Sunday, April 24, 2022

Excerpts from Pelagius’ Statement of Faith (Libellus fidei)

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)