AUGUSTINE'S ROLE IN THE IMPERIAL ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS

Author(s): J. Patout Burns

Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 30, No. 1 (APRIL 1979), pp. 67-83
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23961670
Accessed: 17-02-2016 13:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Theological
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE'S ROLE IN THE IMPERIAL
ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS

views on coercion are usually studied in connection

L UGUSTINE'S
with civil action against the Donatists. By the time Augustine
J.J.J.
A.c
L.came on the scene, however, this controversy was an old one
in which the government had been involved from the beginning. Augus
tine himself emerged in the Catholic camp not so much because of
his crusading zeal for the suppression of Donatism as through his
skill as a debater and theological polemicist. At the trial of the case
between Catholic and Donatist before Flavius Marcellinus in Carthage
in 411, his presentation of the historical evidence secured a verdict
favourable to the Catholic party. In fact, he explained, he was originally
opposed to coercion in religious matters and sought only protection
to preach the gospel in safety. The good results of the more vigorous
imperial policy of enforced unity, however, convinced him of its
value.

Just how convinced Augustine became can be seen in his later ex

hortation of Roman officials to execute the laws against the Donatists and

particularly in the civil action he appears to have initiated against the

Pelagians. On 30 April 418 an imperial rescript was granted which

branded Pelagius and his disciples as heretics and exiled them from the

city of Rome.1 A year later this ban was extended to the whole empire.2
A rescript is a response to a complaint, and the appeal which this decree
answered appears to have come from Africa, the work of the bishops of

Carthage and Hippo Regius, Aurelius and Augustine.

Since Augustine clearly approved of the imperial action against the

Pelagians, his involvement is usually assumed. More, however, is at

stake. In January 417 Pope Innocent confirmed the African condemna
tions of Pelagius and Caelestius. He allowed them the opportunity
to return to the communion of the Church by giving up their false
beliefs by testimonies made to himself.3 The professions of faith which
Pelagius and Caelestius directed to Innocent were actually judged by

1 This in three slightly different forms in Mansi,

rescript appears 4, pp.
444-6; P.L. 45, 1726-8; and P.L. 48, 379-86.
2 An letter dated 9 June 419, addressed to Aurelius with a copy
imperial
to Augustine, contains this information. Inter Epp. Aug. 201, 1. Unless otherwise
indicated, all references are to the works of Augustine.
3 Innocent's letters are among Augustine's, 181-3.

[Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., Vol. XXIX, Pt. 2, October 1978]

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 J. PATOUT BURNS

his successor, Zosimus. Zosimus was totally convinced by Pelagius'

written statement and appears to have been satisfied with Caelestius'

presentation and his promises to condemn whatever teaching Zosimus

specified. In September 417 Zosimus wrote to the African bishops

without reference to Innocent's excommunication of the heretics.
He explained that he had examined the two cases and considered that the
African condemnations had been hasty and lacked proper procedure,
witnesses, and evidence. He directed the bishops to reconsider the
matter and either present stronger evidence to him within two months
or accept his decision to acquit.1 Thus the possibility arises that the
Africans sent the request for imperial action to Ravenna in order to

prevent Zosimus from reversing Innocent's condemnation of Pelagius

and Caelestius.
The African and Roman churches had had different views of their

respective jurisdictions and competencies for some time. The papal

letters directed to the Africans by Innocent and Zosimus asserted the

primacy of the Roman See and the right of its bishop to hear appeals
and judge the decisions of all other bishops. They characterized the
Roman church as the fountain from which orthodox teaching flows
to the rest of the world.2 Cyprian, the patron saint of North African

Christianity, had refused to concede any such primacy Rome.3 to

According to Cyprian's ecclesiology, the bishops of North Africa would

have full jurisdiction and the right to judge the matter of Pelagius'

teaching for themselves. They would then seek to build a unity of

general consensus. They would write to Rome not to receive a validation

of their preliminary action, but to obtain the agreement of a sister
church. Although we do not have clear indications of the attitude of
the African bishops in the fifth century, some of their actions evidence
a Cyprianic view.4
Whatever their view of the authority of the Roman church, it would
have been quite out of place for the proponents of one side of an
unsettled ecclesiastical dispute to appeal to the civil power for the

imposition of penalties before consensus had been reached within the

church. Yet the imperial rescript from Ravenna seems to have preceded
and perhaps even to have influenced Zosimus' ultimate condemnation of

1 C.S.E.L.
35, 99-108.
2
(Augustine) Epp. 181, 1; 182, 1-2.
3 De ecclesiae catholicae the second version of chapter
unitate, especially
four, C.C.S.L. 3, 251-2.
4 This outlook is especially evidenced by the condemnation of Pelagian
teaching at the Council of Carthage in 418 when Zosimus had asserted that
the questions were still open to discussion. On the conflict of the two churches
see Werner Marschall, Karthago und Rom (Stuttgart, 1971).

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 69

Pelagius and Caelestius.1 The question then is whether the African

bishops attempted to employ the power of the government to coerce

the consent of the Roman bishop or to enforce a judgement in which
Rome had earlier concurred.
To approach this question, we shall trace the sequence of ecclesial

judgements preceding the imperial and papal action in the spring of

418. Pelagius and Caelestius went to Africa after the sack of Rome.

Pelagius landed at Hippo but did not meet Augustine. He went on to

Carthage and thence to Palestine.2 Caelestius stayed in Carthage and

applied for ordination to the priesthood. He was accused of heretical

teaching by Paulinus, the former deacon of Ambrose in Milan, and

found guilty on six charges by Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in 412.
Caelestius then left Africa.3

Pelagius was called to account in Jerusalem in June 415. Paul Orosius,

a young Spanish priest whom Augustine had sent to study with

Jerome, presented charges which he had derived from the Carthaginian

condemnation of Caelestius, from Augustine's refutation of Pelagius

book, de natura, and from Augustine's reply to Bishop Hilary of

Syracuse's inquiry about similar teaching.4 Pelagius' explanation of

his teaching satisfied Bishop John of Jerusalem and the assembled
clergy of its orthodoxy.5 In December of the same year Pelagius was

1 Ε.
Portalie, G. de Plinval, and F. J. Thonnard consider Zosimus' decision
independent of imperial pressure. L. Duchesne, P. Batiflfol, J. Ferguson, and
O. Wermelinger all judge that the imperial rescript influenced Zosimus and
that the Africans were involved in obtaining it. See E. Portalie, "Augustin",
in Dictionnaire de theologie catholique (Paris, 1903), i, p. 2282; G. de Plinval,
Pelage (Lausanne, 1943), p. 322; F. J. Thonnard in Bibliotheque augustinienne,
xxiii, pp. 788-9 (see below, p. 74 nn. 5, 6); L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne
de I'eglise, 5th edn. (Paris, 1929), iii, 326-7; P. Batiflfol, Le Catholicisme de saint
5th edn. (Paris, 1929), pp. 411-48;
Augustin,Augustin, J. Ferguson, Pelagius (Cambridge,
1956), pp. n 0-13; O. Wermelinger, Pelagius und Rom (Stuttgart, 1975),
p. 164. Wermelinger contains the best history of the controversy.
2 Marius Commonitorium de Coelestio, 3. 3, (P.L. 48, 98). Augustine
Mercator,
answered Pelagius' note of greeting in Ep. 146, which he later explains in de gest.
Pel.Pel.
26. 51-29. 53.
3 Liber Apologeticus, 5, 607); Mercator, Commoni
Orosius, 3. 4, (C.S.E.L.
1. 1-2 (P.L.
torium,torium, 48, 67-70). Augustine quotes from the minutes of this
trial in depecc. orig. 3. 3-4. 4. Caelestius was charged with teaching six proposi
tions. I. Adam was made mortal and would have died whether he had sinned
or not. 2. Adam's sin harmed himself alone and not the entire human race. 3.
Children are now born in the same state in which Adam was originally created.
4. The sin and death of Adam do not affect all humans, nor does the resurrection
of Christ extend to all. 5. The law, like the gospel, leads to the kingdom of heaven.
6. Even before the coming of Christ some human persons lived without any
sin. 4 De nat et
grat.; Ep. 157.
5 The account of the trial is given in Orosius' Liber Apologeticus, 3-6.
The reference to the condemnation in Carthage and the work of Augustine

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 J. PATOUT BURNS

called before a synod of fourteen bishops at Diospolis in Palestine to

answer written charges of heresy preferred by two exiled Gallic bishops,
Heros and Lazarus.1 The acts of this trial report that Pelagius satis

factorily answered the questions of the Palestinian bishops about his

own teaching. He disclaimed all responsibility for the writings of Caeles
tius and is reported to have joined the court in condemning the six

propositions which had been presented against Caelestius in Carthage.

Pelagius was then found innocent of the charge of heresy a second

time.2
Paul Orosius returned to Africa with the story of his own failure
and letters from the defeated Heros and Lazarus.3 During the summer
of 416 the bishops of Proconsular Africa and Numidia met at Carthage
and Milev. These provincial synods condemned the teaching of

Pelagius and Caelestius and reported their action, with supporting

evidence, to Pope Innocent.4 Augustine appears to have had a major
role in this action. He prepared the scriptural evidence for both reports5
and his examination of Pelagius' book, de natura, was sent to Innocent.6
With Aurelius and three others, he sent a private letter to Innocent

accompanying the reports of the synods.7

The Africans seem to have been attempting to win Innocent's
concurrence in their condemnation of Pelagius. He had twice been
exonerated in the East and could use these judgements to isolate the
Africans in their opposition.8 Paul Orosius, moreover, reports that he

is in 3. 4, s and 4. 5 (C.S.E.L. 5, 607-8). John's resolution of the question is in

6. 2-3, (ibid. 610). Orosius presents himself as gaining a stay of judgement and
appeal to Pope Innocent, 6. 4-5.

1 De
gest. Pel. 1. 1-2. The names of the bishops are to be found in C. Jul.
Pel.Pel.1. 7. 32. For the dating see P.L. 45, 1708, note b.
22 De 3
gest. Pel. 11. 23, 24. Ep. 17s, 1.
4 The of condemned and Caelestius for teaching
synod Carthage Pelagius
that human nature is itself adequate to overcome all sin and keep the command
ments and that baptism is not necessary for the salvation of infants, Ep. 175,
2. 6. The synod of Milev makes the same charges, Ep. 176, 2. 3.
5
Augustine reports this in Ep. 213, 5.
6 The
significance of Pelagius' de natura is clear in the private letter of Augus
tine, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius to Innocent. A marked copy of
Augustine's refutation of it was forwarded with the letter, Ep. 177, 6. The pertin
ent sections of de natura et gratia would seem to have been 9. 10, 21. 23, 30. 34,
37. 44, 39. 46, and 41. 48. Since Augustine did the scriptural work for the decrees
of both synods, his reading of de natura would have been influential in this way
as well.
'
Ep. 177. The others were Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius.
8
Ep. 183, 4. Pelagius was already circulating his own version of the judgement
of Diospolis. Augustine had already received a copy when he wrote with four
others to Innocent in the summer of 416 {Ep. 177, 15, and de gest. Pel. 32. 57),
and Innocent had received his own copy by the time he replied {Ep. 183, 3).

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 71

had pleaded in Jerusalem that the matter be referred to Rome.1 They be

lieved that the Greek bishops did not understand the complexities of
the issue and did not grasp the ambiguity of Pelagius' Latin replies
which had to be translated for them. By sending a full dossier to Rome,

they hoped to strengthen their own position.

Pope Innocent was convinced. In late January 417 he replied to the
African synods, condemning and excommunicating Caelestius, Pelagius,
and their followers.2 He granted all of them the opportunity to set
aside their error and return to the communion of the Church.3 Local

bishops were to handle the followers, but the principals were directed
to deal with Rome.4 Innocent praised the vigilance of the Africans and the

convincing scriptural arguments they had built for their condemnation.5

Finally, he observed that if the unofficial record of the proceeding at

Diospolis which he had received from a layman was accurate, Pelagius

had escaped condemnation there only by deception.6
Innocent died in March 417 and was succeeded by Zosimus. Some
time thereafter Caelestius appeared in Rome and requested a hearing

of his case. Letters and a profession of faith which Pelagius addressed

to Innocent also arrived. Zosimus decided to look into the matter. On
21 September 417 he sent the Africans the results of his hearings.7
Caelestius was prepared to condemn anything heretical.8 Pelagius'
profession of faith astonished the Roman clergy and attendant bishops
who could not understand how such a man could be accused of heresy.9

Paulinus, the accuser of Caelestius in Carthage, was summoned to

Rome to justify his case and answer Caelestius' countercharges of

1 Liber 6 (C.S.E.L.
Apologeticus, 5, 610. 20-611. 5). Note that Orosius was
not an African and not a party to the Cyprianic ecclesiology.
2 admits the dating given in Ep. 182, 7.
(Augustine), Epp. 181-3. Goldbacher
See C.S.E.L. 58, 45-6. Innocent dealt only with the necessity of grace. He is
silent on the second charge concerning infant baptism.
3 4
Epp. 182, 7; 183, 5. Epp. 181, 9; 182, 7; 183, 4.
5
Ep. 181, 9.
6
Ep. 183, 4. The acta to which Innocent refers may have been those prepared
and distributed by Pelagius. Augustine reports receiving his copy in de gest.
1. 1.
Pel.Pel.
‫ י‬Zosimus wrote two letters: Magnum pondus relating to Caelestius and
relating to Pelagius,
PosteaquamPosteaquam C.S.E.L. 35/1, 99-108. The dating is given
in Posteaquam, 17 (ibid. 108) Paulinus' response to Magnum pondus indicates
that it arrived on 2 November by Basiliscus, Libellus Paulini, 10 (ibid. no).
We can only surmise that Posteaquam arrived at the same time. Mercator reports
the events relating to Caelestius in Commonitorium, 1. 4, (P.L. 48, 75-7).
The letter of Pelagius to Innocent is in P.L. 48, 610-11. His libellus fidei is
compared with that of Caelestius in P.L. 48, 498-505, and printed alone in
P.L.P.L.45, 1716-18.
8
Mercator, Commonitorium, 1.4 (P.L. 48,75-7); Magnum pondus, 2 (C.S.E.L.
9
35/1. 99); depecc. orig. 7. 8. Posteaquam, 3 (C.S.E.L. 35/1, 103).

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 J. PATOUT BURNS

heresy. The accusers of Pelagius, Heros and Lazarus, were identified

as troublemakers and excommunicated for their irresponsible denun
ciation of him.' Further, Zosimus rebuked the African bishops for

judging the case so hastily on the basis of absent and untrustworthy

witnesses and without giving the accused an opportunity to answer

the charges. He directed that they examine the materials Pelagius

had submitted and reverse their decision.2
Zosimus' own prodecure does not appear to have been free of the

inadequacies for which he berates the Africans. He gives evidence of

having reviewed neither the materials which the Africans had sent

to Innocent nor the conditions which Innocent had specified for the

readmission of Pelagius and Caelestius to communion. Pelagius'

profession of faith, on which the dismissal of charges is based, spoke

only vaguely of the necessity of grace, the issue which Innocent's

letters had made the principal charge against him.3 He does not mention

the necessity of infant baptism, the second charge which the African

synods advanced against him.4 Given Innocent's reservations about

Pelagius' veracity and straightforwardness, Zosimus might have been

expected to be more cautious in his own judgement. His accusation of

hasty judgement against the Africans also appears to have been made

quite independently of the supporting evidence which they had supplied

to Innocent, particularly Augustine's examination of Pelagius' book, de
natura.5natura.5
The papal letters arrived in Carthage on 2 November 417.6 The
bearer of these letters, Basiliscus, returned with a letter of protest
from Aurelius.7 The reply of Paulinus, who refused to go to Rome,
1 8 (ibid. 102); Posteaquam,
Magnum pondus, 4, 6, 14 (ibid. 103-4, 107).
2
Magnum pondus, 5, 6 (ibid. 100-1); Posteaquam, 7, 17 (ibid. 104-5, 108).
3 Libellus (P.L.
fidei, 13 45, 1718).
* Ibid. 7.
5
Further, Zosimus takes at face value Caelestius' claim to have spoken to
Heros and Lazarus and satisfied their objections. This provides the basis
for his decision to excommunicate them—without further evidence and in their
absence. Magnum pondus, 4 (C.S.E.L. 35/1, 100) Zosimus had already made
up his mind about Heros and Lazarus in backing Heros' successor at Aries, Patro
clus. See Wermelinger, pp. 68-70. Wermelinger also suggests that Zosimus
had received de gest. Pel. from Aurelius, p. 153. On this see below, n. 7.
6 See
above, p. 71 n. 7.
7 De
pecc. orig. 7. 8. Wermelinger postulates an earlier correspondence
between Zosimus and Aurelius in connection with the election of the new Roman
bishop. He assumes that the Pelagian question would have been discussed
and that de gest. Pel. would have been sent. This supposition would compound
Zosimus' negligence in ignoring the letters of Innocent and make his charge
that the Africans were working by hearsay alone implausible. Wermelinger
also supposes that the Africans had an early rumour of the judgement and time
to prepare a reply before the arrival of Zosimus' letters. See pp. 151-63.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 73

is dated 8 November.1 A second episcopal letter and supporting docu

ments were sent by Marcellinus, a subdeacon of the Church of Carthage,
who carried Paulinus' letter as well.2 The suspension of shipping from
mid November to mid March prevented further correspondence.3
Zosimus' response is dated 23 March 418. He insisted that the case
must be proven and refused to take any further action against Caelestius.
He remained unconvinced by the materials which had been sent to
him in November. He did not even mention Pelagius. This letter arrived
in Carthage on 29 April 418.4
The stand-off between Rome and Carthage broke with dramatic
suddenness. The day after Zosimus' second letter arrived in Carthage,
an imperial rescript was issued which condemned Caelestius and

Pelagius for heresy and for disturbing the peace of the Church and the

city of Rome. Every citizen was commanded to denounce their adherents

and the penalty of exile was made mandatory.5 The next day, 1 May,
a council of more than two hundred bishops from the provinces of
Africa convened in Carthage and formally condemned the teaching
of Pelagius and Caelestius in nine canons.6 Finally, some time in the

early summer of 418, Zosimus himself called Caelestius to make good

his pledge to condemn whatever he required. Caelestius failed to

appear.7 Zosimus issued his Tractoria condemning both him and

Pelagius.8
1 Libellus Caelestius had accused Paulinus
Paulini, 13 (C.S.E.L. 35/1, hi).
himself of heresy, ibid. 5 (C.S.E.L. 35/1 109). The charge Caelestius had in
mind may have been that Pelagius urged against Orosius, denigrating the power
of divine grace by saying that even with assistance man would not be without
sin in this life, Liber Apologeticus, 7. 1-3 (C.S.E.L. 5, 611).
2 The Libellus Paulini names Marcellinus as its carrier, 13 (C.S.E.L. 35/1,
hi). Quamvispatrum indicates that he also carried a volumen from the Africans,
S (ibid. 116).
3 On the
shipping season, see Othmar Perler, Les Voyages de saint Augustin
(Paris, 1969), pp. 68-74.
4 Dating in 6 (ibid. 117). G. de Plinval
Quamvis patrum, C.S.E.L. 35/1,115-17.
(p. 322) and J. Ferguson (pp. 110-13) read this letter as a softening of Zosimus'
position on Pelagian teaching.
5 See above, p. 68 n. 1.
6 The date of the
opening session is given in Mansi, 4, 377. The canons of
the Council of Carthage assert that mortality is a consequence of sin, that sin
is transmitted to Adam's descendants, that grace is necessary to avoid future
sin, and that no one is free of all sin. C.C.S.L. 149, 69-77.
7 Mercator, Commonitorium, 1. 5 (P.L. 48, 78); C. epp. Pel. 2. 3. 5.
8 of the letter itself survive only in Augustine, Ep. 190, 6. 22.
Fragments
Mercator's description of its content is vague in the extreme, Commonitorium,
3. ι (P.L. 48, 90), though he does have the excerpt which Augustine gives,
ibid. 2. 9 (P.L. 48, 86). The Tractoria of Zosimus may well have contained the
six propositions of Caelestius. The earliest reference to Zosimus' condemnation
of Pelagius and Caelestius is in de pecc. orig. 17· !8, which Augustine wrote in

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 J· PATOUT BURNS

During the summer of 418, the Italian bishops were required to

subscribe to this papal letter. A group in Aquileia refused.1 Julian of

Eclanum appealed to the emperor for a hearing of the case, probably

after the death of Zosimus in December.2 This appeal was refused and in

the early summer in 419, the ban against Pelagian sympathizers was

extended to the whole empire.3 The imperial letter directing Aurelius

to secure the compliance of the bishops of Africa is dated 9 June 419.4
The relative dating of the imperial rescript and the papal decision
would be of great assistance in interpreting these events. No evidence
has been found for asserting that the government was carrying out
Zosimus' prior decision in issuing the rescript.3 On the other hand,
the charge that the Roman clergy reversed its approval of Pelagian teach

ing under government pressure came from the losing side.6 Although

Carthage during the summer of 418. The Tractoria is quoted in Ep. 190,
6. 22, which was written in Mauretania in September 418. Augustine probably
had it before leaving Carthage in August.
1 Reference in
Mercator, Commonitorium, 3. 1 (P.L. 48, 94). Their profession
of faith is printed in P.L. 45, 1732-6 and P.L. 48, 523-6.
2 The fact of this
appeal is indicated in C. Jul. op. imp. 1. 10.
3 The
imperial letter to Aurelius {inter Aug. 201), dated June 418 indicates
that the decree against the Pelagians has recently been extended because of
their pertinacity, Ep. 201, 1.
4
Ep. 201, 2.
5 This is the of F. J. Thonnard in the notes of the Bibliotheque
judgement
augustinienne,augustinienne,
xxiii, pp. 788-9. The only evidence is the imperial assertion that
Pelagius and Caelestius have disturbed the peace of Church and city. This, of
course, supposes that one can establish that the riots occurred after the papal
decision and before the imperial one. Prosper gives no indication of such
a sequence in reporting the struggles. Rather he reports Zosimus' decision as
though it were a consequence of the action of the Council of Carthage and does
not mention the imperial action, Chronicum Integrum (P.L. 51, 592). Although
patrum indicates
QuamvisQuamvis that Zosimus was prepared to condemn Caelestius
in March (5, C.S.E.L. 35/1, 116), no indicators of his disposition toward
Pelagius himself which are prior to the Tractoria have survived. The five
weeks between the last papal letter on 21 March and the imperial decree on 30
April do not seem to allow adequate time for Zosimus to change his mind and
then negotiate for the imperial rescript. Wermelinger estimates, for instance,
that as much as two weeks might have been necessary to move a non-government
letter from Rome to Ravenna, p. 196 n. 297.
6 The
imperial rescript was dated 30 April 418 and Augustine knew about
both the imperial and papal condemnations in the early summer of 418, de
Pel. 17. 18, 21. 24. Both may have been brought by the Roman
gest.gest. legates
to the Council of Carthage whose presence is not noted before the session
of 24 May 418 (Mansi, 4, 401-2). Two facts are significant in Augustine's
refutation of the assertion of the Pelagian bishops that the Roman clergy
had reversed their decision under imperial pressure, C. epp. Pel. 2. 3. 5. In
his refutation, Augustine proves only that Zosimus had not actually approved
the teaching of Caelestius. He does not deal with the approbation given Pelagius
by the assembled clergy, Posteaquam, 3 (C.S.E.L. 35/1, 103). Nor does he

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 75

it is generally assumed that the rescript preceded the Tractoria by some

months, our working hypothesis need only be that the rescript did
not respond to a papal request.
The charges of heresy and disturbing the peace provide some clues
to the origin of the complaint. Prosper reported in his Chronicle that in

418 there were clashes in Rome between Pelagius' friends and foes.1

Pelagius was not without influential adherents among the nobility of the

city.2 A determined band of friends of Jerome and Augustine are known

to have pressed the opposing case.3 The reference to riots may then
indicate that the complaint originated in Rome early in 418. If the charge
of heresy was part of the same appeal, its initiator would have intended
to forestall or force the papal decision. Alternatively, the charge of

disturbing the peace may have been quite independent of the incidents

Prosper reports. This evidence is inconclusive.

The origin and career of the charge of heresy can be more exactly
determined than that of the accusation of civil disturbance. It would
not normally begin in the civil service. It came, rather, from the bishops
of Africa. The imperial rescript asserts that Pelagius and Caelestius
have taught that man was created mortal, thereby making God respon
sible for the evil of death. Secondly, they assert that Adam's error
harmed only himself. They are also guilty of other heretical teaching
which is too burdensome to detail, even for the purposes of condemna

tion.4
The specific charges are the first two of the six assertions of Caelestius
which were condemned at Carthage in 412.5 By 414 Augustine had
been able to associate three of the six with the teaching of Pelagius.6

assert that the imperial decree was subsequent to the papal decision. The first
issue was not in accord with Augustine's purpose; but the second would have
helped his argument. The facts may have been against him, or he may not have
known the sequence of events. In either case, it seems unsafe to conclude that
in this matter Augustine is relying on a precise knowledge of the facts as we
know them to be, as Thonnard appears to have done.
1 Chronicum
Integrum, (P.L. 51, 592).
2 See Peter 'The Patrons of Pelagius', in Religion and Society
Brown's,
in the Age of Saint Augustine (London, 1972), pp. 208-26.
3 De see Ep. 193, 1. 1, to Mercator.
pecc. orig. 8. 9, 21. 24. For Augustine,
For Jerome, see Epp. 138, 151, 152, to Riparius; Ep. 139, to Apronius; and
Ep.Ep.154, to Donatus, all in C.S.E.L. 56.
* P.L.
4s, 1727.
5 Commonitorium, 1. 1 (P.L. 48, 69-70). See p. 69 n. 3, above.
Mercator,
6 In de
pecc. mer. 3. 1. 1-2. 2, Augustine reports reading arguments against
the origin of death from sin, the transmission of original sin, and the power of
free choice to avoid all sin in Pelagius' commentary on Paul's letter to the
Romans. He judged that Pelagius was only reporting the arguments, ibid.

3, 5-6. In de natura, a book of Pelagius' which Augustine received in 413 or

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 J. PATOUT BURNS

Still, the official minutes of the trial at Diospolis reported that Pelagius
had joined the fourteen bishops in condemning all six and himself
had extended the anathema to all who had ever taught such.1 By
September 417, however, Augustine had proven that Pelagius acted

deceitfully at Diospolis by comparing the official minutes with Pelagius'

own account of the trial.2 Pelagius had omitted both the bishops'
and his own condemnation of these six propositions and a number of
other points, stating only that they were not taken from his writings.3 The
omission confirmed Augustine's analysis of Pelagius' earlier writings
and provided a basis for setting aside the Palestinian approbation of

Pelagius and for charging him with teaching the six propositions which
had now been condemned both in Carthage and in Palestine. Aurelius
had Augustine's work, de gestis Pelagii, and seems to have forwarded
it to Zosimus in November 417.4
These charges had not been part of the earlier condemnation of

Pelagius and Caelestius by Innocent in 416. He had confined his

outrage to the assertion that sin can be avoided without continuous

divine assistance. In September 417 Zosimus indicated that he was

willing to hear evidence that the charges themselves implied heretical

teaching on the part of the accuser.5 His letter of March 418 indicated
no change of this attitude. Thus, although Marius Mercator reports that
the six propositions were condemned in Zosimus' Tractoria, one finds
no basis for linking the specific charges urged in the rescript with the

Bishop of Rome in April 418.6 The charges against Pelagius and Caelestius

414) he found assertions that death did not arise from sin (de nat. et grat. 21.
23), that the sin of Adam is not transmitted to his descendants (ibid. 9. 10,
41. 48, 42. 29), and that some men in the Old Testament were free of all sin
(ibid. 37. 44). These he believed to be the teaching of Pelagius himself.
‫ י‬De Pel. 11.
gest. 23-4.
2 De
gest. Pel. 10. 22; 30. 54, 55; 33. 57, 58 Innocent had suspected as much
from his own comparison of de natura with Pelagius' account of the trial, Ep.
182, 4. Pelagius sent a copy of his account of the procedure to Augustine which
arrived after the summer of 416, but before the official acta, ibid. 1. 1, 32. 57.
The letter to Paulinus of Nola, written between April and November 417
(Goldbacher, C.S.E.L. 58, 47-8), indicates the same thing.
3 De
gest. Pel. 11. 23-4, 19. 43-20. 44.
4 The work was addressed to Aurelius, de gest. Pel. 1. Paulinus may have
used it since he indicated that Pelagius had condemned the propositions in
Palestine and is silent on his subsequent retraction, Libellus, 9 (C.S.E.L.
35/1, no). Mercator indicated that the acta were sent to Zosimus, but this
reference appears to be to the condemnation of Caelestius in 412, and at Carthage
and Milev in 416, Commonitorium, 1. 5 (P.L. 48, 77). Wermelinger argues that
a Libellus similar to that in Ep. 186, 9. 32, 33 was submitted in November 417.
See pp. 151-63. Between Posteaquam in September 417 and the Council of
Carthage in May 418, nothing relevant to the case of Pelagius survives.
5 See 6
above, p. 73 n. 1. Commonitorium, 1. 5 (P.L. 48, 79-80).

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 77

appear, therefore, to have originated in Carthage, the work of Aurelius

and Augustine.
Further indications of the origin of the imperial rescript are external
to the text itself. The imperial letter of June 419 which required the

subscription of the African bishops to the condemnation of Pelagius

and Caelestius states that the original action of the government followed
Aurelius' judgement.1 A copy of this letter was sent to Augustine.2
Correspondence between Count Valerius in the imperial court at
Ravenna and the African bishops in the summer of 418 indicates that

they, and Augustine in particular, had initiated the contact with him.
Valerius sent a circular letter to a number of bishops by a Bishop
Vindemialis and two personal letters to Augustine by the priest Firmus
in response to a number of letters from Augustine to him.3 Augustine's
responses in the fall of 418 praised Valerius for his zeal for the Catholic
faith and his effective resistance to the advances of the innovators.4
Two scenarios can be constructed for the events which led up to the

imperial decree against the Pelagians. The Africans may have sought
the civil action as a sequel to their successful campaign within the
Church. In this case, the process would have been initiated before they
received Zosimus' letters in November 417. Alternatively, they might
have appealed to the emperor after receiving word from Zosimus,
in order to undo his work.
The second interpretation of the surviving evidence must be con
sidered first. In this scheme, Aurelius would have received Zosimus'
letters on 2 November and realized that he had approved Pelagian
teaching. He would have replied to Zosimus, trying to convince him
that Pelagius was lying and that his true views were heretical. At the
same time he would have sent letters either directly to Ravenna or to

an agent in Rome seeking imperial action which would prevent Zosimus'

overturning the common judgement of Innocent and the African

synods. Aurelius could prove that Caelestius' teaching had been con

sistently condemned, in Palestine, Africa, and Rome; and he had a

basis in Augustine's analysis of Pelagius' writings and his responses

at Diospolis for arguing that Pelagius actually taught the condemned

Moreover, he had willing agents in Italy and contacts

propositions.5
in Ravenna who had been cultivated during the years of dealing with the

1 'In nostra iudicium sanctitatis tuae, quo constat

quo secuta est dementia
eos ab universis iusta sententiae examinatione damnatos' (Augustine), Ep. 201,
ι (C.S.E.L. 57, 296. 7-9).
2 Ibid. 2.
3
(Augustine) Ep. 200, 1.
4 Ibid.
2; de nupt, et concup. 1. 2. 2.
5 From de
gestis Pelagii if nothing else.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 J. PATOUT BURNS

Donatists.1 If such action was taken when the shipping season reopened
in March 418 rather than before it closed in mid November 417,
the legate might have known the ineffectiveness of the evidence sent
to Zosimus and perhaps could have included a charge of disturbing the

peace of the Church and the city of Rome.2

This interpretation involves the application of government pressure
to another bishop and thus violates the Cyprianic ecclesiology which
insists upon the independence of each bishop. Moreover, some of
the surviving evidence would seem to be incompatible with this sequence
of events. Had the Africans moved to force Zosimus, we should expect
to find protests against their procedure from both Zosimus and the

losing side. Although Zosimus subsequently objected to the way the

African bishops travelled to Ravenna to deal with the imperial govern
ment, he did not further specify the complaint. Indeed, he was more
interested in protecting his right to hear appeals from the clergy of
Africa.3 During this period he continued to rely on the good judgement
of the Africans and of Augustine in particular.4 The Pelagians accused
the Roman clergy of bowing to imperial pressure, but did not indicate
that the Africans had originated the appeal to the emperor.5 If the
Africans did intend to force Zosimus' judgement, they covered their
tracks very well.
The alternative schema has a good deal more to commend it. It

supposes that the Africans made the appeal to Ravenna for civil
action against Pelagius on the basis of Innocent's condemnation,
before they heard of Zosimus' suspension of that action. Augustine
was in Carthage in the fall of 417. His sermon on 23 September pro
1
Among agents in Rome might have been Firmus, who returned to Africa
in the summer of 418 carrying letters to Augustine from Valerius in Ravenna
200, 1). By Augustine's
(Ep.(Ep.(Ep. testimony he praised Valerius' concern for Catholic
truth (Ep. 200, 2). This same Firmus was an agent for Jerome and his aristocratic
ladies (Ep. 172, 2). Augustine praises the work of unnamed others in de pecc.
21. 24. Wermelinger
orig.orig. shows that Constantius and Galla Placidia, his wife
and the Emperor's sister, would have been interested, pp. 197-9.
2 This would involve the difficulties noted at p. 74 n. 5, above.
chronology
3 One of the four
points raised in connection with the sending of legates
to Africa in 418 was, 'ne ad comitatum importune episcopi nauigent', C.C.S.L.
149, 158. 46, 47. In replying to his successor, the Africans concentrated on the
case of Apiarius and did not take up the matter of their interventions at Ravenna,
ibid. pp. 156-61. Nor did they cease intervening, see below, p. 81 n. 1.
* in the mission of Augustine to settle the problem in Mauretania.
Particularly
References are made to this in Epp. 190, 1 and 193, 1. On this journey see
Perler, Les voyages, pp. 345-50.
s See
above, p. 72 n. 5. The charge does not include an assertion that Aurelius
and Augustine were responsible and is absent from Julian's works against
Augustine, although accusations of a subsequent bribe are reported and denied
by Augustine, C. Jul. op. imp. 1. 42, 3. 55.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 79

claimed that the discussion was finished, the African synods had

condemned the heresy, the Roman See had concurred in their action.
What remained was to eradicate the error by admonition, teaching,
and prayer. The Christians of Carthage were urged to denounce

Pelagian sympathizers so that they could be corrected and restored to

orthodoxy.1
Augustine's programme was just the sort of thing that Innocent had
advocated for dealing with the Pelagian sympathizers. Innocent,

however, emphasized the difficulty of the task because of the diverse

population of the city of Rome and the way Pelagius avoided clear and

open teaching of his views.2 Aurelius and Augustine knew that promi
nent supporters of Pelagius could be identified in Rome, elsewhere in

Italy, in Palestine, and in Carthage.3 Moreover, they had experience

of government programmes which were effective in dealing with

dissidents. Unlike Innocent, they had carried on a campaign against

the Donatists for more than twenty years. The application of the imperial

laws against heresy to the Pelagians could then have been requested
on the basis of the common condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius
and the common desire to return their supporters to the truth.

The appeal to Ravenna would have highlighted the judgement of

the African synods and the concurrence of the Roman church. The

advantages of decisive, early action against heretics might also have

been pointed out since the government was still occupied with Donatist

resistance. The six propositions which had originally been urged

against Caelestius could have been used against Pelagius as well through
the documentation which Augustine had assembled. One recalls that

Augustine had won the judgement against the Donatists by just such

a presentation of official trials and condemnations. The legation seeking

civil action would have left Carthage in September or October before

any news of Zosimus suspension of Innocent's decision arrived. When

Zosimus' letters did arrive, Aurelius would have sent proof that Pelagius

was and argued that Zosimus could not undo the work of his
lying
No would have been made to stop the civil
predecessor.4 attempt

process.
Four considerations commend the interpretation that the Africans

for civil action on the basis of Innocent's condemnation of

appealed

1 Serm.
131, 10.
2
(Augustine) Ep. 183, 2.
3 See the letter to Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 186, 29.
* Zosimus' assertion of the irreformability of papal decrees in Quamvis
1-4 (C.S.E.L.
patrum,patrum, 35/1,115-16), may actually respond to a charge by
Aurelius that he was doing just that.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 J. PATOUT BURNS

Pelagius rather than against Zosimus' decision in his favour. First,

this interpretation accounts for all the evidence which survives and

supposes none which has been lost without trace.1 The letter sent
to Ravenna did not survive. Still, we know that letters were sent to

Valerius and that his reply in the spring of 418 was carried by a bishop,
Vindemialis, who may well have been the African legate.2 The content
of the volumen carried to Zosimus by the subdeacon Marcellinus in

November 417 remains unspecified. The documents necessary to build

the case against Pelagius were readily available in Carthage at the time.
The subsequent imperial letter to Aurelius in June 419 did not indicate a
Roman influence in the application of the laws against heresy to Pelagius
and Caelestius.3 Second, the decree itself fulfilled the programme
which Augustine outlined in his sermon in Carthage in September 417.
It required the denunciation of Pelagian adherents to the authorities

by every citizen, but it looked to the peace of the city rather than the
cure of the heretics.4 Third, this interpretation fits the attendant
circumstances. A conspiracy to circumvent the papal authority which
Zosimus followed Innocent in asserting would have been incompatible
with the trust he subsequently placed in Augustine by commissioning
him to settle a dispute in Mauretania in the summer of 418. It would
likewise have made Augustine's praise of Valerius and the Roman

laymen for upholding Catholic truth and resisting the attackers of the
faith somewhat cynical.5 Fourthly, this scheme fits the pattern of

subsequent action against Pelagian sympathizers. The extension of the

decree to the whole empire in June 419 was preceded by a mission of

Alypius, a close associate of Augustine and Aurelius, to Ravenna

1 The of the editor of the Bibliotheque which
interpretation augustinienne
does not acknowledge any African appeal to the imperial government has been
discussed above, p. 74 nn. 5, 6. An assertion that the Africans attempted
to force Zosimus' decision after the arrival of Magnum pondus in November
417 involves planning between Aurelius and Augustine or the private action
of Aurelius in a doctrinal matter. No evidence of contact between Augustine
and Aurelius during the period from October 417 to May 418 survives. Augus
tine prepared all of the doctrinal charges against Pelagius. The sending of a
copy of the imperial letter of June 419 to Augustine may indicate his involvement
in the original appeal as well as the more recent mission of Alypius.
2
Ep. 200, 1.
3
Ep. 201. In de pecc. orig. 7. 8, Augustine refers to a reply made to Zosimus
,ex Africano episcoporum concilio' after his letters in September 417. On this
basis, some have postulated a meeting of the African bishops in October
November 417. Wermelinger gives a synopsis of this discussion, pp. 149-50.
As an alternative, one might consider concilium as referring to the judgment itself
which had been passed in 416.
4
Imperial rescript, 2 (P.L. 45, 1727).
5 For
Valerius, Ep. 200, 2; de nupt. et concup. 1. 2. 2. For the Romans,
Ep. 193, 1. 1, 2; de pecc. orig. 8. 9, 22. 25.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 81

where he transacted some business with Valerius.1 Julian of Eclanum

that a bribe was delivered by Alypius, but Augustine denied

charged
this part of the procedure.2 Thus the hypothesis that Aurelius, Augus

tine, and their associates attempted to secure imperial action against

the Pelagians on the basis of their own condemnation in which Innocent

had concurred seems more likely than its alternative.

This of Augustine's part in the action becomes more

interpretation
certain when in the context of his contemporary action against
placed
the Donatists. The Donatist cause was lost at the hearing before

Flavius Marcellinus in 411. Augustine had played a dominant role

in the arguments of the Donatist bishops and he worked

breaking
to win them back to the Catholic communion after the verdict had

been delivered against them. He also urged imperial officials to carry

out the laws the schism. In so doing, he exposed the ground

suppressing
of his approval of coercion.

wrote to Boniface, a Roman general in Southern Numidia,

Augustine
in 417 to justify the directives against the Donatists. He explained that

the Catholic bishops had decided to appeal to the emperor

originally
to enforce the laws in those districts where the Donatists were
only
the Church. Before this mission reached court,
actively oppressing
the Donatists attacked the Catholic bishop of Bagai who had taken
decision. They
possession of the cathedral awarded him by judicial
beat the man and left him for dead. When he appealed in person
poor
for the restoration of his church, the emperor was so moved by his

wounds and scars that he decided not simply to protect the Church,

but to correct the Donatists and force them back into union with the

Catholics. declared that the hand of Providence could be

Augustine
discerned in these events.3
was that the emperor was only doing his duty
Augustine's position
as a Christian when he acted to suppress those who were warring against
Christ. A is an instrument in the hand of God whether he is a
king
or an evil man. Evil rulers are used by God to test and prove the
good
rulers are used to correct and punish evildoers.4 The
good: good
is exercised not only in his
religion of the king, Augustine explained,
but in his as well. As a Christian, he must
personal life, legislation
take care that violations of the law of his Lord do not go unpunished.5

‫ י‬Valerius sent materials to Augustine by Alypius, de nupt. et concup., 2. 1. 1.

that Alypius made contact with Valerius in C. Jul. op. imp.
Julian charges
1. 7.
22 C. denied that the bribe Julian described
Jul. op. imp. 1. 42, 3. 35. Augustine
was delivered. A gift was probably necessary to gain official attention for the
It would not necessarily have insured the outcome, however.
plea. 5 Ibid.
3 4 Ibid. 2. 8. 5. 19-20.
Ep. 185, 7. 25-8.

J.T.S. I

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 J. PATOUT BURNS

Christian moves the Church to join with the emperor in

charity
for the correction and salvation of sinners and schismatics. The
working
which holds back from coercive action and allows these persons
leniency
to plunge into eternal death outside the communion of the
headlong
Church is cruelty of the worst kind. Better to coerce in love than to

neglect the salvation of those in danger.1

Such a view of the relation between Catholic bishop and Catholic

offers a firm foundation for an appeal to the government to

emperor
act against the Pelagians. In the conversion of many Donatists, Augus
tine had seen the good results of the civil coercion.2 Thus in September

417 he would have been prepared to initiate an appeal for governmental

action to the Pelagian heresy which had already been con

suppress
demned by the Church.
A more striking instance of exhortation to a Roman official to carry

out his duty occurred in 420. The Donatist bishop Gaudentius had

barricaded himself and his congregation in the cathedral at Thimgad

rather than go into exile as the Tribune Dulcitius ordered and urged
him to do.3 He threatened to burn himself, his congregation, and his

church if action were taken to enforce the laws. Dulcitius hesitated

and sent Gaudentius' manifesto to Augustine for a reply.4 Gaudentius'

argument was that religious matters were none of the king's affair and
that civil power should not be used against him. After the customary
retort that this is a novel position for a Donatist to take, Augustine
returns to his assertion that the Christian ruler must uphold the law

of God as well as that of man.5 Shall sacrilege be the only unpunished

crime in the empire? No, by the divine inspiration, the emperor

perceives that the use of his power in the service of God is his religious

duty.6
Augustine gave this sort of reply earlier when Julian rebuked him

for his praise of Count Valerius' blocking of the Pelagian appeal for a
hearing of the case after the death of Zosimus.7 Should Catholic rulers

who are firmly anchored in the faith, Augustine asks, allow a hearing

to those who are attacking it ? This was done for the Donatists because

no other way could be found to handle their wild mob of followers.

By God's mercy the Pelagians have no such crowd of adherents and

were rightly silenced.8

1 Ibid. 2. 2 Ibid.
7, 3■ 14, 8. 33. 3. 13; C. Gaud. 1. 24. 27.
3 C. Gaud. 1. 16. 4 Ibid. 1. 1. 1.
17.
s Ibid. 1.
39. S3·
6 Ibid. 1.
19. 20, 1. 34. 44, 1. 35· 45, 2. 12. 13.
‫ י‬JDe
nupt. et concup. 1. 2. 2.
8 C.
Jul. op. imp. 1. 10, and similar praise of the Romans in de pecc. orig.
22. 25.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 AUGUSTINE IN THE ACTION AGAINST PELAGIUS 83

Augustine had not always been so sanguine about the interference

of the government in religious matters. Fearing an indigestable glut of

unconverted communicants, he had originally asked only for protection

and safety. When God and the emperor provided more and the results

were satisfactory, he defended the intervention. If our interpretation

of the events of 417-18 is correct, it seems that he acted out of this new

conviction and sought civil assistance in suppressing the new heresy of

Pelagius even when the physical safety of the Church was not en

dangered. J. Patout Burns

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:30:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions