a sect that arose in the fifth century. Pelagius was a
British monk, of some rank, and very exalted reputation. He, with his
friend Celestius, travelled to Rome, where they resided very early in
the fifth century, and opposed with warmth certain received notions
respecting original sin, and the necessity of divine grace. What
reception their doctrines met with at Rome does not appear; but their
virtue excited general approbation. On the approach of the Goths, they
retired to Africa, where Celestius remained, with a view of gaining
admittance as a presbyter into the church of Carthage. Pelagius
proceeded to Palestine, where he enjoyed the favour and protection of
John, bishop of Jerusalem. But his friend and his opinions met with a
very different reception from St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of
Hippo. Whatever parts were visited by these unorthodox friends, they
still asserted their peculiar opinions; and they were gradually engaged
in a warm contest, in the course of which they were probably led to
advance more than had originally occurred to them. In contending for the
truth of their doctrines, they are said to have asserted, that mankind
derived no injury from the sin of Adam; that we are now as capable of
obedience to the will of God as he was; that, otherwise, it would have
been cruel and absurd to propose to mankind the performance of certain
duties, with the sanction of rewards, and the denunciation of
punishments; and that, consequently, men are born without vice, as well
as without virtue.” Pelagius is charged also with having maintained,
that it is possible for men, provided they fully employ the powers and
faculties with which they are endued, to live without sin;” and though
he did not deny that external grace, or the doctrines and motives of the
Gospel, are necessary, yet he is said to have rejected the necessity of
internal grace, or the aids of the divine Spirit. He acknowledged, that
the power we possess of obeying the will of God, is a divine gift;” but
asserted, that the direction of this power depends upon ourselves; that
natural death is not a consequence of the sin of Adam, but of the frame
of man; and that Adam would have died, though he had not sinned.”
Isidore, Chrysostom, and Augustine strenuously opposed these opinions;
and the latter procured their condemnation in a synod held at Carthage
in 412. They were, however, favourably received at Rome, and Pope
Zozimus was at the head of the Pelagian party: but his decision against
the African bishops, who had opposed Pelagianism, was disregarded by
them, and the pontiff yielded at length to their reasonings and
remonstrances, and condemned the men whom he had before honoured with
his approbation. The council of Ephesus likewise condemned the opinions
of Pelagius and Celestius; and the Emperor Honorius, in 418, published
an edict, which ordained that the leaders of the sect should be expelled
from Rome, and their followers exiled. Some of the Pelagians taught that
Christ was a mere man, and that men might lead sinless lives, because
Christ did so; that Jesus became Christ after his baptism, and God after
his resurrection; the one arising from his unction, the other from the
merit of his passion. The Pelagian controversy, which began with the
doctrines of grace and original sin, was extended to predestination, and
excited continual discord and division in the church. It must however be
recollected, that we are acquainted with the sentiments of Pelagius only
through the medium of his opponents; and that it is probable that they
were much misrepresented. See AUGUSTINE.
The followers of the truly evangelical Arminius, or those who hold the
tenet of general redemption with its concomitants, have often been
greatly traduced, by the ignorant among their doctrinal opponents, as
Pelagians, or at least as Semi-Pelagians. It may therefore serve the
cause of truth to exhibit the appropriate reply which the Dutch
Arminians gave to this charge when urged against them at the synod of
Dort, and which they verified and maintained by arguments and
authorities that were unanswerable. In their concluding observations
they say, “From all these remarks a judgment may easily be formed at
what an immense distance our sentiments stand from the dogmatical
assertions of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians _on the grace of God in
the conversion of man_. Pelagius, in the first instance, attributed all
things to nature: but we acknowledge nothing but grace. When Pelagius
was blamed for not acknowledging grace, he began indeed to speak of it,
but it is evident that by _grace_ he understood the power of nature as
created by God, that is, _the rational will_: but by grace we understand
_a supernatural gift_. Pelagius, when afterward pressed with passages of
Scripture, also admitted this supernatural grace; but he placed it
solely in the external teaching of the law: though we affirm that God
offers his word to men, yet we likewise affirm that he inwardly causes
the understanding to believe. Subsequently Pelagius joined to this
external grace _that by which sins are pardoned_: we acknowledge not
only the grace by which sins are forgiven, but also that by which men
are assisted to refrain from the commission of sin. In addition to his
previous concessions Pelagius granted, that _the grace of Christ_ was
requisite beside the two kinds which he had enumerated; but he
attributed it entirely to the doctrine and example of Christ that we are
aided in our endeavours not to commit sin: we likewise admit that the
doctrine and example of Christ afford us some aid in refraining from
sin, but in addition to their influence we also place the gift of the
Holy Spirit with which God endues us, and which enlightens our
understandings, and confers strength and power upon our will to abstain
from sinning. When Pelagius afterward owned the assistance of divine
power inwardly working in man by the Holy Spirit, he placed it solely in
the enlightening of the understanding: but we believe, that it is not
only necessary for us to know or understand what we ought to do, but
that it is also requisite for us to implore the aid of the Holy Spirit
that we may be rendered capable of performing, and may delight in the
performance of, that which it is our duty to do. Pelagius admitted
grace,--but it has been a question with some whether he meant only
illumination, or, beside this, a power communicated to the will;--he
admitted grace, but he did this only to show that by means of it man can
_with greater ease_ act aright: we, on the contrary, affirm that grace
is bestowed, not that we may be able with greater ease to act aright,
(which is as though we can do this even without grace,) but that grace
is absolutely necessary to enable us to act at all aright. Pelagius
asserted, that man, so far from requiring the aid of grace for the
performance of good actions, is, through the powers implanted in him at
the time of his creation, capable of fulfilling the whole law, of loving
God, and of overcoming all temptations: we, on the contrary, assert that
the grace of God is required for the performance of every act of piety.
Pelagius declared, that by the works of nature man renders himself
worthy of grace: but we, in common with the church universal, condemn
this dogma. When Pelagius afterward himself condemned this tenet, he
understood by _grace_, partly natural grace, which is antecedent to all
merit, and partly remission of sins, which he acknowledged to be
gratuitous; but he added, that through works performed by the powers of
nature alone, at least through the desire of good and the imperfect
longing after it, men merit that spiritual grace by which they are
assisted in good works: but we declare, that men will that which is good
on account of God’s prevenience or going before them by his grace, and
exciting within them a longing after good; otherwise grace would no
longer be grace, because it would not be _gratuitously_ bestowed, but
only _on account of the merit of man_.” That many who have held some
tenets in common with the true Arminians have been, in different
degrees, followers of Pelagius is well known; but the original Arminians
were in truth as far from Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian errors, granting the
opinions of Pelagius to be fairly reported by his adversaries, as the
Calvinists themselves. This is also the case with the whole body of
Wesleyan Methodists, and of the cognate societies to which they have
given rise, both in Great Britain and America.
British monk, of some rank, and very exalted reputation. He, with his
friend Celestius, travelled to Rome, where they resided very early in
the fifth century, and opposed with warmth certain received notions
respecting original sin, and the necessity of divine grace. What
reception their doctrines met with at Rome does not appear; but their
virtue excited general approbation. On the approach of the Goths, they
retired to Africa, where Celestius remained, with a view of gaining
admittance as a presbyter into the church of Carthage. Pelagius
proceeded to Palestine, where he enjoyed the favour and protection of
John, bishop of Jerusalem. But his friend and his opinions met with a
very different reception from St. Augustine, the celebrated bishop of
Hippo. Whatever parts were visited by these unorthodox friends, they
still asserted their peculiar opinions; and they were gradually engaged
in a warm contest, in the course of which they were probably led to
advance more than had originally occurred to them. In contending for the
truth of their doctrines, they are said to have asserted, that mankind
derived no injury from the sin of Adam; that we are now as capable of
obedience to the will of God as he was; that, otherwise, it would have
been cruel and absurd to propose to mankind the performance of certain
duties, with the sanction of rewards, and the denunciation of
punishments; and that, consequently, men are born without vice, as well
as without virtue.” Pelagius is charged also with having maintained,
that it is possible for men, provided they fully employ the powers and
faculties with which they are endued, to live without sin;” and though
he did not deny that external grace, or the doctrines and motives of the
Gospel, are necessary, yet he is said to have rejected the necessity of
internal grace, or the aids of the divine Spirit. He acknowledged, that
the power we possess of obeying the will of God, is a divine gift;” but
asserted, that the direction of this power depends upon ourselves; that
natural death is not a consequence of the sin of Adam, but of the frame
of man; and that Adam would have died, though he had not sinned.”
Isidore, Chrysostom, and Augustine strenuously opposed these opinions;
and the latter procured their condemnation in a synod held at Carthage
in 412. They were, however, favourably received at Rome, and Pope
Zozimus was at the head of the Pelagian party: but his decision against
the African bishops, who had opposed Pelagianism, was disregarded by
them, and the pontiff yielded at length to their reasonings and
remonstrances, and condemned the men whom he had before honoured with
his approbation. The council of Ephesus likewise condemned the opinions
of Pelagius and Celestius; and the Emperor Honorius, in 418, published
an edict, which ordained that the leaders of the sect should be expelled
from Rome, and their followers exiled. Some of the Pelagians taught that
Christ was a mere man, and that men might lead sinless lives, because
Christ did so; that Jesus became Christ after his baptism, and God after
his resurrection; the one arising from his unction, the other from the
merit of his passion. The Pelagian controversy, which began with the
doctrines of grace and original sin, was extended to predestination, and
excited continual discord and division in the church. It must however be
recollected, that we are acquainted with the sentiments of Pelagius only
through the medium of his opponents; and that it is probable that they
were much misrepresented. See AUGUSTINE.
The followers of the truly evangelical Arminius, or those who hold the
tenet of general redemption with its concomitants, have often been
greatly traduced, by the ignorant among their doctrinal opponents, as
Pelagians, or at least as Semi-Pelagians. It may therefore serve the
cause of truth to exhibit the appropriate reply which the Dutch
Arminians gave to this charge when urged against them at the synod of
Dort, and which they verified and maintained by arguments and
authorities that were unanswerable. In their concluding observations
they say, “From all these remarks a judgment may easily be formed at
what an immense distance our sentiments stand from the dogmatical
assertions of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians _on the grace of God in
the conversion of man_. Pelagius, in the first instance, attributed all
things to nature: but we acknowledge nothing but grace. When Pelagius
was blamed for not acknowledging grace, he began indeed to speak of it,
but it is evident that by _grace_ he understood the power of nature as
created by God, that is, _the rational will_: but by grace we understand
_a supernatural gift_. Pelagius, when afterward pressed with passages of
Scripture, also admitted this supernatural grace; but he placed it
solely in the external teaching of the law: though we affirm that God
offers his word to men, yet we likewise affirm that he inwardly causes
the understanding to believe. Subsequently Pelagius joined to this
external grace _that by which sins are pardoned_: we acknowledge not
only the grace by which sins are forgiven, but also that by which men
are assisted to refrain from the commission of sin. In addition to his
previous concessions Pelagius granted, that _the grace of Christ_ was
requisite beside the two kinds which he had enumerated; but he
attributed it entirely to the doctrine and example of Christ that we are
aided in our endeavours not to commit sin: we likewise admit that the
doctrine and example of Christ afford us some aid in refraining from
sin, but in addition to their influence we also place the gift of the
Holy Spirit with which God endues us, and which enlightens our
understandings, and confers strength and power upon our will to abstain
from sinning. When Pelagius afterward owned the assistance of divine
power inwardly working in man by the Holy Spirit, he placed it solely in
the enlightening of the understanding: but we believe, that it is not
only necessary for us to know or understand what we ought to do, but
that it is also requisite for us to implore the aid of the Holy Spirit
that we may be rendered capable of performing, and may delight in the
performance of, that which it is our duty to do. Pelagius admitted
grace,--but it has been a question with some whether he meant only
illumination, or, beside this, a power communicated to the will;--he
admitted grace, but he did this only to show that by means of it man can
_with greater ease_ act aright: we, on the contrary, affirm that grace
is bestowed, not that we may be able with greater ease to act aright,
(which is as though we can do this even without grace,) but that grace
is absolutely necessary to enable us to act at all aright. Pelagius
asserted, that man, so far from requiring the aid of grace for the
performance of good actions, is, through the powers implanted in him at
the time of his creation, capable of fulfilling the whole law, of loving
God, and of overcoming all temptations: we, on the contrary, assert that
the grace of God is required for the performance of every act of piety.
Pelagius declared, that by the works of nature man renders himself
worthy of grace: but we, in common with the church universal, condemn
this dogma. When Pelagius afterward himself condemned this tenet, he
understood by _grace_, partly natural grace, which is antecedent to all
merit, and partly remission of sins, which he acknowledged to be
gratuitous; but he added, that through works performed by the powers of
nature alone, at least through the desire of good and the imperfect
longing after it, men merit that spiritual grace by which they are
assisted in good works: but we declare, that men will that which is good
on account of God’s prevenience or going before them by his grace, and
exciting within them a longing after good; otherwise grace would no
longer be grace, because it would not be _gratuitously_ bestowed, but
only _on account of the merit of man_.” That many who have held some
tenets in common with the true Arminians have been, in different
degrees, followers of Pelagius is well known; but the original Arminians
were in truth as far from Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian errors, granting the
opinions of Pelagius to be fairly reported by his adversaries, as the
Calvinists themselves. This is also the case with the whole body of
Wesleyan Methodists, and of the cognate societies to which they have
given rise, both in Great Britain and America.