Introduction
There were three controversies during St. Augustine’s time over the resolution of which the saint came to have a decisive influence and was of an invaluable service to The Church. The first is concerned with the Manichean religion, the second with the Donatist sect and the third, which was to keep him occupied till the end of his life, is concerned with Pelagianism. This article will give an overview of this third controversy, touching on the relevant points of the debate and what the teaching of the saint is (which even during his lifetime was sanctioned by The Church) concerning the relevant issues. I will touch on the subject purely from a theological perspective, engaging on historical issues only when it is necessary to clarify or expand upon some aspect of the debate. So, any background information such as the social conditions and lives of the people involved in the debate such as St. Augustine, Pelagius and Julian as well as other such factors will be omitted or mentioned only where I think they may prove helpful.
Both the teaching of Pelagius and the teaching of St. Augustine and the position that each sought to defend came to reflect in a way the real world experiences of each and also their own personal lives. The saint who realizing his inability to do anything without Christ exclaimed in his Confessions “Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt!” (Confessions Book X, 29) is opposed by the layman and would be monk who cannot bear such a thought but who instead lays a strong burden on human free will and mankind’s natural ability to do good without the need of God’s supernatural aid.
Pelagius held a rather optimistic view of the human capacity to do good on their own effort but St. Augustine, knowing both from his personal experience and the day to day encounter with the sinfulness of his subjects came to realize that humans stand in need of the help of God if their are to will or do any good. This view of the saint, as we shall see, is rooted in the Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of The Church.
This article will be made in four entries. Part one will give an explanation of the tenets held by the Pelagians and will explore the doctrine of Original Sin and it’s support in Scripture and Tradition.
Part two will proceed from the teaching on Original SIn into St. Augustine’s teaching on nature, the law, grace and free will and will be based on three of his writings against the Pelagians.
Part three will focus on what are seen as the most controversial aspects of the saint’s teaching and will touch on the subjects of Predestination and Perseverance, the universal salvific will of God and the fate of unbaptized infants and the invincibly ignorant.
Part four will conclude the article with the question of wether the saint’s teaching on Predestination was a novelty or a legitimate development of already existing doctrine, a brief defense of the saint against the charge of Manichaeism, a view of the what the saint said about his Anti-Pelagian works in the Retractations and lastly what were the decisions of The Church over this controversy.
Any comments, corrections or suggestions on any point of the four entries are welcome.
…
What is Pelagianism?
In one of his Anti-Pelagian works, St. Augustine gives a brief overview of Pelagianism, stating that:
“…after the older heresies, there has been just now introduced, not by bishops or presbyters or any rank of the clergy, but by certain would-be monks, a heresy which disputes, under colour of defending free will, against the grace of God which we have through our Lord Jesus Christ; and endeavours to overthrow the foundation of the Christian faith of which it is written, “By one man, death, and by one man the resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;” 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and denies God’s help in our actions, by affirming that, “in order to avoid sin and to fulfil righteousness, human nature can be sufficient, seeing that it has been created with free will; and that God’s grace lies in the fact that we have been so created as to be able to do this by the will, and in the further fact that God has given to us the assistance of His law and commandments, and also in that He forgives their past sins when men turn to Him;” that “in these things alone is God’s grace to be regarded as consisting, not in the help He gives to us for each of our actions,”— “seeing that a man can be without sin, and keep God’s commandments easily if he wishes.” (On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 61)
The man behind the name of this system was a layman and would be monk named Pelagius, born in the British Isles between the years 350 and 380 a.d. We have very little on Pelagianism that comes straight from the Pelagians themselves. We do have plenty of information about what they believed thanks to St. Augustine’s habit of quoting their own words within many of his treatises. Of note is his unfinished work against Julian of Eclanum, which may be the largest compilation of information about Pelagianism coming straight from the pen of whom is perhaps the strongest advocate of the system during the time of the saint.
Among the main characteristics of Pelagianism was it’s view of Grace as a mere natural faculty, instead of, as St. Augustine held, a supernatural help given by God by which we are made able both to love and serve him. For the Pelagian, our whole nature, since it was made by God and thus given by him, could be said to be Grace. When Pelagius spoke of Grace, he did not have in mind a supernatural quality but rather our natural faculties. On the other hand according to St. Augustine, and as the Catholic faith teaches, Grace is a a supernatural aid given by God which heals and restores our fallen nature and will. For the Pelagians the giving of the commandments and the teachings and example of Christ and the apostles were also called Grace as they allowed humans, not by an interior supernatural help, but by exterior example to live a good life. This in turn lead them to make the affirmation that the Mosaic Law was as good a guide to Heaven as the Gospel.
Another of the main features of Pelagianism was it’s view of The Fall. In their affirmation that Adam’s sin injured himself alone and not his descendants, the Pelagians denied the doctrine of Original SIn, by which the guilt and consequences of the transgression of Adam is passed to posterity. Instead, they held that the innocence of our first parents is one with which we are all born. They also denied that physical death was a penalty for the Original Sin of our first parents but held that had Adam and Eve not transgressed God’s commandment, they would still have died as a natural consequence of human nature.
Given it’s view of The Fall, which held that all mankind did not die through Adam, Pelagianism held that man was able by it’s own natural power and without the supernatural grace of God, to fulfill the divine commandments and lead a good and even sinless life. A man could, following the divine precepts, lead a sinless life without the need of an interior supernatural aid from God, but by the use of their natural faculties alone.
As a consequence of their views, when infants received Baptism, since they were innocent and born without Original Sin they did not receive forgiveness of sins but simply sanctification. From this followed like the night follows the day the notion that unbaptized infants that died before reaching the age of reason went straight to Heaven. For there was nothing, so the Pelagians held, of which they needed deliverance or forgiveness.
Lastly, given their belief that mankind did not fall through Adam, they held that likewise mankind would not rise again through the resurrection of Christ. To them human nature had not been corrupted by the Fall and so stood in no need to be risen to incorruption.
Despite the name of the heresy, Pelagianism became prevalent first due to the efforts of Caelestius, a convert to Pelagius’ opinions and a disciple of his who was devoted to propagate the doctrines of his master and second to Julian of Eclanum, who took center stage in the later part of the debate. Indeed, it is to be doubted wether everything that is associated with Pelagianism can actually be traced back to Pelagius and is not instead a later development of his ideas by those who set out to propagate them.
It is often imagined that the two parties involved in the debate (Pelagius and St. Augustine) hated each other. But in reality St. Augustine and Pelagius treated each other respectfully and with affection. In many of his works, the saint refrains from calling Pelagius by name, hoping perhaps to avoid drawing attention to him amidst the controversy, and addresses him in a very respectful manner. In one of his letters (Letter 146), St. Augustine even calls Pelagius “my lord greatly beloved and brother greatly longed for”. Sadly, this gentleness of the saint was to be ill repaid by Pelagius when later on the debate he tried to use the saint’s letter as evidence that St. Augustine was sympathetic to his views (On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 51-53).
St. Augustine was not involved in the Pelagian controversy right form the start. The synod held at Carthage in 411 a.d. presided over by Bishop Aurelius was one at which he was not present but right after it’s conclusion he became aquatinted with it’s proceedings and the nature of Pelagianism and began from that point on to denounce the heresy both in his sermons and the series of treatises that are collectively known and his Anti-Pelagian works.
While Pelagius came to enjoy some temporal support for his views, later on this was to change as he began to be condemned by synods and to be abandoned even by the people who lent some sort of credibility to his views such as his patron Praylius and Pope Zosimus. He was eventually expelled from Jerusalem and it is believed that he departed to Egypt, never to be heard of again.
His supporter, Caelestius, shared a similar fate as he went to Rome after the death of Pope Zosimus to try and win the support of the newly elected Pope Boniface. But his plan failed and in 423 a.d. was expelled from Italy and eventually joined with other deposed Pelagian bishops such as Julian of Eclanum, with whom St. Augustine came to have a rather heated and in part unedifying debate due to Julian’s arrogance and attitude.
Pelagianism met it’s fitting end in 431 a.d. when it was finally condemned by the Council of Ephesius where the names of Pelagius, Caelestius and Julian were among those condemned. Having died the year before, sadly St. Augustine did not live to see his victory. But undoubtedly he was at the Council in spirit, for his labour during the Pelagian controversy made a decisive impact in the course of history and the sanctioning of his teachings on the subject by The Church, which were not an innovation but a legitimate development of already existing doctrine, earned him the title of “The Doctor of Grace” and a normative authority in the Catholic Church paralleled only by that of St. Thomas Aquinas, the “Angelic Doctor”.
…
The Doctrine of Original Sin and it’s support in Scripture and Tradition
The doctrine of Original Sin is foundational to the theological framework of the Catholic faith and that of St. Augustine in the Pelagian debate. Briefly put, the doctrine refers to both the sin committed by Adam in paradise, which as St. Augustine states is it’s cause, and the hereditary stain that has been transmitted to all humanity due to the transgression of our first parents. The hereditary stain consist, according to Catholic teaching, on the lack of sanctifying grace in the soul. Corporeal death, disease and ignorance of divine matters are not part of the essence of Original Sin but among it’s consequences. When man fell, he was affected entirely for the worse, both body and soul. He did not just incur physical death but also spiritual death, not just for Adam, but for all his descendants as well.
While people are born with Original Sin, they are not born with actual sin. This distinction between Original and actual sin was one which St. Augustine emphasized (On Merits and the Forgiveness of Sins, Book I:11). This distinction is also why St. Paul can say that the children had done no good or evil before their birth (Romans 9:11) while at the same time affirming that all without exception had sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12). Yet, even if men had no actual sin, all still stand under a just condemnation due to Original Sin only (Romans 5:18) and so, as the Council of Basel states “the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”. Therefore, those who die even with Original Sin only, be them infants or adults, go to everlasting fire to suffer diverse punishments. The subject of the fate of unbaptized infants as well as that of the invincibly ignorant will be discussed more fully on the third part of this article.
The Pelagians held that Original Sin was one we became guilty of by way of imitation, We were not born with it but committed it like Adam did when we by some actual sin transgressed the divine commandment. St. Augustine on the other hand following the Catholic faith, holds that Original Sin is passed to all men by natural generation, that is, that we are all born with it and that we do not contract it by committing actual sins. Rather, those who have not been Baptized and cleansed from Original Sin add to this sin by committing actual sins and thus increase the degree of the punishment they will receive if they die without being regenerated in Baptism. St. Augustine states the matter thus: “original sin was the more heavy and deadly in proportion to the number and magnitude of the actual sins which were added to it” (Enchiridion, 33).
During the debate St. Augustine was accused by the Pelagians of his time and is accused today by many non-Catholics of having invented the doctrine of Original Sin. The claim goes that before his time no one believed in Original Sin and that he devised it due to an undue influence of his prior Manichean beliefs. In his defense, St. Augustine proclaims that:
“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil’s power, born in sin, unless they are regenerated in Christ.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25)
In another of his works he supports his claim that Original Sin is a doctrine that has been held by The Church from ancient times. In his work Against Julian (Book II, X:33) he cites a great number of the early Church Fathers who expressed their belief in Original Sin. Among these there are citations from St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory, St. Innocent, St. Basil and others. The entire second book of this work is dedicated to the testimony of these Church Fathers who spoke in support of the doctrine of Original Sin.
In support of his claim that the doctrine of Original Sin had been held by The Church long before his time, St. Augustine also drew attention to the ancient practice of infant baptism for the remission of sins, which has always been done by The Church. The Church wasted no time to baptize infants because she believes that it is by Baptism that infants as well as adults are made alive in Christ. If they are made alive by Baptism, then it follows that they were not before they received the Sacrament, if they are baptized for the forgiveness of sins (per Acts 2:38, this is the reason people are baptized), they have in them a sin that must be removed by baptism. Since they have yet to commit any actual sin, then that from which they must be cleansed is Original Sin.
But it was on the Scriptures on which St. Augustine would rely most strongly to defend and support the doctrine of Original Sin (and very much everything else he taught and defended). He always argues his position from the Scriptures and it is only on the rare occasion, when necessity demands it or when he thinks it will add something to his arguments that he cites as an authority a Church Father or even pagan philosophers and poets, as he does in his magnum opus, the City of God. There are several passages in Scripture that express the doctrine of Original Sin but the chief one for St. Augustine, the one to which he would refer constantly during the Pelagian debate was Romans 5:12-19, more specifically verse 12, which states:
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”
This verse by itself was to St. Augustine an explicit refutation of the Pelagian doctrine and so the saint said referring to this passage that “if these persons would only receive this statement with catholic hearts and ears, they would not have rebellious feelings against the grace and faith of Christ, nor would they vainly endeavour to convert to their own particular and heretical sense these very clear and manifest words of the apostle” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, II:45).
But the Pelagians in opposition to St. Augustine gave the passage a different meaning. To them the passage did not speak of an Original Sin that was transmitted by generation but of one that we became guilty of by way of imitation. However, the very passage itself and it’s surrounding context as well as additional passages from the rest of Scripture cited by the saint that support the doctrine of Original Sin preclude the Pelagian interpretation. St. Augustine, responding to the Pelagian claim that this particular verse spoke only about our sin being simply an imitation of that of Adam gave an exegesis of the passage which is worth quoting in full:
“No doubt all they imitate Adam who by disobedience transgress the commandment of God; but he is one thing as an example to those who sin because they choose; and another thing as the progenitor of all who are born with sin. All His saints, also, imitate Christ in the pursuit of righteousness; whence the same apostle, whom we have already quoted, says: “Be imitators of me, as I am also of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1 But besides this imitation, His grace works within us our illumination and justification, by that operation concerning which the same preacher of His [name] says: “Neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase.” 1 Corinthians 3:7 For by this grace He engrafts into His body even baptized infants, who certainly have not yet become able to imitate any one. As therefore He, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate Him, gives also to those who believe in Him the hidden grace of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants; so likewise he, in whom all die, besides being an example for imitation to those who wilfully transgress the commandment of the Lord, depraved also in his own person all who come of his stock by the hidden corruption of his own carnal concupiscence.
It is entirely on this account, and for no other reason, that the apostle says: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men; in which all have sinned.” Romans 5:12 Now if I were to say this, they would raise an objection, and loudly insist that I was incorrect both in expression and sense; for they would perceive no sense in these words when spoken by an ordinary man, except that sense which they refuse to see in the apostle. Since, however, these are the words of him to whose authority and doctrine they submit, they charge us with slowness of understanding, while they endeavour to wrest to some unintelligible sense words which were written in a clear and obvious purport. “By one man,” says he, “sin entered into the world, and death by sin.” This indicates propagation, not imitation; for if imitation were meant, he would have said, “By the devil.” But as no one doubts, he refers to that first man who is called Adam: “And so,” says he, “it passed upon all men”.
Again, in the clause which follows, “In which all have sinned,” how cautiously, rightly, and unambiguously is the statement expressed! For if you understand that sin to be meant which by one man entered into the world, “In which [sin] all have sinned,” it is surely clear enough, that the sins which are peculiar to every man, which they themselves commit and which belong simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all have sinned, means another thing; since all were that one man. If, however, it be not the sin, but that one man that is understood, “In which [one man] all have sinned,” what again can be plainer than even this clear statement?
We read, indeed, of those being justified in Christ who believe in Him, by reason of the secret communion and inspiration of that spiritual grace which makes every one who cleaves to the Lord “one spirit” with Him, 1 Corinthians 6:17 although His saints also imitate His example; can I find, however, any similar statement made of those who have imitated His saints? Can any man be said to be justified in Paul or in Peter, or in any one whatever of those excellent men whose authority stands high among the people of God? We are no doubt said to be blessed in Abraham, according to the passage in which it was said to him, “In you shall all nations be blessed” — for Christ’s sake, who is his seed according to the flesh; which is still more clearly expressed in the parallel passage: “In your seed shall all nations be blessed.” I do not believe that any one can find it anywhere stated in the Holy Scriptures, that a man has ever sinned or still sins “in the devil,” although all wicked and impious men “imitate” him. The apostle, however, has declared concerning the first man, that “in him all have sinned;” Romans 5:12 and yet there is still a contest about the propagation of sin, and men oppose to it I know not what nebulous theory of “imitation.” (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, Book I:10-11).
It can easily be seen now how we all were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam and that not merely death but also sin passed upon all men and that, as a consequence, condemnation passed upon all men as well. Original Sin is not something done by imitation but that is, as the verses cited below also demonstrate, transmitted by natural generation.
The other main passage used by St. Augustine is 1 Corinthians 15:21-22:
“For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”
This passage may be seen as shortened version of what St. Paul states in Romans 5:12-19 and so the same explanation holds for it. Other passages the saint uses in support of the doctrine of Original Sin are Psalm 50:5, Wisdom 12:10-11, Ephesians 2:3-5 and Ecclesiasticus 25:33. They confirm the fact not just that all men are born fallen, but also point to the means by which Original Sin is transmitted. For instance Wisdom 12:10-11 states with regards the Chanaanites that their malice was natural and that they were “a cursed seed from the beginning”. The use of the word “seed” links the curse not to the disobedience of their wills but to their very nature which was so from the beginning. They were, as the apostle says elsewhere: “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). And why are they so? The answer is found on the chief text that teaches the doctrine of Original Sin: Romans 5:12. This is the same answer St. Augustine gives when explaining the passage in Wisdom 12:10-11:
“How, then, is the malice of every man inbred, and his seed cursed from the beginning, unless it be in respect of the fact, that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for in him all have sinned”? Romans 5:12” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:20).
Additional passages that the saint did not felt the need to cite which point to the doctrine of Original Sin are Psalm 57:4, Genesis 8:21, Job 15:14 and Job 25:4. Of the fathers Tertullian (On the Soul, 40) and Origen (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3) may also be added as testimonies in support of the doctrine before the time of the saint.
More could be said about this subject but it is beyond the scope of this article to provide a more comprehensive analysis and defense of the doctrine of Original Sin. It is evident, however, from the testimonies given above that the doctrine is well founded in both Scripture and Tradition and that the Pelagians were departing from the apostolic faith with their denial of it.
At bottom, the denial of Original Sin only serves to dilute the redemptive work of Christ. From the Pelagian view, Christ can in no way be the savior of innocent infants who stand in no need of baptismal regeneration or the forgiveness of sins. Nor is our nature raised to new holiness by Grace but we are simply forgiven the sins we do in imitation to Adam and are instructed by external commands without any interior supernatural help on what we have to do in order to be saved. Since according to the Pelagians the Mosaic Law was as effective for the attainment of salvation as the Gospel, then Christ’s work on the cross was not truly necessary. The Pelagian view would have it that justice could be by the law, but as St. Paul states: “if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).
All the above said, it is true that St. Augustine contributed a great deal to the development of the doctrine of Original Sin, in expanding the doctrine on it’s nature, consequences and transmission. However, this was not due to a desire for innovation but the result of the traditional Catholic doctrine having to be defended against new attacks. As he says in one of his letters, it is by the means of heresies that “the doctrine of the holy religion is tested and developed” (Letter 137, 4:16). St. Augustine did not invent the fact that we are all born with Original Sin, rather, his teaching was a legitimate development of an already existing doctrine, which as he said in the quote above and which all the testimonies cited confirm: “the catholic faith holds from ancient times”.
…
Part two will be posted soon and as stated in the introduction, it will cover St. Augustine’s teaching against the Pelagian on nature, the law, grace and free will and will be based on three of his writings against them.
In the mean time, any comments, corrections or suggestions on any point of this entry are welcome.
God Bless,
