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:
38:61
\'nonautemdiximusquodinueniaturaliquisabinfantiausqueadsenectamquinumquampeccauerit, sedquoniamapeccatisconuersuspropriolaboreetdeigratiapossitessesinepeccato\'. Abelquippeiustumnonapeccatisconuersuminceterauitadixitfactumessesinepeccato, sed \'quodpeccatumnullumUmquamfecerit\'. undesiilleipsiusliberest, profectoexipsaresponsioneemendandusest. noloenimeumdiceremodofuissementitum, nefortequidinlibroilloscripseritsedicatoblitum. proindeceterauideamus.
'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: