says that whoever sins, dies in Adam, after lawfully receiving baptism. Sixth.-Or who says that some are deputed to death eternal, and others predestined to life. This heresy, or these errors, were condemned in the Council of Lyons, in the year 475. It is a question among the learned, whether the Predestinarians ever existed as a heretical body. Cardinal Orsi and Berti (45), with Contenson, Cabassutius and Jansenius deny it; but Tournelly (46), with Baronius, Spondanus, and Sirmond, held the contrary opinion, and Graveson quotes Cardinal Norris (47) in their favour, and Noel Alexander thinks his opinion probable (48).

17. In the ninth century, Godeschalcus, a German Benedictine monk, lived, who is generally considered a real Predestinarian. He was a man of a turbulent and troublesome disposition. He went to Rome through a motive of piety, without leave of his superiors, and usurping the office of a preacher without lawful mission, disseminated his maxims in several places, on which account he was condemned in a Synod, held on his account, in Mayence, in 848, by the Archbishop Rabanus, and sent to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, his superior. Hincmar, in another, held in Quercy, again condemned him, deprived him of the sacerdotal dignity, and after obliging him to throw his writings into the fire with his own hand, shut him up in close confinement in the monastery of Haut Villiers, in the diocese of Rheims. Two Councils were held in Quercy on this affair; one in 849, in which Godeschalcus was condemned, and the other in the year 853, in which four canons were established against his doctrine, and which we shall hereafter quote. Finally, Hincmar being at Haut Villiers, the monks of the monastery told him that Godeschalcus was near his end, and anxious for his eternal welfare, he sent him a formula of Faith to sign, that he might receive Absolution and the Viaticum, but he rejected it with disdain. Hincmar could then do no more, but after his departure, he wrote to the monks, telling them that in case of the conversion of Godeschalcus, they should treat him as he had given them verbal directions to do; but if he persevered in his errors, that they should not give him the sacraments, or ecclesiastical burial. He died unchanged, and without sacraments, and he was deprived of Christian burial (49).

18. His errors, Van Ranst informs us, were these following: First.-As God has predestined some to eternal life, so he predestines others to everlasting death, and forces man to perish. Second.God does not wish the salvation of all men, but only of those who are saved. Third.-Christ died for the salvation of the elect alone, and not for the redemption of all men. These three propositions of

(45) Orsi, t. 15, l. 35, n. 83; Berti, Hist. t. 1, s. 5, c. 4. concl. 3. (47) Graves. Hist. t. 3, coll. 2, p. 19.

(46) Tour. t. 4, p. 1, D. 3, (48) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, a. 2, p. 144, and Dis. Prop. p. 461. (49) Fleury, t. 7, l. 41, n. 41 & 49, & l. 50, n. 48; Van Ranst, s. 9,

p. 153.

Godeschalcus are also contained in a letter written by Hincmar to Nicholas I. "He says," writes Hincmar, "that the old Predestinarians said, that as God predestined some to eternal life, so he predestined others to everlasting death" (50); and Rabanus, in his Synodical letter to Hincmar, says: Hincmar, says: "He (Godeschalcus) taught that there are some in this world, who, on account of the predestination of God, who forces them to go to death, cannot correct themselves from sin; as if God, from the beginning, made them incorrigible and deserving of punishment to go to destruction. Second.-He says that God does not wish all men to be saved, but only those who are saved. Third.-He says that our Lord Jesus Christ was not crucified and died for the salvation of all, but only for these who are saved" (51). The four canons established in the Council of Quercy against Godeschalcus, as Cardinal Gotti (52) writes, were these following: First.-There is only one predestination by God, that is to eternal life. Second.-The free will of man is healed by means of Grace. Third.-God wishes all men to be saved. Fourth. -Jesus Christ has suffered for all.

19. As to the judgment we should pass on the faith of Godeschalcus, some modern writers, as Christian Lupus, Berti, Contenson, and Roncaglia (53), defend it, by thus explaining his three propositions: As to the first, the predestination to death; they say that it can be understood of the predestination to punishment, which God makes after the prevision of sin. As to the second, that God does not wish the salvation of all; it can be understood of his not wishing it efficaciously. And, as to the third, that Jesus Christ had not died for the salvation of all; it can, likewise, be understood that he did not die efficaciously. But on the other hand, as Tournelly writes, all Catholic doctors previous to Jansenius (with the exception of some few, as Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, in France; Pandal, Bishop of Lyons; and Loup, Abbot of Ferrieres), condemned them as heretical, and, with very good reason; many modern authors, of the greatest weight, as Sirmond, Cardinal de Norris, Mabillon, Tournelly, and Noel Alexander, are of the same opinion (54). As far as our judgment on the matter goes, we say, that if Godeschalcus intended to express himself, as his defenders have afterwards explained his words, he was not a heretic; but, at all events, he was culpable in not explaining himself more clearly; but, as Van Ranst very well remarks, his propositions, as they are laid before us, and taking them in their plain, obvious sense, are marked with heresy. As he did not explain himself

Disp. 4, ar. 3.

(50) Tournelly, Theol. Comp. t. 5, p. 1, (51) Tourn. loc. cit. (52) Gotti. t. 2, Vict. adv. Her. c. 84, s. 2. (53) Lupus Not. ad conc. 1 Rom.; Berti, Theol. . 6, c. 14, prop. 3, & Hist. s. 9, c. 4; Contens. Theol. 7. 8; De Prædest. app. 1, s. 3; Roncaglia, Animad. ap. N. Alex. t. 13, diss. 5. (54) Sirmond. Tract. de Præd. Har. Card. de Noris, l. 2; Hist. Pelag. c. 15; Mabillon, ad sec. iv. Bened. Tournelly, Theol. t. 5, loc. cit. p. 142; Gotti, loc. supra cit. c. 84, s. 2; Nat. Alex. loc. cit. t. 13, diss. 5.

according as his friends do who defend him, and he showed so much obstinacy in refusing to accommodate himself to his superiors, and as he died so unhappily, as we have already related, we may reasonably doubt of his good faith, and have fears for his eternal salvation.

ARTICLE III.

THE NESTORIAN HERESY,

20. Errors of Nestorius, and his Elevation to the Episcopacy. 21. He approves of the Errors preached by his Priest, Anastasius; his Cruelty. 22. He is contradicted, and other Acts of Cruelty. 23. St. Cyril's Letter to him, and his Answer. 24. The Catholies separate from him. 25, Letters to St. Celestine, and his Answer. 26, He is admonished; Anathemas of St. Cyril. 27. The Sentence of the Pope is intimated to him. 28. He is cited to the Council. 29. He is condemned. 30. The Sentence of the Council is intimated to him. 31. Cabal of John of Antioch. 32. Confirmation of the Council by the Legates, in the Name of the Pope. 33. The Pelagians are condemned. 34, Disagreeable Affair with the Emperor Theodosius. 35. Theodosius approves of the Condemnation of Nestorius, and sends him into Banishment, where he dies. 36. Laws against the Nestorians. 37. Efforts of the Nestorians. 38. The same Subject continued. 39. It is condemned as heretical to assert that Jesus Christ is the adopted Son of God. 40-43. Answer to Basnage, who has unjustly undertaken the Defence of Nestorius.

20. THE heresy of Pelagius was scarcely condemned by the African Councils, when the Church had to assemble again to oppose the heresy of Nestorius, who had the temerity to impugn the maternity of the Mother of God, calling her the Mother, not of God, but of Christ, who, he blasphemously taught, was a mere man, as, with a similar impiety, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, and Photinus, had done before, by asserting that the Word was not hypostatically united with Christ, but only extrinsically, so that God dwelled in Christ as in his temple. Nestorius was born in Germanicia, a small city of Syria, and, as Suidas, quoted by Baronius, informs us, was a nephew of Paul of Samosata, and was brought up in the monastery of St. Euprepius, in the suburbs of Antioch (1). He was ordained priest by Theodotus (2), and appointed his catechist, to explain the faith to the catechumens, and defend it against heretics; and, in fact, he was most zealous in combating the heretics who then disturbed the Eastern Church-the Arians, the Apollinarists, and the Origenists-and professed himself a great admirer and imitator of St. John Chrysostom. He was so distinguished for his eloquence, though it was only of a vain and popularity-hunting sort, and his apparent piety, for he was worn, pale, and always poorly clad, that he was placed in the See of Constantinople, in place of Sisinnius, in the year 427, according to N. Alexander, or

(1) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, a. 12, s. 1; Baron. Ann. 428, n. 1, & seq.; Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, ex n. 1, & Fleury, t. 4, l. 24, n. 54. (2) Evagr. Hist. l. 1, c. 5.

428, according to Hermant and Cardinal Orsi. His elevation, however, was not only legitimate, but highly creditable to him, for after the death of the Patriarch Sisinnius, the Church of Constantinople was split into factions about who should succeed him, which induced the Emperor Theodosius the Younger to put an end to it all, by selecting a bishop himself; and, that no one should complain of his choice, he summoned Nestorius from Antioch, and had him consecrated Bishop, and his choice was highly pleasing to the people (3). It is said, also, that at the first sermon he preached (4), he turned round to the Emperor, and thus addressed him: "Give me, my Lord, the earth purged from heretics, and I will give you heaven; exterminate the heretics with me, and I will exterminate the Persians with you."

way

21. Theodosius hoped that his new Patriarch would in all things follow in the steps of his predecessor, Chrysostom; but he was deceived in his hopes. His virtue was altogether Pharisaical, for, under an exterior of mortification, he concealed a great fund of pride. In the beginning of his reign, it is true, he was a most ardent persecutor of the Arians, the Novatians, and the Quartodecimans; but, as St. Vincent of Lerins tells us, his chief aim in this was only to prepare the for teaching his own errors (5). "He declared war against all heresies, to make way for his own." He brought a priest from Antioch with him, of the name of Anastasius, and he, at the instigation of the Bishop, preached one day the blasphemous doctrine that no one should call Mary the Mother of God, because she was only a creature, and it was impossible that a human creature could be the Mother of God. The people ran to Nestorius, to call on him to punish the temerity of the preacher; but he not only approved of what was said, but unblushingly went into the pulpit himself, and publicly defended the doctrine preached by Anastasius. In that sermon, called afterwards by St. Cyril (6) the Compendium of all Blasphemy, he called those Čatholics blind and ignorant, who were scandalized by Anastasius preaching, that the Holy Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. The people were most anxiously waiting to hear what the Bishop would say in the pulpit, when, to their astonishment, he cried out: "How can God, then, have a mother? The Gentiles ought to be excused, who bring forward on the stage the mothers of their Gods; and the Apostle is a liar, when, speaking of the Divinity of Christ, he says that he is without father, without mother, without generation: no, Mary has not brought forth a God. What is born of the flesh is nothing but flesh; what is born of the spirit is spiritual. The creature does not bring forth the Creator, but only a man, the instrument of the Divinity."

(3) Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, n. 1. Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 3, art. 12.

(4) Fleury, t. 4, l. 24, n. 54; Nat. loc. cit.
(6) Orsi, loc. cit. n. 8; Serm. 1, ap. More.

(5) Apud.

22. It has always been the plan with heretics to sustain this error by accusing the Catholics of heresy. Arius called the Catholics Sabellians, because they professed that the Son was God, like unto the Father. Pelagius called them Manicheans, because they insisted on the necessity of Grace. Eutyches called them Nestorians, because they believed that there were two distinct natures in Christ-the Divine and the human nature; and so, in like manner, Nestorius called them Arians and Apollinarists, because they confessed in Christ one Person, true God and true man. When Nestorius thus continued to preach, not alone once, but frequently, and when the whole burden of his sermons was nothing but a blasphemous attack on the doctrine of the Church, the people of Constantinople became so excited, that, beholding their shepherd turned into a wolf, they threatened to tear him in pieces, and throw him into the sea. He was not, however, without partisans, and although these were but very few, they had, for all that, the support of the Court and the Magistracy, and the contests even in the church became so violent, that there was frequently danger of blood being spilled there (7). Withal, there was one person who, while Nestorius was publicly preaching in the church (8), and denying the two generations of the Word, the Eternal and the Temporal, boldly stood forward, and said to his face: "It is so, nevertheless; it is the same Word, who, before all ages, was born of the Father, and was afterwards born anew of a virgin, according to the flesh." Nestorius was irritated at the interruption, and called the speaker a miserable, ribald wretch; but as he could not take vengeance as he wished on him, for, though but then a layman (he was afterwards made Bishop of Dorileum, and was a most strenuous opponent of Eutyches, as we shall see in the next chapter), he was an advocate of great learning, and one of the agents for the affairs of his Sovereign,-he discharged all the venom of his rage on some good Archimandrites of monks, who came to inquire of him whether what was said of his teaching was true-that he preached that Mary brought forth only a man-that nothing could be born of the flesh but flesh alone --and suggested to him that such doctrine was opposed to Faith. Nestorius, without giving them any reply, had them confined in the ecclesiastical prison, and his myrmidons, after stripping them of their habits, and kicking and beating them, tied them to a post, and lacerated their backs with the greatest cruelty, and then, stretching them on the ground, beat them on the belly.

23. The sermons of Nestorius were scattered through all the provinces of the East and West, and through the monasteries of Egypt, likewise, where they excited great disputes. St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, hearing of this, and fearing lest the heresy

(7) Orsi, l. 28, n. 9.

(8) Orsi, n. 10; Fleury, t. 4, l. 25, n. 6.