Composed c. March 417
English text used: Pelagius, Commentaries
on the Thirteen Epistles of Paul with the Libellus Fidei (trans. Thomas P.
Scheck; Ancient Christian Writers 76; New York: The Newman Press, 2022),
hereafter “Scheck”
Latin text is taken from Peter J. van
Egmond, “Haec Fides Est: Observations on the Textual Tradition of
Pelagius’s ‘Libellus Fidei,’” Augustiniana 57 (2007): 345-85, hereafter
“Egmond”
Amazingly,
the Pseudo-Jerome version of the Libellus fidei acquired fame in the
medieval period as a benchmark of trinitarian orthodoxy. (Scheck, 352)
[2]
We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created,
true God, only begotten, and true Son of God, not made or adopted, but begotten
and of one substance with the Father <which the Greeks call hommousion>
and thus equal to God the Father in all things, so that he can be inferior
neither in respect to time, degree, or power. And we confess that he was
begotten is as great as the one who begot (Credimus et in Dominum nostrum
Ihesum Christum per quem creata sunt omnia, verum Deum unigenitum et verum Dei
Filium, non factum aut adoptivum sed genitum et unius cum Patre substantiae
<quod Greci dicunt homoousion> atque ita per omnia aequalem Deo Patri, ut
nec tempore nec gradu nec potestate esse possit inferior. Tantumque esse
confitemur illum qui est genitus, quantus est ille qui genuit). (Scheck, 353;
Egmond, 337)
[4]
We believe also in the Holy Spirit, true God proceeding from the Father, equal
to the Father and the Son in all things, in <nature,> with power,
eternity, [and] essence (Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum, Deum verum ex Patre
procedentem, aequalem per omnia Patri et Filio, <natura,> voluntate,
potestate, aeternitate, substantia). (Scheck, 354; Egmond, 337)
Notice
that the Spirit’s procession is from the Father alone, not from the Father and
the Son (filioque). (Scheck, 411 n. 14)
[5]
Nor is there any degree at all in the Trinity, nothing can be said to be lower
or higher, but the entire Deity is equal in its own perfection so that, apart
from the names that indicate personal properties, whatever is said of one
person can most fittingly be understood of the three. [6] And just as, in
confutation of Arius, we say that the essence of the Trinity is one and the
same, and we profess one God in three persons; so in rejection of the impiety
of Sabellius, we distinguish three distinct persons by property. We do not say
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are identical with each other,
but that there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the
Holy Spirit, For we do not confess merely the names but also the properties of
the names, that is, the persons [or, as the Greeks express it, epotasis,
that is, subsistences] ([5] Nec est prorsus aliquis in Trinitate gradus, nihil
quod inferius superiusve dici possit, sed tota Deitas sui perfectione aequalis
est ut exceptis vocabulis, quae proprietatem personarum indicant, quicquid de
una persona dicitur de tribus dignissime possit intelligi. [6] Atque ut
confundentes Arrium unam eandemque dicimus Trinitatis esse substantiam et unum
in tribus personis fatemur Deum, ita impietatem Sabellii declinantes tres
personas expressas sub proprietate distinguimus. Non ipsum sibi Patrem, ipsum
[sibi] Filium, ipsum [sibi] Spiritum Sanctum esse dicentes, sed aliam Patris,
aliam Filii, aliam Spiritus Sancti esse personam. Non enim nomina tantummodo
sed etiam nominum proprietates id est personas [vel ut Greci exprimunt epotasis
hoc est subsistentias] confitemur). (Scheck, 354; Egmond, 337-38)
[17]
We hold to one baptism, which <we say> is to be celebrated with the same
words of the sacrament for infants as for adults (Baptisma unum tenemus, quod
isdem sacramenti verbis in infantibus quibus etiam in maioribus <dicimus>
esse celebrandum). (Scheck, 356; Egmond, 341)
A.
Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism, 6, comments that Pelagius’s opponents
at Diospolis had read into his assertion of the goodness of human nature the
entailment that infants were in the same state as Adam before his
transgression. They concluded that Pelagius taught that infants did not require
baptism. Pelagius anathematized these (false) charges at the Synod of
Diospolis. Of his words here, Bonner writes, “This tenet therefore reveals the
degree to which a bogus set of statements were attributed to Pelagius and made
synonymous with his name. Both tenets 4 and 6 in Augustin’s list of the
constituent these of ‘Palagianism’ [De gestis Pelagii 11.24; De
gratis Christi et de peccato originali 2.19.21] refer to this one issue,
and this doctrine has been attributed by many scholars to Pelagius and taken as
a defining tenet of ‘Pelagianism,’ which shows how far understanding of
Pelagius’s teaching has been determined by his opponents’ account of it. The
fact that in his surviving writings Pelagius only mentioned infants in his Statement
of Faith [= Libellus fidei] after he had been accused of heresy for
denying the need for infant baptism suggests he was responding to a criticism
of his teaching. This was an example of how the polemical context determined
the nature of the debate, which proceeded through accusation and
counteraccusation. Pelagius stressed the importance of baptism as a sacrament
of cleansing from sin and second birth. It was a hostile entailment read into
his writings so suggest that this might make more sense for an adult than for
an infant, and once again a doctrine that Pelagius did not assert was
attributed to his writings.” (Scheck, 412-13 n. 26)
[18]
We believe that if a person falls after baptism, he can be saved <first by
reconciliation, then> by penitence (Hominem, si post baptismum lapsus
fuerit, <primo per reconciliationem deinde> per penitentiam credimus
posse salvari). (Scheck, 356; Egmond, 341)
