[See page image]

Page 348

Hilary (428 or 429). With serious reverence for the piety of the Massilians, their objections are stated: (1) against the doctrine of predestination, involving human incapability of freely appropriating saving grace, on the ground that it is an innovation against the Fathers and subversive of the admonition and cure of souls of the Church. Moreover (2) the divine counsel of redemption contemplates all men; the choice of being saved or not is in the power of free will; and predestination (of which Rom. viii. 29-30 necessarily forced recognition) was based on the foreknown " merit of faith and perseverance." Augustine answered with De prcedestinatione sanctorum on the " beginning of faith " and De dono perseueranti<e on persevering by grace alone. This was done in a fraternal spirit for the instruction of the Massilians, and Augustine therewith called attention to a similar former error on his part; but emphasizing, as these writings did, the most objectionable points, they naturally failed at conciliation. After Augustine's death (Aug. 28, 430), the polemics taken up by Prosper became more intense. The latter wrote responsiones to the Massilians (MPL, li. 155-174), and (li.-187-202) against an attack of Vincent of Lerins (q.v.); and then with Hilary resorted to Rome (432) for aid; but Celestine I. (q.v.) declined to take an open attitude. His letter to the bishops of southern Gaul to restrain the " presbyters " from menacing the unity of the Church by raising improper questions was vaguely non-committal. Prosper wrote his De gratia dei et libero arbatrio (Ii. 213-276) against the Collationes of Cassianus and removed to Rome (434) from the scene of conflict. The Commonitorium pro catholica; fidei antiquitate (MPL, 1.), which treats Augustine with silence, may be taken to indicate that Prosper abandoned a hopeless cause. The Massilians remained in possession of the field in southern Gaul. There the doctrine of predestination was regarded as a heresy about 450; the presbyter Lucidus who taught it was recalled, 473; and two synods (Arles and Lyons) authorized Bishop Faustus of Riez (q.v.) to present it anew in comparison with the right synodal doctrine. The result was his Libri duo de gratis, in which Pelagius and the " error of predestination " are alike denounced, without the conscious advancement of a special doctrine. More in line with Augustinian tradition were two anonymous writings of the fifth century, possibly from Gaul. Libri duo de voeatione omnium gentium, sometimes ascribed to the later Leo I., attempts to disguise the severity of the Augustine position by the conception of a gratin or benignitas generalis beside the gratia specialis; but basing the attainment of the " special grace," not in the human employment of gratia generalis, but purely in the divine will, makes the latter irrelevant. The Hypomnestieon contra Pelagianos et C&elestianos, probably of the middle of the fifth century and apparently Gallic in origin, is remarkable for its reconstruction of the Augustinian doctrine of grace. It disavows the basing of predestination on " faith foreknown," but reckons also with a resistance to grace; the elect only are predestined, and " for those foreknown in evil works there may be said to be

a predestined punishment." Rome seems to have assumed a similar attitude, though less outspoken. This is shown by an ancient but ungenuine appendix to the letter of Celestine I. cited above, a catalogue of orthodox guide-points on the doctrine of grace whose origin is unknown, although sometimes ascribed to the later Leo I. It is wholly Augustinian on total incapability, prevenient grace, and perseverance; but there is silence on irresistibility and predestination. That the writings of Faustus were included among the non-approved works at the close of the fifth century is quite possible.

The conflict was renewed in the sixth century from another point of departure. When in the controversy between the Scetic monks and the papal legates at Constantinople, 519, over the formula " one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh," a certain

North African bishop, Possessor, tarryThe Contro- ing there, extended his support to the

versy over legates by citing for authority Faustus Faustus; of Riez. At this the monks declared

versy was opened concerning the orthodoxy of Faustus. The monks went to Rome (519) to secure the support of Pope Hormisdas and at the same time the disavowal of Faustus. The pope withheld decision at their departure after a stay of fourteen months, and, in reply to the motion of Possessor in 520, declared that Faustus, like all others not included among the Fathers, was incompetent to judge on dogmatic questions. The pope found error in the works of Faustus, but did not pronounce him heretical. Although Hormisdas appealed to the letters of Augustine (ut sup.) sent to Prosper and Hilary in behalf of the true doctrine on grace and free will, it does not follow that he recognized the ultra-predestinarian view as that of the Church. From Rome the Scetic monks had issued a written appeal to the African bishops living in exile in Sardinia, to support their Christological and anti-Pelagian views. One of them, Fulgentius of Ruspe (q.v.), responded in a thoroughgoing Augustinian manner in his Ad Petrum diaconum de incarnatione et gratis (MPL, lxv. 451-493), the seven books of Contra PaustuM (now lost), De veritatione pradestinationis (603-671); and, with other bish ops, Epistula synodicd (435-442). The importance of this incident consists only in the revival of interest at Rome for the heritage of Augustine. In southern Gaul, Caeesarius of Arles (q.v.), a pupil at L_rins, and in certain respects esteeming Faustus, was, however, a representative of genuine Augustinianism, although from his sermons apparently unconcerned about the irresistible effect of grace. At the Synod of Valence (528 or 529) his doctrine was assailed in his absence. His counterstroke was a series of eight negative and seventeen positive canons adopted by the " authority and admonition of the apostolic seat " by the Synod of Orange taken from Prosper's theses of the Sententim ex Avgustino. These not only negated all Pelagianism but partly the principles which had become dominant in southern Gaul a century before and were probably the opinion of a majority still. The resolutions affirmed the total