not prevent the advocates of purity in the church from singing his praises Donatis had died in exile but Parminion was chosen in his place as schismatical bishop of Carthage and his followers no longer repressed by the civil power again committed all kinds of excess and it was not until Valentinian I and Gratian came into power that measures were taken to repress them after earlier edicts had failed Gratian in the year 378 issued an edict forbidding all assemblies of the Donatis and confiscating their churches but their own divisions which, says Augustine were innumerable were more injurious to them than imperial persecution the schism was formed by the learned Tyconius he combatted the two most characteristic tenets of his sect that a church which tolerates sinners ceases to be a true church and that those who come over from such a church should be re-baptized he probably desired to bring about a reconciliation between the church and the schismatics but he only incurred as mediators usually do the hatred of the leaders of his party the Rogatians, the party of Rogatis Bishop of Cartena who repudiated the Circumcelians and were, says Augustine the most moderate of the Donatis sects shared the same fate these appeared to have been small parties but other leaders attracted a larger following Primion, who on the death of Parmenion about the year 392 became Donatist Bishop of Carthage very much relaxed the strict rule which had hitherto prevailed and admitted to communion persons who were highly offensive to the more rigorous party when these openly opposed him they were themselves excommunicated among the excommunicated was a deacon called Maximion a considerable number of the Donatis bishops sided with him and at a council held about the year 393 deposed Primion and chose Maximion in his place Primion however resisted deposition and a still more numerous council held it by Guy deposed Maximion and his adherence and declared Primion to be still Bishop after this the Maximionists had to endure the most furious persecution at the hands of the main body of their fellow Schismatics while Donatism was torn by these internal struggles Augustine became Bishop of Hippo and Honorius Emperor of the West from the time when Augustine took charge of his diocese where the Donatis were very numerous he did not cease to attempt the conversion of the Schismatics by treatises by preaching, by conferences, by letters at the same time he set himself so to raise the standard of Christian life in his own community that the Puritans should have no excuse for remaining separate from it in the local councils which were held under his influence very easy conditions were offered to those Schismatics who desired to return to the church even so far as to permit their clergy to retain the positions which they had assumed few Donatis bishops were willing to engage in the conferences which he proposed they not unnaturally shrink from meeting so powerful a disputant as the Bishop of Hippo, face to face and some preferred to collumiate him behind his back even a formal invitation to a conference which was put forth by a council at Carthage in the year 403 was flatly declined by the Donatists they were in fact enraged by Augustine's success in making proselytes and again broke out into acts of violence which probably led to the edict of Honorius against those disturbed religious services up to this time the Catholic bishops had abstained from invoking the secular arm against the Schismatics Augustine in particular had protested against it with some vehemence the violence of the Donatists however at last induced them to have recourse even to this and a Synod at Carthage in the year 404 supplicated the emperor to put in force a law of Theodosius which inflected a heavy fine on frequenters of schismatical assemblies before however the deputies had reached the emperor he had already issued an edict punishing lay schismatics by fines and their clergy by banishment and he soon after published a series of still more severe decrees and joining that the Donatists in particular should be deprived of their churches many conversions or seeming conversions followed and there upon another edict was issued in the year 407 in which while free pardon was offered to those who returned to the church the severest punishment was denounced against those and abdued it. In the year 409 however the political circumstances of that disturbed time induced Honorius to change his policy and grant freedom in the practice of their religion to all parties alike a toleration which lasted only a few months about the same time when this edict was withdrawn the Catholic bishops renewed their proposal of a conference to be held under imperial authority the emperor at once gave directions for such a conference to be held at Carthage and in 411 sent the Tribune Marcellinus to Africa as his commissioner to preside over the disputation and to decide in his name on the questions at issue Marcellinus was a man of high character and a good Christian but he had a fatal disqualification for the task which he had undertaken he was an intimate friend of Augustins who had dedicated to him his great work on the city of God it was therefore impossible for the Donatists already suspicious to accept him as an impartial judge in their cause they locked to Carthage 286 Catholic bishops and 279 Donatists each side chose seven representatives on the Catholic side Aurelian of Carthage and Augustin himself were the leaders in debate on the side of the Donatists Primion of Carthage, Patilion of Constantine and Emeritus of Caesarea before the debate began the Catholics declared formally in writing that if the Donatists could prove that the church of the Donatist society had utterly died out under the plague of sin they would all submit themselves and resign their seas if on the other hand they, the Catholics should demonstrate that the church of Christ dispersed throughout the world could not possibly have died out through the sins of some of its members then it would be the duty of the Donatists to return to communion with the church for the salvation of their souls and they declared that in thus acting the bishops should not lose their office again exactly one hundred years after the commencement of the schism and continued three days the Donatists who had first objected to sit with the sinners, that is with the Catholics, made various attempts to lead the discussion to subordinate questions and it was not until a third day that they could be induced to face the question of principle whether a church which tolerates sinners in the midst of it ceases to be a church and the question of fact who was the cause of the schism would soon reduce the Donatists to silence with regard to the second the evidence of authentic contemporary documents so clearly proved the innocence of Sicilian and of Felix of Eptunga that Marcellinus gave a formal decision that the Catholics had proved their case on all points a few days afterwards he issued an edict under the powers of the emperor's commission forbidding Donatists to hold any kind of religious meeting and commanding them to hand over their churches to the Catholics the Donatists appealed to the emperor but he confirmed the decision of his plenty potentiary and in 412 put forth a new edict inflicting heavy fines on the Donatists and banishment on their bishop if they continued in their schism many hundreds now returned in their terror to the church Marcellinus who had presided over the conference himself fell under suspicion of treason and was executed in the year 413 but Honorius still proceeded against the Donatists and in 414 published another edict by which those of them who persisted in their schism were deprived of civil rights and soon afterwards in spite of the protest of Augustine he forbade them to assemble for worship under pain of death from this time the number of the Donatists began to diminish though the emperors still thought it necessary to issue severe edicts against them but in the year 428 North Africa was conquered by the vandals when Catholics and Donatists were lost in the Aryan cloud some small remnants seemed however to remain themselves until their country fell in the 7th century under the dominion of the Syracans there is no reason to doubt that the leaders of the Donatists were however mistaken men worthy of respect and the principle for which they contended was a highly important one no less than the purity of the Church of Christ the church said a Donatist bishop should be pure and undefiled true the Lord predicted that there should be tears among the wheat but that was in the field of the world the Church our opponents said another seemed to regard the name as belonging to certain nations or races but that name properly belongs to a society in which the sacraments are administered with full efficacy which is perfect which is undefiled not to races they contended in short that the conception of Catholicism includes not only outward and visible connection with the Church but the importance of the Spirit must be attested by the fruits of the Spirit and this especially in the case of the ministers of the Church so far well but when instead of trying to raise the standard of holiness within the Church they constituted a society of their own outside it virtually unchurching the rest of the world their spiritual pride wrought its usual results they became heady, high-minded their moving principle came to be this but furious party spirit and contempt for their opponents Saint Paul recognized the corrupt Church of Corinth as a Christian Church because he saw there the gospel taught and the sacraments duly administered the Donatists were not content to acknowledge the Church of Carthage on these grounds to hold the sacraments invalid because administered by men whom a sector party holds to be unworthy of their sacred office while they are not condemned by the legitimate ecclesiastical tribunals would be to cast a shade of uncertainty upon all sacred administrations whatever few will hesitate to admit that Saint Augustine was right in resisting the arrogant claim of a part of the community to pronounce who can and who cannot administer a valid sacrament but perhaps the worst effect of the Donatist controversy was the appeal which resulted from it to the civil power to put down the schismatics by force the Catholics had of course a right to require that the government of the country protect its subjects from violence and secure them in the possession of their own buildings and other property there is no reason to suppose that Augustine and his friends were animated by anything but a sincere desire for the good of the Church but when they begged the Emperor to put down the Donatists as such by temporal penalties they entered on the way which led directly to the Holy Inquisition and the Statute De Heretico Comborendo the office of Inquisitor of the Faith the name of which afterwards became so odious was actually instituted under Theodosius End of Chapter 12 Part 2 Chapter 12 Part 3 of History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org History of the Christian Church during the first six centuries Chapter 12 Discipline and Life of the Church Part 3 Donatism was a headstrong and unfortunate attempt to constitute a pure society in the midst of a church too hastily judged and pure This had no enduring effects but a Puritan movement of another kind had an influence upon the church which was both deep and lasting When the world and the church were mingled together the mass of Christians came to be far removed from the eager faith which had enabled the little band of earlier days to endure persecution with steadfastness and even with joy The multitude led a life influence no doubt by the commands of Christ yet not very greatly differing from that of such pagans as truly sought to do their duty according to the light which was given them Hence there came into prominence a distinction not altogether unknown in earlier days between the commands which all men are bound to obey and the councils of perfection comparatively few can observe There are, says Eusebius within the church two kinds of life first, that which is above the ordinary social life of man which admits not of marriage nor of the possession of property nor of any superfluity but devotes itself wholly and entirely to the service of God through the excess of heavenly love Those who follow this life guided by their right precepts of true piety and the promptings of a soul cleansed from sin give themselves good words and works by which they propitiate the deity and offer sacrifice on behalf of their fellow men Secondly, there is the lower and more natural life which permits men to enter into chased marriage to attend to the business of the house to aid those who are carrying on a just war to engage so far as religion allows in farming and merchandise and the other occupations of civil life giving set seasons to mortification to instruction and to hearing the word of God to this lower stage of Christian life all, Greek or barbarian are bound to attain that is, a distinction was drawn between the councils of perfection which were necessary for the higher life and the universal precepts which all are bound to observe Those who attain the former are to the general body of Christians what trained athletes are to those whose bodily powers are not specially developed To these ascetics that tended to give grace and beauty to the life of man unless in the actual service of the sanctuary seemed at best superfluous probably sinful marriage in particular was no longer regarded by such teachers as a blessed state instituted by God in the time of man's innocencey but as a necessary evil which inevitably brought with it a lowering of the spiritual state and entangled a man in the affairs of this world it is only permitted to the common herd they who aspire to the angelic life must neither marry nor be given in marriage not content with the rendering their due honor to purity and chastity with reverencing those who lived in continents for the kingdom of heaven's sake many teachers represented the great passion which was implanted in man for the continuance of his race as in itself sinful nay, as the very source and fount of sin St. Augustine unconsciously influenced by his early manicasm which contributed to diffuse this view of life when this view of the superior holiness of celibacy came to prevail in the church it followed almost of course that Christians desired those who were engaged about their most sacred mysteries to be celibate early in the 4th century it began to be recommended that the clergy of the three higher orders, if they had wives should be as though they had none in the great council of Nicaea it was proposed by some of the ascetic party to introduce this practice into the church in large, this was however defeated by Paphnudius, an Egyptian ascetic of high repute, who vehemently entreated the bishops not to lay an intolerable yoke upon the clergy, since honorable is marriage and the bed undefiled it was sufficient to lay down according to a custom already ancient that no man should contract marriage after admission to holy orders through this the sinner dissented the council of gangra, somewhat later than that of Nicaea, went so far as to enathmatize those who refused to receive the Eucharist from a married priest still the general drift of opinion in the church was unfavorable to the marriage of the clergy of the higher orders, and it was generally felt, both by the laity and by the clerics themselves that the celibacy of the monks gave them a reputation for holiness among the faithful which was disadvantageous to the married clergy hence it came to be the rule on the east that bishops at any rate if they were married should live as if they were not even to this however there were exceptions Socrates tells us that many bishops in the east had children in lawful wedlock during their episcopate though most of them voluntarily practiced continents, it seems probable that Gregory of Naziansus was born after his father became a bishop Sinesias early in the 5th century accepted the bishopric of Tomaeus only unconditioned that he should be allowed to retain his wife which was evidently contrary to the usual rule in the west a stricter custom prevailed in 385 the Roman bishop Ceresius stigmatizing in no measured terms the vile passions of the married and joined celibacy on bishops, priests, and deacons edicts of innocent the first in the year 405 and of Leo the first in the year 443 and joined at any rate the strictest continents which was also prescribed in the cannons of numerous councils it was far however from receiving universal obedience the great church of Milan claiming the authority of its greatest bishops St. Ambrose and bearing the repute of having the best clergy in Italy was content with the ancient rule which permitted only one marriage to a cleric when Hildebrand in the 11th century entered on his reforms quote marriage was all but universal among the Lombard clergy unquote even the famous archbishop Herbert of Milan was married and quote his wedlock neither diminished his power nor barred his canonization unquote in the British and Irish churches the marriage of the clergy seems to have been practiced to a comparatively late date the civil legislation followed the ecclesiastical but slowly edicts of Constantius and Constance in the years 353 and 357 expressly exempted from certain exactions the wives and children of the clergy who are clearly recognized as legitimate Justinian by a law of AD 528 and acted that no one should be chosen bishop who had children or grandchildren because the charge of a family tended to distract a man from spiritual things at a later date he recognized the ancient exclusion from the priesthood or diaconate of such as had married two wives or a divorced person or a widow in all this it seems to be admitted that otherwise married men might be admitted to the ranks of the clergy end of chapter 12 part 3