Table Of Content8/8/2015 Introduction Oxford Scholarship
Почему SciHub — коммунистический проект →
Oxford Scholarship Online
Biology Business and Management Classical Studies
History Law Linguistics
Mathematics Music Neuroscience
Philosophy Physics Political Science
Public Health and Epidemiology Religion Social Work
Economics and Finance
Literature
Go to page: Go
Palliative Care
Psychology
Sociology
поменять
The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre
прокси
Augustinian Sources
Pier Franco Beatrice and Adam Kamesar
Print publication date: 2013
Print ISBN13: 9780199751419
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001
Introduction
Pier Franco Beatrice
Adam Kamesar
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.003.0001
Abstract and Keywords
This introductory chapter begins with brief discussions of the Greek patristic sources of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, and
the division between Catholic scholars over whether the doctrine of original sin should be ascribed to Augustine. It then sets out the
book' purpose, which is to identify the possible sources of the Augustinian teaching about original sin. It aims to reexamine
practically everything that ancient Christianity has said and handed down on the subject of original sin. In short, the investigation
requires what is essentially a rewriting of the history of the doctrine in the patristic age.
Keywords: original sin, St. Augustine, Greek theology, Greek patristic sources, Christianity
Non ego finxi originale peccatum quod catholica fides credit antiquitus.
It was not I who invented original sin; the Catholic faith has believed in it from ancient times.1
WITH THIS PEREMPTORY statement, Augustine of Hippo protested against the innuendoes of his Pelagian opponent, Julian of
Eclanum, and reaffirmed his belief in the tradition of the church regarding the doctrine of original sin.
As one can see, already during the lifetime of Augustine an intense debate arose about the origins of the doctrine of original sin. The
issue was whether the doctrine was traditional, that is, of apostolic origin and therefore revealed, as Augustine argued,2 or, as the
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter1 1/6
8/8/2015 Introduction Oxford Scholarship
Pelagians believed, better understood as an innovation of Augustine, entailing a contamination of the Catholic faith by the pernicious
hereSsy ocf Maini. InHdeedu, Juliban accuses Augustine more than once of attempting to improperly confer the seal of orthodoxy on a belief
that in his view revealed clear connections with the dualistic ideas of Manicheism.3
(p.4) For the entire medieval period, up to the Council of Trent, which in its decree on original sin ratified the teaching of Augustine
in its essentials, and even employed the same theological language, the prestige of the bishop of Hippo remained undisputed. This
was because his thinking came to be considered by all as authoritative when it came to the interpretation of church tradition.4
It was only with the rejuvenation of philological and historical studies in the early modern period, together with the appearance of a
new and profound theological erudition, that the situation began to change. In works of great precision and fine textual analysis,
scholars began to call into question the homogeneity of the received teaching about original sin, and above all to discuss and analyze
the doctrine of Augustine in its historical context.
Comparisons with Greek patristic sources were particularly enlightening. Now, for the first time, scholars in the Latin West were able
to check and examine in the original the citations Augustine had made from the Greek Fathers in order to corroborate his theological
arguments against Julian.5 The Greek evidence, abundant and authoritative, revealed to scholars a body of theological thought in
which the doctrine of original sin had not found the same place of importance that it had received in Latin theology. In some cases it
had even been rejected as erroneous.
Garnier, in his Dissertatio de fide Theodoreti, stated as follows: “In the period of Theodoret, the doctrine of original sin was not
especially clear among the Greeks (non clarissima fuit apud Graecos peccati originalis doctrina). The evidence that Augustine
collected in their writings proves by itself only one thing, namely, that death came to humanity as a punishment for the sin of Adam.
That evidence, nevertheless, is strengthened by Augustine's point that any punishment must have been preceded by a misdeed.”6
Garnier confirmed this assessment in his Dissertatio de ortu et incrementis haeresis pelagianae, where he maintained that in the
Greek and even in the Latin citations brought forward by Augustine one finds a belief in original sin that is wrapped in murkiness
(“tenebris involuta fides super ea re” ), and that at the time was not easily and fully expressed (“vix (p.5) quisquam explicate
sententiam dicebat”). The notion of the punitive nature of death, imposed on man because of transgression, is, according to the
learned Jesuit, something essentially different from the concept of original sin. What Augustine established, rather, was that in order
for the sentence to be just, it was necessary that punishment be preceded by wrongdoing or guilt. It seems he was the first to take this
step (“id autem…adhibuit, quod sciam, primus”).7
One finds a similar observation in Petau, who notes that if the Greek theologians did not deal with the issue of the virgin Mary and
original sin, this was because they “originalis fere criminis raram nec disertam mentionem scriptis suis attigerunt.”8 Even Bossuet, a
defender of tradition, was forced to admit that the Greek church had been much less attentive to these matters than the Latin church.9
In his view, John Chrysostom does not clearly elucidate the Pauline formula “to sin in Adam,” and explains it with reference to
punishment rather than sin.10 And Gregory of Nyssa does not speak at all about original sin even when this would be required by the
context of his discussion.11
Joseph Turmel makes explicit reference to these scholars in some of his articles in the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses,
the substance of which he reproduces in the first volume of his history of dogma.12 In that volume he puts forward an organic
interpretation of the evolution of the doctrine of original sin, beginning from its Jewish antecedents and sketching in broad outline
the most important stages of its development both before and after Augustine down to the postTridentine period.13 Turmel's historical
study is carried out on the basis of the fundamental distinction between two concepts: hereditary decline and hereditary sin. The first,
a common legacy of both Greek and Latin theology, lies in the assertion that all of humanity suffers the disastrous consequences of
the sin of Adam, that is, it is subject to the punishment merited by Adam on (p.6) account of his transgression. When, on the other
hand, one speaks of hereditary sin, the idea is that Adam transmitted to his descendants not just the punishment for his sin, but the
sin itself. In this manner, men are born not only subject to physical death, pain, and the other limitations inherent in their debased
nature, deprived as it is of the image of God. In addition, they come into the world in a condition of actual sin, which renders them
worthy of eternal damnation. According to Turmel, this second concept was created ex novo by Augustine and bequeathed by him to
medieval Latin theology.14
The work of Turmel became authoritative. Both his method and his conclusions have come to form a part of the set of ideas generally
accepted in the histories of theology of the twentieth century. It will be sufficient to cite as examples the books of Norman P. Williams
and Julius Gross.15 Both of these authors agree in maintaining that the doctrine of original sin, unknown to preAugustinian
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter1 2/6
8/8/2015 Introduction Oxford Scholarship
Christianity, was invented by Augustine and was imposed on subsequent theological thought by the force of his genius. He alone
bears historical responsibility for the doctrine.
As Gross puts it, “Augustine is the father, in the full sense of the term, of the doctrine of original sin.”16 This is the succinct conclusion
he formulates at the end of a long journey that takes him among the many and often confused voices of the period of Christian
antiquity. He thus accepts, in addition to the thesis of Turmel, an entire tradition of works in German in which one finds the portrait
of Augustine as a revolutionary and anticonformist theologian.17 Indeed, his conclusion is that of Voltaire: “Let us (p.7) admit that
St. Augustine was the first to spread this strange idea, well worthy of the fiery, romantic brain of a debauched and repentant African,
Manichean and Christian, both tolerant and persecuting, who spent his life contradicting himself.”18
If Protestant and nonconfessional historians of dogmatic theology are essentially unanimous in attributing to Augustine the
paternity of the doctrine of original sin, Catholic scholars appear to be divided and, without their earlier certainty, in search of new
interpretations closer to the historical reality.
On the one hand, more traditionalist scholars, even those who have undertaken accurate analyses of the sources, continue to believe
that there was an uninterrupted natural line of development uniting biblical revelation, especially in the New Testament, and the
patristic teaching about original sin, while treating the latter in a monolithic fashion. Martin Jugie, for example, is ready to swear
that the Greek Fathers not only knew the doctrine of original sin, but sometimes expounded it more clearly than the Latin Fathers.19
In the opinion of Auguste Gaudel, to whom we owe the rich and balanced discussion of the topic in the Dictionnaire de théologie
catholique, Augustine simply explicated and brought to full maturation the implications present in Paul's teaching about the two
Adams.20 Finally, for Henri Rondet, the differences between the Greek and Latin Fathers have to do with formulation, and do not
affect the substance of the doctrine.21
On the other hand, there are Catholic scholars who, like Turmel, make a clear distinction between the doctrine of hereditary decline,
prevalent among the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers before Augustine, and the Augustinian doctrine of original or natural sin.
Among these we may mention Joseph Tixeront, Joseph Freundorfer, Emanuele Testa, and (p.8) Jacques Liébaert.22 For Berthold
Altaner, Augustine is without a doubt the first theologian to have come up with the idea of a sin so grievous that it leads to the
damnation of children.23 The novelty present in Augustine's writings is also emphasized by Herbert Haag in a work in which he
seeks to demonstrate that the biblical doctrine of man's pervasive sinfulness is entirely irreconcilable with the Augustinian idea of a
sin that is transmitted by means of procreation.24 Finally, in the view of Athanase Sage, Augustine came only gradually to the
discovery and further validation of the doctrine of original sin. The beginnings of this doctrine, to be set in AD 412, coincide not by
chance with the origins of antiPelagian polemics.25
The purpose of the foregoing review of critical literature has not been simply to survey the opinions of scholars who have preceded us
—opinions that we will have the opportunity to evaluate in a more detailed fashion in the course of this study—but also to delineate
some of the main issues in the history of scholarship, so as to highlight the problems that still require a solution or at least some
further clarification. This account of the status quaestionis has allowed us to see that, in the scholarly debate of the immediately
preceding decades, two contrasting positions have emerged concerning the attribution of the doctrine of original sin to Augustine.
That is, two conflicting answers have been given to the key question of whether Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine, or simply
played the role of faithful interpreter of the tradition, explicating and providing greater detail and depth to the revealed word of
Scripture.
The question of the sources employed by Augustine in the elaboration of his teaching about original sin is the topic of the present
study. We seek to provide the question with an answer that, if not entirely exhaustive, will at least be satisfactory, and worthy of
further development. It is our belief, (p.9) however, that if the problem continues to be framed in the manner that it has been up to
this point in the scholarly literature, it will remain insolvable. This is because the course of the discussion, on both sides, has been
heavily impeded by what are clearly ideological or confessional biases. For this reason, we need to turn to a third hypothesis, which
unfortunately has only been sketched in outline form by scholars such as François Refoulé and Gerald Bonner.26 According to this
hypothesis, Augustine neither completely invented the theory of original sin nor took it from the Bible, but found it already in
existence and current in Italian or African ecclesiastical circles.
The proposal merits special attention if only because of its impartial character. However, for it to be properly tested, we shall need to
undertake an investigation of the sources that is much more thorough and detailed than what is provided by Refoulé and Bonner. In
particular, it will be necessary to reexamine, on the basis of this new perspective, practically everything that ancient Christianity has
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter1 3/6
8/8/2015 Introduction Oxford Scholarship
said and handed down on the subject of original sin. In short, the investigation will require what is essentially a rewriting of the
history of the doctrine in the patristic age.
This then is our task, which we undertake with the primary goal of clarifying the problem, without mechanically repeating what
excellent scholars have already achieved in the collection and organization of the sources. Indeed, it will be possible to make good use
of existing works that have been organized according to strict chronological sequence (the bibliography will reveal our extensive debt
to previous scholarship). Although our own survey may not cover all of the evidence from Christian antiquity concerning original sin,
it will include the most significant part of it. However, we shall proceed not in chronological order, but according to the way in which
the source material itself may be most coherently presented so as to allow an analytical treatment. Specifically, the order of the study
may now be outlined.
The formal objective of our study is to identify the possible sources of the Augustinian teaching about original sin. Do they exist, and if
so, what are they? For this reason, it seems that the best way to proceed is first to describe the doctrine of original sin as it is worked
out in Augustine's own writings, and attempt to define its constituent and characteristic elements. (p.10) In order to provide an
economic form of exposition, we will avoid excessive references and scholarly debate, which are not strictly pertinent to the topic
under consideration. However, we will have to touch upon, to the degree necessary, the problems of grace and free will, which are
connected with our theme. Similarly, we will need to cover certain concrete events connected to the Pelagian controversy, to the extent
that awareness of them is indispensable for a better understanding of the doctrinal developments.
The next section of the book will be devoted to an examination of those works from which Augustine himself states, on many
occasions, that he drew the inspiration and the content of his ideas. These are, on the one hand, various Latin and Greek patristic
texts, and on the other, certain biblical passages. The latter are of special importance on account of their status as inspired
documents, and it will be of extreme interest to specify and call attention to the type of exegesis employed by Augustine when
interpreting them.
The study of Augustine's reading of the biblicalpatristic tradition will allow us to reach an assessment of the manner in which
Augustine carried out that reading, and of his presuppositions and intentions. At that point, it will be possible to turn our attention to
a number of texts by ecclesiastical authors whom Augustine does not mention. An attentive and impartial investigation of those
authors should provide the answers that allow us to reconstruct, in an integrated historical framework, the development of the
doctrine of hereditary sin from its origins to the mature Augustinian synthesis.
It is our belief that a project of this type is of value, and should be carried out in the most comprehensive fashion possible, for two
reasons.
The present study is one in the history of doctrine, and specifically religious doctrine. From a purely scholarly perspective, it is timely,
as is any research that examines the past with an eye to the present, that is, with an eye to the cultural situation in which we live. A
clarification of the links that connect the thought of Augustine to earlier ecclesiastical tradition with regard to original sin, an area
where he had tremendous influence, could allow us to gain a new and more correct critical perspective, which would be helpful in
interpreting the work of Augustine as a whole. Such a new perspective could also aid our understanding of the ways by which this
specific teaching developed historically, and was transformed in the course of the debates and sometimes painful struggles between
men of vastly differing interests and mentalities.
(p.11) Secondly, from a theological perspective, it is our belief that a historical study of this kind may be of some value, even with its
limitations and imperfections, in the context of current theological discussions. Indeed, in various quarters a difficult process of
reappraisal has begun concerning original sin, and concerning other themes that relate to the origin of man, the transmission of sin,
the baptism of infants, and so forth.27 And in the case of a religious tradition based on written texts, specifically, revealed,
magisterial, and theological, that process is necessarily dependent on reinterpretation of those texts. Accordingly, it is only natural
that an ever more accurate analysis of the meaning of those documents, resulting from the progress of scholarship, will come into
play. It is also quite clear that in this return to the sources of the doctrine, the interpretation of the most ancient ones, that is, the New
Testament and the patristic writings, will be of primary importance. And it is with these writings that our study will be engaged.
The purpose of the foregoing introduction has been to clarify the state of the problem to be examined and to illustrate the approach
that will be employed in the present study. The only remaining task is to acknowledge all those who have facilitated the writing of the
book with their advice and valuable suggestions. In particular I would like to thank Professors Giuseppe Alberigo and Pier Cesare Bori
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter1 4/6
8/8/2015 Introduction Oxford Scholarship
of the University of Bologna, Professor Franco Bolgiani of the University of Torino, and Father Jean Gribomont of the Abbazia di San
Gerolamo in Rome. All of these scholars have read the work in its entirety and provided numerous corrections and significant
improvements. Above all, warm thanks go to Father Raniero Cantalamessa, who guided my research and read my work, giving
rigorous and stimulating criticism. He has also been gracious enough to accept the work into the series Studia patristica
Mediolanensia. It goes without saying that any omissions or errors are due exclusively to my own inexperience.
I dedicate this youthful labor to the memory of my brother Rinaldo Angelo, who was taken too early from his loved ones by a cruel fate.
Easter, 1977
Notes:
(1.) De nupt. conc. 2.12.25 (CSEL 42, 278).
(2.) See, for example, De bapt. 4.31 (CSEL 51, 259); De Gen. litt. 10.23 (CSEL 28/1, 327); De pecc. mer. 1.39 (CSEL 60, 38).
Augustine refers here specifically to the practice of infant baptism, but it is clear that he has the intention of proving the antiquity and
the apostolic origin of the doctrine of original sin with all its components.
(3.) Among the many texts one might cite, we restrict ourselves to one that contradicts in explicit form Augustine's statement quoted at
the beginning of the chapter, viz., Op. imp. 1.59 (CSEL 85/1, 55–56): “Non est haec fides antiquitus tradita atque fundata nisi in
conciliis malignantium, inspirata a diabolo, prolata a Manicheo, celebrata a Marcione, Fausto, Adimanto, omnibusque eorum
satellitibus et nunc a te in Italiam, quod graviter gemimus, eructata.”
(4.) See the Decretum super peccato originali of the Council of Trent, fifth session of 17 June 1546: COD, pp. 665–667.
(5.) See esp. the first two books of the Contra Iulianum Pelagianum in PL 44.
(6.) Diss. III.4.15 in PG 84.440.
(7.) Diss. VII.4.5 in PL 48.669.
(8.) De Theologicis Dogmatibus: De Incarnatione Verbi, XIV.2.1.
(9.) Défense de la tradition et des saints Pères, IX.21 (Oeuvres complètes de Bossuet, Paris 1836, II) .
(10.) Ibid. , IX.6.
(11.) Ibid. , IX.15.
(12.) The articles appeared with the title “Le dogme du péché originel” in the issues of the periodical that go from 1900 to 1904.
(13.) Histoire des dogmes, I, Le péché originel, La rédemption, Paris 1931, pp. 15–296 .
(14.) Ibid. , p. 9: “En somme les Pères grecs n’ont eu que des ideés confuses sur le péché originel. Et, avant saint
Augustin, c’estàdire avant le v siècle, les Pères latins ont été dans la même confusion. Les grecs, jusqu’aux environs de la
Renaissance, les Latins des quatre premiers siècles ont cru que le genre humain subissait la peine du péché commis par Adam. On
trouve chez eux la foi à une punition héréditaire, c’estàdire à une déchéance. Mais personne avant saint Augustin, ne pensait que
l’enfant qui, en venant au monde, subit la peine de la faute de notre premier père, hérite aussi de son péché. Personne, avant ce grand
docteur, ne connaissait le péché héréditaire.”
(15.) Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study, London 1927 ; Gross,
Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbsündendogmas: Von der Bibel bis Augustin, MünchenBasel 1960 .
(16.) Ibid. , p. 375.
(17.) On pp. 10–11 of the work just cited, Gross mentions the works of the Protestant scholars K. G. Bretschneider, Die Grundlage des
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter1 5/6
8/8/2015 Introduction Oxford Scholarship
evangelischen Pietismus oder die Lehren von Adams Fall, der Erbsünde und dem Opfer Christi, Leipzig 1833 ;
R. Rüetschi, Geschichte und Kritik der kirchlichen Lehre von der ursprünglichen Vollkommenheit und vom Sündenfall, Leiden 1881
; and he adds the work of the Catholic F. Schlünkes, Das Wesen der Erbsünde nach dem Concilium von Trient
unter gleichzeitiger Berücksichtigung der heiligen Schrift und der Väter der Kirche, insbesondere der h. h. Augustinus, Thomas von
Aquin und Bonaventura, Regensburg 1863 .
(18.) Philosophical Dictionary, s.v. “original sin,” trans. P. Gay, New York 1962, [II], p. 416.
(19.) “Julien d’Halicarnasse et Sévère d’Antioche: La doctrine du péché originel chez les Pères grecs,” EOr 24 (1925), p. 151.
(20.) “Péché originel,” DThC XII/1, cols. 275–606.
(21.) Le péché originel dans la tradition patristique et théologique, Paris 1966, pp. 154–155 .
(22.) Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes dans l’antiquité chrétienne, II8, Paris 1924, pp. 135–144 ; Freundorfer,
Erbsünde und Erbtod beim Apostel Paulus, Münster i.W. 1927, p. 129 ; Testa, II peccato di Adamo nella
Patristica (Gen. III), Jerusalem 1970, pp. 183–192 ; Liébaert, “La tradition patristique jusqu’au Ve siècle,” in P.
Guilluy et al., La culpabilité fondamentale: Péché originel et anthropologie moderne, Gembloux 1975, p. 53 :
“L’idée de péché héréditaire est rejetée par les anciens Pères.”
(23.) “Der Liber de fide: Ein Werk des Pelagianers Rufinus des Syrers,” ThQ 130 (1950), pp. 432–449 = Kleine patristische Schriften,
Berlin 1967, pp. 467–482.
(24.) Is Original Sin in Scripture? trans. D. Thompson, New York 1969, pp. 101 , 106.
(25.) “Péché originel: Naissance d’un dogme,” REAug 13 (1967), pp. 211–248; “Le péché originel dans la pensée de saint Augustin de
412 à 430,” REAug 15 (1969), pp. 75–112 .
(26.) Refoulé, “Datation du premier concile de Carthage contre les Pélagiens et du Libellus fidei de Rufin,” REAug 9 (1963), pp. 41–49
; Bonner, “Les origines africaines de la doctrine augustinienne sur la chute et le péché originel,” Augustinus 12
(1967), pp. 97–116 .
(27.) For a survey of recent developments, see H. Haag, “The Original Sin Discussion 1966–1971,” JES 10 (1973), pp. 259–289
; M. Flick and Z. Alszeghy, II peccato originale 2, Brescia 1974, esp. pp. 175 ff.
Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved.
Access brought to you by: University of Cambridge
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter1 6/6
8/8/2015 Pelagian Critique of the Doctrine of Original Sin Oxford Scholarship
Почему SciHub — коммунистический проект →
University Press Scholarship Online
Oxford Scholarship Online
поменять
прокси
The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the PreAugustinian Sources
Pier Franco Beatrice and Adam Kamesar
Print publication date: 2013
Print ISBN13: 9780199751419
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001
The Pelagian Critique of the Doctrine of Original Sin
Pier Franco Beatrice
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.003.0002
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter sets out the main lines of Pelagian thought on original sin. Essentially it states that babies are born without
original sin, and that baptism is a sacrament that grants divine adoption and spiritual elevation to the newborn. Other
Pelagians took the view that baptism “for the remission of sins,” if given to newborns, presupposes the existence of some
voluntary culpability, which they must have contracted by committing sins in the earliest moments of their earthly life.
Augustine takes issue with both of these interpretations, and reaffirms what is for him the only valid explanation for
infant baptism, the existence of original sin.
Keywords: Pelagius, Caelestius, original sin, baptism, Augustine, Pelagians
WHEN PELAGIUS AND his disciple Caelestius, fleeing from the invading Visigoths, arrived in Africa from Rome in AD
410, no one could have predicted the storm that would be unleashed just a short time later concerning their teaching.
Indeed, Pelagius was universally regarded in the western Christian world as a person of the highest moral standing, and
was sought after as a spiritual director. He had come to Rome as a young man to study law from his native Britain, and
for many years exercised an austere brand of religious teaching in that city, both in person and through his writings.1
Caelestius, for his part, a person with a deeply ascetic bent, followed closely in the footsteps of his master, completely
dedicated to the teaching of a high moral standard.2
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter2?print 1/16
8/8/2015 Pelagian Critique of the Doctrine of Original Sin Oxford Scholarship
(p.16) Augustine himself, just a few years later, in 417, would speak of Pelagius with words of sincere admiration, on
account of his widely recognized sanctity, despite the already apparent disagreements in the area of doctrine.
SciHub
I first heard people speak of Pelagius with great esteem and praise, when he was far away in Rome. Later on
rumors reached me that he was teaching against the grace of God. Although I was very displeased by this and had
heard it from people whom I could believe, I wanted to know the matter from the man himself or from a book by
him, so that if I were to attempt to offer a refutation, he would not be in a position to deny it. Later on he himself
came to Africa, and was welcomed at Hippo when I was absent. But nothing of that sort was heard from him, as I
found out from our faithful, because he departed more quickly than one might have expected. I saw him once or
twice at Carthage later on, if I remember correctly, when I was very busy with the problem of the Donatist heresy.3
Pelagius left soon afterward for Palestine, leaving Caelestius in Africa. The latter, prompted by his intelligence and
youthful enthusiasm, became involved in the disputations about baptism that at the time were part of the last phases of
the Donatist crisis.
The great conference of Carthage of AD 411, brought about by Augustine's untiring efforts, was about to mend the century
old schism in the African church with the clear success of the Catholic party. That schism had involved, at the doctrinal
level, a particular degree of friction over the question of the administration of baptism. As is well known, for the Donatists
the validity of the sacrament was dependent on the sanctity of the minister who conferred it. The Catholic position, on the
other hand, long supported by Augustine and in the end victorious, was that the efficacy of the sacrament was not
determined in any way by the purity of the (p.17) ministering priest. Rather, it was inherent in the rite itself, which was
seen as the setting in which the redemptive mercy of God is freely unveiled and becomes operative.
Augustine's baptismal theology, with its affirmation of sacramental efficacy ex opere operato, was therefore fully formed
when he began to confront the new challenges brought on by the Pelagians. Indeed the Pelagians, in negating the
existence of original sin in little children, called into question the Augustinian idea of a sacrament in which divine grace
was efficaciously operative without regard to the dutiful and conscious participation of the subject. That is, if the
Donatists, for their part, believed that the presence of a worthy minister was necessary for validity of baptism, the
Pelagians followed a similar line of thought. For although they accepted in practice the rite of infant baptism, which they
sought to justify on a different basis, they disputed the idea that sin could be transmitted in unconscious creatures such as
little children. Indirectly, therefore, they came to maintain that baptism needed to be administered to selfconscious
persons for it to be valid in all its effects. In this way, both the Donatists and the Pelagians imposed requirements of a
human character onto the salvific and freely given work of God, the former the sanctity of the minister, and the latter the
moral responsibility of the candidate for baptism. Inevitably then, both groups came into conflict with the theology of
Augustine, according to which the action of God takes place in baptism regardless of any deficiency in his creatures.4
Contrary to what one might have expected, however, Augustine was not the first to offer opposition to the Pelagian
teaching. He knew of it, having heard it discussed casually, and was certainly disturbed by it, but (p.18) he thought it
best not to intervene at first but rather to let events take their course.5 Later on he was pulled into the conflict by the force
of events, driven by his pastoral concern to protect his flock from the new erroneous teaching. It was another person, the
deacon Paulinus of Milan, who was officially the first to open hostilities against the Pelagians. Paulinus was the
biographer of Ambrose and a longtime friend of Augustine who had moved to Africa about five years earlier. The presence
of this personality of second rank might appear at first somewhat unusual, but his impact was in fact great, something we
will be able to appreciate more fully later in our study.
When at Carthage, Caelestius attempted to gain ordination as a priest, but he was opposed by Paulinus, who accused him
of denying original sin. In the presence of Aurelius, the bishop of Carthage, a hearing was conducted on the teaching of
Caelestius, who was called to publicly explain his position. The following is cited by Augustine from the proceedings of
the hearing:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter2?print 2/16
8/8/2015 Pelagian Critique of the Doctrine of Original Sin Oxford Scholarship
BISHOP AURELIUS SAID:
“I ask you how I should understand this. Can one say that Adam, when placed in paradise, was first created
immortal, and then became mortal because of his transgression of the commandment? Is this what you are saying,
brother Paulinus?”
THE DEACON PAULINUS RESPONDED:
“Yes, exactly, sir.”
BISHOP AURELIUS SAID:
“The deacon Paulinus wants to hear whether the condition of newborns that need to be baptized today is the same
as that of Adam before his sin, or whether it carries the guilt of the transgression, deriving it from the same sinful
origin from which it is born (de eadem origine peccati, de qua nascitur, transgressionis culpam trahat).”
THE DEACON PAULINUS SAID:
“Can he deny to have taught this, or not?”
CAELESTIUS SAID:
“With regard to the transmission of sin (de traduce peccati) I have already said that I have heard among members
of the Catholic church many oppose it and others defend it. It is a matter open to discussion and not of heresy. I
have always held that infants are in need of baptism and must be baptized. What else does he want?”6
(p.19) Of Catholics against original sin, Caelestius names only Rufinus, a certain priest whom he had heard at the
house of the senator Pammachius in Rome. Rufinus maintained “quia tradux peccati non sit.”7
The position of Caelestius emerges with sufficient clarity from the exchange cited. The core of his teaching, to judge from
the account in the proceedings, is essentially the following: babies are born without original sin, that is, they are in the
same condition as Adam was in the Garden of Eden before he sinned. This is because sin is not something that can be
transmitted or passed on.
The crisis that broke out at Carthage was about precisely this question, whether sin may be transmitted or passed on (this
idea is expressed by the formula tradux peccati) to newborn babies or not. However, one gets the distinct impression—
and this is most interesting—that we are dealing with a conflict not between two individuals, Paulinus and Caelestius, but
between two groups of Christians, each of which is claiming to defend, from their own perspective, the doctrinal legacy of
an entire line of tradition. Paulinus makes his accusations against Caelestius with the protection and open support of the
bishop of Carthage. The condemnation suffered by Caelestius proves that all African bishops shared the theological views
of the deacon from Milan, no doubt because he offered a precise formulation of traditional teaching. Caelestius, for his
part, attempts to defend himself by appealing to the fact that other prominent Catholics hold the belief that hereditary sin
does not exist. He cites explicitly the testimony of the priest Rufinus, and claims that the question of original sin, since it
has not been settled by a definitive decision, is completely open to discussion and is not a matter involving condemnation
for heresy.
At this point, before proceeding to a discussion of Augustine's theology on original sin, it may be useful to set out, at least
in its main lines, the position maintained by Caelestius and other representatives of the Pelagian side. This should allow
a more precise understanding of the terms of the doctrinal dispute between the two parties.
The Catholic heresiologist Marius Mercator constructs a kind of “succession of teachers” of Pelagian ideas. He traces the
origins of the movement back to the Syrian bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, who in his view was the first to take a
position against the traditional doctrine of original sin. How we should evaluate this report from a critical perspective
(p.20) we shall see in due course.8 The person who brought these vague and erroneous ideas to Rome, however, at the
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter2?print 3/16
8/8/2015 Pelagian Critique of the Doctrine of Original Sin Oxford Scholarship
time of pope Anastasius I (399–402), was a certain Rufinus, also of Syrian origin (“Rufinus…natione Syrus Romam
primus invexit”).9
There has been much discussion about the identity of this enigmatic personality, to whom scholars generally attribute a
work entitled Liber de fide, which has clear Pelagian affinities. There can also be no doubt that this is the same person as
the priest Rufinus named by Caelestius at the hearing of Carthage as one who denied that there was transmission of sin
(tradux peccati). From an analysis of the content of some parts of the Liber de fide one can easily confirm that this exact
position, among many others, was indeed the one held by Rufinus. In his view, little children are innocent, without
malice, and ignorant of the distinction between good and evil. Therefore, they cannot be condemned to burn in hell if they
should have the misfortune of dying before baptism. Only those persons who do not understand the true teaching of
Scripture dare to make the unjust and nefarious claim that in the view of Christ such little children are deserving of the
hellfire that the Bible calls Gehenna.10 It is simply madness to maintain, as they do, that because of the fault of a single
man, Adam, the entire world becomes prey to vice and evildoing, and for that reason must be condemned. Such persons
are in reality accusing God of being unjust, or at least, are revealing that they believe the devil is stronger than God.11
Why then, if babies are innocent, do they need to be baptized? Certainly (p.21) not to cleanse them of a sin they do not
have, but rather so that, by means of the spiritual procreation that is baptism, they might be created in Christ and become
partakers of the kingdom of heaven.12 For what did the Lord mean when he said to Nicodemus, “Very truly I tell you, if a
person is not born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3)? He can only have meant that even infants, who
are without sin, must receive the grace of baptism, so that created in Christ by means of a new generation, they may
become coheirs of his kingdom, according to the word of the Apostle, “If one is in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Cor
5:17).13
Rufinus’ argumentation is polemical, in the sense that he has in mind some very specific opponents, who, in order to
defend the theory of hereditary sin, arrived at the absurd step of condemning to hell even unbaptized infants. Who are
these opponents? Altaner, operating on the assumption that Augustine was the first Christian theologian to maintain
that infants who die without the benefit of baptism are damned, that is, they are still in the grip of original sin, thought
that Rufinus must have been attempting to rebut known statements of Augustine. He therefore felt himself to be in a
position to conclude that the Liber de fide must be dated in 413 or later, since Augustine had expressed himself
systematically on the matter only in his De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, which is from
412.14
This explanation, however, was completely overturned by an important discovery of Refoulé. He noted that in the first
book of De peccatorum meritis, in chapters 1–34, there is a series of references to an anonymous Pelagian work that
could be identified with relative ease in the Liber de Fide of Rufinus.15 This means that the work of Rufinus must antedate
the De (p.22) peccatorum meritis, since the latter attempts to refute the former. It also means, consequently, that the
doctrine of hereditary sin and of the damnation of babies who die unbaptized, the doctrine opposed by Rufinus, must be
attributed to preAugustinian sources. The socalled Augustinian conception of original sin must have been already
widespread in the church at the end of the fourth century.16
With regard to Rufinus, then, we may conclude as follows. He was a priest from Syria, well trained in theological studies
and well versed in the ideas of the most advanced Greek theology of the time.17 If, in the Rome of AD 400, he felt the need
to oppose the doctrine of hereditary sin together with its corollary, the damnation of unbaptized infants, this can be
explained only by supposing that even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy the religious atmosphere was
already permeated by these problems, primarily in the West, but also in the East. That is, the stage was already set for a
major clash to break out, sooner or later, between two currents in theological thinking. Of those two currents we shall
attempt to provide an account.
There had been, therefore, a lively discussion about original sin for a number of years. On this point Caelestius may be
trusted. He himself could be justifiably considered the representative of one of the two theologies in conflict. His contact
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.scihub.org/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199751419.001.0001/acprof9780199751419chapter2?print 4/16
