During the early fourth century, a controversy arose over the doctrines of Pelagius, Caelestius, and Julian of Eclanum. The doctrines in question were not about the Trinity or the Incarnation. Instead, they regarded human nature, freedom, and their relation to grace. Their teachings were opposed by Paulinus of Milan, St. Jerome, but above all St. Augustine. They were condemned at various regional synods: the Councils of Carthage of 412 and 418, Council of Diospolis of 415, and two councils of African bishops in 416. They were also condemned by Pope Innocent I, Pope Zosimus, and the Council of Ephesus. The controversy helped crystalise the Catholic Church’s doctrines on the condition of our first parents, original sin, grace, and conversion. In a certain sense, however, it has never been settled definitively as similar controversies over the same issues have continue to arise periodically.
In this interview, Andrew Chronister discusses Pelagianism and some of the best books on it.
Five Books for Catholics may receive a commission from qualifyng purchases made using the affliate links in this post.
What is Pelagianism? Pelagianism is a heresy that came to the fore in the first couple decades of the fifth century. It was a very complicated phenomenon, but basically it was the idea that through our human nature and faculties we are fully equipped to act virtuously and reach heaven.
During the 410s and 420s, St. Augustine of Hippo pushed back vigorously against Pelagianism and emphasized the need for grace.
Pelagianism is also a doctrine about the extent to which Adam's sin damaged our humanity and capacity to avoid sin.
Pelagius denied that Adam's sin had any harmful effect on human nature or our capacity to choose the good, other than that of giving us a bad example.
These are two ways in which we can narrow down Pelagianism. It rejected the need of grace and the existence of original sin.
Scholars refer to a later group of authors as semi-Pelagians. What is the difference between semi-Pelagians and full-fledged Pelagians? Semi-Pelagianism is a modern term. It refers to the positions that Augustine wrote against towards the end of his life and once he had finished debating Pelagius himself.
Certain monks in southern France were concerned that Augustine had gone too far with some of his views on grace. They argued that, while grace is important, we should not discount the role of free choice. They agreed that we need grace to reach heaven but believed that we do not need grace to make the first step towards God. In their view, God will reward us with the grace that we need to reach him if we make that first step towards him.
Augustine and others wrote against them to insist that we need grace even for that first step. It is God, not us, who gets the ball rolling. Growth in holiness is a process that God initiates.
Who was Pelagius? We do not know too much about him. He was from Britain and at some point, maybe in the 390s, he ended up in Rome.
He came to prominence in the first decade of the fifth century, when he developed a following around himself and became a spiritual guru of sorts. Somewhat like Jerome, he was known for his ascetic writings and moral exhortations.
Sometime between 405 and 410, he wrote On Nature (De Natura), which outlined his views on grace and the human soul’s capacity to avoid sin. During that period, he also wrote his commentary on letters of St. Paul.
How did the Pelagian controversy start? Most consider 411 as a decisive moment, when Pelagius’s associate or disciple, Caelestius, applied for ordination to the priesthood in Carthage. During the scrutiny, he was accused of heresy and brought before a panel of bishops in Carthage, who condemned him of it. The Pelagian controversy erupted at this point and developed from it.
At this point, Pelagius was not involved explicitly. He only became involved when the controversy spread to Palestine. By this time, Pelagius was in Palestine and was tried for heresy there in 415.
Actually, the controversy began before 410, when Pelagius was still in Rome. Back then, he and his followers made certain claims about grace and the effects of Adam’s sin that others found unsettling. This was before the controversy broke out in North Africa and Augustine was involved.
The controversy was imported to Africa in the aftermath of the sack of Rome in August of 410. Many Roman aristocrats fled from Alaric and the Visigoths and relocated to Africa. Once in Africa, they carried on with their theological debates and discussions.
So, Augustine did not start the opposition to Pelagius. Pelagius was surrounded by controversy before Augustine was involved.
As you mentioned, Pelagius was not the only proponent of the doctrinal errors that now go by his name. Rufinus the Syrian, Caelestius, and Julian of Eclanum held similar positions and were part of the controversy. Did they hold the exact same positions and what part did they play in the controversy? Older scholarship often points to Rufinus the Syrian as the originator of Pelagianism. He is a shadowy figure about whom we do not know much. The surviving evidence points to him as an important inspiration for Pelagius and Caelestius.
When Caelestius was on trial at Carthage in 411, his accusers asked about his teaching that Adam's sin had no real effect on human nature. Caelestius argued that this was an open question and that good people held the same view as he did. When they asked for the source of his teaching, he claimed that the priest Rufinus denied that Adam’s sin was transmitted to his progeny.
For a long time, it was assumed that this was Rufinus of Aquileia, Jerome's old friend, who became his opponent during the Origenist controversy. During the second half of the twentieth century, scholars pushed back against that thesis.
In speaking of the origins of Pelagianism, Marius Mercator, one of Augustine's allies in the controversy, claimed that a Syrian named Rufinus was Pelagius’s teacher. According to Marius Mercator, Pelagius was the one who promoted Rufinus’s doctrines in Rome.
There has been much scholarship on this over the last twenty years. Walter Dunphy has made a persuasive case that there was no such Rufinus the Syrian and that the figure in question was, as had been presumed traditionally, Rufinus of Aquileia. That makes sense for various reasons. However, the evidence is insufficient to either prove or disprove this decisively.
It does seem clear that Rufinus of Aquileia was in the background, if not the direct inspiration for Pelagianism. His translations of earlier Eastern Christian texts would have provided some level of inspiration for Pelagius when he was thinking about Adam's sin, grace, and free will.
If it was Rufinus of Aquileia, might it have been the case that Pelagius and Caelestius got the wrong end of the stick when studying his writings? That is possible. It is hard to know exactly what Rufinus believed. Most of what we have from him are his translations of Origen and other authors. In fact, most of the works of Origen that we have are the translations that Rufinus made. We need to ask, therefore, what did Origen believe and how do we distinguish that from what Rufinus believed.
It is unlikely that Rufinus himself was the architect of what we know as Pelagianism. More likely, he inspired certain ways of thinking or emphases that Pelagius and Caelestius developed in a more robust way on their own. Again, it is hard to arrive at any decisive conclusions from the existing evidence.
As scholars tend to note, we should not assume that Pelagius, Caelestius, and Julian of Eclanum held the exact same positions, even though their opponents grouped them together as if they did. That said, I believe that they were closer to one another than they were different, especially on the key issues of grace, free will, and original sin.
Now, Pelagius says relatively little on original sin. Caelestius, on the other hand, is much more interested in it and writes explicitly about it. Pelagius is more interested in exhorting people to live sinlessly and emphasizing that human nature has the capacity to live sinlessly.
It is not clear to what extent Julian was connected to Pelagius and Caelestius or in communication with them. Following their condemnation in 418, Julian stepped forward and expressed his agreement with some of their positions, or at least his hesitancy to agree with their opponents. He came forward as the leader of almost twenty other Italian bishops and refused to sign the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius. From then on, he was a thorn in Augustine's side. It is hard to know to what extent Julian agreed with Pelagius. I am inclined to believe that there were more similarities than differences between the two on these key issues.
"Pelagianism is a constant temptation. The same is true of anyone who has a tendency towards perfectionism."
What were the main fourth-century magisterial pronouncements against Pelagianism? There were various local councils in Africa that issued resolutions and decrees against Pelagianism. The most important one was a pan-African council that condemned Pelagianism on 1 May 418. A few months later, Pope Zosimus issued his condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius in a letter called the Tractoria. Unfortunately, we only have fragments of it. In January 417, Zosimus's predecessor, Pope Innocent, had also issued condemnations of Pelagius and Caelestius.
It is not exactly clear what the popes knew about Pelagianism, what they condemned, and how strong those condemnations were.
Later, there was the Second Synod of Orange, which was incorporated into the papal magisterium. It issued a condemnation of semi-Pelagianism.
Did not the Council of Ephesus also condemn Caelestius in 431? Pelagianism—or at least Caelestius and Julian—were condemned at Ephesus. However, there is little mention of them in the actual records of Ephesus. It seems that the fathers at the Council of Ephesus were not very aware of Pelagianism. As far as they were concerned, the real problem was that Caelestius and Julian had associated themselves with Nestorius, whereas Rome was allying with Cyril of Alexandria. That was the main reason Caelestius and Julian were condemned at the Council of Ephesus.
Has Pelagianism flared up again in a slightly different forms during subsequent periods? There is always a temptation to overemphasize the human capacity for virtue and growth in holiness. This is a temptation for many of us.
It flares up continuously because it is so difficult parse out these complicated issues and get them right.
The controversy was resolved to some degree during Augustine's own lifetime with the condemnation of the extreme positions of Pelagius and Caelestius. However, the question of how to balance grace and free choice was not fully explained during Augustine's lifetime. It has continued to arise at various points in history. Even Augustine did not balance the two as well as we would have liked him to, especially in his final works.
In his commentary on the first chapter of the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, Joseph Ratzinger branded its treatment of free will in n. 17 as “downright Pelagian.” Is Pelagianism rife in the modern Church? Rife might be too strong a word. At least in my spiritual life, Pelagianism is a constant temptation. The same is true of anyone who has a tendency towards perfectionism. We tend to imagine that if we do X, Y, and Z, then we will grow in holiness and things will be great. Augustine, on the other hand, calls us to recognize the priority of God and his action in all aspects of our life. Our very existence comes from God. So does our growth in holiness.
That does not mean that we are not doing anything. We contribute to our growth in holiness by cooperating with that grace. We might fool ourselves into thinking that we are holy because of what we do in and of ourselves. That is a dangerous road to go down and we are always in danger of doing so because it is so easy for pride to creep in.
"Taking Pelagius's position to its logical conclusion means that we do not really need God. While God might aid us by teaching us about right and wrong, in theory we can be perfectly good without needing his help at all."
Although the Council of Carthage of 418 and the Second Council of Orange (529) helped formulate the Church’s teaching against Pelagianism, it is only in the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of the Trent, with the decrees on original sin and justification, that an ecumenical council articulates these truths of the faith comprehensively. Should we look to Trent for a fuller understanding of these issues? Yes. It is a bit dangerous to look to Augustine for the proper response to Pelagianism. He gets so much right and is the doctor of grace. He is the one who really recognized the importance of grace and defended it during this controversy. At the same time, certain statements from his later writings seem to go too far. They so emphasize grace that they sound almost Calvinist, to put it anachronistically. Augustine sometimes suggests that grace is irresistible. However, in the Decree on Justification, the Council of Trent makes it clear that it is always possible for us to reject grace
That decree allows us to identify what Augustine got right and where he may have gone too far.
It also is a beautiful example of the way in which doctrine develops over the course of time.
Heroes of the faith, such as Augustine, do so much good for the faith. However, they are not inspired in themselves. They contribute to the gradual unfolding of doctrine. That process is led by the Holy Spirit. Through it, the Church understands more fully the Gospel and the Revelation of who God is. Great ecumenical councils, such as Trent, help us separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
1.
That brings us to the first book. It collects and translates seven of Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings. What advice would you give on reading this book? Which of these treatises are the most important?
This post is for paying subscribers only
Sign up now and upgrade your account to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for paying subscribers only.
