Pelagius the Briton

[apollosdtr]

Pelagius the Briton

First, A History of the British Church

"BE it known (and without doubt) unto you, that we all, and every one of us, are obedient and subject to the Church of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian, to love every one in his degree, in perfect Charity, and to help every one of them, by word and deed to be Children of God: And other obedience than this I do not know to be due to him whom you name to be Pope; nor by the Father of Fathers to be claimed or demanded. And this obedience we are ready to give and pay to him, and to every Christian continually. Besides, we are under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who is to oversee under God over us, and cause us to keep the way spiritual." page 13
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A59082.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

In the pages before, we see the Church in Britain warring with Augustine, which this old book and many others, call Austin. And it was actually a heresy against Augustine and the Papacy... this so-called heresy of Pelagius.

The text from the link goes on to say: "This was the Britons resolution, and they were as good as their word; for they maintained the liberty of their Church five hundred years after this time; and were the last of all the Churches of Europe that gave their power to the Roman beast; and Henry the Eighth, that came of that blood by Teuther, the first that took away that power again. Austin having met with this affront, and perceiving that the Britons were stronger in their Faith than he by his Miracles, cast about to try the Saxons courtesie; that what the Ephod could not, the Sword wrapt up therein should. I say not that he procured, but he threatned or prophesied the destruction of the Monks of Bangor; and it came to pass, and the accasion by writers loudly suspected."

Britain may well have been the first protestant church, if not for the fact that Augustine came after the Gospel was already planted in Britain.

To continue with the text from the link: "We cannot find in any story, that the Saxon Church was infested with any Heresie, from their first entrance, till this present Generation. The first and last Heresie that ever troubled this Island, was imbred by Pelagius; but that was amongst the Britains, and was first battered by the Council or Synod under Germanus; but afterwards suppressed by the Zeal of the Saxons, who liked nothing of the British breed, and for whose sake it suffered more haply than for the foulness of the opinion. The Saxon Church, leavened from Rome for the space of above five hundred years, held on its course, without any intermission by cross Doctrine springing up, till the time of Henry the second."


Remember, Galileo was also called a heretic. But was he a heretic against God... or only against the Papacy?

The same thing is true of Pelagius. Because apparently, Britons were taught the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the gospel according to Paul.

“For God, wishing to endow (his) rational creature with the gift of voluntary good and with the power of free will, by implanting in man the possibility of either part, made that to be his own which he may choose, in order that, being by nature capable of good and evil, he might choose either and bend his will to either the one or the other” (Pel. ad Dem. 3, cf. de lib. arb. i., ii., in Aug. de gr. Chr. 18. 19; 4. 5).
...
From this position we can understand the doctrinal teaching concerning sin. This consists, as a matter of course, only in the separate acts of the will. There is no such thing as a sinful character or a sinful nature. Otherwise, sin would not be sin--not something which can be avoided; and God could not charge sin to our account as guilt and punish it (Caelest. in Aug. perf. grat. 2. 1 ; 6. 15). Since sin cannot have been created by God, it is not a thing (res'), but an act (actus) (ib. 2. 4). It is a fault, not of nature, but of the will (in Aug. de pecc. orig. 6. 6; op. imp. i. 48). Man’s peculiar nature, the justice of God, and the reality of sin, alike forbid us to speak of an "original sin.” If such were the nature of sin, a deliverance from it would be impossible: "Even if we should wish not to be able not to sin, we are not able not to be able not to sin, because no will is able to free itself from that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in (its) nature" (Pel. in Aug. nat. et grat. 49, 50, 57, 58). “If original sin be contracted by the generation of original nativity ... it cannot be taken away from infants, since that which is innate continues to the very end of him to whom it has adhered from the occasion of his ancestors ” (Jul. op. imp. i. 61). Inasmuch as sin consists only in separate acts of the will, the idea of its propagation by the act of generation is absurd. Adam was certainly the first sinner, but such a connection between his sin and ours cannot be established. The sins and guilt of parents no more pass over to their children than do those of children to their parents (op. imp. iii. 14, 19 f.). “If their own sins do not harm parents after their conversion, much more can they not through the parents injure their children” (Pel. in Marius Com. 2. 10). The view of Augustine is habitually referred to by Julian as Manichaeism (e. g., op. imp. vi. 10: “Your doctrine differs in nothing from the Manichaeans”). In contravention of God’s Word, it pronounces marriage and the desire for carnal intercourse sinful (de nupt. et concup. i. 1, 2; ii. 1. 2). Julian refuses to recognize Augustine’s distinction between marriage (nuptiae) andconcupiscence: “Natural sin within cannot be asserted without defamation of sexual intercourse" (op. imp. v. 5)."
--quoted in the Text-book of the History of Doctrines, p.332-335
Index of /4/items/textbookofhistor01seeb/

Pelagius, Caelestus and Julian.

I will be adding to this thread... this is a new thing for me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Pelagius the Briton

First, A History of the British Church

"BE it known (and without doubt) unto you, that we all, and every one of us, are obedient and subject to the Church of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian, to love every one in his degree, in perfect Charity, and to help every one of them, by word and deed to be Children of God: And other obedience than this I do not know to be due to him whom you name to be Pope; nor by the Father of Fathers to be claimed or demanded. And this obedience we are ready to give and pay to him, and to every Christian continually. Besides, we are under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who is to oversee under God over us, and cause us to keep the way spiritual." page 13
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A59082.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

In the pages before, we see the Church in Britain warring with Augustine, which this old book and many others, call Austin. And it was actually a heresy against Augustine and the Papacy... this so-called heresy of Pelagius.

The text from the link goes on to say: "This was the Britons resolution, and they were as good as their word; for they maintained the liberty of their Church five hundred years after this time; and were the last of all the Churches of Europe that gave their power to the Roman beast; and Henry the Eighth, that came of that blood by Teuther, the first that took away that power again. Austin having met with this affront, and perceiving that the Britons were stronger in their Faith than he by his Miracles, cast about to try the Saxons courtesie; that what the Ephod could not, the Sword wrapt up therein should. I say not that he procured, but he threatned or prophesied the destruction of the Monks of Bangor; and it came to pass, and the accasion by writers loudly suspected."

Britain may well have been the first protestant church, if not for the fact that Augustine came after the Gospel was already planted in Britain.

To continue with the text from the link: "We cannot find in any story, that the Saxon Church was infested with any Heresie, from their first entrance, till this present Generation. The first and last Heresie that ever troubled this Island, was imbred by Pelagius; but that was amongst the Britains, and was first battered by the Council or Synod under Germanus; but afterwards suppressed by the Zeal of the Saxons, who liked nothing of the British breed, and for whose sake it suffered more haply than for the foulness of the opinion. The Saxon Church, leavened from Rome for the space of above five hundred years, held on its course, without any intermission by cross Doctrine springing up, till the time of Henry the second."


Remember, Galileo was also called a heretic. But was he a heretic against God... or only against the Papacy?

The same thing is true of Pelagius. Because apparently, Britons were taught the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the gospel according to Paul.

“For God, wishing to endow (his) rational creature with the gift of voluntary good and with the power of free will, by implanting in man the possibility of either part, made that to be his own which he may choose, in order that, being by nature capable of good and evil, he might choose either and bend his will to either the one or the other” (Pel. ad Dem. 3, cf. de lib. arb. i., ii., in Aug. de gr. Chr. 18. 19; 4. 5).
...
From this position we can understand the doctrinal teaching concerning sin. This consists, as a matter of course, only in the separate acts of the will. There is no such thing as a sinful character or a sinful nature. Otherwise, sin would not be sin--not something which can be avoided; and God could not charge sin to our account as guilt and punish it (Caelest. in Aug. perf. grat. 2. 1 ; 6. 15). Since sin cannot have been created by God, it is not a thing (res'), but an act (actus) (ib. 2. 4). It is a fault, not of nature, but of the will (in Aug. de pecc. orig. 6. 6; op. imp. i. 48). Man’s peculiar nature, the justice of God, and the reality of sin, alike forbid us to speak of an "original sin.” If such were the nature of sin, a deliverance from it would be impossible: "Even if we should wish not to be able not to sin, we are not able not to be able not to sin, because no will is able to free itself from that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in (its) nature" (Pel. in Aug. nat. et grat. 49, 50, 57, 58). “If original sin be contracted by the generation of original nativity ... it cannot be taken away from infants, since that which is innate continues to the very end of him to whom it has adhered from the occasion of his ancestors ” (Jul. op. imp. i. 61). Inasmuch as sin consists only in separate acts of the will, the idea of its propagation by the act of generation is absurd. Adam was certainly the first sinner, but such a connection between his sin and ours cannot be established. The sins and guilt of parents no more pass over to their children than do those of children to their parents (op. imp. iii. 14, 19 f.). “If their own sins do not harm parents after their conversion, much more can they not through the parents injure their children” (Pel. in Marius Com. 2. 10). The view of Augustine is habitually referred to by Julian as Manichaeism (e. g., op. imp. vi. 10: “Your doctrine differs in nothing from the Manichaeans”). In contravention of God’s Word, it pronounces marriage and the desire for carnal intercourse sinful (de nupt. et concup. i. 1, 2; ii. 1. 2). Julian refuses to recognize Augustine’s distinction between marriage (nuptiae) andconcupiscence: “Natural sin within cannot be asserted without defamation of sexual intercourse" (op. imp. v. 5)."
--quoted in the Text-book of the History of Doctrines, p.332-335
Index of /4/items/textbookofhistor01seeb/

Pelagius, Caelestus and Julian.

I will be adding to this thread... this is a new thing for me.

Pretty good. Almost no references to yourself.

 

[apollosdtr]

Pretty good. Almost no references to yourself.

"During these troublesome times, came a third party that wrought more trouble to this Isle than either Pict or Saxon, for it troubled all. This was the Canonical power of the Roman Bishop, now called the Universal Bishop. For the Roman Emperour having removed the Imperial residence to Constantinople, weakned the Western part of the Empire; and exposed it not only to the forrain invasions of the Goths, Vandals, Herules, Lombards, and other flotes of people, that about these times, by secret instinct were weary of their own dwellings; but also to the rising power of the Bishop of Rome, and purposely for his advancement. Who by patience out-rode the storms of forrain force, and took advantage of those publick calamitous times to insinuate deeper into the Consciences of distressed people, that knew no other consolation in a plundred estate, but from God and the Bishop, who was the chief in account amongst them. The power of the Bishop of Rome thus growing in the West, made him to out-reach not only his own Diocess and Province, but to mind a kind of Ecclesiastical Empire, and a title according thereunto; which at length he attained from an Emperor fitted for his turn; and that was enough to make him pass for currant in the Empire. But Britain was forsaken by the Roman Empire above 153 years before: So as, though the Emperor could prefer his Chaplains Power or Honour as far as his own, which was to the French shore; yet Britain was in another world under the Saxons power and not worth looking after till the plundering was over, and the Saxon affairs setled; so as some fat may be had. Then an instrument is sought after for the work, and none is found so far fit to wind the Saxon up to the Roman bent as a Monk, that was a holy humble man in the opinion of all, but of those that were so in the truth, and knew him. This is Austin,* sent by Pope Gregory to do a work that would not be publickly owned. It was pretended to bring Religion to the Saxons in England; therefore they give him the title of the Saxon Apostle; but to be plain, it was to bring in a Church-policy, with a kind of worship that rendred the Latria to God, and the Dulia to Rome."--Nathaniel Bacon, An historical and political discourse of the laws & government of England

_________________
* Austin is Augustine.

To continue:

"The Saxons were not wholly distitute of Religion, and that, Gregory himself in his Letter to Brunchilda, the French Queen, confesseth, Indicamus, saith he, ad nos pervenisse Ecclesiam Anglicanam velle fieri Christianam; so as there was a good disposition to Religion before ever Austin came, and such an one as rang loud to Rome. But far more evident is it from the Saxons keeping of Easter more Asiatico, which custom also continued after Austins coming fifty years, sore against Austin's will. The dispute between Coleman and Wilfride bears witness to that; and it had been a miraculous ignorance or hardness, had the Saxons, a people ordained for mercy (as the sequel shewed) conversed with the Christian Britons and Picts above 150 years, without any touch of their Religion. If we then take Austin in his best colour, he might be said to bring Religion to the South-Saxons, after the Roman garb; and his hottest disputes about Easter, Tonsure, the Roman supremacy; and his own Legatine power, and his worthy Queries to the Pope, shew he regarded more the fashion than the thing; and the fashion of his person, more than the work he pretended; for he loved state, and to be somewhat like to the Legate of an Universal Bishop; and therefore of a Monk he suddenly becomes a Bishop in Germany, before ever he had a Diocess, or saw England; and after he perceived that his work was like to thrive, he returned, and was made Archbishop of the Saxons, before any other Bishops were amongst them; and after three years had the Pall, with title of Supremacy over the British Bishops that never submitted to him.

His advantages were, first his entrance upon Kent, the furthest corner of all the Island from the Britains and Picts, and so less prejudiced by their Church-policy; and at that very time interessed in the Roman air above all the other Saxons: for their King had Married a Daughter of France, one that was a pupil to Rome, and a devout woman; she first brought Austin into acceptance with the King, who also at that present held the chief power of all the Saxon Kings in this Isle, which was now of great efficacy in this work; for where Religion and power flow from one spring to one stream, it is hard to chuse the one, and refuse the other. And thus Rome may thank France for the first earnest they had of all the riches of England, and we for the first entrance of all our ensuing bondage and misery. Austin had also a gift or trick of working miracles, whether more suitable to the working of Satan, or of God, I cannot define. It seems they walked onely in the dark; for either the Britons saw through them, or saw them not; nor could Austin with his miracles or finess settle one footstep of his Church-poliy amongst them; happily they remembring the Roman Dagon, liked the worse of the Roman woman; and the rather because the Carriage of their Messenger was as full of the Archbishop, as it was empty of the Christian. I would not touch upon particular passages of action, but that it is so remarkable, that Austin himself, but a Novice in comparison of the British Bishops (the clearest lights that the Northern parts of the world then had, and unto whom the right hand of fellowship was due by the Roman Canon) should nevertheless shew no more respect to them at their first solemn entrance into his presence than to Vassals. I would not but note the same as a strong argument that this whole work ab initio, was but a vapour of Prelacy. This the British Bishops soon espied, and shaped him an answer suitable to his message, the substance whereof was afterward sent him in writing by the Abbot of Bangor, and of late published by Sir Henry Spelman, as followeth:

"BE it known (and without doubt) unto you, that we all, and every one of us, are obedient and subject to the Church of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to every godly Christian, to love every one in his degree, in perfect Charity, and to help every one of them, by word and deed to be Children of God: And other obedience than this I do not know to be due to him whom you name to be Pope; nor by the Father of Fathers to be claimed or demanded. And this obedience we are ready to give and pay to him, and to every Christian continually. Besides, we are under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who is to oversee under God over us, and cause us to keep the way spiritual."

This was the Britons resolution, and they were as good as their word; for they maintained the liberty of their Church five hundred years after this time; and were the last of all the Churches of Europe that gave their power to the Roman beast; and Henry the Eighth, that came of that blood by Teuther, the first that took away that power again. Austin having met with this affront, and perceiving that the Britons were stronger in their Faith than he by his Miracles, cast about to try the Saxons courtesie; that what the Ephod could not, the Sword wrapt up therein should. I say not that he procured, but he threatned or prophesied the destruction of the Monks of Bangor; and it came to pass, and the occasion by writers loudly suspected."
--Nathaniel Bacon, A Historical and Political Discourse of the Laws and government of England

 

[SkyWriting]

Nat Bacon is a good example of not referring to himself to much.

 

[apollosdtr]

Nat Bacon is a good example of not referring to himself to much.

"This brings us to the Pelagian explanation of the universality of sin, which all experience testifies. It is attributed to imitation, the “long practice (longus usus) of sinning and the long habit (longa consuetudo) of vices” (Pelag. ad Demetr. 8). "For no other cause occasions for us the difficulty of doing good than the long custom of vices, which has infected us from childhood, and gradually, through many years, corrupted us, and thus holds us afterward bound and addicted to itself, so that it seems in some way to have the force of nature" (ib. cf. 17 fin.). To this must be added the natural sensuous and worldly character of man (Pel. in Aug. de gr. Chr. 10. 11). This line of thought reveals the final conclusion reached by the naive Pelagianism of the Greeks: There are really no sinners, but only separate wicked acts. A religious conception of sin is hereby excluded, and nothing more is needed than the effort to perform separate good deeds. But just as truly is a religious conception of the history of the race impossible, since there are no sinful men, but only wicked acts of individual men."
Text-book of the history of doctrines : Seeberg, Reinhold, 1859-1935