Chapter 5 [III.]—The Calumny of the Pelagians Against the Clergy of the Roman Church.

Moreover, they accuse the Roman clergy, writing, “That, driven by the fear of a command, they have not blushed to be guilty of the crime of prevarication; so that, contrary to their previous judgment, wherein by their proceedings they had assented to the catholic dogma, they subsequently pronounced that the nature of men is evil.” Nay, but the Pelagians had conceived, with a false hope, that the new and execrable dogma of Pelagius or Cœlestius could be made acceptable to the catholic intelligences of certain Romans, when those crafty spirits—however perverted by a wicked error, yet not contemptible, since they appeared rather to be deserving of considerate correction than of easy condemnation—were treated with somewhat more of lenity than the stricter discipline of the Church required. For while so many and such important ecclesiastical documents were passing and repassing between the Apostolical See and the African bishops, 102    See On Original Sin, 9, 5, 8.—and, moreover, when the proceedings in this matter in that see were completed, with Cœlestius present and making answer,—what sort of a letter, what decree, is found of Pope Zosimus, of venerable memory, wherein he prescribed that it must be believed that man is born without any taint of original sin? Absolutely he never said this—never wrote it at all. But since Cœlestius had written this in his pamphlet, among those matters, merely, on which he confessed that he was still in doubt and desired to be instructed, the desire of amendment in a man of so acute an intellect, who, if he could be put right, would assuredly be of advantage to many, and not the falsehood of the doctrine, was approved. And therefore his pamphlet was called catholic, because this also is the part of a catholic disposition,—if by chance in any matters a man thinks differently from what the truth demands, not with the greatest accuracy to define those matters, but, if detected and demonstrated, to reject them. For it was not to heretics, but to catholics, that the apostle was speaking when he said, “Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”103    Phil. iii. 15. This was thought to have been the case in him when he replied that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in which all doubt about this matter was removed. And in order that this might be made fuller and more manifest in him, matters were delayed until letters should come from Africa, in which province his craftiness had in some sort become more evidently known. And afterwards these letters came to Rome containing this, that it was not sufficient for men of more sluggish and anxious minds that he confessed his general consent to the letters of Bishop Innocent, but that he ought openly to anathematize the mischievous statements which he had made in his pamphlet; lest if he did not do so, many people of better intelligence should rather believe that in his pamphlet those poisons of the faith had been approved by the catholic see, because it had been affirmed by that see that that pamphlet was catholic, than that they had been amended because of his answer that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent. Then, therefore, when his presence was demanded, in order that by certain and clear answers either the craft of the man or his correction might plainly appear and remain doubtful to no one, he withdrew himself and refused the examination. Neither would the delay which had already been made for the advantage of others have taken place, if it could not be of advantage to the pertinacity and madness of those who were excessively perverse. But if, which be far from the case, it had so been judged in the Roman Church concerning Cœlestius or Pelagius, that those dogmas of theirs, which in themselves and with themselves Pope Innocent had condemned, should be pronounced worthy of approval and maintenance, the mark of prevarication would rather have to be branded on the Roman clergy for this. But now, when the first letters of the most blessed Pope Innocent, in reply to the letters of the African bishops, 104    See Augustin’s Letters, 181, 182, 183. would have equally condemned this error which these men are endeavouring to commend to us; and his successor, the holy Pope Zosimus, would never have said, never have written, that this dogma which these men think concerning infants is to be held; nay, would even have bound Cœlestius by a repeated sentence, when he endeavoured to clear himself, to a consent to the above-mentioned letters of the Apostolic See;—assuredly, whatever in the meanwhile was done more leniently concerning Cœlestius, provided the stability of the most ancient and robust faith were maintained, was the most merciful persuasion of correction, not the most pernicious approval of wickedness; and that afterwards, by the same priesthood, Cœlestius and Pelagius were condemned by repeated authority, was the proof of a severity, for a little while intermitted, at length of necessity to be carried out, not a denial of a previously-known truth or a new acknowledgment of truth.

CAPUT III.

5. Calumnia Pelagianorum adversus Romanae Ecclesiae clericos. Quin etiam Romanos clericos arguunt, scribentes, «eos jussionis terrore perculsos non erubuisse praevaricationis crimen admittere, ut contra priorem sententiam suam, qua gestis catholico dogmati adfuerant, postea pronuntiarent malam hominum esse naturam.» Imo vero Pelagiani spe falsa putaverant, novum et exsecrabile dogma Pelagianum vel Coelestianum persuaderi quorumdam Romanorum catholicis mentibus posse; quando illa ingenia, quamvis nefando errore 0574 perversa , non tamen contemptibilia, cum studiose corrigenda potius, quam facile damnanda viderentur, aliquanto lenius, quam severior postulabat Ecclesiae disciplina, tractata sunt. Tot enim et tantis inter Apostolicam Sedem et Afros episcopos currentibus et recurrentibus scriptis ecclesiasticis, etiam gestis de hac causa apud illam Sedem Coelestio praesente et respondente confectis; quaenam tandem epistola venerandae memoriae Papae Zosimi, quae interlocutio reperitur, ubi praeceperit credi oportere, sine ullo vitio peccati originalis hominem nasci? Nusquam prorsus hoc dixit, nusquam omnino conscripsit. Sed cum hoc Coelestius in suo libello posuisset, inter illa duntaxat de quibus se adhuc dubitare et instrui velle confessus est, in homine acerrimi ingenii, qui profecto si corrigeretur plurimis profuisset, voluntas emendationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est. Et propterea libellus ejus catholicus dictus est, quia et hoc catholicae mentis est, si qua forte aliter sapit, quam veritas exigit, non ea certissime definire , sed detecta ac demonstrata respuere. Non enim haereticis, sed Catholicis Apostolus loquebatur, ubi ait: Quotquot ergo perfecti hoc sapiamus; et si quid aliter sapitis, id quoque Deus vobis revelabit (Philipp. III, 15). Hoc in illo factum esse putabatur, quando se litteris beatae memoriae Papae Innocentii, quibus de hac re dubitatio tota sublata est, consentire respondit. Et hoc ut plenius et manifestius in illo fieret, exspectabatur, venturis ex Africa litteris, in qua provincia ejus aliquanto calliditas evidentius innotuerat. Quae Romam litterae posteaquam venerunt, id continentes, non sufficere hominibus tardioribus et sollicitioribus, quod se generaliter Innocentii episcopi litteris consentire fatebatur; sed aperte eum debere anathematizare quae in suo libello prava posuerat; ne si id non fecisset, multi parum intelligentes magis in libello ejus illa fidei venena a Sede Apostolica crederent approbata, propterea quod ab illa dictum erat, eum libellum esse catholicum, quam emendata, propter illud quod se Papae Innocentii litteris consentire ipse responderat: tunc ergo cum ejus praesentia posceretur, ut certis ac dilucidis responsionibus, vel astutia hominis vel correctio dilucesceret, et nulli ambigua remaneret, se subtraxit et negavit examini. Nec differendum jam fuerat, sicut factum est, quod aliis prodesset, si nimium perversorum pertinaciae dementiaeque non posset . Sed si, quod absit, ita tunc fuisset de Coelestio vel Pelagio in Romana Ecclesia judicatum, ut illa eorum dogmata, quae in ipsis et cum ipsis Papa Innocentius damnaverat, approbanda et tenenda pronuntiarentur, ex hoc potius esset praevaricationis nota Romanis clericis inurenda. Nunc vero cum primitus beatissimi Papae Innocentii litterae episcoporum litteris respondentis Afrorum, pariter hunc errorem, quem conantur isti persuadere, damnaverint: successor quoque ejus sanctus Papa Zosimus 0575 hoc tenendum esse, quod isti de parvulis sentiunt, nunquam dixerit, nunquam scripserit; insuper etiam Coelestium se purgare molientem ad consentiendum supra dictis Sedis Apostolicae litteris crebra interlocutione constrinxerit: profecto quidquid interea lenius actum est cum Coelestio, servata duntaxat antiquissimae et robustissimae fidei firmitate, correctionis fuit clementissima suasio, non approbatio exitiosissima pravitatis . Et quod ab eodem sacerdote postea Coelestius et Pelagius repetita auctoritate damnati sunt, paululum intermissae, jam necessario proferendae ratio severitatis fuit, non praevaricatio prius cognitae vel nova cognitio veritatis.