Sancti Viri, Ut Audio: Theologies, Rhetorics, and Receptions of the Pelagian Controversy Reappraised by Anthony Dupont et al. (review)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:

• Sancti Viri, Ut Audio: Theologies, Rhetorics, and Receptions of the Pelagian Controversy Reappraised by Anthony Dupont et al.
• Thomas P. Scheck

Anthony Dupont, R. Villegas Marín, G. Malavasi, M. Cosimo Chiriatti, editors
Sancti Viri, Ut Audio: Theologies, Rhetorics, and Receptions of the Pelagian Controversy Reappraised
Leuven: Peeters, 2023
Pp. 385. €78.00.

In 1989 Matthijs Lamberigts argued that the Pelagian controversy should not be assessed on the basis of an either-or attitude and that the possible rehabilitation of Pelagius or Julian cannot be linked to a repudiation or rejection of Augustine’s positions. Such an attitude would only result in a mirror image of former approaches to the matter and would not truly advance the scientific research into this dispute.

It appears to me that the contributors to the volume under review have by and large adhered to this plea for balance, moderation, and respect. The title of this book recalls Augustine’s words about Pelagius in De peccatorum meritis et remissione 3.1.1: “a holy man, I hear.” The essays are all in English and reappraise the antique “Pelagian” controversy with its now recognized myriads of theologies, rhetorics, and receptions.

The opening piece is by Otto Wermelinger himself, whose 1975 work, Rom und Pelagius, has long been a standard work. It outlines the current state of research as of 2022. Anthony Dupont engages Augustine’s appeal to Ambrose for support for his doctrine of original sin. He concludes that the Ambrosian [End Page 473] and Augustinian understandings of original sin are to be distinguished. Jonathon Yates examines the prominent use of Matt 6.12–13 in Augustine’s epistolary polemics against Pelagius (Epp. 175–79) following his acquittal at the Synod of Diospolis in December 415. Joshua Evans studies the rival conceptions of the flesh of Christ in the polemics between Augustine and Julian. Based primarily on texts in Cicero, Evans clarifies Julian’s concept of the ignis vitalis, “fire of life,” which is the foundation of Julian’s claim that Christ, as a real human being, had concupiscence and of his charge against Augustine that a human being without concupiscence (Augustine’s Christ) is either a contradiction in terms or a corpse. The converse side of the argument (Augustine’s) is also treated in detail based on material from De Trinitate. and Contra Iulianum. The bishop of Hippo’s view, according to Evans, is that Christ’s flesh did not in any way resist the spirit so that the spirit had to subdue it.

Mathijs Lamberigts traces an outline of Julian’s life and career and then treats the theme of God’s grace and mercy in Julian of Eclanum. He concludes that Julian does not accept a view on grace that annihilates the existence of free will, as Augustine does. Julian’s God is a relational God: he invites but does not urge; he respects the freedom of human beings, while at the same time offering his many gifts of grace.

Andrew C. Chronister examines Augustine’s portrayal of Pelagius’s and Caelestius’s views on grace. One of his aims is to push back “ever so slightly” against Ali Bonner’s claims in her 2018 book, The Myth of Pelagianism, that it was Augustine, not Pelagius, who endeavored to install a new orthodoxy. Rafal Toczko examines the use of Roman (Ciceronian) invective in anti-Pelagian polemic (primarily that of Augustine, Jerome, Orosius, and Marius Mercator). He frames this under the following loci: origins, physical appearance, superbia, mendacity and duplicity, cowardice, and oratorical ineptitude. Toczko notes that the genre of invective and its basic features were widespread in the Greek and Roman world, where Christian communities were formed; hence it was considered a powerful and legitimate device, unchanged by Christian writers.

Juana Torres focuses her study on Jerome’s Liber adversus Pelagianos, asking whether it is a dialogue or an altercation. The historical context of Maria Paño’s essay, which critically investigates Emperor Honorius’s letter to Aurelius of Carthage (419), is the issuing of a law on April 30, 418 by Honorius along with Theodosius II, condemning the Pelagian doctrine and ordering the expulsion from Rome of Caelestius and Pelagius...