doctrines afterwards propounded by Pelagius and his followers; but if all his sentiments be duly considered, it will be found that he is far more of a Pelagian than of an Augustinian" Ullmanu, l. c. p. 446.

2

According to Methodius (in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 234, p. 295), man does not possess the power either of having desires, or of not having them (evovμεiova ἢ μὴ ἐνθυμεῖσθαι), but he is at liberty either to gratify (χρῆσθαι) them or not. Comp. Nemes. De Nat. Hom. c. 41: IIãoa Toivvv ȧváyeŋ tòv EXOνTa τὸ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ κύριον εἶναι πράξεων. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ κύριος εἴη πράξεων, περιττῶς ἔχει τὸ βουλεύεσθαι.

3

• Athan. Contra Gent. e. 2, p. 2 : Ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐκ ἦν κακία, οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ νῦν ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐστὶν, οὐδ ̓ ὅλως κατ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχει αὐτή. cf. Contra Arian. Or. 3 (4). Opp. T. i. p. 582, 83: Hoλλoì yàp ovv âyin γεγόνασι καθαροὶ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. (He alludes to Jeremiah and John the Baptist but they can not properly be called oλλoì.) Nevertheless, death has reigned even over them, who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression (Rom. iv. 14).

4

• Cyr. Cat. iv. 19: Ἐλθόντες εἰς τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ἀναμάρτητοι, νῦν ἐκ προαιρέσεως ἁμαρτάνομεν. 21: Αὐτεξούσιός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχὴ, καὶ ὁ διάβολος ỏ τὸ μὲν ὑποβάλλειν δύναται· τὸ δὲ καὶ ἀναγκάσαι παρὰ παροαίρεσιν οὐκ ἔχει τὴν ἐξουσίαν. Cat. xvi. 23: Εἰ γάρ τις ἀβλεπτῶν μὴ καταξιοῦται τῆς χάριτος, μὴ μεμφέσθω τῷ πνεύματι ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπιστία. (Oudin, Comm. p. 461-464, attempted in vain to contest the genuineness of the catecheses favorable to Semipelagianism.)-Concerning Ephräm, see the above dissertation.—Basil the Great delivered a discourse περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου, the authenticity of which was denied by Garnier (T. ii. p. xxvi.), but in modern times again defended by Pelt and Rheinwald (Homiliarium Patrist i. 2, p. 192). In this, though he admitted the depravity of mankind, he asserted that human liberty and divine grace must coöperate. Comp. also the Hom. de Spir. S. and Klose, 1. c. p. 59, ss. [cf. Landerer, ubi supra, p. 556].—Gregory of Nyssa also takes for granted a universal bias to sin (De Orat. Dom. Or. v. Opp. i. p. 751, ss.), but finds no sin in infants; Orat. de infantibus qui præmature abripiuntur (Opp. iii. p. 317, ss.).

See Hom. in Ep. ad Rom. xvi. p. 241; in Ep. ad Hebr. Hom. xii. p. 805. D; in Evang. Joh. Hom. xvii. p. 115 C; in 1 Epist. ad Cor. Hom. ii. p 514, D; in Ps. l. Hom. ii. (Opp. T. iii. p. 869, D); all of which are quoted by Münscher von Cölln, i. p. 363, ss.; see also ep. ad Phil. Hom. i.; especi ally on Phil. i. 6. "Chrysostom was so zealous for morality, that he must have considered it a point of special importance to deprive men of every ground of excuse for the neglect of moral efforts. His practical sphere of labor in the cities of Antioch and Constantinople gave a still greater impulse to this tendency. For in these large capitals he met with many who sought to attribute their want of Christian activity to the defects of human nature, and the power of Satan or of fate." Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey), ii. 658. Comp. his Chrysostomus, i. p. 51, p. 283, ss. But Chrysostom urged quite as strongly the existence of depravity in opposition to a false moral pride. Hom. vi. Montf. T. 12 (in Neander, Chrysostomus, ii. p. 36, 37), comp. Wiggers, i. p. 442.

§ 109.

THE OPINIONS OF THE LATIN THEOLOGIANS BEFORE AUGUSTINE, AND OF AUGUSTINE BEFORE THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY.

During this period, as well as the preceding, the theologians of the Western church were more favorable than those of the Eastern, to the Augustinian doctrine. Even Arnobius speaks of a connatural infirmity, making man prone to sin.' Hilary, and Ambrose of Milan, taught the defilement of sin by birth; Ambrose appealed especially to Ps. li. 5, in support of original sin, but without determining to what extent every individual shares in the common guilt.' Nevertheless, neither of them excluded the liberty of man from the work of moral reformation. Even Augustine himself, at an earlier period of his life, defended human freedom in opposition to the Manicheans.

1

Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i. 27: Proni ad culpas et ad libidinis varios appetitus, vitio sumus infirmitatis ingenitæ.

2

Hilar. Tract. in Ps. lviii. p. 129; in Ps. cxviii. litt. 22, p. 366. 6, and some other passages (in Münscher von Cölln, p. 354). [Hilary in Psalm. i.

4: Ad hæc nos vitia naturæ nostræ propellit instinctus. In Matth. xviii. 13: Ovis una homo intelligendus est, et sub homine uno universitas sentienda est; sed in unius Adæ errore omne hominum genus aberravit.] Ambrose, Apol. David. c. 11. Opp. i. p. 846: Antequam nascamur, maculamur contagio, et ante usuram lucis, originis ipsius excipimus injuriam; in iniquitate concipimur: non expressit, utrum parentum, an nostra. Et in delictis generat unumquemque mater sua; nec hic declaravit, utrum in delictis suis mater pariat, an jam sint et aliqua delicta nascentis. Sed vide, ne utrumque intelligendum sit. Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu. Et si nec unius diei infans sine peccato est, multo magis nec illi materni conceptus dies sine peccato sunt. Concipimur ergo in peccato parentum et in delictis eorum nascimur. Sed et ipse partus habet contagia sua, nec unum tantummodo habet ipsa natura contagium. [Ambrose, Apol. David. § 71: Omnes in primo homine peccavimus et per naturæ successionem culpæ quoque ab uno in omnes transfusa est successio.] Comp. De Pœnit. i. 3. Opp. 3, p. 498: Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur, quorum ipse ortus in vitio est, sicut habes lectum, dicente David: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum et in delictis peperit me mater mea.-In Ev. Luke i. 17 (Opp. i. p. 737); Epp. Class. ii. (Opp. iii. p. 1190), and some other passages (in Münscher von Cölln, p. 355; after another edition)?

3

Hilar. Tract. in Psalm cxviii. lit. 15, p. 329: Est quidem in fide manendi a Deo munus, sed incipiendi a nobis origo est. Et voluntas nostra hoc proprium ex se habere debet, ut velit. Deus incipienti incrementum dabit, quia consummationem per se infirmitas nostra non obtinet; meritum tamen adipiscendæ consummationis est ex initio voluntatis. Comp. also Arnobius,

Adv. Gentes, ii. 64: Nulli Deus infert necessitatem, imperiosa formidine nullum tenet...65. Quid est enim tam injustum, quam repugnantibus, quam invitis extorquere in contrarium yoluntates, inculcare quod nolint et quod refugiant animis.

De Gen. contra Manich. ii. 43 (c. 29): Nos dicimus nulli naturæ nocere peccata nisi sua; nos dicimus, nullum malum esse naturali, sed omnes naturas bonas esse.-De lib. Arb. iii. 50 (c. 17): Aut enim et ipsa voluntas est et a radice ista voluntatis non receditur, aut non est voluntas, et peccatum nullum habet. Aut igitur ipsa voluntas est prima causa peccandi, aut nullum peccatum est prima causa peccandi. Non est, cui recte imputetur peccatum, nisi peccanti. Non est ergo, cui recte imputetur, nisi volenti... Quæcunque ista causa est voluntatis: si non ei potest resisti, sine peccato ei ceditur; si autem potest, non ei cedatur, et non peccabitur. An forte fallit incautum ? Ergo caveat, ne fallatur. An tanta fallacia est, ut caveri omnino non possit? Si ita est, nulla peccata sunt: quis enim peccat in eo, quod nullo modo caveri potest? Peccatur autem; caveri igitur potest. Comp. de Duab. Animab. contra Manich. 12, and with it the retractationes of the different passages; also de nat. et grat. 80 (c. 67).

§ 110.

THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY.

*Wiggers, G. F., Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, Berlin, 1821. Hamburgh, 1833, ii. 8. [Vol. i. transl. by Prof. Emerson, Andover.] Lentzen, J. A., de Pelagianorum doctrinæ principiis, Colon. ad Rhen. 1833, 8. J. L. Jacobi, die Lehre des Pelagius, Lpz. 1842. [Theod. Gangauf, Metaph. Psychologie des heil. Augustinus. Augsb. 1852. Neander, in his Church Hist. and Hist. Dogm. 345-75. Jul. Müller, Der Pelagianismus, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1855. Bindemann's Augustinus. Zeller, in Theol. Jahrbücher, 1854. P. Schaff, The Pelagian Controversy, Bibl. Sacra, 1848. Hampden's Bampton Lectures, Lect. iv.]

Towards the commencement of the fifth century, Celestius and Pelagius (Briton, Morgan ?) made their appearance in the West.' The views which they held were partly in accordance with the opinions hitherto entertained by the theologians of the Greek church, but in part carried to a much greater length in the denial of natural depravity. Some of the propositions, on the ground of which the presbyter Paulinus accused Celestius at the synod of Carthage (A. D. 412), had been previously defended by orthodox theologians; others were directly opposed both to the doctrine of Scripture (and especially that of Paul) and the general belief of the church, and thus threatened the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. It is, however, difficult to decide how far Pelagius accorded with all these assertions, since he expressed himself very cautiously." But it is certain that what is commonly called Pelagianism does not so much represent the single notions of a single individual, as a

complete moral and religious system, which formed a decided contrast to Augustinianism. In this conflict the former system was vanquished so far as this, that, in consequence of the turn which the controversy took, and of the great authority of Augustine in the West, his doctrine gained the victory over that of Pelagius. The followers of Pelagius formed not a sect properly so called. But Pelagianism, though condemned, retained its advocates, especially as but few could fully enter into all the consequences of the Augustinian system, and find in them real inward satisfaction. It will be necessary, in order to examine more fully the antagonistic elements, to divide the subject matter of controversy into three leading sections, viz.: 1. Sin; 2. Grace and Liberty; and 3. Predestination.

'On the personal character and history of Celestius and Pelagius, see Wiggers, p. 33, ss.

The 6 or 7 Capitula (the numbers vary according as several propositions are separated or joined together) are preserved in Augustine De Gestis Pelagii, cap. 11 (comp. de Peccato Originali, 2, 3, 4, 11, c. 2-10), as well as in the two commonitoria of Marius Mercator [comp. Gieseler, § 87, note 4]. They are the following (comp. Wiggers, i. p. 60):

1. Adam was created mortal, so that he would have died whether he had

sinned or not;

2. Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human race;

3. New-born infants are in the same condition in which Adam was previous to the fall (ante prævaricationem);

4. Neither does the whole human race die in consequence of Adam's death or transgression; nor does it rise from the dead in consequence of Christ's resurrection;

5. Infants obtain eternal life, though they be not baptized;

6. The law is as good a means of salvation (lex sic mittit ad regnum cœlorum) as the gospel;

7. There were some men, even before the appearance of Christ, who did not commit sin.

If we compare these propositions with the doctrines of the earlier theolo gians, we find that the third was held by some of the Greek Fathers (e. g., Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria, see above, § 62, note 1); that the fifth, in a modified form, was substantially defended by Gregory of Nazianzum and others, viz., that unbaptized children are at least not condemned on that account (comp. § 72); and even as to the seventh, bold as it may appear, something like it, though in a different connection, was maintained by the father of orthodoxy himself (§ 108, note 3). On the other hand, the isolated way in which the sin of Adam is viewed in the first two and the fourth propositions, all connection between this sin and that of his posterity, even in relation to the mortality of the body, being denied, would have been condemned as heresy before the tribunal of the earlier theologians. But none appears so heretical, so much opposed to the doctrine of Paul and the Gospel, as the sixth. And, lastly, the denial of the connection subsisting

between the resurrection of Christ and ours (in the fourth proposition) must have offended the common feelings and consciousness of Christians. Yet it may still be a question, how much here is to be ascribed to inferences, made for them by their opponents. See Neander, Church Hist. ii. 579, sq.; Hist. Dogm. 352, sq.

Augustine perceives no other difference between Pelagius and Celestius (De Pecc. Orig. c. 12) than that the latter was more open, the former more guarded, the latter more obstinate, the former more deceitful, or, to say the least, that the latter was more straightforward (liberior), the former more cunning (astutior). Prosper of Aquitaine calls him, therefore, coluber Britannus (in his poem De Ingratis, append. 67.-comp. Wiggers, p. 40).— Neander (Chrysostomus, vol. ii. p. 134) judges more mildly of him: "Pelagius is deserving of all esteem on account of his honest zeal; his object was to combat the same perverse antichristian tendency which Augustine opposed. But he was wrong in the manner in which he sought to attain his object," etc. Comp. Church History, ii. 573. "As he appears in his writings, he was a clear-headed, intelligent man, who possessed rather a serious and moral turn of mind, than that disposition which feels itself compelled to dive into the depths of the soul and of the spirit, and to bring to light hidden things," p. 579.

THE PRINCIPAL POINTS IN THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE: The condemnation of the doctrine of Pelagius at Carthage, a. D. 412. He repairs to Palestine, where Jerome becomes one of his most zealous opponents, and, conjointly with Paulus Orosius, a disciple of Augustine, accuses him at a synod held at Jerusalem (A. D. 415), under John, bishop of Jerusalem. John, however, did not pronounce his condemnation, but reported the whole matter to Innocent, bishop of Rome.-Synod at Diospolis (Lydda), under Eulogius of Cæsarea. The plaintiffs were Heros of Arles, and Lazarus of Aix. Acquittal of Pelagius. Dissatisfaction of Jerome with the decisions of this synod (Synodus miserabilis! Ep. 81).—Under Zosimus, the successor of Innocent, Pelagius and Celestius entertain new hopes.-Synod of the North-African bishops at Carthage, A. D. 418, and condemnation of Pelagius.-The Emperor Honorius decides the controversy.— Zosimus is induced to change his views, and publishes his Epistola Tractoria, in which the Pelagian doctrine is condemned. Julian, bishop of Eclanum in Apulia, undertakes to defend Pelagianism (respecting him see Wiggers, i. p. 43, ss.).—He was anathematized at the synod of Ephesus (A. D. 431), in (accidental?) connection with Nestorius. Still the opposite system of Augustine was not accepted in the East.

§ 111.

FIRST POINT OF CONTROVERSY.

Sin.-Original Sin and its Consequences.

[J. Nirschl, Ursprung und Wesen der Sünde nach d. Lehre des heiligen Augustinus, Regensb. 1854. Neander, Church History, ii. 564-625; Hist. Dogm. 362 sq. Julius Müller, Lehre von d. Sünde, ii. 417-494. Niedner, Gesch. d. Kirche, 336-346. Voigt, De Theoria Aug. Pelag. Götting. 1829. Lentzen, De Pelag. Doctr. Principüs Colon. 1833.]