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.
Nor is that to be feared, lest perhaps where he said 'that all are ruled by their own will,' and expounded this 'that he had said it on account of free will, to which God is a helper in one choosing good things,' here too he should call the nature of free will and the doctrine of the law a helper. For since he has rightly anathematized 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, assuredly the grace of God or his help is given for individual acts, apart from free will or the law and doctrine; and through this we are ruled by God in each act, when we act rightly; nor is it in vain that, praying, we say: Direct my steps according to your word, and let no iniquity have dominion over me.
But what follows this makes me anxious again. For when it had been objected against him, from the fifth chapter of Caelestius' book, that they affirm that each and every man can have all the virtues and graces, and take away the diversity of graces which the apostle teaches, Pelagius replied: 'It was said by us, but they have reprehended it maliciously and unskillfully. For we do not take away the diversity of graces, but we say that God grants to him who is worthy to receive all graces, just as he granted to the apostle Paul.' To this the synod said: 'Consistently, and in an ecclesiastical sense, you too have judged concerning the gift of graces which are contained in the holy apostle.' Here someone will say: what then makes you anxious?
Will you deny that all the virtues and graces were in the apostle? I indeed, if there be understood all those which the apostle himself commemorated in one certain place—which I think the bishops also understood, so that they approved this and pronounced it said in an ecclesiastical sense—do not doubt that the apostle Paul had them. For he says: And God has set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues. What then? Shall we say that the apostle Paul did not have all these? Who would dare to say this? For by the very fact that he was an apostle, he assuredly had the apostolate. But he had prophecy too. Or is this not his prophecy:
For the Spirit manifestly says, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, to doctrines of demons, and so forth? And he was a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth, and he worked miracles and healings; for he shook off unharmed the viper that bit his hand, and at his word a paralytic, his health at once restored, rose up. What 'helps' may denote is obscure, since the force of this word extends widely. Yet who would say that this grace too was lacking to him, by whose labor the salvation of men is so evidently assisted? And what is more illustrious than his governing, when both through him the Lord then governed so many churches, and through his epistles governs them now?
Now as for kinds of tongues, how could they have been lacking to him, when he himself says: I thank God that I speak with the tongue of you all? Since, therefore, it must be believed that none of all these was lacking to the apostle Paul, for that reason the judges approved the response of Pelagius saying that all graces were granted to him. But there are also other graces which are not here commemorated. For although the apostle Paul was a most excellent member of Christ's body, he did not receive graces more numerous and ampler than those which the very head of the whole body received—whom, whether in the flesh or in the soul of the man, the Word of God assumed as his own creature into the unity of his person, that he might be our head and we might be his body.
And in truth, if all things could be in each individual, the likeness given for this matter from the members of our body would seem to be in vain. For there are certain things common to all the members, such as health, such as life; but there are others also proper to individual members, whence neither does the ear perceive colors nor the eye sounds. On account of which it is said: If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? Which indeed is not so said as though it were impossible for God both to furnish the ears with the sense of seeing and the eyes with that of hearing. Yet it is certain what the apostle signified as to what he would do in the body of Christ, which is the Church, and what diversity of churches, as if through diverse members, that there might be gifts proper even to individuals.
Wherefore it is now clear both for what cause those who objected that thing were unwilling that the distinction of graces should be taken away, and for what cause the bishops, on account of the apostle Paul—in whom we recognize all the gifts which he commemorated in one place—were able to approve what Pelagius answered. What is it, then, on account of which I foretold that I had been made anxious concerning this chapter? This, namely, that Pelagius says 'God grants all graces to him who is worthy to receive, just as he granted to the apostle Paul.' I should be nothing anxious about this response of his, save as it pertains to this cause, of which care must most of all be taken, lest, that is, the grace of God be assailed while we keep silence and dissemble so great an evil.
Since, therefore, he did not say that God grants to whom he wills, but said 'God grants all graces to him who is worthy to receive,' I could not, when I read it, be free of suspicion. For the very name of grace and the understanding of that name is taken away, if it is not given freely but he who is worthy receives it. Or will someone perchance say that I do injury to the apostle, because I do not say that he was worthy of grace? Nay, then I do injury both to him and punishment to myself, if I do not believe what he himself says. Or did he not so define grace as to show that it is called grace for the very reason that it is freely given? Surely he himself said: But if it be by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. Whence likewise he says:
But to him who works, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. Whoever, therefore, is worthy—it is a debt due to him. But if it is a debt, it is not grace; for grace is granted, a debt is repaid. Grace, therefore, is granted to the unworthy, that a debt may be repaid to the worthy; but he himself brings it about that they should have whatever he is to repay to the worthy, who granted to the unworthy those things which they did not have. Here perhaps he will say: I said the apostle was worthy—to whom those so great graces were granted—not from works, but from faith; for it was not works, which he did not have as good beforehand, but yet his faith that merited this. What then? Do we suppose that faith does not work? Nay, that very faith works truly, which works through love.
But however much the works of the unfaithful may be extolled, we know the sentence of the same apostle to be true and unconquerable: Everything which is not of faith is sin. For this reason indeed he often says that righteousness is imputed to us not from works but from faith—when rather faith works through love—lest anyone suppose that faith itself is arrived at by the merits of works, since it is itself the beginning whence good works take their rise; because, as has been said, whatever is not of it is sin. Hence also it is said to the Church in the Song of Songs: You shall come and pass over from the beginning of faith.
Wherefore, although faith obtains the grace of working well, yet as for having faith itself, we merited it by no faith; but in its being given to us—the faith in which we should follow the Lord—his mercy went before us. Or did we give it to ourselves, and make ourselves faithful by our own selves? By no means; here too I will cry out: he made us, and not we ourselves—unless indeed apostolic doctrine commends something other, where it says: For I say, through the grace of God which is given to me, to all who are among you, not to be more wise than one ought to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. Hence too is that: For what have you that you did not receive?
Since we have received even this, whence begins also whatever of good we have in our acts. What is it, then, that the same apostle says: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there remains for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall render to me in that day—if these things are not rendered to the worthy, but granted to the unworthy? Whoever says this, considers too little that the crown could not have been rendered to the worthy man, unless grace had been granted to the unworthy. For he says: I have fought the good fight; but the same man himself says: Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. He says: I have finished the course; but he himself says: It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. He says: I have kept the faith; but the same man himself says:
For I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day—that is, my entrusted deposit; for some manuscripts do not have 'deposit,' but what is plainer, 'that which I have committed.' But what do we commit to God, save the things we pray that he may keep? Among which is our very faith itself. For what else did the Lord commit to the apostle Peter by praying, whence he says to him: I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not—save that God should keep his faith, lest by yielding to temptation it should fail? Wherefore, O blessed Paul, great preacher of grace, I will say—and I will not fear (for who will be less angry with me for saying these things than you, who both said the things that were to be said and taught the things that were to be taught?)—I will say, I repeat, and I will not fear:
There is indeed rendered to your merits their crown, but your merits are the gifts of God. Therefore the due reward is rendered to the worthy apostle, but grace granted the apostolate itself, undue, to the unworthy. Or shall I repent of having said this? Far be it; for by his own testimony I shall be defended against this odium, nor will anyone call me audacious, save one who has dared to call him a liar. He himself cries out, he himself testifies, he himself—that he may commend in himself the gifts of God, and glory not in himself but in the Lord—says not only that he had no good merits to become an apostle, but even declares his evil merits, that he may manifest and proclaim the grace of God. I am not, he says, fit to be called an apostle. What else is this than: I am not worthy?
For thus most Latin manuscripts have it. This, indeed, is what we are seeking—namely, that in this one office of apostleship all those graces are contained. For it was not fitting nor proper that the apostle should not have prophecy, or not be a teacher, or not be renowned in miracles and gifts of healings, or not furnish helps, or not govern churches, or not excel in kinds of tongues: the one name of apostleship embraces all these. Let us therefore consult him, let us rather hear him; let us say to him: Holy Paul the apostle, Pelagius the monk says that you were worthy to receive all the graces of your apostleship; you yourself—what do you say? I am not, he says, worthy to be called an apostle.
Shall I then, in order to defer honor to Paul, dare to believe Pelagius about Paul rather than Paul himself? I will not do it; for I shall rather burden myself than honor him, if I do so. Let us hear also why he is not worthy to be called an apostle: because, he says, I persecuted the Church of God. If we followed the sense, who would not judge this man rather to be condemned by Christ than called? Who would so love the preacher as not to detest the persecutor? Most rightly, therefore, and truly, he says: I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. Doing therefore so great an evil, whence did you merit so great a good? Let all nations hear him answering: But by the grace of God I am what I am. Is grace in any other way commended, save that it is given to the unworthy?
And his grace, he says, in me was not in vain. This he enjoins also on others, that he may show even the free choice of the will, where he says: We, working together with him, also beseech you that you receive not the grace of God in vain. But whence does he prove that his grace in him was not in vain, save from that which follows: But I labored more than all of them? Accordingly, he did not labor in order to receive grace, but received it in order to labor; and thus, whence he might become worthy to receive the due rewards, the unworthy man received grace freely. Nor indeed did he dare to arrogate to himself even the labor itself. For when he had said: I labored more than all of them, he immediately subjoined: yet not I, but the grace of God with me. O great teacher, confessor, and preacher of grace! What is this: I labored more?
Not I? Where the will exalted itself somewhat, there at once piety kept watch and humility trembled, because weakness recognized itself. Deservedly, as the proceedings indicate, holy John, prelate of the Church of Jerusalem, also made use of this testimony—as he himself related to our fellow bishops, who were together presiding at that judgment, when he was asked what had been done before him prior to the judgment. For he said that then, when certain men were whispering and saying that Pelagius said 'this could be accomplished without the grace of God'—that is, what he had said above, 'that a man can be without sin':
'Reproving him', he says, 'on this point, I also adduced that the apostle Paul too, laboring much, yet not according to his own strength but according to the grace of God, said: I labored more than all of them; yet not I, but the grace of God with me; and again: It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy; and that: Except the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain who build it; and many other similar things', he says, 'we said from the holy Scriptures.' But when they would not accept the things that were said by us from the holy Scriptures, but were still whispering, Pelagius said: 'I too believe thus: anathema be he who says that without the help of God a man can come to the perfection of all the virtues.'
These things bishop John related in the hearing of Pelagius, who could certainly have said honorably: Your holiness is mistaken, you have not remembered well; I did not say to those testimonies which you have commemorated from the Scriptures 'I believe thus,' since I do not so understand them—namely, that the grace of God so labors with a man that his not sinning is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For there are certain expositions of the epistle of Paul which is written to the Romans, which are said to be Pelagius' own, where that which is written—It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy—he asserts to have been said not in the person of Paul, but that Paul used the voice of one questioning and refuting, when he said this, as though this ought by no means to be said.
Therefore, since bishop John plainly acknowledged this sentence to be the apostle's, and for that reason commemorated it, lest Pelagius should think that anyone sins without the grace of God, and said that Pelagius answered 'I too believe thus,' and since Pelagius, hearing this present, did not answer 'I do not so believe,' it behooves that he either deny that perverse exposition, where he wished it to be understood that the apostle did not hold this view but rather refuted it, or not hesitate to correct and amend it. For whatever bishop John said about our absent brethren—whether our fellow bishops, namely Heros and Lazarus, or the presbyter Orosius, or others whose names are not there expressed—I believe he understands that it avails nothing to their prejudice.
For if they were present, they could perhaps—far be it that I should say it—convict him of falsehood, or perhaps remind him of what he had perhaps forgotten, or in what the Latin interpreter had misled him, even if not from any zeal for lying, yet from some difficulty of a foreign tongue insufficiently understood—especially because it was not conducted through recorded proceedings, which have been usefully instituted lest the wicked lie and lest the good forget anything. But if anyone raise any question from this against our aforesaid brethren and summon them to episcopal judgment, they will be present for themselves, as they can: what need is there for us to labor here, when not even the judges themselves, after the narration of our fellow bishop, wished to pronounce anything thereupon?
Since therefore Pelagius, being present, silently acknowledged that he said he believed thus at those testimonies of the Scriptures, how is it that, recalling a little above that testimony of the apostle and finding that he had said: I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God, but by the grace of God I am what I am—he did not see that he ought not to have said, when it was being treated of the abundance of graces which the same apostle received, that he was worthy to receive them, when the apostle not only said himself, but, rendering also another reason, proved himself unworthy, and by that very fact commended grace as truly grace?
But if perhaps he could not think of, or remember, that which had long since been related by holy John, let him look back upon his own most recent response, and let him attend to those things concerning Caelestius which, objected to him a little before, he anathematized. For among those things is this—that it was objected that Caelestius had said 'that the grace of God is given according to our merits.' If, therefore, Pelagius truly anathematized this, how is it that he says all graces were given to the apostle according to merit? Or is it one thing to be worthy to receive, another to receive according to merit? And can he by some subtlety of disputation show that someone is worthy, but does not merit?
Nevertheless, Caelestius, or whoever else it was whose earlier opinions he all anathematized, does not permit him to spread mists about even this word and to hide in them. For he presses on and says: 'and grace itself is placed in my will, whether I be worthy or unworthy.' If, therefore, this was rightly and truly condemned by Pelagius, where it is said 'that the grace of God is given according to merits and to the worthy,' with what heart did he think, or with what mouth did he utter, that which he says: 'we say that God grants all graces to him who is worthy to receive'? Who would not, if he attentively noted these things, become anxious about that man's response or defense? Why then, someone says, did the judges approve this? I confess it. For that reason I myself am now in doubt;
but doubtless either the brief saying easily escaped their hearing and attention, or, deeming that in some way it could rightly be accepted—since they seemed to have from him clear confessions concerning this matter—they thought that almost no controversy ought to be stirred against him over a single word. Which perhaps would have befallen us too, had we sat with them in that judgment. For if in place of what was set down, 'worthy,' there had been set 'predestined' or something of that kind, assuredly no scruple would touch and vex the mind. And yet, whether it can be said even with certainty, or with the least offense to understanding, that he who is justified through the election of grace—with no preceding good merits indeed—is called worthy by destination, just as he is called elect, is judged difficult.
but is called worthy by destination, just as one elect is called—whether this can be said even with certainty, or with the least offense to the understanding, is judged difficult. For as far as concerns me, I would easily pass over from this word, were it not that that book, to which I replied—where he says that there is absolutely no grace of God except our nature with free will, grace being a creature—renders me anxious about Pelagius' own meaning, lest perchance he took care to insert this word not out of carelessness of speech, but out of diligence of dogma. Now the things that remain, the very last, so moved the judges that they judged them to be condemned even before Pelagius' response.
For in the sixth chapter of Caelestius' book it was objected as set down 'that the sons of God cannot be called such, unless they have been made in every way without sin'; whence according to him it was said that not even the apostle Paul is a son of God, who said: Not that I have already attained, or am already perfect. In the seventh chapter, 'that forgetfulness and ignorance are not subject to sin, since they do not come about according to the will, but according to necessity'—whereas David says: Remember not the offenses of my youth, nor my ignorances; and whereas in the law sacrifices are offered for ignorance just as for sin.
In the tenth chapter, that 'there is no free will if it needs God's help, since everyone has it within his own will either to do something or not to do it'; in the twelfth chapter, that 'our victory comes not from God's assistance but from free will,' which he is said to introduce in these words: 'Ours is the victory, because we took up arms by our own will, just as, on the contrary, it is ours when we are conquered, because by our own will we scorned to be armed'; and he adduced a testimony from the Apostle Peter, 'that we are partakers of the divine nature,' and he is said to construct this syllogism: 'Since if the soul cannot be without sin, then God too is subject to sin, whose part—that is, the soul—is liable to sin.'
In the thirteenth chapter he says: 'that pardon is not granted to the penitent according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to their own merit and labour, in that through penance they have become worthy of mercy.' When these had been read out, the synod said: 'What does the monk Pelagius, here present, say to these chapters that have been read? For the holy synod and the holy catholic Church of God condemns this.' Pelagius answered: 'Again I say that, even by their own testimony, these are not mine. For these, as I have said, I owe no satisfaction. But those which I have confessed to be mine, these I affirm to be right;
but those which I have said are not mine, in accordance with the judgment of the holy Church I condemn, pronouncing anathema upon everyone who contravenes and contradicts the doctrines of the holy catholic Church. For I believe in a Trinity of one substance, and in all things according to the doctrine of the holy catholic Church; but if anyone holds views alien to this, let him be anathema.' The synod said: 'Now that we have been satisfied by the responses of the monk Pelagius here present, who indeed consents to the pious doctrines and condemns and anathematizes what is contrary to the faith of the Church, we confess that he belongs to the communion of the Church and is catholic.'
If these are the proceedings by which Pelagius's friends rejoice that he has been cleared, we, seeing that toward himself he has taken pains sufficiently to prove our friendship as well—by producing even our own personal letters, which were read out in this trial and which the proceedings include as inserted—we do indeed desire and wish his salvation in Christ; but concerning this acquittal of his, which is more believed than clearly demonstrated, we ought not rashly to rejoice. Nor in saying this do I charge the judges with either negligence, or connivance, or (what it is most certain is utterly far from them) complicity in impious dogmas; but although by their judgment he was approved and praised as deserving, Pelagius nevertheless, in the eyes of those to whom he is more fully and more surely known, does not seem to me to have been cleared.