The anti-Pelagian controversy, which had engaged Augustine for more than the last  fteen years of his life, was not only a theological dispute but also an ecclesiastical-political one. After the fall of Rome in 410 (without which the controversy would probably have not arisen), the Italian and African churches were competing for inuence over the West, but at the same time, the Christian East got embroiled in the events in various ways as well.1 It was probably Ru nus the Syrian who was present at the birth of the Pelagian position. In his work De de, he argued not only against Origen’s teaching on the guilty fall of the soul into the body (and other Origenian teachings), but also against the notion of Adam’s guilt transmitted by the procreation of the human race.2 Yet no open conict broke out over this work of Ru nus’ (conveying to the West ideas which the author may have adopted from Antiochian theology3) or even over Pelagius’ ascetical activity

1 On the development of the Pelagian dispute among the African bishops, Rome and the Eastern church, see O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius, Stuttgart 1975. 2 See Ru nus the Syrian, Liber de de 17: Miller 70–72 (against Origen’s rejection of God’s unlimited power); Liber de de 20: Miller 78 (against Origen’s idea of the fall of demons); Liber de de 36; 51: Miller 108; 128–130 (against Origen’s notion of human esh as a consequence of the fall); Liber de de 28: Miller 90–94 (against traducianism); Liber de de 38–39: Miller 110–114 (against the transmission of Adam’s guilt to his descendants). On Ru nus the Syrian (presumably a diferent person from his namesake Ru nus of Aquileia), see B. Altaner, “Der Liber de de, ein Werk des Pelagianers Ru nus des ‘Syrers’”, in: idem, Kleine patristische Schriften, 467–482; H.-I. Marrou, “Les attaches orientales du Pélagianisme”, in: Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1968, 459–472; G. Bonner, “Ru nus of Syria and African Pelagianism”, in: AugSt 1, 1970, 31–47; E. TeSelle, “Ru nus the Syrian, Caelestius, Pelagius. Explorations in the Prehistory of the Pelagian Controversy”, in: AugSt 3, 1972, 61–95; C.P. Hammond, “The Last Ten Years of Ru nus’ Life and the Date of His Move South from Aquileia”, in: JThS, N.S., 28, 1977, 425f. Recently, W. Dunphy tried to identify both Ru nuses as one person, diferent from the author of Liber de de; see W. Dunphy, “Ru nus the Syrian: Myth and Reality”, in: Augustiniana, 59, 2009, 79–157. 3 The relationship between Pelagian teachings and Theodore of Mopsuestia is attested to by an anti-Pelagian writer of that time, Marius Mercator (Commonit. 3,1: ACO I,5, 5); see H.- I. Marrou, Lesattachesorientales (among others, the author mentions Theodore’s lost treatise against original sin; however, Theodore might have written it later, under the inuence of Julian of Eclanum, who in his exile took refuge with Theodore after 419; see J. Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum. Studien zu seinem Leben, seinem Werk, seiner Lehre und ihrer Überlieferung, Leiden—Boston—Köln 2001, 298); the discussion of Theodore’s role at the beginning of Pelagianism is summarised in G. Bonner, Augustine and Modern Research on Pelagianism, Villanova 1972, 27f. 160 part three: introduction among the Roman aristocracy4 (although it did perhaps evoke some ques- tions concerning the doctrine of grace, as we will see later). The  rst per- son to be condemned was Caelestius,5 a disciple of Pelagius; in 411, he was charged with heresy by Deacon Paulinus of Milan, though not on Italian soil, but (signi cantly) in Africa, in Carthage, where Caelestius and Pelagius had taken refuge after the fall of Rome.6 In the same year, Augustine set about a written polemic against Cae- lestius’ views, following the request of the imperial commissioner Mar- cellinus, and he soon went on to become acquainted with Pelagius’ expo- sitions of the Pauline letters and, later on, with his other works as well. Augustine’s attitude, originally a polite attempt at discouraging both the- ologians, supported by the inuential Roman aristocracy, from dangerous teachings,7 gradually radicalised into absolute irreconcilability and a tar- geted ecclesiastical-political campaign. After Pelagius left Rome for the East via Africa, Augustine sent his disci- ple Orosius to Jerusalem in connection with the matter of Pelagius’ teach- ings (among others, Orosius carried a letter from Augustine and an oral

4 On Pelagius’ patrons from among the Roman aristocracy, see P. Brown, “Pelagius and His Supporters”, 185–191; idem, “The Patrons of Pelagius: The Roman Aristocracy between East and West”, in: idem, Religion and Society, 208–226. 5 Ep. 157,3,22: CSEL 44, 471. According to Augustine’s account, the theses for which Caelestius was condemned were as follows: 1. Adam would have died a physical death even if he had not sinned; 2. his sin injured only himself, not the whole human race; 3. the law leads men to the kingdom of God no less than the Gospel does; 4. men lived without sin even before the coming of Christ; 5. new-born infants are in the same condition as Adam was in before his transgression; 6. the whole human race neither dies in consequence of Adam’s sin nor rises again through Christ’s resurrection (see Augustine, De gest. Pel. 11,23: BA 21, 484; De grat. Chr. pecc. orig. II,11,12: BA 22, 176–178). See O. Wermelinger, Rom, 9–11. The available information concerning the destiny of Caelestius was collated by G. Honnay, “Caelestius, discipulus Pelagii”, in: Augustiniana, 44, 1994, 271–302; on his teachings, see E. TeSelle, “Ru nus”; for an overview see also M. Lamberigts, “Pelagius and Pelagians”, in: S. Ashbrook Harvey—D.G. Hunter (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, Oxford 2008, 258–279 (on Cealestius, see esp. 266f.). 6 As G. Bonner remarks, at the time of the culminating Donatist schism, the African church was probably particularly sensitive to all teachings concerning baptism, including its substantiation by means of original sin (see G. Bonner, Augustine and Modern Research, 36f.). However, Y.-M. Duval objects that it was probably already in Rome before 410 that Pelagius and his teachings caused a stir, and that in Carthage he was not indicted by the Africans, but by Deacon Paulinus of Milan. His teachings were thus suspicious not only in the African region (Y.-M. Duval, “Pélage en son temps: Données chronologiques nouvelles pour une présentation nouvelle”, in: StPatr 38, 2001, 100f.). 7 As late as 414, Augustine says in a letter to Hilary of Syracuse that the Pelagians had better be cured of their fallacy rather than be cut of as incurable members from the body of the church (Ep. 157,3,22: CSEL 44, 472).