J. Ferguson, In Defence of Pelagius

7/30/2019 J. Ferguson, In Defence of Pelagius

1/7

http://tjx.sagepub.com/Theology

http://tjx.sagepub.com/content/83/692/114.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0040571X80083002061980 83: 114

Theology

John FergusonIn Defence of Pelagius

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

can be found at:TheologyAdditional services and information for

http://tjx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tjx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

at Pontifica Universita on July 25, 2011tjx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/content/83/692/114.citationhttp://tjx.sagepub.com/content/83/692/114.citationhttp://tjx.sagepub.com/content/83/692/114.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.spck.org.uk/index.phphttp://www.spck.org.uk/index.phphttp://tjx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tjx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tjx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tjx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tjx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tjx.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tjx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.spck.org.uk/index.phphttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/content/83/692/114.citationhttp://tjx.sagepub.com/


2/7

114 In DefenceofPelagiusthe saints of old, and the biblical writers in part icular, was not perfect; itoften incorporated an unacceptable account of the process of inspiration asProfessor Mitchell himself acknowledges. But that does not mean that itwas totally wrong. For what they were apprehending was (in many cases atleast) what was true about God-his creation, his purposes, his love-, andtheir apprehension of it was not something entirely at their command, amatter simply of effort and achievement, any more than poetic insight is.And it is because I want to stress this element of receptivity in religiousinsight, receptivity of what is true about God and about what God is up toin creation, that I might myself want to continue to use the word'revelation' in relation to my own position. But I am not unduly worriedabout the word, and in the sense that we have defined it for this discussionI do question both its reality and its necessity for Christian faith.

A final word. One of the odd things to be noted about this discussion isthat the two positions on revelation do not necessarily coincide with a moreand a less conservative handling of the biblical tradition. Since ProfessorMitchell allows the need for some re-interpretation (despite his understanding of it as embodying special communication from God) and I believethe biblical writers to convey important truth about the way of God(although not postulating any such special communication), it is open tohim, should he so wish, to move just as far (or even further) from theoriginal understanding of the faith than me. I am not suggesting that hedoes so, though I suspect our differences there are rather less than ourdifferences of theory might suggest, but that it is logically possible for himto do so. There is a real difference of conceptuality. I think he introducesan inadequately-warranted epistemological principle; he thinks I holdinadequately-warranted beliefs. The differences are real, but their practicalimplications are probably less than might at first sight appear.Basil Mitchell is Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the ChristianReligion, Maurice Wiles, Regius Professorof Divinity, in the University ofOxford.

In DefenceofPelagiusJOHN FERGUSON

Michael Jackson in his entertaining and attrac tive 'Home Cooking'(Theology July 1979, pp. 244 ff.) writes with some sympathy but ultimatelynegatively of Pelagius. In the controversy with Augustine I should beinclined rather to look with sympathy but ultimately negatively at

http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/http://tjx.sagepub.com/


3/7

John Ferguson 115August ine's views, and with no sympathy at all at his policies. Let us lookat the evidence.Of Pelagius's younger days we know for certain only that he came fromBritain. He is called either British or a Scot (which readers of 1066 and AllThat know means ' Irish' and may be merely a term of abuse). The namePelagius might, but need not, be a translation of Marigena, a Lat inizat ionof Morgan, and he is associated in a late tradition with the celebratedmonastery of Bangor Yscoed near Caerleon. Perhaps. Polydorus Virgilplants his birth firmly in the south-eastern half of Britain.He had some knowledge of classical Greek philosophy, and was well

acquainted with pagan Lat in l iterature. He knew his Bible well, and readthe Fathers in both Greek and Latin. He had some legal knowledge butdoes not seem to have pract ised as a lawyer; he had some famil iarity withmedicine, and his father could have been a doctor. He himself felt areligious calling, but although he is called a monk at times this probablyrefers to his general asceticism; the evidence of Zosimus is decisive that hewas a layman.

In mature life he was of formidable build, bull-necked, broad shoulderedlike a wrestler, not unlike a mountain dog. He was full of face, sternbrowed, and disliked head-coverings. Later he put on weight and becameslow of step, but this was due, not to luxurious living, but to an unbalanceddiet of coarse cereals.

His opponents, Jerome and Orosius, descend to cheap abuse of hischaracter . August ine, a greater man altogether, never does this. Pelagiuswas a man of warm personality, who retained the love of his friends evenwhen they came to reject his views. He was pure of life, self-disciplined,and ascetic, ardent in his zeal for God. The only charges against hischaracter which are worth a moment's second thought are those oftergiversation and of pride. The first arose out of his willingness to makeconcessions to his critics without yielding the main point, and can hardly besustained. The second is a charge easily levelled against those who hold tothe truth as they see it against numbers or authori ty. Pelagius assertedand Augustine agreed-that loyalty to the truth is a form of humility. Buthis repeated assertion that pride is the gravest sin smacks of a man awareof his own gravest temptation.Pelagius came to Rome in about 382, and was shocked by the moral

laxity he found around him. During the next twenty years he wrote amagister ial t reatise on the Trinity, a monumental commentary on Paul'sletters, at once scholarly and practical, and a collection of scripturalpassages concerning Christian living. He was seeking to recall his readers tothe Christian gospel. In 405 he heard a bishop quoting with approval theprayer from Augustine's Confessions (10.29): 'Grant what you command,and command what you will.' To Pelagius this turned man into a meremarionette, a robot. This, in the end, was the issue. Pelagius did not say



4/7

116 InDefenceofPelagiusthat we could be saved by our own efforts. He did insist that we have stillfreely to turn to the saving grace of God.The detailed events of the controversy are of historical ra ther thantheological importance. Pelagius was backed by a lawyer named Caelestius,a man of prodigious ability, with a keen analytic mind, but too slicklybrill iant in making points, lacking Pelagius's moral integrity. In 409 withAlaric at the gates they left Rome and moved first to Sicily and then toCarthage . Augustine was occupied with the Donatists, and was disappointed not to meet Pelagius, and Pelagius left for Palestine without apersonal encounter. Caelestius was left behind, and he, not Pelagius, wascharged with denying the need for infant baptism in order to remove thetaint of inherited sin. Caelestius answered that he accepted the practice ofthe Church, and thought that Christians might legitimately be divided onthe theory. When pressed he declared that the purpose of baptism was toenable the infant to share in the common redemption of mankind. But onan inherited taint he was agnostic; he could not say yes and would not sayno. He was excommunicated and left for Ephesus. Augustine continued topreach against the heresy, but was warm in personal correspondence withPelagius, calling him 'my dearest master' , 'my beloved brother ' and thelike.

A noblewoman named Demetrias had resolved on a life of virginity. Thewaspish Jerome, sniffing suspiciously for traces of Origen or Rufinus underevery bush, wrote her a letter of good advice. So did Pelagius. But inwriting to her he said that God gives us our spiritual nature so that we mayfulfil His just ways freely not by constraint. He gives us the power to actrightly or wrongly, so that our fulfilment of His will may come from ourfree choice. Augustine read this and did not like it: he wrote to Demetrias'smother that the postulant's virtues did not come from her strength at allbut were the gift of God.

Meantime there was trouble in Sicily. A document was circulating, nodoubt by Caelestius, incorporating a number of shrewd and sharpdilemmas, such as 'I f a sin comes from necessity, it is not sin; if from freewill, it can be avoided', 'An ought implies a can. A man ought to livewithout sin: therefore he can', 'God made man good and commanded himto be good. It is blasphemous to say that man is evil and incapable of good'.Alongside these formulations are scriptural texts to back them and answersfrom scripture to those scriptural texts which were quoted to the contrary.Augustine replied in a treat ise On the Perfection of Justice in Man. Hedoes not answer Caelestius's central assertion, that the very concept of sinimplies moral responsibility. He reiterates t ime and again that freedomfrom sin is possible only by the grace of God mediated through Jesus Christour Lord.

There was a further occasion for controversy over two young upper-classmen, Timasius and James, whom Pelagius had moved to renounce secular



5/7

John Ferguson 117ambi tion for the spi ritual life. They sent August ine Pelagius On Natureand invited his reply On Nature and Grace. Pelagius's argument was thatwe are responsible for our sins, guilty of them, and that implies choice. Atone point he wrote 'Even if we wanted to be unable not to sin, we are stillunable to be unable not to sin.' Augustine saw humani ty as 'a sinful mass'.He knew himself to be total ly dependent on Christ . Pelagius was saying'My sin is, God help me, freely committed ', Augustine 'My salvation, Godbe thanked, comes from Christ alone.'

Pelagius was in Palestine. Here he was under fire from Jerome andOrosius. Pelagius was charged with saying 'A man can, if he will, livewithout sin, and easily keep God's commandments. ' This sounds 'Pelagian',but Pelagius explicitly s tated 'I did not mean that human nature has anatural endowment of sinlessness'; freedom from sin is possible only by thegrace of God. The synod at Jerusalem acquitted him. Jerome, an inveteratetrouble-s tirrer, s ti rred up more trouble, unsuccessfully, and there werefurther proceedings at Diospolis. There Pelagius showed a clearly genuineconcern for orthodoxy. Further, he never attacked his opponents. Augustinein particular laid himself wide open to charges against his own orthodoxy.Julian of Eclanum later seized this opportunity; Pelagius did not. AllPelagius wanted was some moral earnestness within the Church, and hecould not instil that without offering some alternat ive to Augustine 'spredestinarian views.

The polit ical pressure-groups within the 'orthodox' party now got busyon the bishop of Rome. Innocent condemned Pelagius and Caelestius, butdied a month later. His successor Zosimus reversed the judgement. TheAfrican churches stood by the condemnation, and applied to the secularauthor ity, as Augustine had previously done over the Donatists. A weakemperor, Honorius, succumbed to the pressures, and banished Pelagius,Caelestius and their followers. There had been trouble in the streetsbetween the factions, but no-one supposes that Pelagius had anything to dowith it. It is an unsavoury episode. More, it pushed a weak and waveringPope to change yet again and condemn Pelagius.

Pelagius had not been present at any of the Councils which condemnedhim and that through no fault of his. He protested to Augustine that he didbelieve in the grace of God, active not merely hour by hour or minute byminute, but in our every action. He retired to Egypt, and wrote acommentary on Job, a treatise On the Virtue of Constancy and above allhis commentary on The Song of Songs. He fades from our sight, risingabove the abuse of his enemies, with a panegyric of true love.The Pelagian controversy has obscured some of Pelagius's othercontributions to Christian thought. Pelagius for example is an importantthinker about the place of laity in the church and that in a period when theclergy were growing in power. He does not denigrate the calling of theclergy, but insists equally on the vocation of the laity, that teaching within



6/7

118 In DefenceofPelagiusthe church is not necessarily a sacerdotal function and that there should beno moral distinction between clergy and laity. Ambrose had spoken of'soldiers of Christ' and 'servants of God' who might not use militaryweapons. He was speaking of the clergy. Pelagius insisted that the laitywere equally soldiers of Christ and servants of God, and subject to the samemoral challenges.

Pelagius is emphatic about the renunciation of riches, and he is so in aparticularly sane way. There are three states of man, wealth, poverty andsufficiency. 'Remove a millionaire and you won't find a pauper.' 'I f no onehas more than he needs, everyone will have as much as he needs.' Jesus didnot condemn possessions out of hand. He condemned domination bypossessions; he condemned great possessions as almost always corrupting;he condemned a selfish attitude to possessions. This is Pelagius's view. AndPelagius believed in levelling-up. Further he saw that what applies topossessions applies to power. Plato kept his Guardians free from wealth, butdid not see the corrupting effect of power itself. Pelagius, like Acton later,did.

Pelagius was concerned about quality of life. He analysed the Christianway into three factors: knowledge, faith and obedience. Knowledge is themovement of the intellect, faith the movement of the , spirit, obediencethe movement of the whole person animated by the will. Love is the centreof the moral"life.

As to the great controversy it is important to see that Pelagius began notfrom abstract considerations about the freedom of the will, but from thefact of the sinfulness of man. He knows himself a sinner, and he confessesthat it is by his own fault, his own most grievous fault. F. R. Tennantdefined sin as 'moral imperfection for which an agent is, in God's sight,accountable'. So said Pelagius.

Neither Augustine nor Pelagius denied the possibility of acting withoutsin. Augustine said that it is possible only after the mediat ion of God'sgrace, through the sacrament of baptism ex opere opera to. Pelagius saidthat the same alternatives of action are available before and after baptism.The right course is there to take, and it is our own faul t that we do not takeit. Pelagius is not more optimistic about human nature than his opponents;he is more pessimistic. To say that there is a right way to choose and we donot choose it is 'a really harsh and bit ter word for sinners '.

Pelagius said that in any action there are three elements: posse, velle,esse, possibility, will, ac tual ity. God gives the tota lity. He gives thepossibility. He renounces his absolute power to allow the freedom of ourresponse, though even there he meets us (as the Father met the prodigal),he sanctifies, restrains, invites, illuminates, but he does not override so thatwe become automata. Pelagius believed in endowing grace and co-operatinggrace. But we still have to say 'Speak for your servant hears,' 'Here am I;



7/7

RobertMiller 119send me.' In The Light of the World Holman Hunt put no handle on thedoor; the door of human heart opens from the inside only.There was thus a difference of emphasis between Augustine andPelagius. Augustine stressed the divine initiative, Pelagius the humanresponse (which he felt August ine's theology omitted) . Augustine wonbecause the Church rightly felt that the divine initiative is greater andprior. But Augustine's full theology left no place at all for the humanresponse. Pelagius never denied the divine initiative. Augustine would havecondemned the formulations of Orange or Trent as firmly as he condemnedPelagius. His full answer involved doctrines of total depravity, arbitraryelection, predestination, the physical inheritance of the original t aintthrough man's sexual nature, and the damnation of the unbaptized. Perhapsit is right to say a word in defence of Pelagius, who had a dif ferent view ofthe love of God.John Ferguson is President of the Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham.

Islam and the WestR O B E R T M I L L E R

Some years ago, when futurology was fashionable, a prestigious Americaninstitute suggested as a slight possibility that before the turn of the centuryAfrica or Asia might be convulsed by a messianic religion. Th e recentevents in Iran and indeed all over the Moslem world confi rm the standardrule of thumb that if any event is judged unlikely or impossible by aforecasting institute it will almost certainly take place. Th e revival of Islamshould not have been such a surprise as revivals have been regularlypredicted every twenty years or so since the First World War,John Buchan's novel Greenmantle describes how Richard Hannayfrustrated the combination of the central powers with a resurgent Islam inthe First World Wa r and Hila ire Belloc in the 1930s even went so far as topredict a renewal of warfare between Islam and the Christian West.

The revival of Islam has taken an anti-western aspect which is not anextraneous addit ion but is intrinsic to the Moslem religion, and has been sosince its foundation. Th e fact that western civilization is now predominantlysecular should not lead us to think that our differences with Islam ar eanything bu t religious. Western liberalism which is the part of the Westwith which the Moslem is confronted derives directly from Christianity .Indeed it can be argued that western secular civilization could only developfrom a religion such as Christianity; liberalism and the toleration of a


Documents

J. Ferguson, In Defence of Pelagius