Pelagian Controversy

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. CARL DIEMER, THD.

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE COURSE CHHI 520

LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

BRIAN HARVEY

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

1

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION......................................................1

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY..............................1

INJUSTICE EXPOSED.................................................6

INFLUENCE OF POSITION............................................7

FALSE ACCUSATIONS................................................9

RATIONAL CHOICE................................................11

PELAGIAN SUPPORT.................................................12

JOHN OF JERUSALEM...............................................12

JULIAN OF ECLANUM ..............................................13

CONCLUSION......................................................14

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................15

1

INTRODUCTION

Scarcely can one in the religious academic realm go long

without hearing the name Pelagius and it is usually not in a good

context. The Pelagian Controversy of the late fourth century and

early fifth century placed its irrevocable mark on the Western,

Catholic Church. The controversy exposes in many ways the great

hesitancy of the Western Church for reformation and placing

higher, more Christ-like moral demands on the members of the

Church. Pelagius, a layman, commonly referred to as a monk,

sought to bring about moral reform but through a series of

unfortunate injustices was excommunicated and branded as a

heretic. Through exposing the injustices, there is hope for the

redemption of the name of Pelagius.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY

It becomes necessary to define or establish a foundation of

the controversy to enable the reader to understand the issues

addressed later. There cannot be an assumed presupposition about

the understanding, for this allows a danger of drawing false or

assumed conclusions. With this in mind the controversy will be

2

defined in the briefest of terms below with an explanation of key

personalities involved in the controversy.

Pelagius, born in Brittany around AD 360, first appears in

Rome around 380 and received a classical education. 1 From 380

to his departure of Rome circa 410, Pelagius is accredited with a

high reputation as a “[Christian] ascetic, spiritual mentor and

moral reformer”2, especially among the Roman aristocrats. Being

aware that this was a time when many embraced Christianity for

opportunistic reasons and did not regard the complete demands of

the belief, Pelagius sought to promote a sincere ascetical way of

life.3 It was during this time that Pelagius began to develop his

understanding, partially influenced by Jerome and Rufinus.4 He

also composes some of his greatest works, On the Trinity and Extracts,

which come at his dissent on the view of grace as revealed by

1 Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David Hunter, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008), 263.

2 Brinley Roderick Rees, Pelagius (Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: The Boydell Press, 1988), 140.

3 Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David Hunter, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, 263.

4 John Ferguson, Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study, 1st AMS ed. (New York: Ams Pr Inc, 1978), 47.

3

Augustine’s work Confessions.5 Additionally, Pelagius wrote his

Commentary on the Pauline Epistles6 while still in Rome.

With Alaric the Goth looming down on Rome, Pelagius and

Caelestius travel to Carthage circa 410 to evade the inevitable

fall of Rome in 410. It is here that the radical disciple,

Caelestius, takes center stage and propagates the views of

Pelagius. Caelestius, full of evangelistic zeal, spread his more

intellectual interpretation of Pelagius’ ideals through preaching

and writing. While winning over many of the Christians in the

area, he was also charged before Bishop Aurelius with heresy on

several accounts from denying original sin to the belief that the

Law can lead to salvation, which he refused to disavow and was

condemned by a synod in Carthage in 411.7

5 Kim Paffenroth (editor) and Robert Peter Kennedy, A Reader's Companion to Augustine's Confessions, (Louisville, Ky.: WJK, 2003), 155-166.

6 An excerpt from Pelagius’ commentary on Faith, Grace and Works can befound at: Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, eds, The Writings of St. Paul: Annotated Texts, Reception and Criticism, 2nd ed., ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007), 362-364.

7 John Ferguson, Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study, 1st AMS ed., 50-52.

4

Meanwhile Pelagius had moved on to Palestine where he was

supported and protected by Bishop John of Jerusalem.8 It is here

that Jerome takes issue with Pelagius over his Letter to Demetrias

and indicates to Demetrias that Pelagius is an adherent of

Origenism, to which Pelagius responds to the attacks by writing

his treatise On Nature in 414. Consequently in 415, Augustine

composes his retort in On Nature and Grace and arms Orosius, a

Spanish priest, with this text along with letters to Jerome

alerting him to the Pelagian movement. While in Jerusalem,

Orosius was called to give an account of Pelagius to the Synod of

Jerusalem, to which he listed accusations of heresy against both

Pelagius and Caelestius. Pelagius was called by the Synod to

appear and answer to the charges, of such mainly centered around

his teaching that man was able to live without sin. To which

Pelagius replied yes, but only by the grace of God. The Synod

acquitted Pelagius of all charges and later condemned Orosius.9

Jerome obviously displeased with the results of the Synod,

retained the help of two deposed bishops, Heros and Lazarus, to



5

compose a letter to Eulogius, the senior bishop in Palestine. In

response to the “libellus”, Eulogius called a synod at Diospolis.

It is important to note at this point that the majority of the

accusations brought against Pelagius were based on anonymous

writings of Caelestius, and the records of events from Carthage

and Sicily to which were attributed to Caelestius who was

condemned by the Synod at Carthage in 411. One must also be

mindful of the ever building tension and eventual schism between

the East and West. It is at the Synod of Diospolis in 415 that

Pelagius formally condemns the words of his disciple, Caelestius

and clarifies for the Synod his position that the Divine Grace of

God is needed for man’s salvation.10 Pelagius is again acquitted

of all accusations of heresy.11

Armed with letters from Jerome and the two deposed bishops,

Orosius returns to Africa and with the support and help of

Augustine, rallied the African Bishops to anathematize Pelagius

and Caelestius, who had recently been ordained in Ephesus. In

10 For a fuller exposition of the proceedings of the Synod of Diospolis,see Appendix II of: Brinley Roderick Rees, Pelagius (Wolfeboro, New Hampshire:The Boydell Press, 1988), 135-139.


6

416, two letters, one from the Synod of Carthage and one from the

Synod of Milevum, were sent to Innocent, the Bishop of Rome,

imploring him to join their condemnation of Pelagius and

Caelestius. Feeling the pressure from the African Bishops,

Bishop Innocent calls a local synod to assist in deliberations

and ultimately excommunicates Pelagius and Caelestius, but

extended Pelagius an opportunity to justify himself. Interesting

to note here that Bishop Innocent does not call for the

appearance of any of the parties involved with either the Synod

of Jerusalem or the Synod of Diospolis, he only uses an

unauthenticated record and the letters from the two African

Synods.12 Pelagius does respond with the “libellus fidei”, a Letter in

Justification and Confession of Faith, which were supported by a letter of

commendation from Praylius,13 the Bishop of Jerusalem.14 However,

Innocent dies in 417, prior to the letters reaching the Roman

Bishop. The burden now fell to his successor, Zosimus.


13 Praylius succeeded Bishop John of Jerusalem after John died in circa 416

14 Brinley Roderick Rees, Pelagius, 141.

7

Initially, Zosimus acquitted Pelagius for lack of evidence

and held judgment on Caelestius until his accusers appeared

before him. Due to none of the accusers responding to the Bishop

in defense of their position against Caelestius, Bishop Innocent

extended acquittal to both Pelagius and Caelestius. However, the

African Bishops did not stop here as Augustine appealed to

Emperor Honorius, who being a weak emperor was prone to show

favoritism towards his friends. Thus, in 418, the Emperor issues

an imperial rescript banishing Pelagius, Caelestius and all

adherents.15 Immediately following the issuing of the imperial

rescript, over 200 bishops convened a council at Carthage and

passed nine canons against Pelagianism.

During this time Bishop Zosimus summoned Caelestius to

appear before him, but fearing the action of civil authorities,

Caelestius failed to appear before the Bishop. Pressured by the

African Bishops and the civil authorities, Zosimus was left with

little choice at this point and, in the summer of 418, issued an

Epistula Tractoria condemning both Pelagius and Caelestius. The


8

letter had a very wide acceptance with enforcement under the

prefect and the imperial edict. However, there were eighteen

Italian Bishops, led by Julian of Eclanum, who refused to sign

the letter and subscribe to it and were consequently deposed and

excommunicated from Italy. Julian took to the pen and appealed

to Zosimus and to a general council, but was resisted primarily

through the influence of Augustine from the church and Valerius,

friend to Augustine, from the state.16

Now under the protection of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Julian

takes to the pen against Augustine in defense of the Pelagian

position.17 During the time from 419 to 430 some of the greatest

literary battles between Julian and Augustine took place.

Seeking refuge in Constantinople in 428, Julian along with three

other deposed Italian Bishops and Caelestius, appealed to the

Patriarch Nestorius for assistance. Nestorius wrote to Rome for

confirmation and further advice, to which his first letter is

ignored and had to write a second letter to which he received a

16 Ibid., 113.

17 Brinley Roderick Rees, Pelagius, 142. And Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David Hunter, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, 268.

9

“curt reply from Celestine saying that the heretics had been

justly condemned, and he was not surprised that they had taken

refuge with Nestorius.”18 Nestorius’ support of the deemed

heretics did not bode well for him, as it was used against him at

the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431. The Council at Ephesus

formally condemned Nestorius for his support of the Pelagians and

his views in his own controversy; they also confirmed the

deposition of Julian and his supporters as well as condemned the

views of Caelestius and that of the Pelagians.19

INJUSTICE EXPOSED

At this point, clear examples, within the historical

context, will be defined that led to the unjust proclamation of

heresy against Pelagius, and his subsequent followers, contrary

to the church’s definition of heresy. Important to note that the

historical context of “a heretic is one who has followed a ‘wrong

way of thought’, thus encouraging a division in the ranks of the

Church.”20 This is in no way an exhaustive set of examples, but

18 John Ferguson, Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study, 1st AMS ed., 115.


20 Brinley Roderick Rees, Pelagius, 21-22.

10

greatly contributes to the reader’s perception of the injustice

enacted towards Pelagius. This position is not to seek a total

refutation of the decrees of the fifth century Church, but to

seek redemption to the name of Pelagius. As stated by B. R.

Rees:

Pelagius was deemed to be a heretic because he had madea wrong choice in the considered view of the ecclesiastical establishment of his day, and no amount of retrospective judgment, short of formal rehabilitation, can ever alter that verdict. ‘Not to say what the Church says’ is ‘the real criterion of heresy’.

Strictly then, Pelagius was, and is, a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and his condemnation as such is an unquestionable datum of history, whatever wein the more permissive atmosphere of the late twentiethcentury may think, or argue, to the contrary. But whether his condemnation was justified is another matter and one which we are entitled to subject to the closest examination.21

With this in mind, Pelagius’ lack of influence, false accusations

against Pelagius, and the Church’s preference for the rational

choice found in the Augustinian Doctrine, will be discussed in an

21 Ibid., 22.

11

effort to redeem Pelagius from historically being set up “as a

symbolic bad man.”22

INFLUENCE OF POSITION

Pelagius, born of uncertain background and ancestry, has set

scholarship in a frenzy of debates over his foundations that

might lead to an explanation of his moralistic, ascetic Christian

life. Consistent amongst scholarship is that Pelagius came from

the British Isles, but may be of Scottish or Irish decent.23

Pelagius certainly came from humble origins, but this is not to

discount his availability to and quest for education. Equal

educational opportunities for all who joined the fellowship of

the Church was a facet of the British Church, which would have

enabled Pelagius to avail himself to the best of education.24 It

is evident that he had a firm knowledge of classical philosophy

and there is evidence in his skill at controversy that he had

some legal training as well. However, there is no evidence to

suggest that he had any secular employment.25 At best he was a

22 Robert F. Evans, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (New York: The Seabury Press, 1968), 66.

23 John Ferguson, Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study, 1st AMS ed., 39.24

25 Ibid., 41-44.

12

well educated layman, who was more of a moralistic reformer

rather than a theologian, which has been suggested as his

greatest weakness.26 Implicit here is to identify that due to

Pelagius’ lack of secular employment and aspirations for moral

reform have left him inadequately prepared for a battle that will

be taken from the religious realm into the secular realm. Lack

of his prominence in the religious hierarchy left him with little

ability to gain audience and respect of higher officials.

Augustine of Hippo, seen as the most formidable opponent to

Pelagius, was certainly a product of western religious and

secular aristocracy. Augustine, the son of a Roman official, was

no stranger to the Roman society and its inherent intricacies.

His parents, aware of his exceptional gifts, sought the best

possible education for him.27 Augustine initially was sent to

Madaura for his education and later he traveled to Carthage to

continue his pursuit of education. It is significant to note

26 Justo L. Gonzalez and Catherine Gunsalus González, Heretics For Armchair Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 111.

27 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity., Rev. and updated [ed.], 2nd ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 242.

13

here that for centuries, Carthage had been the political,

cultural and economic hub of Africa.28

Having been a student of rhetoric and philosophy, Augustine

set out for a quest in truth that led him first to Manichaeism

and later when he arrived in Milan he was introduced to Neo-

Platonism and became a practicing Neo-Platonist. While in Milan

Augustine became a professor of rhetoric and was introduced to

Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan. Ambrose was able to persuade

Augustine to convert to Christianity and he later baptized by

Augustine and his illegitimate son.29 Turning to a Monastic

life, Augustine began to live out the rigors of the ascetic way

of life. In 391 Augustine visited Hippo and was ordained by

Bishop Valerius and consecrated him as a joint Bishop of Hippo.30

Augustine, taking advantage of his new found position, began to

refute the claims of the Manicheans and systematically propelled

himself into a position of respect and authority. Continuing to

grow in acceptance and clout within the religious and secular 28

29 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity., Rev. and updated [ed.], 2nd ed., 242-245.

30 Vernon J. Bourke, The Essential Augustine, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1974), 15.

14

world, Augustine was called on to refute the movement of the

Donatist, to which he was largely successful and persuaded the

secular realm to assist with the issue. By the time Pelagius

appears on the scene, Augustine was fifty-seven and his doctrine

was established and widely accepted in the West.31 He was even

hailed by Jerome as the “second founder of the Christian

faith.”32

Given the circumstances of the two men’s background and

sphere of influence, as described above, it is easy for one to

deduce that Pelagius was fighting an unfair battle against

Augustine. It was a battle with little to no platform for

Pelagius to stand on against a religious giant that had the

Church in one hand and the power to invoke the state in the

other. Further evidence is seen in Augustine’s ability to rally

the Western Bishopric into supporting his cause at the Council at

Carthage and Melvius in 416. Additionally, Augustine’s command

of the secular realm is seen in his ability to coerce Emperor

31 Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 157.

32 Alister E. McGrath, Justification by Faith (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1988), 34.

15

Honorius into getting involved in 418 with his Imperial rescript

banishing Pelagius, Caelestius and his supporters.

FALSE ACCUSATIONS

Evidence for the false accusations against Pelagius can be

seen in two events, the Synod of Jerusalem and the Synod of

Diospolis in 415. Attention will be given to the accusations

made, the validity of the claims and any viable responses.

Looking first to the Synod of Jerusalem, Pelagius is brought

in on accusations from Paul Orosius.33 The focus of the

accusations was that Pelagius had stated that a man may live

without sin if he wills it. The intentionality of this claim was

to immediately discredit Pelagius for not what he had personally

stated, but what his disciple had stated and was condemned for in

411 at Carthage. However, Pelagius did acknowledge that he had

stated this, but further explained that this was not possible

apart from the grace of God.34 Orosius further falsely accused

Pelagius in his Apology to the Jerusalem Synod where he

33 Spanish Priest that was sent to Jerusalem by Augustine with letters to Jerome

34 John Ferguson, Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study, 1st AMS ed., 84.

16

purposefully misrepresents Pelagius as having claimed to be

without blemish or sin, to which Pelagius would have replied only

by the grace of God and the saving work of Jesus.

Most notably of the two examples here is the Synod of

Diospolis. Grievously dissatisfied with the results of the

Jerusalem Synod, Jerome retains the help of two deposed,

excommunicated bishops to draft a letter (“libellus”) against

Pelagius and send it to Eulogius, the senior bishop in Palestine.

The two deposed bishops primarily studied works that were

anonymous writings of Caelestius and only a few of Pelagius’

letters. After reviewing the “libellus”, Eulogius calls for a

synod to convene at Diospolis. Most interesting is that neither

of the two deposed bishops appeared before the synod to validate

or defend their claims against Pelagius.35 Again Pelagius is

acquitted from all charges, including those that were falsely

brought against him, but were that of Caelestius, to which

Pelagius not only denies, but he also anathematizes them and all

who hold those views.

35 Ibid., 85-89.

17

Even with his acquittal from both synods and latter

acquittal from Zosimus in 417 for lack of relevant and firm

evidence, Pelagius is still excommunicated and condemned as a

heretic by the very bishop that acquitted him. Bishop Zosimus,

going against his previous position against the African Bishops

for condemning someone without the accused being present for

their defense, issues an Epistula Tractoria condemning Pelagius and

excommunicating him as a heretic in 418. Pelagius was never

given an audience before Bishop Zosimus before condemnation was

carried out, nor was he present at either council that met at

Carthage and Melvium in 418.36 In both instances Pelagius was

condemned largely on the accusations against Caelestius that he

had formally anathematized at the Synod of Diospolis in 415.

RATIONAL CHOICE

In light of the previous two examples, the rational choice

example has the capability of making them a mere consequence of a

move to preserve the power monopoly that the church held during

this time. Being mindful that this is in no way an attempt to

belittle the theological debate of the controversy, but seeks to 36 Ibid., 106-114.

18

change the aspect of how one approaches the consequence of

accepting one doctrine over the other. In 2007, John H. Beck

sought to apply the theories of rational choice to the Pelagian

Controversy with convincing results. The rational choice model

is based on three assumptions that have been widely tested and

confirmed.

Assumption 1: Individuals act rationally, weighing thecosts and benefits of potential actions, and choosing those actions that maximize their net benefits.Assumption 2: The ultimate preferences (or “needs”) that individuals use to assess costs and benefits tend not to vary much from person to person or time to time.Assumption 3: Social outcomes constitute the equilibria that emerge from the aggregation and interaction of individual actions.37

As has previously been suggested that the outcome of the

controversy largely depended not only on the decision of the

Church, but also the Imperial authority’s ability to support and

enforce the decision. As noted by Beck, “In the later efforts

against bishops with Pelagian sympathies, Augustine’s allies

reportedly bribed imperial cavalry commanders with 80 Numidian

stallions.”38 In appealing to Bishop Innocent, the Councils from

37 John H. Beck, “The Pelagian Controversy: An Economic Analysis,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 66, no. 4 (October, 2007): 682.

38 John H. Beck, “The Pelagian Controversy: An Economic Analysis,” 687.

19

Carthage and Melvium only indicated how accepting or allowing the

Pelagian doctrine to precipitate, would weaken the role of the

clergy. On a larger scale than this was the thought that

acceptance of the stringent moral demands of Pelagius would cause

many Romans to turn from the Church or not desire to follow the

Church at all. Simply stated, “The Pelagians, by making more

severe moral demands on Church members, would have raised the

“price” of membership, discouraging the growth of the Church.”39

In theory, this would allow for the church to in essence lower

the price of membership in the church to keep it attractive to

the aristocratic milieu, thus enabling them to maintain their

sphere of influence in the upper class, which would have largely

encompassed the Imperial authorities.

PELAGIAN SUPPORT

Pelagius was certainly not alone in his efforts to battle

against his looming excommunication. Two Pelagian supporters

stand out in their support and opposition to the claims of heresy

from the Western Church, John, Bishop of Jerusalem and Julian of

39 John H. Beck, “The Pelagian Controversy: An Economic Analysis,” 688.

20

Eclanum. Through exposition of these two men and their efforts

to support Pelagius, the reader will be able to fully grasp the

gravity of support for the movement and the undeniably unjustness

in the condemnation of Pelagius.

JOHN OF JERUSALEM

From the time of Pelagius’ arrival in Palestine, he was

supported by and “lived under the protection of Bishop John of

Jerusalem.”40 Bishop John presided over the Synod of Jerusalem

in 415 that addressed the accusations made by Paul Orosius

against Pelagius. There was a mutal respect between Pelagius and

the bishop, as it was only after being acknowledged by the bishop

during the synod that Pelagius gave a fuller explanation of his

understanding of the inner working of the Grace of God in a man’s

ability to follow his commands.41 The bishop was also present

for the Synod of Diospolis as a supporter of Pelagius. It can be

inferred that Bishop John favored Pelagius and to that extent he

informed his successor Praylius of the need to support Pelagius,


41 John Ferguson, Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study, 83-85.

21

prior to his death circa 416. As evidence of this transfer of

support, Bishop Praylius writes a letter of commendation to

accompany Pelagius’ “libelus fidei” to Bishop Innocent.42

JULIAN OF ECLANUM

In stark opposition to Bishop Zosimus’ Epistola Tractoria, Julian

of Eclanum along with eighteen other Italian Bishops refused to

sign and acknowledge the condemnation and excommunication of

Pelagius. As a result all of the bishops were deposed and

excommunicated.43 B. R. Rees had this to say about Julian of

Eclanum, “Had it not been for his enthusiasm in the cause of

Pelagius and Caelestius he ‘might have ended his days as an

honoured figure in the Church.”44 Julian took to the pen and

came on the attack of the condemnation of Pelagius. First he

defended his position to Count Valerius at the court of Ravenna.

Subsequently, he wrote two letters to Bishop Zosimus in protest

to his capitulation to the Roman secular power, followed by a

request to appear before a general council, but it would be all

42 Ibid., 99.

43 Ibid., 113.


22

for naught, as Bishop Zosimus condemned Julian.45 At this point

Julian refocused his attention and took aim at bringing down

Augustine. The ensuing ecclesiastical battle between the two

would last for ten years and encompass a myriad of treatise,

letters and books. In 428 Julian again attempted restoration

with the Bishopric in Rome through the inquiries of the Patriarch

of Constantinople, Nestorius. This was to no avail, and came

with an imperial decree expelling them from the city. Julian

continues his battle with Augustine and fought for the Pelagian

cause till the end, which came in 431 at the Council of Ephesus.

Julian retired to Italy where he was refused and rejected by the

Church. Julian slipped away into the background and later dies

in Sicily circa 443.46

CONCLUSION

Challenging the precepts of the Western Catholic Church of

once a heretic, always a heretic has proven to be fruitful and

enlightening, in the sense of uncovering injustice during the



23

Pelagian Controversy. Pelagius significantly challenged the very

foundation on which the Western Church had planted itself by

calling for a moralistic reform. Laxity had become the key word

in the church largely due to the influx of new converts. Demands

for lengthy catechumens had become somewhat of an impossibility.

The Church decided that it was better to baptize and welcome them

to the Church with the hopes of training them later. It is here

that Pelagius made his stand in defense of the Church. However,

being a lowly layman, Pelagius did not have the arsenal to

contend with the already established and firmly rooted

Augustinian Doctrine. Through a battle of unfortunate and unjust

circumstances Pelagius is pitted as the fall guy and

excommunicated for beliefs that he himself had condemned.

Consequently, the supremacy of the bishop and priest was

emphatically declared, leaving the layman with little or no voice

in the Church. Pelagius, a humble layman, whose heart desire was

to see the Church prosper for the cause of Christ, was unjustly

condemned.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beck, John H. “The Pelagian Controversy: An Economic Analysis.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 66, no. 4 (October, 2007): 681-96.

Bourke, Vernon J. The Essential Augustine. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1974.

Evans, Robert F. Four Letters of Pelagius. New York: The Seabury Press,1968.

________. Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals. New York: The Seabury Press, 1968.

Ferguson, John. Pelagius: a Historical and Theological Study. 1st AMS ed. New York: Ams Pr Inc, 1978.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Rev. and updated [ed.], 2nd ed. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

Gonzalez, Justo L., and Catherine G. Heretics For Armchair Theologians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

Harvey, Susan Ashbrook, and David Hunter, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2008.

King, Peter, ed. On the Free Choice of the Will, On Grace and Free Choice, and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

McGrath, Alister E. Justification by Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

25

Meeks, Wayne A. and John T. Fitzgerald, eds. The Writings of St. Paul: Annotated Texts, Reception and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007.

Paffenroth, Kim, and Robert Peter Kennedy, eds. A Reader's Companionto Augustine's Confessions. Louisville, KY.: WJK, 2003.

Rees, Brinley Roderick. Pelagius. Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: The Boydell Press, 1988.

Pelagian Controversy

Documents

Transcript of Pelagian Controversy