doctrines, which, as to a great number of points, she had not as yet promulgated or fixed. From time to time, some question was raised by an event, by a polemical writing; it was then examined and discussed by the chiefs of the religious society; and the decision formed, the belief adopted, the dogma was in due time proclaimed. It is evident that, in such a period as this, there must exist liberty, precarious, perhaps, and transitory, but still real, and, to a considerable extent, practical.

The state of the legislation against heresy was not as yet mortal to it; the principle of persecution, the idea that truth had a right to govern by force, occupied men's minds, but it did not yet dominate in facts. Civil power began to lend a strong hand to the church against the heretics, and to be severe against them; they were exiled, certain functions were interdicted them, they were despoiled of their property; some even, as the Priscillianists, in 385, were condemned to death: the laws of the emperors, especially those of Theodosius the Great, were full of menaces and provisions against heresy; the course of things, in short, evidently tended to tyranny; civil power, however, still hesitated to make itself the instrument of doctrines; the greatest bishops, Saint Hilary, Saint Ambrose, Saint Martin, still cried out against all capital condemnation of heretics, saying that the church had no right to employ other than spiritual arms. In a word, although the principle of persecution was in progress, and in very threatening progress, liberty was still stronger: a dangerous and tempestuous liberty, but active and general; a man was a heretic at his peril; but he might be one if he pleased; and men might sustain, they did sustain, their opinions, for a long period, with energy, with publicity. It will suffice to glance at the canons of the councils of this epoch in order to be convinced that liberty was still great: with the exception of two or three great general councils, these assemblies, particularly in Gaul, scarcely concerned themselves with anything more than discipline; questions of theory, of doctrine, appeared there rarely and only upon great occasions; it was more especially the government of the church, her situation, the rights and duties of priests, that they treated of and decided upon a proof that, in numerous points, diversity of ideas was admitted and debate still open.

Thus, on one side, the very nature of the labors, and on the other the situation of minds, fully explain the intellectual

superiority of the religious society over the civil society; the one state was earnest and free, the other servile and frivolous: what is there to add?

But one final observation, one, however, which is not without importance, and which, perhaps, fully explains why civil literature was on the point of death, while religious literature lived and prospered so energetically.

For the culture of mind, for the sciences, for literature, to prosper by themselves, independently of all near and direct interest, happy and peaceable times are requisite, times of contentment and good fortune for men. When the social

state becomes difficult, rude, unhappy, when men suffer much and long, study runs a great risk of being neglected and of declining. The taste for pure truth, the appreciation of the beautiful, apart from all other desire, are plants as delicate as they are noble; they must have a pure sky, a brilliant sun, a soft atmosphere; amid storms they droop the head and fade. Intellectual development, the labor of mind to attain truth, will stop unless placed in the train, and under the shield, of some one of the actual, immediate, powerful interests of humanity. This is what happened at the fall of the Roman empire: study, literature, pure intellectual activity, were unable alone to resist disasters, sufferings, universal discouragement; it was necessary that they should be attached to popular sentiments and interests; that they should cease to appear a luxury, and should become a need. The Christian religion furnished them with the means; by uniting with it, philosophy and literature were saved the ruin which menaced them; their activity had then practical, direct results; they showed an application to direct men in their conduct, towards their welfare. It may be said without exaggeration that the human mind proscribed, beaten down with the storm, took refuge in the asylum of churches and monasteries; it supplicatingly embraced the altars, and entreated to live under their shelter and in their service, until better times permitted it to re-appear in the world and to breathe the free air.

I shall not go any further into this comparison of the moral state of the two societies in the fifth century; we know enough of it, I think, to understand them both clearly. It is now necessary to enter deeper into the examination of the religious society, alone living and fertile; it is necessary to seek to discover what questions occupied it, what solutions

were proposed to it, what controversies were powerful and popular, what was their influence upon the life and actions of mankind. This will be the subject of our next lectures.

FIFTH LECTURE.

Of the principal questions debated in Gaul in the fifth century-Of Pelagianism-Of the method to follow in its history-Of the moral facts which gave place to this controversy: 1st, of human liberty; 2d, of the impotency of liberty, and the necessity for an external succor; 3d, of the influence of external circumstances upon liberty; 4th, of the moral changes which happen in the soul without man attributing them to his will-Of the questions which naturally arose from these facts-Of the special point of view under which we should consider them in the Christian church in the fifth century -History of Pelagianism at Rome, în Africa, in the East, and in Gaul-Pelagius-Celestius-Saint Augustin-History of semi-Pelagianism-Cassienus-Faustus-Saint Prosper of Aquitaine—Of predestination-Influence and general results of this controversy.

In the last lecture, I attempted to picture, but only under its general features, the comparative moral state of civil society and of religious society in Gaul at the fifth century. Let us enter deeper into the examination of religious society, the only one which furnishes ample matter for study and reflection.

The principal questions which occupied the Gaulish Christian society in the fifth century were-1st, Pelagianism, or the heresy of Pelagius, the principal opponent of which was Saint Augustin; 2d, the nature of the soul, debated in the south of Gaul between bishop Faustus and the priest Mamertius Claudienus; 3d, various points of worship and of discipline, rather than of doctrine, such as the worship of the martyrs, the value to be attached to fastings, austerities, celibacy, &c.; these, as you have seen, were the objects to which Vigilantius applied his writings; 4th, the prolongation of the struggle of Christianity against Paganism and Judaism, the theses of the two dialogues of the monk Evagrius, between the Jew Simon and the Christian Theophilus, and the Christian Zacheus, and the philosopher Apollonius.

Of all these questions, Pelagianism was by far the most important it was the great intellectual controversy of the church in the fifth century, as Arianism had been in the

fourth. It is with its history that we are now about to occupy ourselves.

Every one is aware that this controversy turned upon the question of free-will and of grace, that is to say, of the relations between the liberty of man, and the Divine power, of the influence of God upon the moral activity of men.

Before proceeding with the history of this affair, I will indicate the method upon which I propose to proceed.

The mere statement of the question will show you that it was one not peculiar either to the fifth century or to Christianity, but that it is a universal problem common to all times and all places, and which all religions, all systems of philo sophy, have propounded to themselves, and have endeavored to solve.

It has, therefore, manifest reference to primitive, universal, moral facts, facts inherent in human nature, and which observation may discover there. I will, in the first place, seek out these facts; I will endeavor to distinguish in man in general, independently of all considerations of time, place, or particular creed, the natural elements, the first matter, so to speak, of the Pelagian controversy. I shall bring these facts to light, without adding anything thereto, without retrenching anything therefrom, without discussing them, solely applied to prove and describe them.

I shall then show what questions naturally flowed from natural facts, what difficulties, what controversies, arose out of them, independently of all particular circumstances of time, place, or social state.

This done, and, if I may so express myself, the general theoretical side of the question once thoroughly established, I shall determine under what special point these moral facts should be considered at the fifth century, by the defenders of the various opinions in debate.

Finally, after having thus explained from what sources and under what auspices Pelagianism was born, I shall recount its history; I shall attempt to follow, in their relations and their progress, the principal ideas which it suscitated, in order properly to understand what was the state of mind at the moment when this great controversy arose, what it did therein, and at what point it left it.

I must request your most scrupulous attention, especially in the examination of the moral facts to which the question attaches itself: they are difficult properly to understand, to ex