IV.-ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES. Outside the main current of the great doctrinal interests, but still causing no little agitation, were the Origenistic controversies. These arose from the very diverse estimates that were passed by different parties upon the distinguished Alexandrian. While broadminded men, like Athanasius, were able to draw from Origen without blindly following him, or to reject certain of his teachings without uttering wholesale anathemas, men of narrow mind were inclined to run to the one or the other extreme. Conspicuous among the fanatical opponents of Origen was Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. In 394 he stirred up a controversy on the subject in Palestine, where he won Jerome to his side. Rufinus, on the other hand (who was also in Palestine at that time), refused to take sides against Origen. The result was a rupture with Jerome, and a bitter controversy. Among the monks of Egypt, one faction. were of the same mind as Epiphanius, while another class were enthusiasts for Origen. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was moved, largely by personal considerations, to side with the former party, and persecuted the Origenistic monks with such vigor that many fled from the country. A company of them sought an asy. lum in Constantinople, where John Chrysostom was then bishop. Chrysostom was somewhat disposed to befriend them, and undertook to intercede with Theophilus in their behalf. This provoked the unappeasable wrath of the jealous and intolerant Alexandrian prelate; 1 See Socrates, vi. 9-18; Sozomen, viii. 11-26; Gieseler, §§ 83, 109; Hefele, §§ 255-257. and, entering into a league with the enemies of Chrysostom in the church and court of Constantinople, he was able to secure a sentence of banishment against the noble bishop in 403. This was indeed speedily revoked, but was renewed the next year; and the prince of pulpit orators was obliged to spend his last days in exile. This treatment of Chrysostom was strongly disapproved by the Bishop of Rome, though his predecessor had followed the example of Theophilus in condemning Origen. Another assault against the memory of Origen took place in the sixth century. Justinian, ambitiously taking up the rôle of the theologian, issued ten anathemas against the teachings of Origen; and a synod, convened at his instance in 543, incorporated these with other specifications, making in all fifteen anathemas. V. CONTROVERSIES ON ANTHROPOLOGY. The Eastern Church, in this period, indulged very little debate on the subject of man's sinfulness and the province of divine grace in his recovery. While Eastern bishops in the synod at Ephesus in 431 pronounced against Pelagianism, their decision was more or less influenced by extraneous motives, and was not based upon any thorough investigation of the Pelagian system, or upon any profound aversion to the same. It was in the Latin Church alone that the great problems of anthropology received a profound and earnest canvassing. The radical theories of Pelagius, a monk from Britain, were the primary cause of the controversy that arose. The more essential features of his doctrinal system were a denial of inherited corruption in the moral nature of man, a strong assertion of the freedom of the will, and a decided emphasis upon man's ability to work out his own salvation as opposed to his radical dependence upon divine grace. Such a system naturally provoked the profound opposition of Augustine, whose ardent soul was ever burning with zeal for the honor of divine grace. All the powers of his great mind were brought to the task of refutation. The Pauline conception of sin and grace found in him a more appreciative interpreter than the Church had as yet produced. He criticised, to good effect, the superficial points of Pelagianism, but greatly impaired his service by inculcating an exaggerated idea of divine sovereignty. Augustine was the first of the Christian Fathers to advocate the creed of unconditional predestination. The positive beginning of the Pelagian controversy may be located about the year 412, when Cœlestius, a prominent disciple of Pelagius, was excommunicated by a Carthaginian synod. In 416 two African synods condemned the Pelagian doctrines, and the Roman bishop Innocent expressed his agreement with their decision. His successor, Zosimus, after a temporary show of favor to the condemned party, gave the full weight of his authority to their proscription. Some adherents still defended the doctrines of Pelagius, among whom the learned and talented Julian of Eclanum especially distinguished himself. No new sect, however, was formed in the interest of Pelagianism; and, as a theoretical system, it was pretty well overthrown in the Latin Church before the death of Augustine. Semi Pelagianism, which thrived especially in Gaul, maintained itself for a longer space, and was not emphatically disowned in that region till the sixth century. Still, it was not strict Augustinianism which held the field. In point of theory, the Latin Church showed an inclination to modify the radical tenets of Augustine; while in its spirit and practice it increasingly paid tribute to the idea of salvation by works, and really nurtured a crude species of practical Pelagianism. CHAPTER IV. CHURCH CONSTITUTION AND DISCIPLINE. I.- ELECTION, EDUCATION, AND CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. IN the mode of filling ecclesiastical positions, there was exhibited a mixture of the popular and of the hierarchical principle. The tendency, no doubt, was to withdraw the suffrage wholly from the people; but it was only by slow advances that this result was reached. While the presbyters and deacons were appointed by the bishops, the custom remained quite generally in vogue to ask the people if the candidate was acceptable. In the election of a bishop, the bishops of the province were the principal factors; but the will of the people was more or less consulted, and sometimes, especially in the West, asserted itself with determining force. In the elevation, for example, of Ambrose to the bishopric of Milan, the popular choice and enthusiasm bore down every thing else. This rather mixed suffrage, in places where the people were given to violent partisanship, and the clergy were imbued with a worldly and political temper, could easily give rise to unseemly disorders. All abuse, in an age of hierarchical tendencies, was naturally turned to the prejudice of the popu lar principle. It was after the close of the present |