The holy bishops who were judges embraced, in the brevity of their sentence, two things sufficiently clear concerning the monk Pelagius: the one, that he assents to pious teachings; the other, that he reproves and anathematizes things contrary to the faith of the Church. On account of these two things Pelagius was pronounced to belong to ecclesiastical and catholic communion. Let us therefore see, by briefly recapitulating everything, by what words of his meanwhile—so far as men could judge in his presence about manifest matters—each of these became clear. For in these charges brought against him, which he answered were not his own, he was said to reprove and anathematize things contrary. Let us therefore briefly gather up this whole cause thus, if we can. Since it was necessary that what the apostle Paul foretold should be fulfilled:
«There must be heresies also, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you»—after the ancient heresies, in our own time also there was introduced a heresy, not by bishops or presbyters or any clerics, but by certain persons as it were monks; which heresy disputed against the grace of God that is ours through Jesus Christ our Lord, as though in defense of free will, and endeavored to overturn the foundation of the Christian faith, of which it is written: «By one man came death, and by one man the resurrection of the dead;»
«For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive»—and this heresy denied the help of God in our actions, saying that human nature, which was created with free will, can suffice of itself for us not to sin and to fulfill righteousness, and that this is the grace of God, because we were so created that we can do this by our own will; and that the help which God gave by his law and commandments, and the fact that he pardons past sins to those who turn to him—that in these alone the grace of God is to be reckoned, and not in the help given to our individual acts. For (it held) a man can be without sin and easily keep the commandments of God, if he will.
When this heresy had deceived very many, and was troubling the brethren whom it had not deceived, a certain Caelestius, holding such views, was brought to the judgment of the Church of Carthage, and by the sentence of the bishops was condemned.
Then, after some years, when this heresy had been laid to the charge of Pelagius, who was reported to be his teacher, he too came before an episcopal tribunal; and when all had been read out which the Gallic bishops Heros and Lazarus had set down in the document brought against him—they indeed being absent and excusing themselves on account of the sickness of one of them—as Pelagius answered to everything, fourteen bishops of the province of Palestine, in accordance with his answers, pronounced him free from the perversity of this heresy, yet condemning that heresy without any doubt. For they approved, according to what he answered to the charges: «that a man is helped by the knowledge of the law not to sin, as it is written:
'He gave the law for their help.'» They did not, however, on this account judge that this same knowledge of the law is that grace of God of which it is written: «Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord;» nor that Pelagius had said 'that all are governed by their own will, so that God does not govern them'—for he answered that he had said this on account of free will, to which God is a helper for one choosing good things, but that the sinning man is himself in fault, as it were, of free will. They approved also 'that the unjust and sinners are not to be spared on the day of judgment, but are to be punished with eternal fires,' since he answered that he had said this according to the Gospel, where it is written:
«These shall go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.» He had not, however, said that all sinners belong to eternal punishment, so that he might seem rightly to have spoken against the apostle, who says that certain persons shall be saved, yet so as by fire. They approved 'that the kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament,' since he gave testimony from the prophet Daniel, where it is said: «And the saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High»—understanding in this place that by him the Old Testament was called not that alone which was made on Mount Sinai, but all the canonical Scriptures ministered before the coming of the Lord.
But 'that a man can be without sin, if he will' was not approved in the way it seemed to be set down by him in his book—as though this were in the sole power of a man through free will (for he was charged with having thought this by saying 'if he will')—but in the way in which he himself now answered, or rather in the way in which the bishops as judges more briefly and openly noted it by their own interlocution: that a man, with the help of God and grace, can be without sin. Nor yet was it defined when the saints shall attain this perfection—whether in the body of this death, or when death shall be swallowed up in victory.
From those things also which Caelestius was charged with having said or written—as doctrines of his disciple laid to the charge of Pelagius—Pelagius acknowledged some as his own, yet answered that he had understood them otherwise than they were charged. Hence is that saying, 'that before the coming of Christ certain persons lived holily and justly;' Caelestius, however, was reported to have said 'that they were without sin.' Likewise it was charged that Caelestius had said 'that the Church is without spot or wrinkle;' but Pelagius said 'that this was indeed said by him, but in this sense: that by the laver the Church is cleansed from every spot and wrinkle, and that the Lord wills her so to remain.' Likewise that saying of Caelestius, 'that we do more than is commanded in the law and the Gospel;'
Pelagius answered 'that he had said this concerning virginity,' of which Paul says: «I have no commandment of the Lord.» Likewise it was charged that Caelestius affirmed 'that each single man can have all the virtues and graces,' and thus that the diversity of graces which the apostle teaches is taken away; but Pelagius answered 'that he did not take away the diversity of graces, but said that God bestows all the graces on him who shall be worthy to receive them, just as he bestowed them on the apostle Paul.' These four opinions from the name of Caelestius the bishops as judges did not approve in the way Caelestius was said to have held them, but in the way Pelagius answered concerning them.
For they saw that it is one thing to be without sin, another to live holily and justly, as Scripture testifies that certain persons lived even before the coming of Christ; and that, although the Church is not here without spot or wrinkle, yet she is both cleansed by the laver of regeneration from every spot and wrinkle, and the Lord wills her so to remain—for she will indeed so remain, since without spot or wrinkle she will assuredly reign in eternal blessedness; and that perpetual virginity, which was not commanded, is without doubt more than conjugal chastity, which was commanded, although in many virginity perseveres who nevertheless are not without sin; and that all those graces which he mentions in one place the apostle Paul possessed.
Yet that he was worthy to receive them they could understand in some way as being not according to merits, but rather according to predestination—for he himself says: «I am not worthy,» or: «I am not fit to be called an apostle»—or else the word by which Pelagius, in whatever manner he set it down, escaped their intention; let him himself see to that. These are the matters in which the bishops pronounced that Pelagius assents to pious teachings. Now let us likewise, by recapitulating, look a little more attentively at those things which they said he reproves and anathematizes as contrary. For in this rather does that whole heresy consist.
Setting aside, therefore, those things which he was said to have set down in his books in flattery of I know not what widow—things which he answered were neither in his books nor had he ever said anything of the sort, and which he anathematized those who held them, not as heretics but as fools—these are the things by which we grieved that the thickets of that heresy sprouted daily, nay were already growing into a wood: 'that Adam was made mortal, who whether he sinned or did not sin was going to die; that Adam's sin injured himself alone and not the human race; that the law sends to the kingdom just as the Gospel 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; that infants, even if they are not baptized, have eternal life; that the baptized rich, unless they renounce all things, even if they are seen to do any good, it is not reckoned to them, nor can they have the kingdom of God; that the grace of God and his help are not given for individual acts, but consist in free will and in the law and teaching; that the grace of God is given according to our merits, and therefore that grace itself is placed in the will of man, whether he become worthy or unworthy; that the sons of God cannot be called such unless they have been made altogether without sin.'
'that forgetfulness and ignorance are not subject to sin, since they do not happen according to the will, but according to necessity; that there is no free will if it needs the help of God, since each one has his own will either to do something or not to do it; that our victory is not from the help of God, but from free will; that from what Peter says, that we are «partakers of the divine nature,» it follows that the soul can be as much without sin as God is.' For this I myself read set down in these words in the eleventh chapter of a book which indeed does not bear the title of its author, but is reported to be by Caelestius:
'How,' he says, 'does anyone take up partnership in that thing from whose state and power he is defined to be a stranger?' Therefore the brethren who brought these charges understood him thus: as though he had said that the soul is of the same nature as God, and a part of God; for they took it in this way, that he held it to be of the same state and power as God. But in the last place among the charges was set: 'that pardon is not granted to the penitent according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to the merit and labor of those who through penitence shall have been worthy of mercy.'
All these things, and any arguments interposed for their confirmation, the judges approved that Pelagius denied and anathematized, and therefore pronounced that, by reproving and anathematizing things contrary to the ecclesiastical faith, he had condemned them. And by this, in whatever manner Caelestius may have set them down or not set them down, or Pelagius may have held them or not held them, let us rejoice that such great evils of this so new heresy were condemned by that ecclesiastical judgment, and let us give thanks to God and utter his praises.
But concerning those things which are said to have been perpetrated there after this judgment, with incredible boldness, by I know not what band of lost men who are reported to favor Pelagius most perversely—so that the men-servants and maid-servants belonging to the care of the holy presbyter Jerome were afflicted with a most wicked slaughter, a deacon was killed, the buildings of the monasteries were burned, and scarcely was he himself protected from this onset and assault of the impious, by the mercy of God, by a more fortified tower—concerning these things I judge it rather better for us to be silent, and to await what our brother bishops there think ought to be done about such great evils, which who would believe they could dissemble?
For the impious doctrines of men of this sort must be refuted by any catholics whatsoever, even those who are far distant from those lands, lest they should be able to do harm wherever they may reach; but impious deeds, whose restraint belongs to episcopal discipline, must be punished especially where they are committed, by those present or established nearby, with pastoral diligence and pious severity. We therefore, placed so far away, ought to desire that such an end be given there to these matters that it may not be necessary to judge of them any further anywhere, but such an end as it may rather befit us to proclaim, so that the minds of all who have been grievously wounded by the fame of those crimes flying about everywhere may be healed by the ensuing mercy of God.
38:176
undeiamhuiuslibriterminusistesit, qui, utspero, sisensibustuisplaceremeruerit, adiuuantedominoutiliseritlegentibustuoquammeonominecommendatiorettuadiligentiaplurimisnotior.
Wherefore let this now be the end of this book, which, as I hope, if it shall have merited to please your judgment, will by the Lord's help be useful to its readers—more commended under your name than under mine, and by your diligence made known to very many.