Pelagius

The Pelagian controversy has secured an enduring place for Pelagius in the history of Western Christian thought. Few of Pelagius' writings, however, have been preserved, and until recently none was available in English translation. This volume presents Pelagius' commentary on Romans for the first time in English. The commentary, one of thirteen on the Pauline epistles, dates from the time when Pelagius was active in Rome, before he became embroiled in controversy, but already there are adumbrations of the later debate and signs of different currents of thought in Italy and beyond. In his introduction Theodore de Bruyn discusses the context in which Pelagius wrote the commentary and the issues which shaped his interpretation of Romans. He also takes up questions about the edition of the commentary. The translation is annotated with references to Pelagius' contemporaries, and a new recension of Pelagius' text of Romans is presented in an appendix.

The way in which Paul exercises his authority in the Letter to Philemon has been studied from various angles, but as far as could be determined, the reception of this aspect of his letter by its interpreters in the fourth and 5th centuries CE. has not yet received much attention. Accordingly, this aspect is addressed in this study. The views of the following six  interpreters are discussed (in chronological order):  Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, John Chrysostom, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus. It is shown that each of them has his own view in this regard, but that two general trends can nevertheless be identified: Firstly, all of these writers
accept that Paul had authority over Philemon; and secondly, the commendable way in which Paul exercised this authority is a regular theme in their works.

Both religion and anarchism have been increasingly politically active of late. This edited volume presents twelve chapters of fresh scholarship on diverse facets of the area where they meet: religious anarchism. The book is structured along three themes:

• early Christian anarchist “pioneers,” including Pelagius, Coppe, Hungarian Nazarenes, and Dutch Christian anarchists;

• Christian anarchist reflections on specific topics such as Kierkegaardian indifference, Romans 13, Dalit religious practice, and resistance to race and nation;

• religious anarchism in other traditions, ranging from Wu Nengzi’s Daoism and Rexroth’s Zen Buddhism to various currents of Islam, including an original Anarca-Islamic “clinic.”

This unique book therefore furthers scholarship on anarchism, on millenarian and revolutionary thinkers and movements, and on religion and politics. It is also of value to members of the wider public interested in radical politics and in the political implications of religion. And of course, it is relevant to those interested in any of the specific themes and thinkers focused on within individual chapters. In short, this book presents a range of innovative perspectives on a web of topics that, while held together by the common thread of religious anarchism, also speaks to numerous broader themes which have been increasingly prominent in the twenty-first century.

In this contribution the validity of Jean Garnier’s reconstruction of Caelestius’ confession of faith (or Libellus fidei) is examined. In an overview of its influence, it is pointed out that earlier criticisms of this reconstruction have fallen into oblivion, with significant risks and consequences for current research on the Pelagian controversy. Next, Garnier’s method of reconstrucing the text is shown to be wanting, and the result should be rejected : he combines into one two essentially different texts from two different authors. As a consequence, the larger part of his edition consists not of Caelestius’ but Pelagius’ words. The article closes with a new and improved edition of the remaining fragments of Caelestius’ confession (CPL 768).

Traduction d'un article d'Eugene TeSelle initialement publié en anglais dans A. D. Fitzgerald (ed.),  Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 633-640, dans Encyclopédie Saint Augustin. La Méditerranée et l’Europe IVe – XXIe siècle, édition française sous la direction de Marie-Anne Vannier, Paris, 2005, p. 1102-1113.

In this research thesis we will discover that Augustine’s opinion that concupiscence was an evil, hereditary stain of original sin was not in line with the agreed-upon tradition of the earliest of Church fathers but there are strong arguments for believing that this opinion was based on non-Christian or spurious sources, the most probable direct source being the “Ambrosiaster” document. On this shaky foundation of the inheritance of concupiscence, Augustine built the idea of the massa damnata. It was a novel doctrine, since it was incompatible with the earlier Orthodox tradition. Augustine's claim that this denial of limbo and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was part of the Catholic tradition, was a novelty to the Church universal. It was unsupported by early sources. This leads me to conclude that Augustine’s threefold philosophical structure of concupiscence, massa damnata and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was not in accordance with “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3b, NKJV). The lack of orthodox evidence supporting an idea of genetically inheriting sin substantially weakens the basis as proffered by Augustine.

In my dissertation, I examine Augustine's argumentation in the course of the Pelagian controversy, surveying the ways in which he sought to defend the antiquity and universality of his own doctrinal views especially through the citation of earlier Christian authors, references to liturgical/sacramental sources, as well as contemporary authorities.

Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) was the author of the only theological treatise written by an Eastern bishop in defence of Pelagianism. It is entitled Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by will. Regrettably, this treatise has been lost and only fragments remain. In addition to analyzing the extant sources relating to Theodore’s treatise, this article will provide a selective status quaestionis, in which the areas that have been left undeveloped by previous scholars will be identified. In particular, according to Photius, Theodore wrote this treatise to counter Jerome’s Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, but a comparison between these two works has yet to be undertaken. A careful comparison between the remaining fragments of Theodore’s work and Jerome’s dialogue will be used to suggest that Theodore did not have direct knowledge of Jerome’s dialogue. There are discrepancies and misunderstandings in Theodore’s work that would be difficult to explain if Theodore had relied directly on Jerome’s work. It will be proposed, as hypothesis, that Julian of Aeclanum, expelled from Italy in 418, acted as an intermediary, bringing the news of the Pelagian controversy to Cilicia. Marius Mercator recorded that Julian was welcomed by Theodore during his exile and that he wrote his last work (Ad Florum) against Augustine there. Julian’s work contains all of the issues found in what remains of Theodore’s treatise and several unique exegeses. It seems, therefore, that Theodore borrowed from Julian’s argument against Augustine to oppose Jerome.

Published in: M. Vinzent (ed.), Studia Patristica LXX, Leuven 2013, pp. 631-647.
The controversy surrounding Pelagius’ theology is mostly related to subjects like free will, grace, original sin, and infant baptism. This underlines how strong the influence of Augustine’s perspective on the debate was en still is. Pelagius, however, had been living in Palestine for seven years by the time he was condemned, where he was confronted with other opponents, among whom Jerome of Stridon was the most influential. An analysis of the anti-Origenist statements in his Libellus fidei shows how important the Eastern context was to Pelagius, and how he related his own position to the positions taken by John of Jerusalem and Jerome during the Origenist controversy in Palestine twenty years earlier. Comparison of their respective statements shows that Pelagius tactically incorporated much of Jerome’s criticism of John, while taking some distance from his patron. The Origenist issues were mainly important to Pelagius because of Jerome’s allegations, but at the same time they illustrate how important the Palestinian context was to him by that time.

John Wesley (1703-1791) was an effective practitioner of mission, but the theological sophistication of his missiology has never been fully appreciated. This article shows the depth and sophistication of Wesley’s doctrinal and missiological thinking, noting his use of Irenaeus and affinity with the Celtic tradition, drawing implications for church, discipleship, and mission today.

Putting it plainly, original sin is the grand, encompassing, and therefore essential theme of Christian theology's defense of its necessity, impeccability and mission.

No traditional notion of original sin, and there's no necessity of Christendom's traditional rationale. This story is the story of modern theology - fighting to justify its existence and necessity as late modernity simply allows theology to die under the weight of it's own making.

But there is an alternative.

In questo volume è stata studiata in maniera complessiva la parentesi orientale della controversia pelagiana (411-431). La ricerca è divisa in due parti. Nella prima, sono stati esaminati i rapporti che i principali esponenti del movimento pelagiano (Pelagio, Celestio e Giuliano d’Eclano) hanno intrattenuto con i vescovi orientali con cui sono entrati in contatto (Giovanni e Prailo di Gerusalemme, Attico di Costantinopoli, Cirillo d’Alessandria, Teodoro di Mopseustia e Nestorio). In questo modo è stato possibile delineare una geografia dell’accoglienza e del respingimento dei membri del movimento pelagiano. Infatti, è soltanto al termine di questa indagine storica, durante il Concilio di Efeso (431), che anche in Oriente il pelagianesimo è diventato unanimemente un’eresia da condannare.
Nella seconda parte della ricerca sono stati analizzati i principali teologi e polemisti anti-pelagiani di lingua latina residenti in Oriente. Si tratta di Girolamo, Orosio, Heros e Lazzaro, accusatori di Pelagio durante il sinodo di Diospoli (415) e di Mario Mercatore. Questi autori sono stati messi a confronto con Agostino d’Ippona allo scopo di dimostrare la pluralità delle posizioni teologiche e delle rappresentazioni retoriche del pelagianesimo tra i suoi oppositori. Si è dimostrato, infatti, che opporsi al movimento pelagiano non ha significato necessariamente condividere in pieno una teologia di stampo agostiniano, nè la medesima impostazione retorica di Agostino.

Thesis: that according to Augustine, Pelagius' view of the nature of humanity and grace nullifies the justifying work of Jesus on the cross. The purpose of this essay is to discuss Pelagius' view of nature and grace and Augustine's response to this. Pelagius argued that for God to be just, humanity's inherited nature must be capable of keeping God's law and not sinning. For Pelagius divine grace is unhelpful unless it is expressed in our nature, that in the end comes from God, which allows humanity to be without sin. Augustine did not accept this but argued instead that humanity has a sinful nature because of original sin. Augustine maintained the necessity of God's grace through the cross of Christ as the means of humanity's justification. Pelagius argued that the nature of humanity was not inherently sinful. A letter to Demetrias regarding her decision to become a nun says it all: 'that since perfection is possible for humanity, it is obligatory' (to strive for it). For Pelagius God is a perfect being who demands perfect obedience. People were created to follow his will and if they did not, they should, rightly suffer in hell. The nature of humanity from birth is created (by God) so that it could be perfect in and of itself, at least in theory. Pelagius presupposed that being without sin must be possible for

This book review article contains discussion of the following:
-problems with teleological historiographical approaches to the Middle Ages
-the problems caused by assuming a minimalist version of the Pelagian corpus
-the problems caused by of using Augustine's 'On the Deeds of Pelagius' as the key to his polemic against Pelagius
-Bonner's misreadings of Augustine's criticisms of Pelagius, with special reference to the meanings of 'gratia'
-Augustine's doctrine of prevenient grace
-the need to ground Augustine's doctrine of predestination in his doctrine of time and eternity, with reference to the subsequent thought of Boethius and Eriugena
-Augustine on philosophical arrogance
-cooperative models of the relationship between free will and providence
-the relationship of Pelagius to his predecessors
-the problems caused by using 'interactionist theory' to understand the polemic between Augustine and Pelagius
-the philosophical contradictions of Bonner's various characterisations of the Pelagian controversy

Published in: Augustiniana 57 (2007), pp. 345-385.
(NB the pdf is a pre-print version with incorrect pagenumbers.)
This paper is a preliminary exploration of the manuscript tradition of Pelagius' confession of faith ("Libellus fidei"), written as preparation for my dissertation research.

Pelagius' conception of imago Dei is based on various motifs from Christian and Stoic traditions. The image of God in man is understood as their original equipment in creation, first and foremost human reason and free will. This image cannot be lost but can be (and actually was) obscured. The image of God is restored in baptism, when the capacity of reason and will is freed and even made stronger. Christians are obliged to persevere in new habits and strive for full communion with God through Christ. However, Pelagius does not contribute much to the development of the topic and does not elucidate tensions present already in the previous traditions.

Le présent travail s’inscrit dans une démarche d’archéologie conceptuelle. Il s’agit de suivre, à travers les épîtres échangées entre Jérôme et Augustin, les grandes thématiques abordées par les deux hommes. Leurs échanges, très orageux parfois, restèrent respectueux à la codification de l’épistolographie du temps. En somme chacun gardait ses idées, et Jérôme se refusait à toute discussion ; mais ni l’estime, ni l’affection réciproque ne reçurent d’atteinte et il viendrait un temps où la collaboration intellectuelle si désirée s’établirait d’elle-même pour faire front devant l’ennemi commun, Pélage.

This study offers an overview and analysis of Augustine's polemical usage of quotations from Christian authors in several key texts from throughout the Pelagian controversy. Contrary to the account of Éric Rebillard, I argue that Augustine consistently used the opinions found in these quotations as evidence of his own orthodoxy and of the Pelagians' heterodoxy and, thus, consistently employed an argumentative technique modern scholars have called "patristic argumentation." Augustine regularly coupled his use of patristic argumentation with displays of rhetorical prowess, as he sought to convince his audience of the agreement between his own position and that of the quoted author. Further, Augustine often attempted to validate his use of patristic argumentation by suggesting that the authors whom he had quoted were reliable witnesses to the orthodox doctrine found in Scripture and in the Church's teaching. I also argue that it is important to recognize the broader context of the controversy when attempting to understand Augustine's use of these quotations. From the very beginning of the controversy , Augustine and his allies were confronted with Pelagian claims that African theology was out of step with that of the broader Church-claims that only increased in intensity as the controversy progressed. In this sense, the quoted opinions of his Christian predecessors provided Augustine with crucial evidence to persuade his readers that his positions were traditional and orthodox.

Orosius is generally considered Augustine’s companion in the debate with Pelagius; however, a careful analysis of his Liber Apologeticus shows that Orosius shares the main features of Jerome’s polemic against Pelagius, thus moving away from Augustine’s approach. Orosius and Jerome used the same source (Pelagius’ Liber Testimoniorum),
unknown to Augustine. They depicted Pelagius as the heir of Christian heretics, such as Origen, Priscillian and Jovinian; they both employed offensive language; and, finally, they agreed on the main theological problems involved in the controversy (grace and free will,
instead of original sin and infant baptism). All of these issues are at odds with what Augustine believed was the right approach against Pelagius. At the end of his Palestinian experience, Orosius was no longer Augustine’s disciple, but rather Jerome’s companion in the struggle against Pelagius.

Contrary to the self-professed notion that Patrick was simple and uneducated, scholarly evidence reveals him to have been a master-craftsman of Classic Biblical style composition and an expert computist (regarding the dating of Easter). His Confessio echoes elements of the lives of Pachomius and other third and fourth century saints, as well as the writings of Pelagius and Augustine. Recent research strongly suggests that Patrick was in Gaul around 457 and was associated with computist, Victorius of Aquitaine prior to his mission to Ireland. Connections between Patrick and popes Leo and Hilary are suggested, as well as the southern Irish 'Palladian' church as well as a postulated Roman enclave in northeastern Ireland. Patrick claimed to be an indoctus, unlearned, but he was an idoneus, a man of substance. Lacking the one thing he needed for his Irish mission beyond the limes of the Empire, a letter of authority, be became the epistle of Christ.

The paper argues that the Palladius who was sent by Pope Celestine I to Ireland in 431 as 'primus episcopus ad Scotos in Christum credentes' is the same man who is mentioned by Rutilius Namatianus in his 'De reditu suo' (417) & the author of the tract 'De divitiis' and other texts in the Caspari Corpus of Pelagian writings.

This study offers a comprehensive overview of the various ways in which commentators interpreted the rhetoric of the Letter to Philemon from the fourth to the eighteenth century. For this purpose, fifty commentaries that appeared during this period are scrutinised one by one in order to determine the different ways in which commentators understood the rhetorical situation reflected by the letter and how they explained Paul's persuasive strategy. The study concludes with a thorough overview of broad tendencies that may be discerned in this regard. It reflects on the numerous ways in which commentators interpreted and expanded the meagre details offered by the letter to imagine a rhetorical situation that made sense to them. It also explains how consensus developed on certain matters, but, at the same time, how a diversity of views developed on other issues.

Available at: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/pointing-out-persuasion-in-philemon-9783161564246?no_cache=1

The following authors/writings are discussed: ● Ambrosiaster ● Jerome ● Chrysostom ● Pelagius ● Theodore of Mopsuestia ●Theodoret of Cyrus ● Cassiodorus ● John of Damascus ● Alcuin of York ● Claudius if Turin ● Hrabanus Maurus ● Haimo of Auxerre ● Florus of Lyon ● Isho‘dad of Mev ● Sedulius Scottus ●Pseudo-Oecumenius ● Atto of Vercelli ● Lanfranc of Bec ● Bruno the Carthusian ●Theophylact of Ohrid ● Euthymius Zigabenus ● Commentarius Canatbrigiensis ● Glossa Ordinaria ● Peter Lombard ● Hervaeus of Bourg-Dieu ● Thomas Aquinas ● Pierre de Tarentaise ● Nicholas of Lyra ● Denys the Carthusian ● Desiderius Erasmus ● Johannes Bugenhagen ● Martin Luther ● Thomas de Vio Cajetan ● Heinrich Bullinger ● Johannes Brenz ● John Calvin ● Theodore Beza ● Georg Major ● Lambert Daneau ● William Attersoll ● Cornelius a Lapide ● Gulielmul Estius ● John Mayer ● Hugo Grotius ● David Dickson ● John Trapp ● Abraham Calovius ● Matthew Henry ● Georg Michael Laurentii ● Johann Albrecht Bengel ● Siegmund Jacob Baumgarten

The relation between divine grace and human free will was one of the vehemently debated issues in the Pelagian controversy. In the current article we study how Pelagius, Jerome and Augustine understood the impact of divine grace on the three interrelated aspects of every human act, i. e. human ability (posse), willing (uelle), and being (esse). We start with an analysis of the doctrine of grace Pelagius developed in (the preserved) fragments of his treatise Pro libero arbitrio and in his previous literary production. Next, we indicate the (differing) ways in which Jerome and Augustine read, (mis)represented, and severely criticized Pelagius’ view on the interaction between God’s grace and mankind’s posse, uelle, and esse. Finally, we will disclose that Augustine and Jerome actually advocated a different opinion concerning the latter interaction. Hence it will become clear that despite Augustine’s and Jerome’s common aversion for ‘Pelagian anthropocentrism’, there were considerable differences and nuances in their concept of grace.

In this article, the known evidence of the Greek translation of Augustine’s De gestis Pelagii is reviewed along with two previously unknown or unnoticed sources. This will allow us to formulate some hypotheses on the number of possible translations that existed in the Greek-speaking world and a better understanding of the dissemination of this work in the centuries following Augustine’s death. Three different sources (Augustine’s letter 4*, an anonymous florilegium in Codex Vatopedi 236 and codex 54 in Photius’ Bibliotheca) witness this translation. Our analysis will show that there is ground for claiming that the De gestis Pelagii was rendered in Greek more than once. Moreover, it will be shown the possibility that this work, included in codex 54 of Photius’ Bibliotheca, is one of the sources used by Timothy of Constantinople to write his paragraph on Pelagius and Celestius in his treatise De receptione haereticorum.