26. [XXIII.]—The Pelagians Maintain that Raising Questions About Original Sin Does Not Endanger the Faith.

Therefore, after the full discussion with which we have been able to rebut in writing this error of theirs, which is so inimical to the grace of God bestowed on small and great through our Lord Jesus Christ, it is now our duty to examine and explode that assertion of theirs, which in their desire to avoid the odious imputation of heresy they astutely advance, to the effect that “calling this subject into question produces no danger to the faith,”—in order that they may appear, forsooth, if they are convicted of having deviated from it, to have erred not criminally, but only, as it were, courteously.170    This is far from a clear translation of the terse original: Non criminaliter, sed quasi civiliter errasse videantur. This, accordingly, is the language which Cœlestius used in the ecclesiastical process at Carthage:171    See above, ch. 3 [IV.] “As touching the transmission of sin,” he said, “I have already said that I have heard many persons of acknowledged position in the catholic Church deny it, and on the other hand many affirm it; it may fairly, indeed, be deemed a matter for inquiry, but not a heresy. I have always maintained that infants require baptism, and ought to be baptized. What else does he want?” He said this, as if he wanted to intimate that only then could he be deemed chargeable with heresy, if he were to assert that they ought not to be baptized. As the case stood, however, inasmuch as he acknowledged that they ought to be baptized, he thought that he had not erred [criminally], and therefore ought not to be adjudged a heretic, even though he maintained the reason of their baptism to be other than the truth holds, or the faith claims as its own. On the same principle, in the book which he sent to Rome, he first explained his belief, so far as it suited his pleasure, from the Trinity of the One Godhead down to the kind of resurrection of the dead that is to be; on all which points, however, no one had ever questioned him, or been questioned by him. And when his discourse reached the question which was under consideration, he said: “If, indeed, any questions have arisen beyond the compass of the faith, on which there might be perhaps dissension on the part of a great many persons, in no case have I pretended to pronounce a decision on any dogma, as if I possessed a definitive authority in the matter myself; but whatever I have derived from the fountain of the prophets and the apostles, I have presented for approbation to the judgment of your apostolic office; so that if any error has crept in among us, human as we are, through our ignorance, it may be corrected by your sentence.”172    See above, ch. 6. You of course clearly see that in this action of his he used all this deprecatory preamble in order that, if he had been discovered to have erred at all, he might seem to have erred not on a matter of faith, but on questionable points outside the faith; wherein, however necessary it may be to correct the error, it is not corrected as a heresy; wherein also the person who undergoes the correction is declared indeed to be in error, but for all that is not adjudged a heretic.

CAPUT XXIII.

26. Quapropter post multa quae adversus istum errorem inimicum gratiae Dei, quam per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum pusillis magnisque largitur, scribendo disputare potuimus; nunc illud oportet excutere, quod, volentes haereseos astute invidiam declinare, asserunt, «istam praeter fidei periculum esse quaestionem:» ut videlicet si in ea fuerint exorbitasse convicti, non criminaliter, sed quasi civiliter errasse videantur. Sic enim Coelestius apud Carthaginem gestis ecclesiasticis est locutus: «Jam,» inquit, «de traduce peccati dixi, quia intra Catholicam constitutos plures audivi destruere, necnon et alios astruere; licet quaestionis res sit ista, non haeresis. Infantes semper dixi egere Baptismo, ac debere baptizari: quid quaerit aliud?» Ita hoc dixit, tanquam significare voluerit, tunc fuisse haeresim judicandam, si baptizari debere negaret infantes: nunc vero quoniam baptizandos fatetur, etiamsi causam Baptismatis eorum non eam dicat, quam veritas habet, sed quae ad fidem non pertinet; non se arbitratur errare , et ideo non esse haereticum judicandum. Item in libello quem Romae dedit, cum fidem suam a Trinitate unius deitatis usque ad resurrectionem qualis futura est mortuorum, de quibus eum nullus interrogaverat, et unde illi nulla quaestio movebatur, quantum dicere libuit, explicasset; ubi ad id quod agebatur ejus sermo pervenit: «Si quae vero,» inquit, «praeter fidem quaestiones natae sunt, de quibus esset inter plerosque contentio; non ego quasi auctor alicujus dogmatis definita hoc auctoritate statui, sed ea quae de Prophetarum et Apostolorum fonte suscepi, vestri Apostolatus offerimus probanda esse judicio; ut si forte ut hominibus quispiam ignorantiae error obrepsit , vestra sententia corrigatur .» Nempe perspicitis, id eum egisse hac praelocutione praemissa, ut si quid in illo apparuisset erroris, non in fide, sed in quaestionibus quae sunt praeter fidem, videretur errasse, ubi etsi corrigendus est error, non tamen tanquam haeresis corrigatur, et qui correctus fuerit , ita dicatur errare, ut non tamen haereticus judicetur.