Pelagianism, also called Pelagian Heresy, a 5th-century Christian heresy taught by Pelagius and his followers that stressed

the
essential goodness of human nature and the freedom of the human will. Pelagius was concerned about the slack moral standards
among Christians, and he hoped to improve their conduct by his teachings. Rejecting the arguments of those who claimed that they
sinned because of human weakness, he insisted that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil and that sin is a
voluntary act committed by a person against Gods law. Celestius, a disciple of Pelagius, denied the churchs doctrine of original sin
and the necessity of infant Baptism.
Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who asserted that human beings could not attain righteousness by their own
efforts and were totally dependent upon the grace of God. Condemned by two councils of African bishops in 416, and again at
Carthage in 418, Pelagius and Celestius were finally excommunicated in 418; Pelagius later fate is unknown.
The controversy, however, was not over. Julian of Eclanum continued to assert the Pelagian view and engaged Augustine in literary
polemic until the latters death in 430. Julian himself was finally condemned, with the rest of the Pelagian party, at the Council of
Ephesus in 431. Another heresy, known as Semi-Pelagianism, flourished in southern Gaul until it was finally condemned at the second
Council of Orange in 529. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pelagianism)

St. Augustine and Pelagianism | Stephen N. Filippo | Ignatius Insight

Pelagius was a British or Irish lay monk who made his way to Rome in the time of St. Augustine. He was so shocked by the moral
depravity of the people that he began to preach and teach a very strict, rigid moralism, emphasizing the natural, innate human ability
and autonomy to attain salvation. His anthropology, although he never developed a system, was based upon the principle "anything
you can do, you must do."
In all fairness to Pelagius, one does not get the sense that he set out to intentionally subvert the true meaning of Grace within the New
Testament. His rigid moralism was more of a reaction to the laxity he saw all around him. Initially, he was probably merely attempting
to give the people some sorely needed words of encouragement. However, his insistence that man is basically all good and can
therefore merit salvation without the interior promptings of God's grace, eventually led him into trouble.
His theology recognized an external aspect of grace only. He taught that Christ's Redemption forgave only personal sins, the New
Testament and the Law of Moses were merely external aids or (what he called guideposts graces) given to the human race to attain
salvation. In other words, these graces taught us the way to the Kingdom. Once one knew the way all they would have to do is read
Scripture and then put it into practice. It was all that simple for Pelagius. No need for asking for God's help along the way, much less
receiving it, in order to be saved.
Providentially, Pelagius lived in the time of St. Augustine, one of the most stalwart and adept defenders of the Faith in the history of
the Church. Upon reading Pelagius' work entitled Nature, Augustine saw that Pelagius relied upon innate human ability, not God's
grace, in order to attain salvation. Thus the beginnings of what would turn out to be a life-long battle for Augustine ensued, first
against Pelagius and his disciple Caelestius, who would systematize Pelagianism in his attempts to defend it, and finally against Julian
of Eclanum, whom St. Augustine continued to battle, right up to his death in 430 A.D.
Without going into a blow-by-blow description of the works, counter works, Councils, anathemas, and finally the excommunication of
Pelagius, Caelestius, Julian and others, I would like to put forth the essence of Pelagius' Anthropology and Theory of Grace, followed
by its theological consequences.
Pelagian Anthropology
Although Pelagianism promoted moral fervor, there was an inherent danger in it: self-reliance, not God-reliance, based upon an
inadequate understanding of human nature. Pelagianism stressed complete human autonomy and freedom of the will before God.
Pelagius posited three elements to any moral action: 1. that we must be able to do it, 2. that we must be willing to do it, and 3. that the
action must be carried out. Or the three elements can be described as possibility, will, and action. Possibility is a natural gift from God
alone, but the other two, since they arise from man's choice, are from man. For instance, God has freely given us the gifts of speech,
sight, hearing, etc., and the power to speak, see hear, etc., yet whether or not these are put to good use is left entirely up to the
individual. Thus, we are entirely free to will and do good or evil. Nor does he separate will from power, finding in the will the power
to automatically carry out what it has willed.
Yet, as most of us are all too aware, the ability to do good is not merely a matter of willing it, "for I do not the good I will, but the evil
I do not will, I perform" (Rm.7:19). Or, as Augustine puts it: "Whence comes this monstrous state? Mind commands body and it obeys

forthwith. Mind gives orders to itself, and it is resisted . . . . Mind commands mind to will-but it does not do so. Whence comes this
monstrous state? Why should it be? I say that it commands itself to will a thing: it would not give this command unless it willed it, and
yet it does not do what it wills." [1]
Thus, while refuting Manicheanism--the theory of the two separate wills, one good the other evil--before Pelagianism was born,
Augustine had already refuted it too. The will is not the simple, complete faculty that Pelagius had thought, but it is made up of several
if not many conflicting desires. It is only under the influence of Grace that a human will receives the interior strength and resolve to
will and to "do the good I ought." Simply stated, Pelagius had overestimated human nature and its innate ability to desire, think, do or
be good, without God's constant help.
Pelagianism's Theology of Grace
Pelagius, given his assessment of human nature, posits complete autonomy of one's free will before God. Since man is completely
autonomous, he is also completely responsible for all his actions, no matter what. That one's free will is completely free and
unconditional equals freedom for Pelagians. Freedom is the central constituent of human nature. This freedom is a grace which comes
from the Grace of God. Freedom does not have a tendency to evil, even after the fall. Thus, if one can will it, they can and must do it.
Thus, the human will is totally independent of God in making its moral decisions. Therefore, Pelagian Grace must be merely an
external aid, solo ab extra.
The example of the Life of Jesus Christ, the New Testament, the Law of Moses, the Church, the Sacraments, etc., are meant for one's
conscious edification and then immediate emulation, and not for prompting an interior movement of the will not necessarily
consciously intended to be accomplished by the person reading it just for that purpose. Pelagianism attempts to protect the need for
human accountability before God, in one's actions, no matter what. It is the stress of this overriding principle that leads to serious
error.
Therefore, Pelagianism conceives Scripture as the source of Grace, solo ab extra:
God "helps" by revealing in Scripture the wisdom pertinent to human nature and its obligations to God. Revelation illumines the mind,
stirs the will, thus lifting the veil of ignorance and the moral paralysis inflicted by the prolonged habits of the sinful heart. We can
summarize by saying that grace means to Pelagius the following: (1) the original endowment of free will by which one may live
sinlessly, (2) the moral Law of Moses, (3) the forgiveness of sins won by Christ's redemptive death and mediated through baptism, (4)
the example of Christ, and (5) the teaching of Christ, as a new law and as wisdom concerning human nature and salvation. Pelagius
has no doctrine of grace other than this; one finds no doctrine of "infused" grace in Pelagius. [2]
Thus to lead a life of grace under Pelagianism, one had to strenuously exert his will and efforts to accept and then perform all the
commands revealed in Scripture. Add to that prayer, fasting and living the life of an ascetic and one could, by brute force, attain
salvation. This is sheer will and rectitude, white knuckling it. Salvation is entirely within one's own grasp, with no need of God's
Grace, or help, if you will. Therefore, Pelagianism is a closed system, based solely upon one's merit.

St. Augustine and Pelagianism | Stephen N. Filippo | Ignatius Insight

Print-friendly version
Pelagius was a British or Irish lay monk who made his way to Rome in the time of St. Augustine. He was so
shocked by the moral depravity of the people that he began to preach and teach a very strict, rigid moralism,
emphasizing the natural, innate human ability and autonomy to attain salvation. His anthropology, although he never
developed a system, was based upon the principle "anything you can do, you must do."
In all fairness to Pelagius, one does not get the sense that he set out to intentionally subvert the true meaning of
Grace within the New Testament. His rigid moralism was more of a reaction to the laxity he saw all around him.
Initially, he was probably merely attempting to give the people some sorely needed words of encouragement.
However, his insistence that man is basically all good and can therefore merit salvation without the interior
promptings of God's grace, eventually led him into trouble.
His theology recognized an external aspect of grace only. He taught that Christ's Redemption forgave only personal
sins, the New Testament and the Law of Moses were merely external aids or (what he called guideposts graces)
given to the human race to attain salvation. In other words, these graces taught us the way to the Kingdom. Once
one knew the way all they would have to do is read Scripture and then put it into practice. It was all that simple for
Pelagius. No need for asking for God's help along the way, much less receiving it, in order to be saved.
Providentially, Pelagius lived in the time of St. Augustine, one of the most stalwart and adept defenders of the Faith

in the history of the Church. Upon reading Pelagius' work entitled Nature, Augustine saw that Pelagius relied upon
innate human ability, not God's grace, in order to attain salvation. Thus the beginnings of what would turn out to be
a life-long battle for Augustine ensued, first against Pelagius and his disciple Caelestius, who would systematize
Pelagianism in his attempts to defend it, and finally against Julian of Eclanum, whom St. Augustine continued to
battle, right up to his death in 430 A.D.
Without going into a blow-by-blow description of the works, counter works, Councils, anathemas, and finally the
excommunication of Pelagius, Caelestius, Julian and others, I would like to put forth the essence of Pelagius'
Anthropology and Theory of Grace, followed by its theological consequences.
Pelagian Anthropology
Although Pelagianism promoted moral fervor, there was an inherent danger in it: self-reliance, not God-reliance,
based upon an inadequate understanding of human nature. Pelagianism stressed complete human autonomy and
freedom of the will before God. Pelagius posited three elements to any moral action: 1. that we must be able to do it,
2. that we must be willing to do it, and 3. that the action must be carried out. Or the three elements can be described
as possibility, will, and action. Possibility is a natural gift from God alone, but the other two, since they arise from
man's choice, are from man. For instance, God has freely given us the gifts of speech, sight, hearing, etc., and the
power to speak, see hear, etc., yet whether or not these are put to good use is left entirely up to the individual. Thus,
we are entirely free to will and do good or evil. Nor does he separate will from power, finding in the will the power
to automatically carry out what it has willed.
Yet, as most of us are all too aware, the ability to do good is not merely a matter of willing it, "for I do not the good
I will, but the evil I do not will, I perform" (Rm.7:19). Or, as Augustine puts it: "Whence comes this monstrous
state? Mind commands body and it obeys forthwith. Mind gives orders to itself, and it is resisted . . . . Mind
commands mind to will-but it does not do so. Whence comes this monstrous state? Why should it be? I say that it
commands itself to will a thing: it would not give this command unless it willed it, and yet it does not do what it
wills." [1]
Thus, while refuting Manicheanism--the theory of the two separate wills, one good the other evil--before
Pelagianism was born, Augustine had already refuted it too. The will is not the simple, complete faculty that
Pelagius had thought, but it is made up of several if not many conflicting desires. It is only under the influence of
Grace that a human will receives the interior strength and resolve to will and to "do the good I ought." Simply
stated, Pelagius had overestimated human nature and its innate ability to desire, think, do or be good, without God's
constant help.
Pelagianism's Theology of Grace
Pelagius, given his assessment of human nature, posits complete autonomy of one's free will before God. Since man
is completely autonomous, he is also completely responsible for all his actions, no matter what. That one's free will
is completely free and unconditional equals freedom for Pelagians. Freedom is the central constituent of human
nature. This freedom is a grace which comes from the Grace of God. Freedom does not have a tendency to evil,
even after the fall. Thus, if one can will it, they can and must do it. Thus, the human will is totally independent of
God in making its moral decisions. Therefore, Pelagian Grace must be merely an external aid, solo ab extra.
The example of the Life of Jesus Christ, the New Testament, the Law of Moses, the Church, the Sacraments, etc.,
are meant for one's conscious edification and then immediate emulation, and not for prompting an interior
movement of the will not necessarily consciously intended to be accomplished by the person reading it just for that
purpose. Pelagianism attempts to protect the need for human accountability before God, in one's actions, no matter
what. It is the stress of this overriding principle that leads to serious error.
Therefore, Pelagianism conceives Scripture as the source of Grace, solo ab extra:
God "helps" by revealing in Scripture the wisdom pertinent to human nature and its obligations to God. Revelation
illumines the mind, stirs the will, thus lifting the veil of ignorance and the moral paralysis inflicted by the prolonged
habits of the sinful heart. We can summarize by saying that grace means to Pelagius the following: (1) the original
endowment of free will by which one may live sinlessly, (2) the moral Law of Moses, (3) the forgiveness of sins
won by Christ's redemptive death and mediated through baptism, (4) the example of Christ, and (5) the teaching of
Christ, as a new law and as wisdom concerning human nature and salvation. Pelagius has no doctrine of grace other
than this; one finds no doctrine of "infused" grace in Pelagius. [2]
Thus to lead a life of grace under Pelagianism, one had to strenuously exert his will and efforts to accept and then
perform all the commands revealed in Scripture. Add to that prayer, fasting and living the life of an ascetic and one
could, by brute force, attain salvation. This is sheer will and rectitude, white knuckling it. Salvation is entirely

within one's own grasp, with no need of God's Grace, or help, if you will. Therefore, Pelagianism is a closed system,
based solely upon one's merit.
The only necessity in the Pelagian theology of grace is the necessity of a free will. Given the Pelagian mind set, the
will could not be free if it needed the help of God. The Pelagian attitude can perhaps be best summarized by
Pelagius himself, in his letter to the virgin Demetrias:
We say: "It is hard! It is difficult! We cannot, we are but men, compassed about by the fragile flesh!' Blind folly and
profane rashness! We accuse the God of knowledge of a twofold ignorance, so the He seems to be ignorant of what
He has done or what He has commanded--as if unmindful of human frailty, whose author He Himself is, He has
imposed commands upon man which man is not able to bear. [3]
The theologian Gerald Bonner felt that a large part of Pelagius' problem was his over reaction to Manicheanism. So
Pelagius became blind to what he was saying. Manicheanism misunderstood evil to be a material substance actually
existing in the universe. Pelagius properly understood evil to be the absence or privation of the good. But since he
also held that everything created by God was good, evil did not really exist. Since evil was really non-existent
people who felt it was real were merely finding excuses for their lack of will power. Since all creation was good, he
could not see how the Good God had made us fallen creatures. Nor could he believe in the ephemeral quality of
grace, any more than he could believe in evil. They just did not exist.
Pelagianism's Resultant Theology
Given Pelagius' overly optimistic belief in human nature and our autonomous ability to think, do and be good, he
had no doctrine of the fall as such. He believed that Adam's sin was only personal and therefore not passed onto the
rest of mankind. Adam was a mere mortal who would have died whether he had sinned or not. Since infants were
born in the same condition as Adam before the fall, there was no need for infant baptism. Since there was no
original sin, adult baptism took away only personal sin. And baptism itself was not a necessary precondition for
entrance to the Kingdom. One could attain salvation under the old covenant as well as or instead of the New
Testament. There are many saints in the Old Testament who went to heaven having never sinned. Thus, Christ's
redemption was not necessary, nor did He die for the salvation of all.
None of these positions are tenable for the Catholic theologian, neither in Pelagius' day nor today. In their onesidedness the Pelagians had overstated the goodness of human nature and the power of freedom in the will as an
independent, naturally endowed faculty apart from God, and denied the crucial importance of the necessity of the
Redemption and the efficacy of internal Grace as given in the New Testament: an interior movement of the human
will to see, accept, or to do the good prompted by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, gratuitously given as a gift for
the salvation of all. "God . . . according to His mercy . . . saved us through the bath of regeneration and renewal by
the Holy Spirit; whom He has abundantly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior, in order that, justified
by his grace, we may be heirs in the hope of life everlasting" (Ti. 3:5-7).
Pelagianism was condemned at the 15th Council of Carthage held in 411 A.D. and again at the 16th Council of
Carthage held in 418 A.D. Yet it would not die out. St. Augustine would spend the better part of his later life refuting
the errors and wrong-headed conclusions of Pelagianism.
St. Augustine's Anthropology: His Doctrine of Original Sin
St. Augustine's anthropology differs radically from Pelagius'. St. Augustine sees human nature as deeply wounded,
corrupted, disordered, changed, mutable, given to concupiscence, born guilty and selfish and fallen from Grace as
the result of Adam's first sin. As the direct result of Adam's sin the human race is a massa damnata, utterly incapable
of saving itself, yet not without hope. Human nature is not utterly corrupt; since it was made "in the image and
likeness of God" it still retains some vestige of the Divine image, but very tarnished.
According to St. Augustine, before the fall the first couple enjoyed heavenly bliss:
Adam and Eve were in a state of righteousness or friendship with God. They were also immune to physical illness
and death and endowed with exceptional intellectual gifts. Above all, they were free. This blessed condition did not
include an inability to sin, the true liberty possessed only by the blessed in heaven, but the ability not to sin.
Endowed with an inclination to virtue, the lives of Adam and Eve were perfectly ordered. The body was wholly
subject to the soul, carnal desires to reason and will, and the will to God. They were wrapped in grace and blessed
with the gift of perseverance, the ability to persist in this ordered world of grace. [4]
So, man walked in complete harmony and union with God before the fall; no sickness, no disease, no death. Yet
Adam turned away from God and the whole "reality" of the Garden of Eden was destroyed in a moment.
When Adam sinned he destroyed any opportunity for the rest of mankind to live in Eden's reality from birth; to live
with the ability not to sin, not to die, or even not to suffer. This seems tragically unfair to the rest of us to somehow

be included in Adam's punishment. How could such a just God, who foresaw Adam's rebellion long before He even
created Adam, do this to us? or, as others might put it: if there is a God, how could He allow such suffering and evil?
There are many, many situations that from our limited human perspective seem intolerably unfair. St. Augustine is
not slow to point out that life is full of apparent gross inequities, if one just stopped and really thought about it for a
moment:
We cannot know, for example, what secret decree of God's justice makes this good man poor and that bad man rich;
why this man, whose immoral life should cause him, in our estimation, to be torn with grief, is, in point of fact,
quite happy; why that man, whose praiseworthy life should bring him joy, is, in fact, sad of soul; why this innocent
party leaves the courtroom not just unavenged but actually condemned, unfairly treated by a corrupt judge or
overwhelmed by lying testimony, while his guilty opponent not merely gets off unpunished but goes gloating over
his vindication. Here we have an irreligious man in excellent health, there a holy man wasting away to a shadow
with disease. Here are some young men, robbers by profession, in superb physical fettle; there, some mere babies,
unable to harm anyone even in speech, afflicted with various kinds of implacable disease. A very much needed man
is swept off by untimely death; a man who, we think, should not have even been born survives him and lives a long
life. One man loaded with crimes is lifted to honors, while another whose life is beyond reproach lives under a cloud
of suspicion. [5]
The real question is, assuming one believes in God, is God always just? For either God is always just or He is not.
St. Augustine and St. Paul believe that God is never unjust (cf. Rm. 9:14-18).
In the final analysis, one must have faith and therefore trust in God that God is not unjust in spite of apparent
contradictions. St. Augustine translates the Septuagint, Is. 7:6 as "Unless you believe you shall not understand." [6]
The New American Bible says that "Unless your faith is firm, you shall not be firm" (Is. 7:6). For the only true
answer to: "is God just?" is St. Paul's: "O man, who art thou to reply to God? Does the object molded say to him
who molded it: Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rm. 9:20). "So, then there is question not of him who wills or of
him who runs, but of God showing mercy," (Rm. 9:16) because... "There is not one just man, not one,...all have
gone astray; alike all are worthless. There is no one who does good, not even one" (Rm. 3:10-12). Thus, "All have
sinned and have need of the Glory of God" (Rm. 3:23).
In sum then: How can the inherently mutable, corruptible human being dare to question the inherently All-mighty,
immutable, incorruptible, unchangeable, all-knowing and seeing God on a point of justice no less? The problem is
that the pot will not say to the potter: "I will not be a pot," yet human beings say to their Creator, some many times a
day: Non serviam. A man who will not serve the Good God can hardly be expected to know, much less love the
Good God.
After God's justice, the next question raised by St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin is: Why did mankind fall?
Neither St. Augustine nor anybody else seems to have a completely satisfactory answer. Nor does he think it worth
his while to probe too deeply into it since even if the answer could be known, it is of little or no practical help in
attaining salvation.
What need is there, therefore, to seek the origin of the movement whereby the will turns from the unchangeable to
the changeable good? We acknowledge that it is a movement of the soul, that it is voluntary and therefore culpable.
And all useful learning in this matter has its object and value in teaching us to condemn and restrain that movement,
and to convert our wills from fall in temporal delights to the enjoyment of the eternal good. [7]
To attempt to figure out why original sin exists does not change the fact that it exists. The real question is what do
we do about it now that we know it exists; not why does it exist. And St. Augustine tells us exactly what to do about
it: try not to sin.
The third concern with original sin is: How is it transmitted? St. Augustine has no completely convincing answer.
One does not have to look very hard to find solid empirical evidence that transmitted it is but exactly how, who
knows. Could it be a fault of the 20th century to seek nicely tied up logical answers to all questions concerning our
relationship with God?
With the necessity of original sin comes the necessity of baptism. Without baptism no one can be saved according to
the ordinary providence of God. Baptism removes the guilt of original sin, but it does not remove its effects in our
members. Thus, we become children of God and temples of the Holy Spirit, yet we can still sin. Therefore, we need
to have God's constant help. That is the "how" and the "why" of it. Praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
both now and forever. Amen.
ENDNOTES:
[1] John K. Ryan, tr. Book Eight: The Grace of Faith in The Confessions of St. Augustine. New York: Image Books,

1960, pp. 196-197.

[2] Stephen J. Duffy. The Dynamics of Grace: Perspectives in Theological Anthropology. Collegeville, Minnesota:
The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 89.
[3] Gerald Bonner. St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1963, p.
361.
[4] Op. Cit., The Dynamics of Grace: Perspectives in Theological Anthropology. p. 90.
[5] Gerald G. Walsh, S.J. & others. Part Five: The Ends of the Two Cities in City of God. New York: Image Books,
1958, p. 485.
[6] John S. Burleigh. Faith and the Creed. In Augustine: Earlier Writings. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press,
1953, p. 353.
[7] Ibid., On Free Will. p. 171.
This article originally appeared in a slightly different form in the November 1997 issue of Catholic Dossier.
(http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/sfilippo_augustinepelag_jan08.asp)
Pelagianism - 01

When Augustine became a priest in Hippo, a monk from Britain named Morgan, or in Latin Pelagius (which means
"islander" -- consider the words "pelagic" and "archipelago"), began to preach in Rome.
He denounced what he saw as a reduction of moral standards. His thought was often fundamentalistic and
authoritarian, and would lead to a austere church of small membership "without spot or stain", i.e., comprising only
of the virtuous.
The controversy between Pelagius and Augustine began when this British monk opposed in Rome the famous prayer
by Augustine: "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." (Confessions 10, 29)
Augustine had just completed his challenge to the schismatic Donatists, who had claimed to be the true church, and
now here were the Pelagians proclaiming a church that would exclude most of the current membership.
Pelagius was recoiling in horror from the idea that a divine gift (grace - gratia in Latin) is necessary to perform what
God commands.
For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If the human species has the moral
responsibility to obey the law of God, it must also have the moral ability to do it. To the Pelagian, an individual was
totally responsible for his sin, as if every sin was done as a deliberate act of contempt against God.
In Pelagianism, Augustine for the first time was confronted by opponents of the same general theological calibre as
himself, before a readership capable of judging the arguments of both parties on their purely intellectual merits.
Although Augustine was then about fifty-seven years of age (which statistically was "old age" in that era and
society) and also past his intellectual prime before this twenty-year debate saw the occurence of his death, Augustine
gave the literary debate against Pelagianism much of his possibly-dwindling energy levels.
Pelagius saw Christians using human fraility as an absolving excuse for their imperfect living of the Christian life.
His response was: "That is nonsense. God has given you free will. You can choose to follow the example of Adam,
or you can choose to follow the example of Christ. God has given everyone the grace he needs to be good. If you are
not good, you simply need to try harder."
But Augustine introduced the matter of original sin, and Pelagius intimated that there was no such thing.
Augustine asked him why, then, was it the universal custom of the Church to baptize infants, and Pelagius had no answer to offer.

Augustine saw the teaching of Pelagius as totally undermining the doctrine that God is the ultimate source of all good.
It encouraged the virtuous and well-behaved Christian to feel that he had earned the approval of God by his own efforts.
The heart of the debate, therefore, centred on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to
which the will of fallen humankind is "free".
As with so many historical arguments, reconstructing exactly what each thought can be rather hard: Pelagius views were
misrepresented by his opponents, Augustine's views develop as the debates become fiercer, but Pelagianism has come to mean
unfairly to its founder - the view that human beings can earn salvation by their own efforts.
The Pelagian controversy occupied Augustine from at least the year 412 onwards.
In this way Pelagianism required his attention for the second half of his life, and some say pessimistically that it is an issue has never
really been definitively laid to rest by the Church.
Carthage in North Africa, where Pelagius had sought refuge for a year after the taking of Rome by Alaric in the year 410, was the
principal centre of the first Pelagian disturbances.
As a regular visitor to Carthage, Augustine could not ignore this difficulty.
Pelagius had been disturbed by the low moral tone he had found among Christians in Rome when he had arrived there some thirty
years before, and now, in Carthage, he advocated a stricter morality for all Christians.
Pelagius and those who agreed with him believed that people could make choices between good and evil, and that, rather than being
born sinful, people had no excuse for sinful behaviour, hence every sin was a deliberate act of hatred for God.
As early as the year 412 a council held at Carthage condemned the Pelagians for their attacks upon the doctrine of original sin.
The main anti-Pelagian writings by Augustine came at two different periods of his life.
On Nature and Grace and On the Proceedings of Pelagius both date from 415 - 416 and constitute two of the most extensive
treatments by Augustine of the actual words of Pelagius.
Therein Augustine strongly affirms the existence of original sin, the need for infant baptism, the impossibility of a sinless life without
Christ, and the necessity of Christ's grace. Augustine's works are intended in part for the common people and for this reason do not
address Pelagius by name.
A second period of Pelagian intrigues developed at Rome. Pope Zosimus was for a while deluded by a Pleagian named Celestius in
Rome.
But once Augustine enlightened Zosimus, the Pope pronounced a solemn condemnation of these heretics in 418.
Towards the year 426 there emerged a school which afterwards acquired the name of Semi-Pelagian.
Its first members were monks of Hadrumetum in Africa, who were followed by others from Marseilles, led by John Cassian, the
celebrated abbot of Saint-Victor in France.
Unable to admit the absolute gratuitousness of predestination, they sought a middle course between Augustine and Pelagius, and
maintained that grace must be given to those who merit it and denied to others; hence goodwill has the precedence, it desires, it asks,
and God rewards.
Informed of these views by Prosper of Aquitaine, Augustine wrote On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of
Perseverance, probably in the year 428. (This was a magnificent effort, for Augustine was then in his seventy-fourth year, and two
years from death.)
THE SYNOD OF MILEVE
One celebrated occasion of the involvement of Augustine in the battle against Pelagianism involved him in an important one of his
numerous journeys.
He was working with the other bishops in Numidia, successfully petitioning the Pope in Rome.

As already mentioned, after the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in the year 410, Pelagius had left Rome for a year in Carthage, North
Africa.
North Africa thus became the principal centre of the first Pelagian disturbances
There is no evidence that Pelagius ever met Augustine in Carthage before moving to the Holy Land.
As early as the year 412 a council held at Carthage condemned the Pelagians for their attacks upon the doctrine of original sin.
An earlier charge of heresy against Pelagius lapsed because it had not been successfully prosecuted by fourteen bishops in the Holy
Land at the Synod of Diospolis in December 415.
This news caused alarm in North Africa. In response, the bishops of North Africa decided that a decisive step was required.
In the autumn of 416, therefore, sixty seven bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage.
As well, fifty nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which belonged the diocese of Hippo that was led by
Augustine, held a synod in Mileve.
Augustine played a key role in the Synod of Mileve in the year 416.
In both places the doctrines of Pelagius were once again rejected as being contradictory to the Catholic faith, and Pelagius was
condemned.
However, in order to secure for their decisions "the authority of the Apostolic See" (and to have a papal condemnation of Pelagius),
both synods wrote to Pope Innocent I to seek his supreme sanction.
And in order to reinforce with Innocent their perceived seriousness of the situation, five bishops (Augustine, Aurelius, Alypius,
Evodius, and Possidius) added their personal weight to the decision of the synods by sending the pope a joint letter.
In it they detailed the doctrine of original sin, infant baptism, and Christian grace (Augustine: Letters 175, 176 and 177).
In three separate letters dated 27th January 417, Pope Innocent I answered the synodal letters of Carthage and Mileve, as well as that
of the five bishops, to declare the excommunication of Pelagius.
In Africa, where the decision was received with unfeigned joy, the whole controversy was now regarded as closed, and Augustine on
23th September 417 announced from the pulpit at Hippo, Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem apostolicam, inde
etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est - "Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come
back; the question is settled." (Sermon 131, 10)
This is the only possible source of the much-misquoted sentence that is attributed to Augustine, "Rome has spoken; the matter is
closed."
But, as far as the ultimate condemnation of Pelagius was concerned, Augustine was hasty with his statement. It was to turn out, to the
contrary, that the matter was not yet settled at all.
That took until 418, after which time Augustine had only a year before he began to interact with the most brilliant Pelagian disciple,
Julian of Eclanum, the former bishop at Eclanum in Italy.
There was combat between Augustine and Julian with pen and ink for most of the remaining twelve years of the life of Augustine.
When Pelagianism arose, Augustine was at the end of his intellectual life, after twenty years of constant intellectual defence of the
Catholic Church with speculative theology. The battle with Julian, with all of its imperfections and possibly overheated debate,
happened in the final twele years of these two particular decades.
ID2255
PELAGIANISM AND JULIAN OF ECLANUM (1)
Julian of Eclanum was the most persistent and most adversarial correspondent that Augustine ever experienced.
Because Augustine was by then an aged person, this lengthy controversy probably took more out of him than any previous one.
Julian of Eclanum was born at Eclanum in Italy in the year 380 and died in Sicily about the year 455.

After the death of his wife, Julian joined the clergy of his native diocese and eventually succeeded his father as bishop.
He was highly educated and skilled in philosophy and dialectics, and as well had mastery of Greek and Latin.
He possessed much theological learning which, however, was tainted with Pelagian errors.
Because of his support of Pelagius, Julian himself was condemned. In 418 he was one of the eighteen bishops expelled from Italy by
Pope Zosimus.
To Julian is due the credit of having systematised the teachings of Pelagius.
The writings of Julian were mainly pitched against the very doctrines that Augustine had defended.
This made a clash between these two brilliant minds almost inevitable.
Most of the works of Julian are lost. Paradoxically, they are known only through the copious quotations from them that are found in
the works of Augustine.
Principal among them are the letter to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, and the epistle to the Roman clergy, which Augustine, at the
request of Pope Boniface, refuted in his work "Against Two Letters of the Pelagians"; the reply of Julian to what Augustine wrote
in De nuptiis et concupiscentia ("On marriage and concupiscence"); and his answer to the defence by Augustine of De nuptiis et
concupiscentia.
When Julian of Eclanum emerged as the Pelagian champion, the controversy came to lack Christian charity.
Julian accused Augustine of being a Manichee, a detestable African Aristotle, one who sought an argument, one who like an infant
used words that lacked meaning, one who spoke slander, and one who gave bribes.
PELAGIANISM AND JULIAN OF ECLANUM (2)
Against De nuptiis et concupiscentia that was written by Augustine, Julian directed the four books of his work, Ad Turbantium in the
year 419.
Its main thought is the natural goodness of human beings in the divine creation.
Augustine wrote a second treatise, De nuptiis et concupiscentia.
Julian answered by addressing eight books to Florus, Libri viii ad Florum contra Augustine librum secundum de nuptiis ("Eight books
to Florus against Augustine's book about marriage").
This was to be the most important writing by Julian.
Even though it was full of personal, passionate, and spiteful polemics against Augustine, it also contained dialectical acuteness and
logical sequence of thoughts.
It forms the proper source for the knowledge of the theology of Julian.
Though composed shortly after 421, it did not come to the notice of Augustine until 427.
The written rebuttal by Augustine quotes Julian sentence by sentence and refutes them.
It was completed only as far as the sixth section of the book by Julian, and hence is cited in subsequent Patristic literature as Opus
imperfectum contra Iulianum ("The uncompleted work against Julian.")
A comprehensive account of Pelagianism, which brings into strong relief the diametrically opposed views of the author, was furnished
by Augustine in 428 in the final chapter of his work, De haeresibus ("About heresies.")
The last writings by Augustine published before his death in August 430 were no longer aimed against Pelagianism, but against what
is now called Semipelagianism.
Augustine thus spent much time and thought during the last twelve years of his life defending his interpretations against the claims of
Julian of Eclanum.

The latter had seen theory of original sin by Augustine as a departure of orthodox Christian thought.
Julian asserted that in this matter Augustine was still Manichaean. Julian said Augustine denied the goodness of creation and the
freedom of will.
This was the very heresy that Augustine had admired in his youth but later had attacked once he had become a baptised Christian.
Augustine won the theological battle against Julian in that the views of Augustine largely prevailed.
The theological vision of Augustine concerning human nature - and, indeed, the entire world view of Augustine - became fundamental
to medieval culture.
It has affected ever since the Western religious and cultural attitudes about the reason for suffering and death.
The intellect of Augustine was certainly still sharp in his old age, but did he lose some of his sense of perspective?
As he aged, his vision narrowed, certainly, but some scholars hold that this in itself is inadequate as an explanation for his final
writings against Pelagianism.
When approaching his sixtieth year, Augustine found one final great theological challenge for himself.
A few say that he did not find it but, rather, that he manufactured it, or at least inflated it
PELAGIANISM AND JULIAN OF ECLANUM (3)
Upset by the implications of the teachings of Pelagianism, Augustine gradually worked himself up to a polemical fever-pitch over
ideas that Pelagius and various of his followers may or may not have accepted.
Other scholars of the time were perplexed and reacted with caution to the vigour of the attacks of Augustine on Pelagian thought, but
he persisted.
It was almost as if he was feeling the need of defending himself personally.
Possibly tjhe old age of Augustine partially prompted this reaction.
At the time of his death, Augustine was at work on a vast and unclear attack on the last and most urbane of his Pelagian opponents, the
Italian bishop Julian of Eclanum.
Of considerable intellectual resources, Julian had, among other things, accused Augustine of holding views indistinguishable from
those of the Manicheans whom Augustine had first joined but subsequently opposed so many years before.
In this tiring and frustrating controversy with the Pelagians over a period of fifteen years, Augustine saw one of his own earlier
writings on the human will cited by his opponents as evidence that he himself once advocated the view he had now come so
vehemently to oppose. (See Augustine: Retractationes I.9.3-6)
One of the early writings by Augustine, On the Free Choice of the Will, had been written against the Manichaeans. This book later
used by the Pelagians to support their view of radical free will.
Augustine was forced to point out in his Retractions that even though he had argued that humans can fall into sin of their own free
will, he had held that they cannot rise up to relationship with God on the same basis.
Perhaps the cruel irony is this: during the Protestant Reformation eleven centuries later, when the Church to which Augustine had
devoted his life was to split in a manner that still in the twenty-first century shows minimal signs of reconciliation, both sides would
appeal to Augustine as an authority on questions of doctrine.
Leaving aside the relative merits of these accusations and appeals, their mere existence is only possible because of the great diversity
and range of the thought and writing of Augustine during his long life. (http://augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=137&iparentid=131)
Life and writings of Pelagius
Apart from the chief episodes of the Pelagian controversy, little or nothing is known about the personal career of Pelagius. It is only
after he bade a lasting farewell to Rome in A.D. 411 that the sources become more abundant; but from 418 on history is again silent

about his person. As St. Augustine (De peccat. orig., xxiv) testifies that he lived in Rome "for a very long time", we may presume that
he resided there at least since the reign of Pope Anastasius (398-401). But about his long life prior to the year 400 and above all about
his youth, we are left wholly in the dark. Even the country of his birth is disputed. While the most trustworthy witnesses, such as
Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is apparent from his
cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem., lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit., "habet enim progeniem
Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being "stuffed with Scottish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a
weak memory. Rightly arguing that the "Scots" of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer ("Pelagius in Ireland", p. 20, Berlin,
1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he journeyed
through the southwest of Britain to Rome. Tall in stature and portly in appearance (Jerome, loc. cit., "grandis et corpulentus"), Pelagius
was highly educated, spoke and wrote Latin as well as Greek with great fluency and was well versed in theology. Though a monk and
consequently devoted to practical asceticism, he never was a cleric; for both Orosius and Pope Zosimus simply call him a "layman". In
Rome itself he enjoyed the reputation of austerity, while St. Augustine called him even a "saintly man", vir sanctus: with St. Paulinus
of Nola (405) and other prominent bishops, he kept up an edifying correspondence, which he used later for his personal defence.
During his sojourn in Rome he composed several works: "De fide Trinitatis libri III", now lost, but extolled by Gennadius as
"indispensable reading matter for students"; "Eclogarum ex divinis Scripturis liber unus", in the main collection of Bible passages
based on Cyprian's "Testimoniorum libri III", of which St. Augustine has preserved a number of fragments; "Commentarii in epistolas
S. Pauli", elaborated no doubt before the destruction of Rome by Alaric (410) and known to St. Augustine in 412. Zimmer (loc. cit.)
deserves credit for having rediscovered in this commentary on St. Paul the original work of Pelagius, which had, in the course of time,
been attributed to St. Jerome (P.L., XXX, 645-902). A closer examination of this work, so suddenly become famous, brought to light
the fact that it contained the fundamental ideas which the Church afterwards condemned as "Pelagian heresy". In it Pelagius denied
the primitive state in paradise and original sin (cf. P.L., XXX, 678, "Insaniunt, qui de Adam per traducem asserunt ad nos venire
peccatum"), insisted on the naturalness of concupiscence and the death of the body, and ascribed the actual existence and universality
of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin. As all his ideas were chiefly rooted in the old, pagan philosophy, especially
in the popular system of the Stoics, rather than in Christianity, he regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), when
steeled by asceticism, as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue. The value of Christ's redemption was, in
his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a
counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the
aid of grace. By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, "per solam fidem justificat
Deus impium convertendum"), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no interior renovation of sanctification of the soul. How far
the sola-fides doctrine "had no stouter champion before Luther than Pelagius" and whether, in particular, the Protestant conception of
fiducial faith dawned upon him many centuries before Luther, as Loofs ("Realencyklopdies fur protest. Theologie", XV, 753,
Leipzig, 1904) assumes, probably needs more careful investigation. For the rest, Pelagius would have announced nothing new by this
doctrine, since the Antinomists of the early Apostolic Church were already familiar with "justification by faith alone" (cf.
JUSTIFICATION); on the other hand, Luther's boast of having been the first to proclaim the doctrine of abiding faith, might well
arouse opposition. However, Pelagius insists expressly (loc. cit. 812), "Ceterum sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides". But
the commentary on St. Paul is silent on one chief point of doctrine, i.e. the significance of infant baptism, which supposed that the
faithful were even then clearly conscious of the existence of original sin in children.
To explain psychologically Pelagius's whole line of thought, it does not suffice to go back to the ideal of the wise man, which he
fashioned after the ethical principles of the Stoics and upon which his vision was centred. We must also take into account that his
intimacy with the Greeks developed in him, though unknown to himself, a one-sidedness, which at first sight appears pardonable. The
gravest error into which he and the rest of the Pelagians fell, was that they did not submit to the doctrinal decisions of the Church.
While the Latins had emphasized the guilt rather than its punishment, as the chief characteristic of original sin, the Greeks on the other
hand (even Chrysostom) laid greater stress on the punishment than on the guilt. Theodore of Mopsuestia went even so far as to deny
the possibility of original guilt and consequently the penal character of the death of the body. Besides, at that time, the doctrine of
Christian grace was everywhere vague and undefined; even the West was convinced of nothing more than that some sort of assistance
was necessary to salvation and was given gratuitously, while the nature of this assistance was but little understood. In the East,
moreover, as an offset to widespread fatalism, the moral power and freedom of the will were at times very strongly or even too
strongly insisted on assisting grace being spoken of more frequently than preventing grace (see GRACE). It was due to the
intervention of St. Augustine and the Church, that greater clearness was gradually reached in the disputed questions and that the first
impulse was given towards a more careful development of the dogmas of original sin and grace.

Pelagius and Caelestius (411-415)

Of far-reaching influence upon the further progress of Pelagianism was the friendship which Pelagius contracted in Rome with
Caelestius, a lawyer of noble (probably Italian) descent. A eunuch by birth, but endowed with no mean talents, Caelestius had been
won over to asceticism by his enthusiasm for the monastic life, and in the capacity of a lay-monk he endeavoured to convert the
practical maxims learnt from Pelagius, into theoretical principles, which successfully propagated in Rome. St. Augustine, while
charging Pelagius with mysteriousness, mendacity, and shrewdness, calls Caelestius (De peccat. orig., xv) not only "incredibly
loquacious", but also open-hearted, obstinate, and free in social intercourse. Even if their secret or open intrigues did not escape
notice, still the two friends were not molested by the official Roman circles. But matters changed when in 411 they left the hospitable
soil of the metropolis, which had been sacked by Alaric (410), and set sail for North Africa. When they landed on the coast near
Hippo, Augustine, the bishop of that city, was absent, being fully occupied in settling the Donatist disputes in Africa. Later, he met
Pelagius in Carthage several times, without, however, coming into closer contact with him. After a brief sojourn in North Africa,
Pelagius travelled on to Palestine, while Caelestius tried to have himself made a presbyter in Carthage. But this plan was frustrated by
the deacon Paulinus of Milan, who submitted to the bishop, Aurelius, a memorial in which six theses of Caelestius perhaps literal
extracts from his lost work "Contra traducem peccati" were branded as heretical. These theses ran as follows:
1.

Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.

2.

Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.

3.

Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.

4.

The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.

5.

The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.

6.

Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

On account of these doctrines, which clearly contain the quintessence of Pelagianism, Caelestius was summoned to appear before a
synod at Carthage (411); but he refused to retract them, alleging that the inheritance of Adam's sin was an open question and hence its
denial was no heresy. As a result he was not only excluded from ordination, but his six theses were condemned. He declared his
intention of appealing to the pope in Rome, but without executing his design went to Ephesus in Asia Minor, where he was ordained a
priest.
Meanwhile the Pelagian ideas had infected a wide area, especially around Carthage, so that Augustine and other bishops were
compelled to take a resolute stand against them in sermons and private conversations. Urged by his friend Marcellinus, who "daily
endured the most annoying debates with the erring brethren", St. Augustine in 412 wrote the famous works: "De peccatorum meritis et
remissione libri III" (P.L., XLIV, 109 sqq.) and "De spiritu et litera" (ibid., 201 sqq.), in which he positively established the existence
of original sin, the necessity of infant baptism, the impossibility of a life without sin, and the necessity of interior grace (spiritus) in
opposition to the exterior grace of the law (litera). When in 414 disquieting rumours arrived from Sicily and the so-called
"Definitiones Caelestii" (reconstructed in Garnier, "Marii Mercatoris Opera", I, 384 sqq., Paris, 1673), said to be the work of
Caelestius, were sent to him, he at once (414 or 415) published the rejoinder, "De perfectione justitiae hominis" (P.L., XLIV, 291 sqq.),
in which he again demolished the illusion of the possibility of complete freedom from sin. Out of charity and in order to win back the
erring the more effectually, Augustine, in all these writings, never mentioned the two authors of the heresy by name.
Meanwhile Pelagius, who was sojourning in Palestine, did not remain idle; to a noble Roman virgin, named Demetrias, who at Alaric's
coming had fled to Carthage, he wrote a letter which is still extant (in P.L., XXX, 15-45) and in which he again inculcated his Stoic
principles of the unlimited energy of nature. Moreover, he published in 415 a work, now lost, "De natura", in which he attempted to
prove his doctrine from authorities, appealing not only to the writings of Hilary and Ambrose, but also to the earlier works of Jerome
and Augustine, both of whom were still alive. The latter answered at once (415) by his treatise "De natura et gratia" (P.L., XLIV, 247
sqq.). Jerome, however, to whom Augustine's pupil Orosius, a Spanish priest, personally explained the danger of the new heresy, and
who had been chagrined by the severity with which Pelagius had criticized his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, thought
the time ripe to enter the lists; this he did by his letter to Ctesiphon (Ep. cxxliii) and by his graceful "Dialogus contra Pelagianos"
(P.L., XXIII, 495 sqq.). He was assisted by Orosius, who, forthwith accused Pelagius in Jerusalem of heresy. Thereupon, Bishop John
of Jerusalem "dearly loved" (St. Augustine, "Ep. clxxix") Pelagius and had him at the time as his guest. He convoked in July, 415, a

diocesan council for the investigation of the charge. The proceedings were hampered by the fact that Orosius, the accusing party, did
not understand Greek and had engaged a poor interpreter, while the defendant Pelagius was quite able to defend himself in Greek and
uphold his orthodoxy. However, according to the personal account (written at the close of 415) of Orosius (Liber apolog. contra
Pelagium, P.L., XXXI, 1173), the contesting parties at last agreed to leave the final judgment on all questions to the Latins, since both
Pelagius and his adversaries were Latins, and to invoke the decision of Innocent I; meanwhile silence was imposed on both parties.
But Pelagius was granted only a short respite. For in the very same year, the Gallic bishops, Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, who,
after the defeat of the usurper Constantine (411), had resigned their bishoprics and gone to Palestine, brought the matter before Bishop
Eulogius of Caesarea, with the result that the latter summoned Pelagius in December, 415, before a synod of fourteen bishops, held in
Diospolis, the ancient Lydda. But fortune again favoured the heresiarch. About the proceedings and the issue we are exceptionally well
informed through the account of St. Augustine, "De gestis Pelagii" (P.L., XLIV, 319 sqq.), written in 417 and based on the acts of the
synod. Pelagius punctually obeyed the summons, but the principal complainants, Heros and Lazarus, failed to make their appearance,
one of them being prevented by ill-health. And as Orosius, too, derided and persecuted by Bishop John of Jerusalem, had departed,
Pelagius met no personal plaintiff, while he found at the same time a skillful advocate in the deacon Anianus of Celeda (cf. Hieronym.,
"Ep. cxliii", ed. Vallarsi, I, 1067). The principal points of the petition were translated by an interpreter into Greek and read only in an
extract. Pelagius, having won the good-will of the assembly by reading to them some private letters of prominent bishops among them
one of Augustine (Ep. cxlvi) began to explain away and disprove the various accusations. Thus from the charge that he made the
possibility of a sinless life solely dependent on free will, he exonerated himself by saying that, on the contrary, he required the help of
God (adjutorium Dei) for it, though by this he meant nothing else than the grace of creation (gratia creationis). Of other doctrines
with which he had been charged, he said that, formulated as they were in the complaint, they did not originate from him, but from
Caelestius, and that he also repudiated them. After the hearing there was nothing left for the synod but to discharge the defendant and
to announce him as worthy of communion with the Church. The Orient had now spoken twice and had found nothing to blame in
Pelagius, because he had hidden his real sentiments from his judges.
Continuation and end of controversy (415-418)
The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with
letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done. In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from
Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the
ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the
doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith. However, in order to secure for their
decisions "the authority of the Apostolic See", both synods wrote to Innocent I, requesting his supreme sanction. And in order to
impress upon him more strongly the seriousness of the situation, five bishops (Augustine, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius)
forwarded to him a joint letter, in which they detailed the doctrine of original sin, infant baptism, and Christian grace (St. Augustine,
"Epp. clxxv-vii"). In three separate epistles, dated 27 Jan., 417, the pope answered the synodal letters of Carthage and Mileve as well
as that of the five bishops (Jaff, "Regest.", 2nd ed., nn. 321-323, Leipzig, 1885). Starting from the principle that the resolutions of
provincial synods have no binding force until they are confirmed by the supreme authority of the Apostolic See, the pope developed
the Catholic teaching on original sin and grace, and excluded Pelagius and Caelestius, who were reported to have rejected these
doctrines, form communion with the Church until they should come to their senses (donec resipiscant). In Africa, where the decision
was received with unfeigned joy, the whole controversy was now regarded as closed, and Augustine, on 23 September, 417,
announced from the pulpit (Serm., cxxxi, 10 in P.L., XXXVIII, 734), "Jam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem
apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est". (Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the
replies have come back; the question is settled.) But he was mistaken; the matter was not yet settled.
Innocent I died on 12 March, 417, and Zosimus, a Greek by birth, succeeded him. Before his tribunal the whole Pelagian question was
now opened once more and discussed in all its bearings. The occasion for this was the statements which both Pelagius and Caelestius
submitted to the Roman See in order to justify themselves. Though the previous decisions of Innocent I had removed all doubts about
the matter itself, yet the question of the persons involved was undecided, viz. Did Pelagius and Caelestius really teach the theses
condemned as heretical? Zosimus' sense of justice forbade him to punish anyone with excommunication before he was duly convicted
of his error. And if the steps recently taken by the two defendants were considered, the doubts which might arise on this point were not
wholly groundless. In 416 Pelagius had published a new work, now lost, "De libero arbitrio libri IV", which in its phraseology seemed
to verge towards the Augustinian conception of grace and infant baptism, even if in principle it did not abandon the author's earlier
standpoint. Speaking of Christian grace, he admitted not only a Divine revelation, but also a sort of interior grace, viz. an illumination
of the mind (through sermons, reading of the Bible, etc.), adding, however, that the latter served not to make salutary works possible,
but only to facilitate their performance. As to infant baptism he granted that it ought to be administered in the same form as in the case

of adults, not in order to cleanse the children from a real original guilt, but to secure to them entrance into the "kingdom of God".
Unbaptized children, he thought, would after their death be excluded from the "kingdom of God", but not from "eternal life". This
work, together with a still extant confession of faith, which bears witness to his childlike obedience, Pelagius sent to Rome, humbly
begging at the same time that chance inaccuracies might be corrected by him who "holds the faith and see of Peter". All this was
addressed to Innocent I, of whose death Pelagius had not yet heard. Caelestius, also, who meanwhile had changed his residence from
Ephesus to Constantinople, but had been banished thence by the anti-Pelagian Bishop Atticus, took active steps toward his own
rehabilitation. In 417 he went to Rome in person and laid at the feet of Zosimus a detailed confession of faith (Fragments, P.L., XLV,
1718), in which he affirmed his belief in all doctrines, "from the Trinity of one God to the resurrection of the dead" (cf. St. Augustine,
"De peccato orig.", xxiii).
Highly pleased with this Catholic faith and obedience, Zosimus sent two different letters (P.L., XLV, 1719 sqq.) to the African bishops,
saying that in the case of Caelestius Bishops Heros and Lazarus had proceeded without due circumspection, and that Pelagius too, as
was proved by his recent confession of faith, had not swerved from the Catholic truth. As to Caelestius, who was then in Rome, the
pope charged the Africans either to revise their former sentence or to convict him of heresy in his own (the pope's) presence within
two months. The papal command struck Africa like a bomb-shell. In great haste a synod was convened at Carthage in November, 417,
and writing to Zosimus, they urgently begged him not to rescind the sentence which his predecessor, Innocent I, had pronounced
against Pelagius and Caelestius, until both had confessed the necessity of interior grace for all salutary thoughts, words, and deeds. At
last Zosimus came to a halt. By a rescript of 21 March, 418, he assured them that he had not yet pronounced definitively, but that he
was transmitting to Africa all documents bearing on Pelagianism in order to pave the way for a new, joint investigation. Pursuant to
the papal command, there was held on 1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again
branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance
they may be summarized:
1.

Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.

2.

New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.

3.

Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.

4.

The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute
them.

5.

Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.

6.

Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.

7.

The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.

8.

The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.

9.

Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle
place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal
life".

These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church,
gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.
Meanwhile, urged by the Africans (probably through a certain Valerian, who as comes held an influential position in Ravenna), the
secular power also took a hand in the dispute, the Emperor Honorius, by rescript of 30 April, 418, from Ravenna, banishing all
Pelagians from the cities of Italy. Whether Caelestius evaded the hearing before Zosimus, to which he was now bound, "by fleeing
from Rome" (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", II, 5), or whether he was one of the first to fall a victim to the imperial decree
of exile, cannot be satisfactorily settled from the sources. With regard to his later life, we are told that in 421 he again haunted Rome
or its vicinity, but was expelled a second time by an imperial rescript (cf. P.L., XLV, 1750). It is further related that in 425 his petition
for an audience with Celestine I was answered by a third banishment (cf. P.L., LI, 271). He then sought refuge in the orient, where we
shall meet him later. Pelagius could not have been included in the imperial decree of exile from Rome. For at that time he undoubtedly

resided in the Orient, since, as late as the summer of 418, he communicated with Pinianus and his wife Melania, who lived in Palestine
(cf. Card. Rampolla, "Santa Melania giuniore", Rome, 1905). But this is the last information we have about him; he probably died in
the orient. Having received the Acts of the Council of Carthage, Zosimus sent to all the bishops of the world his famous "Epistola
tractoria" (418) of which unfortunately only fragments have come down to us. This papal encyclical, a lengthy document, gives a
minute account of the entire "causa Caelestii et Pelagii", from whose works it quotes abundantly, and categorically demands the
condemnation of Pelagianism as a heresy. The assertion that every bishop of the world was obliged to confirm this circular by his own
signature, cannot be proved, it is more probable that the bishops were required to transmit to Rome a written agreement; if a bishop
refused to sign, he was deposed from his office and banished. A second and harsher rescript, issued by the emperor on 9 June, 419, and
addressed to Bishop Aurelius of Carthage (P.L., XLV, 1731), gave additional force to this measure. Augustine's triumph was complete.
In 418, drawing the balance, as it were, of the whole controversy, he wrote against the heresiarchs his last great work, "De gratia
Christi et de peccato originali" (P.L., XLIV, 359 sqq.).
The disputes of St. Augustine with Julian of Eclanum (419-428)
Through the vigorous measures adopted in 418, Pelagianism was indeed condemned, but not crushed. Among the eighteen bishops of
Italy who were exiled on account of their refusal to sign the papal decree, Julian, Bishop of Eclanum, a city of Apulia now deserted,
was the first to protest against the "Tractoria" of Zosimus. Highly educated and skilled in philosophy and dialectics, he assumed the
leadership among the Pelagians. But to fight for Pelagianism now meant to fight against Augustine. The literary feud set in at once. It
was probably Julian himself who denounced St. Augustine as damnator nupitarum to the influential comes Valerian in Ravenna, a
nobleman, who was very happily married. To meet the accusation, Augustine wrote, at the beginning of 419, an apology, "De nuptiis et
concupiscentia libri II" (P.L., XLIV, 413 sqq.) and addressed it to Valerian. Immediately after (419 or 420), Julian published a reply
which attacked the first book of Augustine's work and bore the title, "Libri IV ad Turbantium". But Augustine refuted it in his famous
rejoinder, written in 421 or 422, "Contra Iulianum libri VI" (P.L., XLIV, 640 sqq.). When two Pelagian circulars, written by Julian and
scourging the "Manichaean views" of the Antipelagians, fell into his hands, he attacked them energetically (420 or 421) in a work,
dedicated to Boniface I, "Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum libri IV" (P.L., XLIV, 549 sqq.). Being driven from Rome, Julian had
found (not later than 421) a place of refuge in Cilicia with Theodore of Mopsuestia. Here he employed his leisure in elaborating an
extensive work, "Libri VIII ad Florum", which was wholly devoted to refuting the second book of Augustine's "De nuptiis et
concupiscentia". Though composed shortly after 421, it did not come to the notice of St. Augustine until 427. The latter's reply, which
quotes Julian's argumentations sentence for sentence and refutes them, was completed only as far as the sixth book, whence it is cited
in patristic literature as "Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum" (P.L., XLV, 1049 sqq.). A comprehensive account of Pelagianism, which
brings out into strong relief the diametrically opposed views of the author, was furnished by Augustine in 428 in the final chapter of
his work, "De haeresibus" (P.L., XLII, 21 sqq.). Augustine's last writings published before his death (430) were no longer aimed
against Pelagianism but against Semipelagianism.
After the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia (428), Julian of Eclanum left the hospitable city of Cilicia and in 429 we meet him
unexpectedly in company with his fellow exiles Bishops Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, and the Court of the Patriarch Nestorius of
Constantinople, who willingly supported the fugitives. It was here, too, in 429, that Caelestius emerged again as the protg of the
patriarch; this is his last appearance in history; for from now on all trace of him is lost. But the exiled bishops did not long enjoy the
protection of Nestorius. When Marius Mercator, a layman and friend of St. Augustine, who was then present in Constantinople, heard
of the machinations of the Pelagians in the imperial city, he composed towards the end of 429 his "Commonitorium super nomine
Caelestii" (P.L., XLVIII, 63 sqq.), in which he exposed the shameful life and the heretical character of Nestorius' wards. The result was
that the Emperor Theodosius II decreed their banishment in 430. When the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) repeated the
condemnation pronounced by the West (cf. Mansi, "Concil. collect.", IV, 1337), Pelagianism was crushed in the East. According to the
trustworthy report of Prosper of Aquitaine ("Chronic." ad a. 439, in P.L., LI, 598), Julian of Eclanum, feigning repentance, tried to
regain possession of his former bishopric, a plan which Sixtus III (432-40) courageously frustrated. The year of his death is uncertain.
He seems to have died in Italy between 441 and 445 during the reign of Valentinian III.
Last traces of Pelagianism (429-529)
After the Council of Ephesus (431), Pelagianism no more disturbed the Greek Church, so that the Greek historians of the fifth century
do not even mention either the controversy or the names of the heresiarchs. But the heresy continued to smoulder in the West and died
out very slowly. The main centres were Gaul and Britain. About Gaul we are told that a synod, held probably at Troyes in 429, was
compelled to take steps against the Pelagians. It also sent Bishops Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes to Britain to fight the
rampant heresy, which received powerful support from two pupils of Pelagius, Agricola and Fastidius (cf. Caspari, "Letters, Treatises
and Sermons from the two last Centuries of Ecclesiastical Antiquity", pp. 1-167, Christiana, 1891). Almost a century later, Wales was
the centre of Pelagian intrigues. For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which

directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod
against them. In Ireland also Pelagius's "Commentary on St. Paul", described in the beginning of this article, was in use long
afterwards, as is proved by many Irish quotations from it. Even in Italy traces can be found, not only in the Diocese of Aquileia (cf.
Garnier, "Opera Marii Mercat.", I, 319 sqq., Paris, 1673), but also in Middle Italy; for the so-called "Liber Praedestinatus", written
about 440 perhaps in Rome itself, bears not so much the stamp of Semipelagianism as of genuine Pelagianism (cf. von Schubert, "Der
sog. Praedestinatus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelagianismus", Leipzig, 1903). A more detailed account of this work will be
found under the article PREDESTINARIANISM. It was not until the Second Synod of Orange (529) that Pelagianism breathed its last
in the West, though that convention aimed its decisions primarily against Semipelagianism.(
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm)
St. Augustine and the Pelagian Heresy
As St. Athanasius had defended the Church against the heretical teaching of the Arians, so St. Augustine was the champion of the true faith against
the errors taught by Pelagius and his disciple Celestius.
St. Augustine was born at Tagaste, near Hippo, A.D. 354. He was brought up as a Christian by his mother, St. Monica, but was not baptized. Having
been sent to a pagan school by his father, Patricius, he fell in with bad companions and led a very wicked life. For nine years he followed the heresy
of the Manichaeans, but the prayers of St. Monica for her son were at last heard, and Augustine received the grace to abandon his sins and become,
not only a great saint, but also a defender of the faith he had before neglected. He was baptized by St. Ambrose on Holy Saturday, A.D. 387. After
three years St. Augustine was ordained priest, and in A.D. 395 he was consecrated Bishop of Hippo.
It was at this time that the heresy of Pelagius arose. Pelagius was a native of Britain, but went to Rome at the end of the fourth century, where he
commenced to teach that we can save ourselves by our own efforts without the aid of grace, and that mankind has not inherited any stain of original
sin. When Rome was sacked by the Goths in A.D. 410, Pelagius went to Carthage, where St. Augustine soon found out the errors of his teaching.
Then Pelagius went to Jerusalem and began to teach. He managed so to deceive his judges that he was acquitted of the charge of heresy. But St.
Augustine, hearing of what had been done, brought the question before two Synods, which condemned the teaching of Pelagius and Celestius. The
decrees of these Synods were sent to Rome, and when the, Pope confirmed them, St. Augustine said, "Rescripts have come: the case is finished "; in
other words, "Rome has spoken: the cause is ended."
Later on, a milder form of the heresy of Pelagius began to be taught. It was known as Semi-Pelagianism, and held that though grace is necessary for
carrying on good works, man can begin them by his own power. Against this teaching St. Augustine wrote two works to explain fully the doctrine of
the Church about grace and free will. Both these heresies soon died out.
So also did the great schism and heresy of the Donatists which troubled the church in Africa for nearly a century until St. Augustine, by voice and
pen, overcame it. The Donatists taught that the sacraments were rendered invalid by sin in the minister; and that sinners could not belong to the
Church.
For thirty-five years St. Augustine continued to preach and write in defence of the faith. He died A.D. 430, during the siege of Hippo by the Vandals.
Another great defender of the Church against Pelagianism was St. Jerome. He was born about the year A.D. 340 in Dalmatia. He was sent to Rome to
complete his studies, and was baptized there about A.D. 365. After an illness which he suffered at Antioch, St. Jerome went into the desert of Chalcis
for four years.
He was ordained priest in A.D. 378, and went to Constantinople, where he helped St. Gregory Nazianzen to get rid of the Arian and Macedonian
heresies from amongst his people. After three years St. Jerome went to Rome. The Pope, St. Damasus, kept him there for many years, that he might
have the benefit of his assistance. After the death of this holy Pope he left the Eternal City for Bethlehem, where he spent the last years of his life in
one of the caves near the grotto of the Nativity. There he directed the nuns of three convents, and gave himself up to prayer, mortification, and the
study and translation into Latin of the Sacred Scriptures until his death, which took place in A.D. 420. (http://www.heritage-history.com/?
c=read&author=sisters&book=leading1&story=defenders)

Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by
God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and
Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325).
Arianism is often considered to be a form of Unitarian theology in that it stresses Gods unity at the expense of the notion of the
Trinity, the doctrine that three distinct persons are united in one Godhead. Ariuss basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is
alone self-existent (not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent, cannot therefore
be the self-existent and immutable God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated. Because the Godhead
is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, must, therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and
has had a beginning. Moreover, the Son can have no direct knowledge of the Father, since the Son is finite and of a different order of
existence.

According to its opponents, especially the bishop Athanasius, Ariuss teaching reduced the Son to a demigod, reintroduced polytheism
(since worship of the Son was not abandoned), and undermined the Christian concept of redemption, since only he who was truly God
could be deemed to have reconciled humanity to the Godhead.
The Council of Nicaea, which condemned Arius as a heretic and issued a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief, was
convened to settle the controversy. The creed adopted at Nicaea states that the Son is homoousion t Patri (of one substance with the
Father), thus declaring him to be all that the Father is: he is completely divine. In fact, however, this was only the beginning of a
long-protracted dispute.
From 325 to 337, when the emperor Constantine died, those church leaders who had supported Arius and had been exiled after the
Council of Nicaea attempted to return to their churches and sees (ecclesiastical seats) and to banish their enemies. They were partly
successful. From 337 to 350 Constans, sympathetic to non-Arian Christians, was emperor in the West, and Constantius II, sympathetic
to the Arians, was emperor in the East. At a church council held at Antioch (341), an affirmation of faith that omitted the homoousion
clause was issued. Another church council was held at Sardica (modern Sofia) in 342, but little was achieved by either council. In 350
Constantius became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then
declared that the Son was unlike (anomoios) the Father. Those anomoeans succeeded in having their views endorsed at Sirmium in
357, but their extremism stimulated the moderates, who asserted that the Son was of similar substance (homoiousios) with the
Father. Constantius at first supported those homoiousians but soon transferred his support to the homoeans, led by Acacius, who
affirmed that the Son was like (homoios) the Father. Their views were approved in 360 at Constantinople, where all previous creeds
were rejected; the term ousia (substance or stuff) was repudiated; and a statement of faith was issued stating that the Son was
like the Father who begot him.
After Constantiuss death (361), the non-Arian Christian majority in the West largely consolidated its position. The persecution of nonArian Christians conducted by the Arian emperor Valens (364378) in the East and the success of the teaching of Basil the Great of
Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus led the homoiousian majority in the East to a fundamental agreement with the
Nicene party. When the emperors Gratian (367383) and Theodosius I (379395) took up the defense of non-Arian theology, Arianism
collapsed. In 381 the second ecumenical council met at Constantinople. Arianism was proscribed, and a statement of faith, the Nicene
Creed, was approved.
That did not, however, end Arianism as a viable force in the empire. It maintained favour among some groups, most notably some of
the Germanic tribes, to the end of the 7th century. The Polish and Transylvanian Socinians of the 16th and 17th centuries propounded
Christological arguments that were similar to those of Arius and his followers. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Unitarians in
England and America were unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with
that of the Father. The Christology of Jehovahs Witnesses is also a form of Arianism, for it upholds the unity and supremacy of God
the Father. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism)
Heresies: Arianism
The doctrine known as Arianism actually began early in the 3rd century, and was the product of speculation into the nature of Christ. It
became one of the hottest issues in the early Church even more than Gnosticism, as Arianism many adherents, and was closer in
nature to the orthodox Literalism of the time.
The Nature of Christ
Almost from the start, Christianity was a Hellenistic movement, and attracted Hellenized followers, of various ethnicity. Many early
Christians were highly educated, according to classical Greek standards, schooled in logic, rhetoric, philosophy, geometry, etc.
It was inevitable, then, that Christian thinkers would attempt to more thoroughly understand the nature of Christ, using Greek
analytical methods. How is it, they asked, that God could be human? How could God so alter Himself as to have a human form and a
human life? Furthermore, if He had died for humanity's sins, how precisely did this happen? Can God die at all and remain God?
These are just a few of the questions that vexed the earliest Christian theologians. (By the way, some of these questions are still being
asked!)
For a long time, these questions were asked in a less-than-serious manner. For a very long time, Christianity did not have a solid
doctrine, per se, so any such speculation made little difference. After a while, however, when the episcopal synods began slowly
and in piecemeal fashion to hammer out a single doctrine, the answers to all of these speculations began to matter. Some were
acceptable, others were not.

Paul of Samosata
One of the people who tackled the nature of Christ, as a doctrinal matter, was Paul of Samosata (in eastern Anatolia) who became
Patriarch of Antioch. He eventually concluded that Jesus Christ was a created being, not uncreated as God was. This determination
meant that Christ was less than fully divine.
For quite some time, this idea was known as the Samosatene Doctrine, after its first major proponent (though it may actually have
predated Paul of Samosata). It created consternation, once word of it was passed around. One of the building-blocks of Christianity (as
many saw it) had been the divinity of Christ. For Christ's divinity to come under attack, was a threat to the very foundations of the
faith; that is came from inside the nascent Church, only made matters worse.
Still, it was a sensible answer to the many questions posed above, and was seen as a very logical conclusion, even by those who
opposed it. Paul of Samosata was popular at first, but eventually, was driven from office. Without his episcopal pulpit from which to
explain it, Paul and his doctrine faded from view.
Arius of Alexandria
A presbyter from Alexandria, Arius, dusted off the Samosatene doctrine, and presented it to the Church once more. He was a more
adamant champion of it, and a far more eloquent and persuasive speaker. The Christian community of Alexandria became sharply
divided over the Samosatene Doctrine. Arius was in the minority but still had a significant following; his own patriarch, Alexander,
stood against him. Alexander called a council of Egyptian bishops, who denounced Arius and his doctrine.
The differences between the two sides grew ever more severe. The Samosatenes were convinced that the Alexandrians (that is, the
Christian followers of Patriarch Alexander) were blaspheming, by elevating Christ to Godhood, when He was not divine. The
Alexandrians were convinced the Samosatenes were blaspheming, by denying the divinity of Christ. Eventually, the conflict elevated
to fisticuffs.
At this point, having been denounced, and with Alexandrian Christians almost at war with one another. Arius was no longer safe in
Alexandria. He fled to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, with whom he had had a correspondence, and who supported him. Arius managed to
convert many in Palestine and Syria. He was already elderly, by this time, but hale enough to traverse the Levant in favor of his
teachings.
Arius At Nica
When Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea, among the issues discussed was the Samosatene Doctrine. Arius spoke eloquently,
as usual, for his doctrine, arguing both its reasonableness and logic, as well as its spiritual value. Athanasius, another Alexandrian
presbyter who was a protege of Alexander, argued against the Samosatene Doctrine, in favor of the absolute divinity of Christ. He
argued that belief in Christ meant nothing, if He were not fully divine; hence the only reasonable course was to condemn the
Samosatene Doctrine.
The majority of bishops at Nicaea decided to condemn the Samosatene Doctrine. They also condemned and excommunicated Arius.
They did not, as is commonly assumed, adopt the Trinity at that time. The doctrine of the Trinity was developed over the next
couple of decades, begun by Athanasius but ratified at the end of the 4th century in the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople.
(The creed which came of these Councils is known as the Nicene Creed, however, this is a misnomer, as the Council of Nicaea
adopted no creed whatsoever.)
Arius On the Run
Arius returned to Palestine as quickly as could be arranged, however, it was no longer safe, as support for him in Palestine waned,
after the Council. He was forced to leave Asia entirely, crossing the Bosporus and seeking shelter with the forces of Emperor
Constantine, in Dacia (modern Bulgaria or Romania).
Constantine had been furious over the results of the Council he'd requested. His goal had been to unify, not divide, Christianity.
Instead, three Christianities emerged: "Orthodox," Arian, and Gnostic. Thus, when Arius showed up looking for asylum, the Emperor
was only too happy to oblige; he could think of no better way to display his chagrin over the proceedings at Nicaea.
Arius died a couple of years later, but others picked up the banner of the Samosatene Doctrine (which became known as Arianism,
after the presbyter's death). Arianism found something of a second home in the western part of the Roman Empire in its waning days.
Partly, this is because Christianity was less sophisticated, there, and the notion of orthodoxy wasn't strictly enforced (since there were

fewer people who understood doctrine well enough to tell the difference between orthodoxy and heresy!). Also, Arianism seems to
have coincided more neatly with the "mystery religions" that were practiced in the west.
Despite this, small pockets of Arianism remained in the east. Over time, they blended into Monophysitism, another later heretical
movement, which the Byzantine Emperors finally stamped out.
Arianism Among The Barbarians
In the fouth century the barbarians who lurked at Romes margins, and who later plundered it and established new kingdoms of their
own in place of the western Roman Empire, were largely converted to Arian Christianity rather than orthodox or Catholic Christianity,
thanks to the efforts of missionaries such as Ulfilas (who also famously translated parts of the Bible into the Gothic language), as well
as the Germanic tribes acquisition of Roman captives, most of whom happened to come from primarily-Arian parts of the Empire.
Among the barbarians, Arianism took on a life of its own. Christianity in its Arian form became somewhat unique, distinct even from
native Roman Arianism. The new kingdoms also became religiously-layered, with the Germanic aristocracy being Arian with the
majority Roman population being Catholic (with a minority of Arians among the Romans). This chagrined the Catholic hierarchy, and
they feared repression. But generally the barbarian kings tolerated the Catholics in their lands; they did, however, intervene when the
Catholics targeted Arianism. The kings often sheltered outspoken Arians, giving this heresy something of a haven and allowing it to
persist even in places they did not control.
By the 5th century and later, Arianism had diverged from Catholic Christianity in many more ways than merely Christological
doctrine. They had a separate liturgy and rites, and most of their clergy were married, whereas marriage was uncommon among
Catholic clergy. Their selection of sacred texts was also different, although to what extent is not known since there was never any
specific Arian canon.
After their conversion to Arianism the Goths split (into the western Goths or Visigoths, and the eastern Goths or Ostrogoths). The
Ostrogoths, who settled into almost-wholly-Catholic Italy, gradually shed Arianism over a period of time. The Vandal kingdom was
defeated by Emperor Justinian and his general Belisarius in the early 6th century and was won over to eastern Catholicism. Where
they settled in Spain, the Visigoths retained Arianism until the late 6th century when their king, Reccared I, converted to Catholicism,
inspiring most of the rest of his Arian subjects to do the same, and suppressing a revolt by a minority who did not.
The Primacy of Rome
That the barbarian kingdoms had been a refuge for Arianism, had an interesting effct: By the 6th century most all of the Arians in the
former Roman Empire were living in these kingdoms; Arianism had lurked in pockets throughout the central and western Empire, but
these had largely dried up outside of the Vandal and Gothic kingdoms. When these regions went over to Catholicism, this had the
effect of virtually wiping out Arianism.
Since then, some Protestant Christian denominations have asserted the humanity of Christ over His divinity, and some go so far as to
deny the Trinity entirely. So, while Arianism was dead for most of the Middle Ages, it has re-emerged. While still a rare notion, some
current Christians owe their views of Christ's nature to Paul of Samosata and Arius of Alexandria.
Arianism is often mistaken for a form of Gnosticism; but at no time did Paul of Samosata, Arius of Alexandria, or any of their
successors teach a secret, mystical doctrine of the Gnostic style. Arianism was a form of Literal Christianity (as opposed to Gnostic).
About the only thing the Arians had in common with Gnostics was their inclusion of Docetism in their doctrines. Otherwise, they were
completely different, and in fact, Arians had a hand in suppressing Gnosticism in spite of the fact that they, themselves, were under
attack! (http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/arius.html)
HERESY
a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion
a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman
Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

 2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or
to generally accepted beliefs or standards (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy)
Heresy of Arius
While Constantine the Great worked at the destruction of idolatry, and at extending the faith throughout his dominions, a new enemy
appeared among the members of the Church itself in the person of Arius, an apostate priest. This wicked man taught that God the Son
was not equal in all perfections to God the Father, that He was not co-eternal with the Father, but was created by Him as first and chief
among creatures.
St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, called a Synod which excommunicated Arius, and condemned his teaching, A.D. 321. After this
Arius went into Palestine, where he persuaded Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to adopt his views. This bishop secured for Arius the
favour of the Emperor, and that of many bishops of Asia Minor.
As the heresy was becoming so widespread, a General Council was held at Nicaea, in Asia Minor, to examine and condemn the
doctrines taught by Arius and his followers. St. Athanasius was the chief champion of the Catholic Faith, which teaches that the
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is God, co-eternal with God the Father, and co-equal with Him in all things. The Fathers of the
Council chose the word "Consubstantial," proposed by St. Athanasius, to express this doctrine, and drew up a formula of faith
containing the exact teaching of the Church about the equality of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. This formula is known as
the "Nicene Creed." It adds to the general teaching of the Apostles' Creed a definite profession of faith in dogmas attacked by the
heretics: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light,
True God of True God, begotten not made, con-substantial with the Father, by Whom all things were made."
After the Church had thus condemned Arianism as a heresy, Constantine banished its author to Illyricum; but afterwards his favourite
sister, Constantia (who had become an Arian), wishing to please Eusebius of Nicomedia, persuaded the Emperor to allow Arius to
return, A.D. 328. As St. Athanasius would not remove the sentence of excommunication that St. Alexander had passed against Arius,
Eusebius and other friends of the heresiarch made several false accusations against the Saint. Constantine summoned both parties to
appear before a court of inquiry; but, though St. Athanasius was declared innocent, his enemies induced the Emperor to exile him from
his see to the distant city of Treves. But the faithful people of Alexandria would have nothing to do with Arius. He therefore went to
Constantinople, and the Emperor ordered the bishop of that city to receive him in the Church. The bishop knew that he was powerless
by himself to prevent the heresiarch's entrance. He could but pray that God would not permit such a scandal. As Arius was on his way
to the church, surrounded by a triumphant crowd, he was seized with a violent illness, and withdrew. His partisans, after a while, went
to seek him, and he was found dead, lying in a pool of his own blood, A.D. 336. The dreadful punishment that God inflicted upon this
enemy of His Church so impressed Constantine that, when he was on his own deathbed a few months after ( A.D. 337), he gave orders
for the recall of St. Athanasius from banishment; but the order was not carried out until A.D. 338. The Alexandrians received him back
with great manifestations of joy.
But Constans, the son and successor of Constantine in Africa, had become an Arian, and when fresh charges were brought against St.
Athanasius by his enemies, this Emperor banished him a second time, A.D. 341. He was not allowed to return to Alexandria until A.D.
349.
St. Athanasius was again banished by Constantius, who was a furious partisan of the heretics.
To such lengths did the Arian Emperor go that the venerable Hosius of Cordova, who had presided, as Papal Legate, at the Council of
Nicaea, was scourged and tortured, though above eighty years of age, and thus compelled to sign an Arian creed. Pope Liberius, who
had suffered nobly for the Catholic faith, was dragged into exile, and St. Athanasius was told by the heretics that the Pope had been
forced to sign a similar document. St. Athanasius remarked that one who signs under compulsion shows not his own mind, but that of
his oppressor. It could in no sense be regarded as a papal approval of heresy.
St. Athanasius returned to take charge of his flock on the accession of the next Emperor, Julian the Apostate, and before long the fame
of the many conversions he wrought reached Julian, who immediately ordered him to quit, not only Alexandria, but even Egypt. The
Saint escaped from the soldiers who came to seize him, and sailed up the Nile. When they had gone some distance, they saw the
persecutors' ship gaining on them. St. Athanasius ordered the sailors to turn their boat round to meet his pursuers. The rowers did not
recognize him, and asked if Athanasius were far ahead. "Press on," answered the Saint; "he is very near." The rowers redoubled their
efforts, and meanwhile the holy bishop got back to Alexandria safely, and remained hidden until the death of Julian.
A fifth time he was driven away. But at last Valens, moved by the urgent entreaties of the people of Alexandria, allowed St. Athanasius
to return in peace to his diocese, where he remained until his death, which occurred in A.D. 373. (http://www.heritage-history.com/?
c=read&author=sisters&book=leading1&story=defenders)

Library search:
Augustine and the Arians: The Bishop of Hippo's Encounters with Ulfilan Arianism