Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 38

II. ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF PELAGIUS. After the ecclesiastical proceedings came into our hands, holy pope Aurelius — those in which Pelagius was pronounced catholic by fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine — my hesitation reached its end, that hesitation by which I was doubtful whether to discuss anything more fully and more confidently concerning his very defence.

For I had already read this defence in a certain little paper which he himself had sent me; but because I had received from him no letter given by his own hand together with that paper, I feared lest something might be found otherwise in my words than was read in the episcopal proceedings, and so, if perchance Pelagius should deny that he himself had sent me that paper — since he could not easily be convicted by a single witness — I might rather be accused by those who favoured his denial either of a fabricated falsehood or, to put it more mildly, of a rash credulity.

Now therefore, since I treat those things which the proceedings attest, your holiness and everyone who shall read will judge more easily and more surely — with all doubt removed as far as it seemed to me whether he pleaded for himself in this manner — both concerning his defence and concerning this work of ours. First, then, to the Lord God, our ruler and keeper, I give unspeakable thanks that my opinion did not deceive me concerning our holy brethren and fellow-bishops who sat as judges in that case. For not without merit did they approve his responses, not caring how he had set down in his works the things that were objected, but what he answered concerning these in the present examination. For it is one thing to have an unsound faith, another to have incautious speech.

Finally, among those matters which were recited from the document that our holy brethren and fellow-bishops, the Gauls Heros and Lazarus, presented — who, on account of the grave sickness of one of them (as we afterwards learned with better probability), were unable to be present at all — objections were made to Pelagius. The first is this, that in a certain book of his he writes: 'None can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law.' When this had been recited, the synod said: 'Did you publish these things, Pelagius?' And he answered: 'I did indeed say it, but not as they understand it. I did not say that he who has knowledge of the law cannot sin, but that he is helped through knowledge of the law not to sin, as it is written: He gave them the law for a help.' When this was heard, the synod said:

'The things spoken by Pelagius are not alien to the Church.' Plainly the things he answered are not alien; but that which was brought forward from his book sounds otherwise. Yet the bishops, being Greek men and hearing those words through an interpreter, did not take care to examine this, looking only at what he who was questioned said he had meant, not by what words the same opinion was said to be written in his book. But it is one thing that a man be helped to not sinning through knowledge of the law, and another that none can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law. For since we see, for example, threshing-floors threshed even without threshing-sledges — although these help, if they are at hand;

and that boys can go to school without tutors, although the helps of tutors are not useless for this; and that many recover from sickness without physicians, although the aids of physicians are manifest; and that men live on other foods without bread, although the help of bread is not denied to be of very great avail; and many other things which readily occur to one who reflects even while we are silent — surely we are reminded that there are two kinds of helps.

For some are such that without them that for which they help cannot be brought about — as without a ship no one sails, no one speaks without a voice, no one walks without feet, no one sees without light, and many things of this kind (whence also is that: no one lives rightly without the grace of God); but others are helps by which we are so helped that, even if they be absent, that for which we seek them can be brought about in another way — as are those which I mentioned: the threshing-sledge for threshing crops, the tutor for leading the boy, the medicine compounded by human art for recovering health, and other such things. It must be asked, therefore, to which of these two kinds knowledge of the law belongs — that is, in what way it helps toward not sinning.

If in such a way that without it this cannot be fulfilled, then not only did Pelagius answer truly in the judgment, but he also wrote truly in the book;

but if in such a way that it does indeed help if it be present, yet that toward which it helps can be brought about in another way even if it be absent, then he did indeed answer truly in the judgment — which deservedly pleased the bishops, namely that a man is helped to not sinning by knowledge of the law — but he did not write truly in the book, 'that a man cannot be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law.' This the judges left undiscussed, being ignorant of the Latin tongue and content with the confession of him who was pleading his cause, especially where no one stood on the opposing side who might compel the interpreter to lay open by exposition the words of his book, and might show whence the brethren were not moved without cause. For very few are skilled in the law;

but the multitude of the members of Christ, spread everywhere and unskilled in a law so deep and manifold, is commended by the piety of a simple faith and a most firm hope in God and a sincere love — which multitude, endowed with these gifts of the grace of God, trusts that it can be cleansed from sins through Jesus Christ our Lord. To this, if perchance Pelagius should answer that he had meant this very knowledge of the law, without which a man cannot be free from sins — that knowledge which is handed down through the teaching of the faith to the newly enlightened and to little ones in Christ, by which also those to be baptized are catechized, so that they may know the creed — this is not indeed what is usually understood when anyone is said to have knowledge of the law, but rather that knowledge according to which men are called skilled in the law;

nevertheless, if he should call these words — few in number, but great in weight, and after the custom of all the churches faithfully imparted to those to be baptized — 'knowledge of the law,' asserting that it was of this that he had said 'None can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law,' which must needs be handed down to believers before they come to the very remission of sins: even so there would surround him an innumerable multitude of the baptized — not of disputants, but of wailing infants — of little ones, who would cry out not with words but with the very truth of innocence: 'What is it, what is it that you have written, that none can be without sin except him who has knowledge of the law? Behold, we, a great flock of lambs, are without sin, and yet we do not have knowledge of the law!'

Surely these would compel him at least to be silent, even with tongue keeping silence; or perhaps even to confess either that he is now corrected from that perversity, or at least that he did indeed feel, even before, this which he now said in the ecclesiastical examination, but that he had not set down carefully considered words for that opinion, and that therefore his faith is to be approved, but his book to be amended. For there is, as it is written, one who slips with the tongue and not in the heart. But if he should say, or does say, this — who would not most readily pardon those same words written too incautiously and negligently, when he does not defend the opinion which those words contain, but says that his opinion is the one which the truth approves?

This too we must believe the devout judges considered — if indeed they were able sufficiently to understand this which is in his book in Latin, once it had been carefully interpreted — just as they judged his response, brought forth in Greek speech and therefore easily understood, not to be alien to the Church. But let us now see the rest. For the episcopal synod added and said: 'Let another chapter also be read'; and it was read that Pelagius had set down in that same book of his: 'All are ruled by their own will.' When this had been read, Pelagius answered: 'This too I said on account of free will, to which God is a helper of him who chooses good things; but the man who sins is himself in fault, as of free will.' When this was heard, the bishops said: 'Neither is this alien from ecclesiastical doctrine.'

For who would condemn free will or deny it, when it is together with it that the help of God is proclaimed? Wherefore the opinion of the respondent also deservedly pleased the bishops; and yet that which is set down in his book, 'All are ruled by their own will,' ought without doubt to have moved the brethren, who knew what these men are wont to argue against the grace of God. For it was said 'All are ruled by their own will' as though God rules no one, and it were written in vain: Save your people and bless your inheritance, and rule them and lift them up even unto everlasting — lest surely, if they are ruled by their own will without God, they remain as sheep having no shepherd, which be far from us. For beyond doubt it is more to be led than to be ruled;

for he who is ruled does something, and therefore is ruled, that he may act rightly; but he who is led is scarcely understood himself to do anything. And yet the grace of the Saviour so far avails our wills that the apostle does not hesitate to say: As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Nor can free will do anything better in us than to commit itself, to be led, to Him who cannot act ill; and when it has done this, let it not doubt that it has been helped by Him to do it — to whom it is said in the psalm: My God, His mercy shall go before me.

Finally, in that book where Pelagius wrote those chapters, to this proposition — in which he said 'All are ruled by their own will and each one is left to his own desire' — he added something from the testimony of the Scriptures, whereby it may sufficiently appear that a man ought not to entrust himself to himself to be ruled. For he says concerning this very matter, in the Wisdom of Solomon: I too indeed am a mortal man, like all others, of the earthly race of him who was first fashioned — and the rest, up to the end of that chapter, where one reads: There is therefore for all one entrance to life and a like departure. Because of this I prayed, and understanding was given to me; and I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came into me.

Does it not appear clearer than light how this man, having considered the misery of human frailty, dared not entrust himself to himself to be ruled, but prayed, and understanding was given to him — concerning which the apostle says: But we have the mind of the Lord — and he called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came into him? For by this Spirit, not by the powers of their own will, are they ruled and led who are the sons of God. For that too which he set down from the Psalm in the same book of chapters, as though to prove that 'all are ruled by their own will' — He loved cursing, and it shall come to him; and he would not have blessing, and it shall be put far from him — who does not know that this is a vice not of nature, as God established it, but of the human will, which withdrew from God?

Nevertheless, if he had not loved cursing and had willed blessing, and in this very thing had denied that his will was helped by divine grace, then, ungrateful and impious, he would be left to himself to be ruled, so that, cast headlong without God his ruler, he might learn by punishments that he could not be ruled by himself. So too in that testimony which he subjoined to the same title in the same book: He has set before you water and fire; stretch out your hand to whichever you will; before man are good and evil, life and death; whatever shall please him shall be given him. It is manifest that, if he puts his hand to the fire and evil and death please him, the man's will works this; but if he loves good and life, not only does the will do this, but it is helped from on high.

For the eye suffices to itself for not seeing — that is, for darkness; but for seeing it does not suffice to itself by its own light, unless the aid of clear light be furnished to it from without. But far be it that those who are called according to the purpose — whom He foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son — should be left to their own desire so as to perish. For this the vessels of wrath suffer, which are perfected unto destruction, in whose very destruction also God makes known the riches of His glory upon the vessels of His mercy. For on account of this, when He had said, My God, His mercy shall go before me, He straightway subjoined, My God shall show me among my enemies. To those therefore is done that which is written:

God delivered them up to the desires of their heart. But this is not done to the predestined, whom the Spirit of God rules, since not empty is their cry: Deliver me not, O Lord, to the sinner from my desire — inasmuch as it is thus prayed even against these very desires, that it is said: Take from me the greeds of the belly, and let not the desire of lust seize me. This God grants to those whom He rules as subjects, but not to those who think themselves fit to rule themselves and, with the presumptuous neck of their own will, disdain to have Him as their ruler.

Since these things are so, how could the sons of God, who know this and rejoice that they are ruled and led by the Spirit of God, be moved when they heard or read written by Pelagius, 'All are ruled by their own will and each one is left to his own desire'? And yet, because, being asked by the bishops what evil those words sounded, he perceived it and answered that he had said this on account of free will, straightway subjoining, 'to which God is a helper of him who chooses good things;

but the man who sins is himself in fault, as of free will' — the devout judges, approving this opinion also, were unwilling to consider or inquire how incautiously, or in what sense, those words were set down in his book, deeming it sufficient that he had thus confessed free will, namely that God is a helper to him who chooses good things, but that the one sinning is himself in fault, his own will sufficing him for this. And by this God rules those to whom He is a helper when they choose good things; and therefore they rule well whatever they rule, since they themselves are ruled by the Good. Likewise it was recited that Pelagius had set down in his book: 'In the day of judgment the unrighteous and sinners are not to be spared, but to be burned with eternal fires.'

This had moved the brethren, so that it was thought fit to be objected, because it was said in such a way as though all sinners were to be punished with eternal torment, not excepting those who have Christ for their foundation, even though they build upon it wood, hay, stubble — concerning whom the apostle says: If any man's work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. But when Pelagius had answered that 'he had said this according to the Gospel, where it is said concerning sinners:

These shall go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal' — the evangelical and dominical sentence could in no way displease Christian judges who did not know what in the words brought forth from Pelagius's book had moved the brethren, who had been accustomed to hear his disputations or those of his disciples; since, in the absence of those who had presented the document against Pelagius to the holy bishop Eulogius, no one pressed that he should distinguish, by some exception, sinners to be saved through fire from sinners to be punished with eternal torment, and so, with the judges thus understanding why that had been objected, if he were unwilling to distinguish, he might deservedly be blamed. But as for what Pelagius added:

'And if anyone believes otherwise, he is an Origenist' — this the judges understood in that sense which the Church most worthily detests in Origen: namely, that even those whom the Lord says are to be punished with eternal torment, and the devil himself and his angels, shall after a time — however long — be purged and freed from their punishments, and shall cleave to the saints reigning with God in the fellowship of blessedness.

This therefore the synod said 'is not alien to the Church' — not according to Pelagius, but rather according to the Gospel — namely, that such unrighteous and sinners are to be burned with eternal fires as the Gospel judges worthy of such torment, and that whoever should say that their punishment, which the Lord said to be eternal, can at some time be ended, holds a detestable opinion with Origen. But concerning those sinners whom the apostle says shall be saved, as by fire, their work being burned up, they judged nothing, since nothing was evidently objected to Pelagius about these. Wherefore, whoever says that the unrighteous and sinners, whom the Truth condemns to eternal punishment, can at some time be freed from it, Pelagius not unfittingly calls an Origenist;

but on the other hand, whoever reckons no sinner worthy of mercy in the judgment of God, let him impose upon such a one whatever name he will, provided only that he understands this error too is not received by ecclesiastical truth; for judgment shall be without mercy to him who has not shown mercy. But how this judgment shall be brought about can be comprehended in the holy Scriptures only with difficulty; for that which is to be in one way is signified in many ways. For sometimes the Lord says, against those whom He does not receive into His kingdom, that He will shut the door, and to them crying out and saying, Open to us; in your name we have eaten and drunk, and the rest which it is written that they say, He will answer, I know you not, you who work iniquity;

sometimes He recounts that He will command that those who would not have Him reign be brought to Him and slain before Him; sometimes He says He will come with His angels in His majesty, so that all the nations shall be gathered before Him, and He shall divide them and set some on the right hand, whose good works, recounting them, He shall carry back into life eternal, and others on the left, upon whom, imputing barrenness of good works, He shall condemn them to eternal fire; sometimes He commands that the wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to lay out His money, or even the man found at the feast not having a wedding garment, be cast, with hands and feet bound, into the outer darkness; sometimes, having received the five prudent ones, He shuts the door against the other five foolish virgins.

These things, and whatever else there may be which does not occur at present, are spoken concerning the judgment to come — which surely is to be exercised not upon one or five, but upon many. For if there were but one who, from the feast which he had entered not having a wedding garment, was commanded to be cast into the darkness, there would not straightway follow and be said: For many are called, but few are chosen — since rather, with one cast out and condemned, many would seem to have remained in the house. But to discuss all these things now, as much as would suffice, would be very long.

This much, however, I can say briefly, without prejudice — as is wont to be said in monetary reckonings — to a better examination: that there is some one mode of judgment, which is inscrutable to us, the diversity of merits being at least preserved in rewards and punishments, which is signified in many ways through the holy Scriptures. But as for what suffices for this cause of which we now treat: if Pelagius had said that absolutely all sinners are to be punished with eternal fire and eternal torment, whoever had approved that judgment would first of all have pronounced sentence against his very own self; for who shall boast that he is clean from sins?

But because he said neither 'all' nor 'certain ones,' but set it down indefinitely, and answered that he had said this according to the Gospel, a true opinion has indeed been confirmed by the episcopal judgment; but as yet whether Pelagius holds some other view does not appear, and even after this episcopal judgment it is not impudent to inquire. It was objected to Pelagius also that in his book he had written, 'that evil should not even come into thought.' But he answered: 'We did not set it down thus, but we said that a Christian ought to strive that he think no evil.' Which, as was fitting, the bishops approved. For who doubts that evil ought not to be thought? And indeed in his book, near the word 'evil,' 'more cautiously' it is read thus: 'nor is it to be thought.' Which in this is usually understood:

that evil ought not even to be thought. But he who denies this, what else does he say than that evil ought to be thought? And if this were true, it would not be said in praise of charity: It thinks no evil. Yet that it should come into the thought of the righteous and holy is for this reason not so improperly asserted, because thought is wont to be called even when something comes into the mind, though consent does not follow. But thought which contracts guilt and is deservedly forbidden does not lack consent. It could therefore have happened that those who judged this to be objected in such a way read a faulty codex, as though Pelagius had said 'that evil does not come into thought' — that is, that what is evil does not come into the mind of the righteous and holy. Which opinion is surely most absurd;

for when we reprove evils, we cannot express them in words unless they be thought. But that, as we have said, is called a culpable thought of evil, which draws in consent. When therefore the judges had approved this response of Pelagius also, another thing was recited, which he had written in his little book: 'the kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament.' To which Pelagius said: 'This too it is possible to prove through the Scriptures; but heretics, to the injury of the Old Testament, deny this. I, however, following the authority of the Scriptures, said it, since it is written in the prophet Daniel: And the saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.' When his response had been received, the synod said: 'Neither is this alien from the faith of the Church.'

Did our brethren, then, without cause raise these words, so as to bring this forward among the rest of the charges? By no means. But the name 'Old Testament' is customarily used in two ways: in one according to the authority of the divine Scriptures, in another according to the most common usage of ordinary speech. For the Apostle Paul says to the Galatians: 'Tell me,' he says, 'you who desire to be under the Law, have you not heard the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. These things are said by way of allegory. For these are the two testaments: the one indeed from Mount Sinai, bringing forth unto bondage, which is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is joined to that Jerusalem which now is; for she serves in bondage with her children.'

'But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.' Since, therefore, the Old Testament pertains to bondage — whence also it was said, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac' — while the kingdom of heaven pertains to freedom, how can the kingdom of heaven also pertain to the Old Testament?

But since, as I have said, we are also accustomed so to speak that we call by the name of the Old Testament all the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets which were administered before the Lord's incarnation and are contained under canonical authority, who that is even moderately instructed in ecclesiastical letters does not know that the kingdom of heaven could be promised in those Scriptures just as also in that New Testament to which the kingdom of heaven pertains? For assuredly it is most plainly written in those writings: 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Jacob a new testament, not according to the testament which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.' For this was done on Mount Sinai.

But at that time the prophet Daniel did not yet exist, who had said: 'The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.' For by these words he was prophesying the reward not of the Old but of the New Testament, just as the same prophets did indeed proclaim that Christ himself would come, by whose blood the New Testament was consecrated, of which testament the apostles were made ministers, as most blessed Paul says: 'Who also has made us fit to be ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.' But in that testament which is properly called Old and was given on Mount Sinai, nothing is found most plainly promised save earthly happiness.

Whence that land, into which the people was brought after being led through the wilderness, is called the land of promise; in it peace and kingdom, and the winning of victories over enemies, and abundance of children and of earthly fruits, and whatever is of this kind — these are the promises of the Old Testament. And although by these are figured the spiritual things pertaining to the New Testament, nevertheless he who receives God's law for the sake of those earthly things is himself an heir of the Old Testament. For those things are promised and bestowed according to the Old Testament which are desired according to the old man; but the things which are there figured as pertaining to the New Testament seek out new men.

For that great apostle was not ignorant of what he was saying, who declared that the two testaments were distinguished in the bondwoman and the free woman by an allegorical signification, attributing to the Old the children of the flesh, to the New the children of promise. 'It is not the children of the flesh,' he says, 'who are the children of God, but the children of promise are counted for the seed.' The children of the flesh, therefore, pertain to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; but the children of promise pertain to that which is above, the free woman, our eternal mother in the heavens. Whence it is perceived who belong to the earthly kingdom and who to the kingdom of heaven.

Those who even in that time, understanding this distinction through the grace of God, were made children of promise, were reckoned in God's hidden counsel as heirs of the New Testament, even though they fittingly administered the Old Testament, which by the distribution of the times had been divinely given to the ancient people. How, then, would the children of promise not rightly be moved — the children of the free Jerusalem, eternal in the heavens — when this apostolic and catholic distinction seemed by the words of Pelagius to be taken away, and Hagar was in a certain manner believed to be made equal to Sarah?

He, therefore, with heretical impiety does injury to the Scripture of the Old Testament, who with the effrontery of sacrilegious impiety denies it to be from the good, supreme, and true God — as Marcion did, as Manichaeus did, and whatever other pestilence holds this opinion. Wherefore, to embrace what I feel about this matter with what brevity I can: just as injury is done to the Old Testament if it is denied to be from the good and supreme God, so also injury is done to the New if the Old is made equal to it. But since Pelagius had answered why he had said that the kingdom of heaven is promised even in the Old Testament, citing the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who most plainly prophesied that the saints would receive the kingdom of the Most High, it was rightly judged that this was not foreign to the catholic faith:

not according to that distinction whereby the earthly things promised on Mount Sinai are shown properly to pertain to the Old Testament, yet not improperly according to this usage of speech whereby all the canonical Scriptures administered before the Lord's incarnation are reckoned under the appellation of the Old Testament. For the kingdom of the Most High is nothing other than the kingdom of God. Or will anyone dare to contend that the kingdom of God is one thing and the kingdom of heaven another? After this it was objected that Pelagius in that same book of his had said 'that a man is able, if he will, to be without sin,' and that, writing to a widow, he had flatteringly said: 'Let piety, which nowhere finds a place, find it with you; let justice, everywhere a stranger, find a seat in you;'

'let truth, which now no one acknowledges, become to you familiar and dear; and let the law of God, which is despised by almost all men, be honoured by you alone.' And again to the same woman: 'O happy and blessed are you, if that justice, which is to be believed to exist only in heaven, be found with you alone upon earth!' And in another book to the same woman, after the Lord and our Saviour's prayer, teaching how the saints ought to pray, he says: 'That man worthily lifts up his hands to God, that man pours out prayer with a good conscience, who is able to say:'

'You know, O Lord, how holy and innocent and clean from all annoyance and iniquity and rapine are these hands which I stretch out to you; how just and clean and free from all lying are the lips with which I offer to you supplication, that you may have mercy on me.' But to this Pelagius, answering, said: 'That a man is able to be without sin and to keep God's commandments, if he will, we have said; for God gave him this possibility. But we did not say that anyone is found who from infancy to old age has never sinned, but that, having been converted from his sins, by his own labour and by the grace of God he is able to be without sin — yet not thereby for the future unable to be changed.'

'But the remaining things which they have added are neither in our books, nor have we ever said such things.' When these had been heard, the synod said: 'Since you deny having written such things, do you anathematize those who so hold?' Pelagius answered: 'I anathematize them as fools, not as heretics, since indeed it is no doctrine.' Then the bishops gave judgment, saying: 'Now, since by his own voice Pelagius has anathematized the foolish talk inserted, rightly answering that a man with the aid and grace of God is able to be without sin, let him answer also to the other chapters.'

Could the judges here condemn things unknown and uncertain, or ought they to have done so, when no one was present against him who might convict Pelagius of having written those things said to have been reprehensibly written to the widow? Where indeed it would have been too little to produce the book and read these things from his writings, unless witnesses too were brought forward, in case he should deny, even when they were recited, that those writings were his. Nevertheless in these matters also the judges did what they could do, asking Pelagius whether he anathematized those who hold such opinions as he denied having written or said. And when he answered that he anathematized them as fools, what more concerning this matter ought the judges to have inquired, the adversaries being absent?

Or is perhaps this too to be discussed, whether it was rightly said that those who hold such opinions are to be anathematized not as heretics but as fools, since it was no doctrine? But from this no light question — where it is asked how far a heretic is to be defined — the judges rightly abstained for the present. For if anyone, for example's sake, should say that the young of eagles, held suspended in the parent's talon and offered to the rays of the sun, if they blink with their eyes, are as though adulterine let fall to the earth, the light in a certain manner convicting them — if this happens to be false, he is not on that account to be judged a heretic.

And this indeed, because it is found in the writings of learned men and has been spread abroad by report, is not to be thought foolishly said, even if it be not true; nor does it either harm or help our faith — that faith by which we are called faithful — whether it be believed or not. But if from this someone should contend that rational souls are present in birds, on the ground that human souls are transferred into them, then indeed, as a heretical pestilence, it is to be driven from the ears and mind, and it must be argued and demonstrated that, even if this concerning eagles be true — just as many wonderful things concerning bees are truly before our eyes — reason nevertheless is far removed from however marvellous a sense of such irrational animals; for reason is common not to men and cattle, but to men and angels.

But many foolish things too are said by the unskilled and vain, who are nevertheless not heretics — such as those things said by men who rashly judge concerning arts foreign to them, which they have not learned, or who, from immoderate and blind affection, either praise those whom they love or blame those whom they hate, and whatever else in the usage of human speech is uttered — not by any established doctrine, but at random, as it happens to occur at the time — through the levity of folly either brought out by the mouth or even committed to the pen and to letters. In short, many, being but a little admonished concerning these things, soon repent of having said such things. Thus they did not hold them fixed by any settled conviction, but had poured them out as though snatched up from anywhere and unconsidered. It is scarcely possible to be free from these evils; and who is there that does not slip with his tongue and offend in a word?

But it matters how greatly, it matters from what source, it matters finally whether, being admonished, one corrects it, or by obstinately defending it even makes into a doctrine what he had said out of levity, not out of doctrine. Since, therefore, every heretic is consequently also a fool, but not every fool is straightway to be called a heretic, the judges rightly said that by his own voice Pelagius had anathematized the foolish talk inserted, because even if it were a heresy, without doubt it is foolish talk. Accordingly, whatever it might be, they called it by the name of the general fault. But whether these things were said out of some doctrine, or rather not out of a fixed and settled opinion, but out of an easily corrigible vanity — since he who was heard denied that in whatever manner they had been said they were his —

they did not think it should be discussed for the present. We indeed, when we were reading this defence of Pelagius in that little document which we received earlier, there were present certain holy brethren, who said that they had Pelagius's books, exhortatory or consolatory, written to a certain widow whose name was not expressed, and they advised that inquiry be made whether perhaps those things which he denied to be his had been written there, since they too asserted that they were ignorant of this. But then, when those same books were read from the beginning, the things were sought and found. Moreover, those who had produced the book affirmed that nearly four years before they had begun to have these as Pelagius's books, and had never heard it doubted by anyone whether they were his.

Considering, therefore, that the faith of God's servants, most well known to us, could not lie about this matter, it seemed to remain that we should rather believe that Pelagius had lied in the episcopal judgment — unless we should reflect that it could have happened, even so many years before, that something under his name, yet not by him, had been written. For neither did these men say that they had received the same books from him, nor that they had heard from him that they were his. For to me also certain of our brethren said that some little works under my name had come into Spain, which indeed were not recognized by those who had read other works of ours, yet were believed by others to be ours. That, however, which Pelagius confessed to be his, is still obscure;

but I think it will come to light in the following portions of these proceedings. For he says: 'That a man is able to be without sin and to keep God's commandments, if he will, we have said; for God gave him this possibility. But we did not say that anyone is found who from infancy to old age has never sinned, but that, having been converted from his sins, by his own labour and by the grace of God he is able to be without sin — yet not thereby for the future unable to be turned.' In these words, what grace he means lies entirely hidden; and the catholic judges indeed could understand no other than that which the apostolic teaching most greatly commends to us.

For this is the grace by which we hope we can be delivered from the body of this death through Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the obtaining of which we pray that we may not enter into temptation. This grace is not nature, but that by which help is given to frail and corrupted nature; this grace is not the knowledge of the law, but is that of which the Apostle says: 'I do not make void the grace of God; for if righteousness be by the law, then Christ died in vain,' and therefore it is not the letter that kills, but the spirit that gives life. For the knowledge of the law without the grace of the spirit works in a man every concupiscence. 'For I had not known sin,' he says, 'but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, unless the law had said: You shall not covet.'

'But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.' Nor by saying these things does he disparage the law; nay rather he even praises it, when he says: 'The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me?' he says. 'God forbid! But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good.' And again he praises the law by saying: 'For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I work I know not; for what I would, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law, that it is good.'

Behold, now he both knows the law and praises it and consents to it — that is, he consents that it is good, since what it commands he himself also wills, and what it forbids and condemns he himself also hates — and yet what he hates, that he does. There is therefore present the knowledge of the holy law, and yet the vicious concupiscence is not healed; there is present a good will, and an evil operation prevails. Hence it is that, when two laws strive against each other, while the law in the members resists the law of the mind and takes captive under the law of sin, it is cried out by the one confessing, and it is said: 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.'

It is not nature, therefore, which, sold under sin and wounded by vice, desires a redeemer and saviour, nor the knowledge of the law, through which comes the recognition of concupiscence, not its overcoming, that delivers from the body of this death, but the grace of the Lord through Jesus Christ our Lord. This is not dying nature nor the letter that kills, but the spirit that gives life. For this man already had nature with the choice of the will — for he said: 'To will is present with me' — but he did not have nature with soundness and without vice — for he said: 'I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing' — he already had the knowledge of the holy law — for he said: 'I had not known sin but by the law' — but he did not have the strength to do and perfect righteousness;

for he said: 'What I would, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do,' and 'to perform that which is good I find not.' Therefore neither the choice of the will nor the precept of the law, whereby he might be delivered from the body of this death — since he already had both, the one in nature, the other in doctrine — but he was begging the aid of the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. This grace, therefore, most well known in the catholic Church, the bishops believed Pelagius to confess, when they heard him say 'that a man converted from his sins, by his own labour and by the grace of God, is able to be without sin.' But I, on account of that book which the servants of God — who had been his disciples and

and who greatly loved that same Pelagius — gave me to refute, saying it was his; where, this question having been proposed to himself — because he had already offended very many in this, that he spoke against the grace of God — he most plainly expressed 'that he calls this the grace of God, that our nature, when it was created, received the possibility of not sinning, since it was created with free will' — on account of this book, therefore, I, and very many brethren on account of his disputations, which they say are most well known to them, are still anxious about the ambiguity of these his words, lest perhaps something lie hidden in it, and lest he should later expound that he said this without prejudice to his own doctrine, thus reasoning to his disciples:

'I did indeed say that a man is able, by his own labour and by the grace of God, to be without sin; but what grace I mean you know very well, and by reading you can recall, that it is that grace in which we were created by God with free will.' And so, while the bishops believe he meant that grace, not by which we men were created, but by which we are adopted into a new creature — for this grace the divine Scripture most plainly commends — being ignorant, they absolved a heretic as though catholic. For that too makes me suspect him, that whereas in the same book to which I replied he had most plainly said 'that Abel the just never at all sinned,' now he says:

'But we did not say that anyone is found who from infancy to old age has never sinned, but that, having been converted from his sins, by his own labour and by the grace of God he is able to be without sin.' For he did not say that Abel the just, converted from his sins, was made without sin in the rest of his life, but 'that he never at any time committed any sin.' Whence, if that book is his, assuredly out of his very own answer it must be corrected. For I am unwilling to say that he lied just now, lest perhaps he should say that he had forgotten what he had written in that book. Accordingly, let us consider the rest.

For those things follow in the ecclesiastical proceedings by which, with the Lord's help, we can show that even for Pelagius — however much, as some think, he was cleared in that examination and certainly absolved, at least before human judges — this heresy of the kind which we are unwilling should advance further and prosper for the worse, has without doubt been condemned. For these things follow, objected to Pelagius, which are reported to have been found in the teaching of Caelestius his disciple: 'That Adam was made mortal, who whether he sinned or did not sin would have died. That Adam's sin harmed himself alone and not the human race. That the law sends to the kingdom just as the gospel does. That before the coming of Christ there were men without sin.'

'That infants newly born are in that state in which Adam was before the transgression. That neither through the death or transgression of Adam does the whole race of men die, nor through the resurrection of Christ does the whole race of men rise again.' These things were so objected that they were said to have been heard and condemned even at Carthage by your Holiness and by other bishops with you. Where indeed, as you recall, I myself was not present; but afterwards, when I had come to Carthage, I reviewed those same proceedings, of which I remember some things; but I know not whether all these are contained in them. But what does it matter whether perhaps some things are not there recorded and therefore not condemned, since it is agreed that they are to be condemned?

Then were objected also certain other chapters, with the mention of my name interposed, which had been sent to me from Sicily, when there the catholic brethren were disturbed by questions of this kind, to which, by a book written to Hilarius — who had sent them to me, consulting me in his letter — I replied, as it seems to me, quite sufficiently. These are they: 'That a man is able to be without sin, if he will. That infants, even if they be not baptized, have eternal life. That the baptized rich, unless they renounce all things, even if they be seen to do any good, have it not reckoned to them, nor can they possess the kingdom of God.' To these things objected to him, as the proceedings testify, Pelagius thus replied:

'That a man is indeed able to be without sin has been said,' he says, 'above; but concerning that, that there were men without sin before the coming of the Lord, we also say that before the coming of Christ certain persons lived holily and justly according to the tradition of the Holy Scriptures. But the rest, even according to their own testimony, were not said by me, for which I ought not to make satisfaction; yet, for the satisfaction of the holy synod, I anathematize those who so hold, or ever at any time held.' After this reply of his, the synod said: 'To the aforesaid chapters the present Pelagius has sufficiently and rightly made satisfaction, anathematizing those things which were not his.'

We see, therefore, and hold that not only by Pelagius but also by the holy bishops who presided over that judgment, the most pernicious evils of this kind of heresy were condemned: That Adam was made mortal — which, that it might be more fully expounded in what sense it was said, this was added: who whether he sinned or did not sin would have died. That his sin harmed himself alone and not the human race. That the law sends to the kingdom just as the gospel also does. That infants newly born are in that state in which Adam was before the transgression. That neither through the death or transgression of Adam does the whole race of men die, nor through the resurrection of Christ does the whole race of men rise again. That infants, even if they be not baptized,

have eternal life. That the baptized rich, unless they renounce all things, even if they be seen to do any good, have it not reckoned to them, nor can they possess the kingdom of God. All these things assuredly are agreed to have been condemned by that ecclesiastical judgment, Pelagius anathematizing and the bishops giving their several judgments. But by these questions and by the most contentious assertions of these opinions, now everywhere growing hot, the weakness of many brethren was being troubled.

Whence we were constrained, by the solicitude of that charity which it befits us to have toward the Church of Christ through the grace of Christ, to write also to Marcellinus of blessed memory — who daily endured those most troublesome disputants and consulted me by letters — concerning certain of these questions, and especially concerning the baptism of little ones; concerning which also afterwards, at your bidding, in the basilica of the Elders, bearing also in my hands the letter of the most glorious martyr Cyprian and reciting and handling his words on this matter, that this nefarious error might be taken away from the hearts of certain persons, who had been persuaded of those things which we see condemned in these proceedings, aided by your prayers, I laboured as much as I could.

These are the things which certain persons holding such opinions were trying so to persuade some of the brethren, that they threatened them with the churches of the East, saying that unless they held these things, they could be condemned by their judgment. Behold, fourteen prelates of the Eastern church, in that land to which the Lord displayed the presence of his incarnation, would not have absolved Pelagius, unless he had condemned these things as contrary to the catholic faith. Whence, if he was absolved for this reason, that he anathematized such things, without doubt those things were condemned — which will appear much more copiously and clearly in what follows.

Whence let us now look at those two things which Pelagius refused to anathematize, because he acknowledged them also to be his; but, in order to remove that which was offensive in them, he expounded how he held them. 'That a man is indeed able,' he says, 'to be without sin, was said above.' It was indeed said, and we too remember it; but it was on that account mitigated and approved by the judges, that the grace of God was added, which in those chapters was kept silent. But concerning that other point, how he replied must be more diligently considered. 'But concerning that,' he says, 'that there were men without sin before the coming of the Lord, we also say that before the coming of Christ certain persons lived holily and justly according to the tradition of the Holy Scriptures.' He did not dare to say:

'we also say that before the coming of Christ there were men without sin' — since this had been objected to him from Caelestius's sayings; for he perceived how perilous and troublesome it was — but he said: 'we also say that before the coming of Christ certain persons lived holily and justly.' Who would deny this? But it is one thing this, and another to have been without sin, since even those lived holily and justly who nevertheless truly said: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.' And today many live justly and holily, nor yet do they lie in prayer, when they say: 'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.'

This, therefore, pleased the judges, in the manner in which Pelagius himself asserted that he said it, not in the manner in which it was objected that Caelestius had said it. Now let us handle those things which remain, as we can. It was objected to Pelagius that he said 'that the Church is here without spot or wrinkle.' Whence also the Donatists had a long-lasting conflict with us in our conference; but them we rather pressed concerning the intermingling of evil men — as chaff with the wheat — on account of the likeness of the threshing floor. By which likeness we can answer these men too, unless perhaps they should wish the Church to be understood as consisting of the good alone, whom they assert to have no sin at all, so that the Church can be here without spot or wrinkle.

But if it is so, I repeat the same things which I mentioned a little before: how are they members of the Church, of whom truthful humility cries out: 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us'? Or how will the Church pray that which the Lord taught her: 'Forgive us our debts,' if in this age the Church is without spot or wrinkle? Finally, they themselves must be questioned concerning themselves, whether or not they confess that they have any sins. And if they will deny it, it must be said to them that they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them; but if they will confess that they have sin, what else will they be confessing but concerning their own wrinkle or spot?

These, then, are not members of the Church, for she is without spot or wrinkle, whereas they are with spot and wrinkle. But to this objection he replied with vigilant circumspection, which the catholic judges without doubt approved. 'It was said', he declared, 'by us, but in this sense: that since by the laver the Church is cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, the Lord wills that she should so remain.' To which the synod said: 'This too is pleasing to us.' For which of us denies that in baptism the sins of all are forgiven, and that all the faithful ascend without spot or wrinkle from the laver of regeneration?

Or to what catholic Christian is it not pleasing—since it is pleasing to the Lord and shall come to pass—that the Church should remain without spot or wrinkle, seeing that this is now being wrought by God's mercy and truth, so that the holy Church may be brought to that perfection wherein she is to abide forever without spot or wrinkle? Yet between the laver, where all past spots and wrinkles are removed, and the kingdom, where the Church shall abide perpetually without spot or wrinkle, there lies this intervening time of prayer, in which she must needs say: Forgive us our debts.

For this reason it was objected against them that they said 'the Church is here without spot or wrinkle', to see whether by this opinion they would dare to forbid the prayer by which the already-baptized Church begs for herself, day and night, the pardon of sins. Concerning this middle time—between the remission of sins which takes place in the laver and the persistence without sins which shall be in the kingdom—nothing was transacted with Pelagius, nothing was pronounced by the bishops, but only this, which he thought must be briefly signified: that he had not spoken in the sense in which the objection seemed to imply. For when he says 'It was said by us, but thus', what did he wish to be understood except that it was not so as those who had objected believed him to have said?

Yet what the judges followed, so as to say that this was pleasing to them—namely, baptism, by which one is washed from sins, and the kingdom, where the holy Church, which is now being cleansed, shall abide without sins—appears, as I judge, sufficiently clear. Next, objections were raised from the book of Caelestius, as to what each chapter contained, more according to the sense than according to the words. These indeed he sets out at greater length, but those who had lodged the complaint against Pelagius said that they were not then able to append everything. Therefore, in the first chapter of Caelestius' book they set down that this was written: 'that we do more than is commanded in the law and the gospel.' To which Pelagius replied: 'They put this forward as though it were ours;

but it was said by us concerning virginity, according to the apostle, of whom Paul says: I have no commandment of the Lord.' The synod said: 'This too the Church receives.' I myself have read in what sense Caelestius put this in his book—if indeed he does not deny it to be his. For he said this in order, plainly, to persuade that we have by nature such great capacity of free will for not sinning, that we do even more than has been commanded, since perpetual virginity, which is not commanded, is preserved by very many—whereas to fulfill the commandments suffices for not sinning.

But that which was answered by Pelagius, so that the judges approved it, they did not take as though those who preserve virginity (which is not commanded) over and above thereby keep all the precepts of the law and the gospel, but only to this extent: that virginity, which is not commanded, is more than conjugal chastity, which is commanded, and to keep the former is assuredly more than to keep the latter—while yet neither of them is possessed without the grace of God, seeing that the apostle, speaking of this matter, says: I would that all men were even as I myself; but every man has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, another after that. And when the disciples had said to the Lord himself:

If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry—or, as is better said in Latin, it is not expedient to take a wife—he said: Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given. This, then, the bishops pronounced that the Church receives: that persevering virginity, which is not commanded, is more than the chastity of marriage, which is commanded. But in what sense Pelagius or Caelestius said that, the judges did not know. From here now other capital chapters of Caelestius are objected against Pelagius—chapters to be condemned without doubt, which, unless he had anathematized them, he would without doubt have been condemned along with them. That in the third chapter Caelestius had written:

'that the grace of God and his help are not given for individual acts, but consist in free will or in the law and doctrine'; and again: 'that the grace of God is given according to our merits, because if he gave it to sinners, he would seem to be unjust'; and that in these words he had inferred: 'therefore grace itself is placed in my will, whether I be worthy or unworthy. For if we do all things by grace, then, when we are overcome by sin, it is not we who are overcome, but the grace of God, which willed to help us in every way and could not.' And again he says: 'if it is the grace of God when we overcome sins, then he himself is at fault when we are overcome by sin, because he was either wholly unable or unwilling to keep us.' To these Pelagius replied:

'Whether these are Caelestius', let those see who say they are Caelestius'; but I myself never held so, and I anathematize whoever holds so.' The synod said: 'The holy synod receives you, as one thus condemning these reprobate words.' Concerning all these, certainly, there is both the plain response of Pelagius anathematizing them, and the most absolute judgment of the bishops condemning them. Whether Pelagius, or Caelestius, or both, or neither of them, or others—whether together with them or under their name—held these views, or still hold them, may be doubtful or hidden; yet it has been sufficiently declared by this judgment that they are condemned, and that Pelagius too was to be condemned, had he not himself also condemned these things.

Now certainly, after this judgment, when we dispute against opinions of this kind, we dispute against a condemned heresy. Let me also say something more at length. Earlier I was afraid, when Pelagius said 'that with the help of God's grace a man can be without sin,' lest perchance he should call this same grace the capacity of the nature founded by God together with free will—just as it is in that book which I received as his, to which I replied—and in that way deceive the unwitting judges.

But now, when he anathematizes those who say that the grace of God and his help are not given for individual acts, but consist in free will or in the law and doctrine, it appears sufficiently plain that he means that grace which is preached in the Church of Christ, which is given by the ministration of the Holy Spirit, that we may be helped in each of our acts. Whence also we ever pray for timely help, that we be not led into temptation. Nor do I any longer fear that, where he said 'a man cannot be without sin unless he has knowledge of the law,' and expounded it thus, so as to place in the knowledge of the law the help toward not sinning, he might wish that same knowledge of the law to be understood as the grace of God.

Behold, he anathematizes those who hold this; behold, he wills neither the nature of free will nor the law and doctrine to be understood as the grace by which we are helped in each of our acts. What then remains, save that he understand that grace which the apostle says is given by the ministration of the Holy Spirit? Of which the Lord says: Take no thought how or what you shall speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.