Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/441

 FREDESTINARIANISM

377

FREDESTINARIANISM

tian grace against the errors of Pelagianism and Semi- pelagianism. Still the point at issue is whether he, in order to establish the predestination of the just, gave up his former position and took refuge in the so- called "irresistible grace" {gratia irresistibilis) which in the just and in those who persevere destroj's free will. Xot only Protestant historians of dogma (as Harnack) but also a few CathoUc scholars (Rott- manner, Kolb) even up to the present time have thought that thej- found in his works evident indica- tions of such a strange ^-iew. But among most of the modern students of St. Augustine the conviction is constantly gaining ground that the African Doctor at no time of his life, not even shortly before his death, embraced this dangerous view of grace which Jansen- ism claims to have inherited from him. Even the Protestant writer E. F. K. Mtiller emphasizes the fact that St. Augustine, with regard to the liberty of the will in all conditions of life, "never renounced his repudiation of Manicha>ism, a step which had caused him so severe a struggle" (Realencyk. fiir prot. Theologie, Leipzig, 1904, XV, 590).

The only ambiguous passage containing the ex- pressions "unavoidable and invincible " (Decorrept. et gratia XII, xxxviii: indecUnabiliter et insuperabiliter) does not refer, as is clear from the context, to Divine grace but to the weak will which by means of grace is made invulnerable against all temptations, even to the point of being unconquerable, without, however, thereby losing its native freedom. Other difficult passages must Ukewise be explained in ^-iew of the general fundamental principles of the saint's tcacliing and especially of the context and the logical connex- ion of his thoughts (cf. J. Mausbach, "Die Ethik des hi. Augustinus", II, 25 .sq.; Freiburg, 1909). Hence St. Augustine, when towards the end of his life he wrote his "Retractations", did not take back any- thing in this matter, nor had he any reason for doing so. But as to God's relation to sin, nothing was further from the thoughts of the great doctor than the idea that the Most Holj- could in any way or for any purpose force the human will to commit sin. It is true that God foresees sin, but He does not will it; for He must of necessitj- hate it. St. Augustine draws a sharp distinction between prccscire and pradeslinare, and to him the infallible foreknowledge of sin is by no means synonymous with a necessi- tating predestination to sin. Thus he says of the fall of Adam (De corrept. et gratia, 12, 37), "Deo quidem pra?sciente, quid esset Adam facturus in- juste; pra;sciente tamen, non ad hoc cogente" (cf. Mausbach, ibid. 20S sq.). The question whether and in how far St. Augustine assumed, in connexion with the absolute predestination of the elect, what was later on known as the negative reprobation of the damned, is quite distinct from oiu" present question and has nothing to do with heretical Predestinarianism.

II. The Work "Pr.bdestinatcs". — That the Pelagians after their condemnation by the Church had a great interest in exaggerating to their ultimate heretical con.sequences those ideas of St. Augustine which may easily be misimdcrstood, that thereby they might under the mask of orthodoxy be enabled to com- bat more effectually not onlj- the ultra-August inian but also the whole Catholic doctrine on grace, is clearly proved by a work written by an anonymous author of the fifth century. This work, edited by Sirmond for the first time in 1643 in Paris under the title of "Pra-dcstinatus" (P. L., LIII, 579 sq.), is di\-ided into three parts. The first part contains a catalogue of ninety heresies (from Simon Magus to the Haresis Priideslinfilorum) and is nothing less than a barefaced plagiarism from St. Augustine's work "De HEere.sibus" and original only in those passages where the writer touches on personal experiences and Roman local traditions (cf. A. Faure, "Die Wider- legung der Haretiker im I. Buch des Prajdestinatus",

Leipzig, 1903). The second part is according to the assertion of the author of the work a treatise circulat- ed (though falsely) under the name of St. Augustine which fell into his hands; this treatise, under the form of a violent polemic against the Pelagians, puts forward ultra-August inian views on predestination and thus affords a welcome opportunity to a Pela- gian to attack both the one-.sided exaggerat ions of the pseudo-Augustine and the Cathohc doctrine on grace of the true St. Augustine. As a matter of fact this favoiu-able opportunity is seized upon by the author in the third and last part, where he reveals his real piu-pose. Adhering closely to the text of the second part he subtlely endeavours to refute not onlj- Pre- destinarianism but also (and this is the main point), St. Augustine's doctrine on grace, although for the sake of appearances and to protect himself from at- tack, Pelagianism is nominally condemned in four anathemata (P. L., LIII, 665). All the older hterature concerning this inferior compilation may now be considered as superseded by the recent scholarly work of Schubert, "Der sog. Pra>destinatus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelagiani.smus " (Leip- zig, 1903). We need not, however, entirely accede to the opinion of Schubert that the whole pseudo- Augustine produced in the .second part is nothing but a clumsy forgerj- of the anonymous Pelagian author himself, who put up a straw man in order the more easily to overthrow him. But there can be no doubt as to the meaning, the spirit, and purpose of this manccuvre. We have to do with a skilful de- fence of' Pelagianism against the doctrine on grace as taught by St. Augustine. And the authorship points rather to Rome than to southern Gaul (per- haps Amobius the Younger). This work, written probably about a.d. 440, emanated from the group of Pelagians closely associated with Julian of Eclanum. It is not impossible that a friend of Julian living in Rome conceived the hope of making the pope more favoiu'able to Pelagianism b}' means of this work.

III. LuciDcs ASD GoTTSCH.\LK. — Toward the middle of the fifth century heretical Predestinarian- ism in its harshest form was defended by Lucidus, a priest of Gaul, about whose life in all other respects history is silent. According to his view God posi- tively and absolutely predestined some to eternal death and others to eternal hfe, in such a manner that the latter have not to do anything to secure their eternal salvation, since Divine grace of itself carries them on to their destiny. As the non-elect are destined for hell, Christ did not die for them. XMien Faustus, Bishop of Riez, ordered Lucidus to retract, he abandoned his scandalous propositions and even notified the Provincial Synod of Aries (c. 473) of his submission (cf. Mansi, "Concil. Col- lect.", Vn, 1010). It seems that within half a cen- tury the Predestinarian heresy had completelj' died out in Gaul, since the Second S\'nod of Orange (529), although it solemnly condemns this heresj', still speaks only hypothetically of its adherents; "si sunt, qui tantum malum credere velint" (cf. Den- zinger, "Enchirid.", tenth ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 200). The controversy was not renewed till the ninth century when Gottschalk of Orbais, appealing to St. Augustine, aroused a long and animated dis- pute on predestination, which affected the whole Prankish Empire. Rabanus Maiu-us (about 840) wrote a refutation of Gottschalk's teaching and clear- ly summed it up in the following proposition (P. L., CXII, 1530 sqq.): As the elect, predestined by the Div-ine foreknowledge and absolute decree, are saved of necessity, so in the same way the eternally reprobate become the victims of predestination to hell.

Through the efforts of Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, the Synod of Quierzy (S49) compelled Gotts- chalk, whose enforced stay in the Order of St. Bene-