PATRISTICS IN ENGLISH HOMEPAGE Marius Mercator A Memorandum Concerning Coelestius ("Commonitorium de Coelestio", "Commonitorium super nomine Cælestii") Edited by Daniel R. Jennings Synopsis: Marius Mercator wrote this short treatise in an attempt to refute Pelagius, Coelestius and Julian of Eclanum. For a time, Julian of Eclanum enjoyed the patronage and friendship of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the protection of the Emperor Theodosius II. But this document turned Theodosius against Julian and he, along with Coelestius, were expelled from Constantinople. This work played a part in influencing 275 bishops at the Council of Ephesus to condemn Pelagianism in 431AD. The text is from PL 48. I have included the suggested emendations of Etienne Baluze in the Latin column as footnotes. This was an experimental translation, produced using ChatGPT and Google Translate. Corrections are welcome. Per OpenAI’s Intellectual Property policy, which allows the user to do so, this work has been released into the public domain.
Commonitorium de Coelestio CAPUT PRIMUM De causa Coelestii, quomodo acta est Carthagine, Constantinopoli et Romae.	A Memorandum Concerning Coelestius Chapter One On the case of Coelestius, how it was handled in Carthage, Constantinople, and Rome.
1. Coelestius quidam, eunuchus matris utero editus, discipulus et auditor Pelagii, ante viginti plus minus annos egressus ex urbe Romana Carthaginem Africae totius metropolim venit, ibique de infra scriptis capitulis apud Aurelium episcopum memoratae urbis per libellum a quodam Paulino Diacono sanctae memoriae Ambrosii Mediolanensis episcopi est accusatus, sicut gestorum confectio se habet, quibus idem libellus insertus est (quorum gestorum exemplaria habemus in manibus), tamquam hoc non solum ipse doceret, sed et per provincias conspirantes sibi diversos, qui haec per populos disseminarent, misisset, id est: Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moriturus fuisset. Quoniam peccatum Adae ipsum solum laesit, et non genus humanum. Quoniam parvuli, qui nascuntur in eo statu sunt in quo fuit Adam ante praevaricationem. Quoniam neque per mortem, vel praevaricationem Adae, omne genus hominum moritur; neque per resurrectionem Christi omne hominum genus resurgit [Bal. resurgat].* Quoniam lex sic mittit ad regnum coelorum, quomodo et Evangelium. Quoniam et ante adventum Domini fuerunt homines impeccabiles, id est, sine peccato. *Baluze’s suggestion of the use of resurgat (subjunctive mood expressing "May he/she/it rise again" or "Let him/her/it rise again") as opposed to resurgit (indicative mood expressing "He/She/It rises again" or "He/She/It is rising again") renders the passage to convey a hypothetical or conditional sense, aligning with theological discussions that question whether the effects of Adam's sin or Christ’s resurrection are universally applied.	1. A certain Coelestius, born of his mother's womb as a eunuch, a disciple and auditor of Pelagius, came to the metropolis of Africa, Carthage, more than twenty years ago, having left the city of Rome. There, he was accused before Aurelius, the bishop of the said city, through a book sent by a certain Deacon Paulinus of holy memory, the bishop of Milan. As the records show, this book was inserted into the acts (of which we have copies in hand) and accused him of not only teaching this himself but also sending different conspirators through the provinces to disseminate these views among the people. These views include: · That Adam, being mortal, would have died whether he sinned or not. · That Adam's sin injured him alone and not the human race. · That infants born are in the same state as Adam was before his transgression. · That not all of humankind dies through the death or transgression of Adam, and not all of humankind rises again through the resurrection of Christ. · That the law leads to the kingdom of heaven in the same way as the Gospel. · That there were men without sin even before the Lord's coming, in other words, impeccables. These are the positions and views attributed to Coelestius, and he was accused of promoting them in the regions he visited.
2.De quibus omnibus capitulis, ut constat ex suprascriptis exemplaribus synodalium gestorum, Patres et episcopi regionis illius restiterunt Coelestio, et jusserunt ut eadem condemnaret, quia essent haeretici sensus. Sed Coelestius nullo modo acquiescens, quin immo resistens actis eisdem [Bal. add. quibus frequenter auditus est],* ecclesiastica communione privatus est. A qua sententia ad Romani episcopi examen credidit appellandum; qua mox idem ipse appellatione neglecta, Ephesum Asiae urbem contendit, ibique ausus est per obreptionem locum presbyterii petere. *Baluze’s emendation would have this sentence read: “But Coelestius, by no means agreeing and, indeed, resisting those same acts, [in which he was frequently heard], was deprived of ecclesiastical communion.”	2. Concerning all these chapters, as it is evident from the above-mentioned copies of synodal acts, the Fathers and bishops of that region opposed Coelestius and ordered him to condemn these chapters because they held heretical ideas. But Coelestius, by no means consenting, rather resisting these proceedings, was deprived of ecclesiastical communion. He believed that this sentence should be appealed to the judgment of the Roman bishop. When this appeal was neglected by the same bishop, he journeyed to Ephesus, a city in Asia, and there, by cunning, he attempted to secure a place among the presbytery.
3. Inde post aliquantos annos, sub sanctae memoriae Attico episcopo, urbem Constantinopolitanam petiit, ubi in similibus detectus magno studio sancti illius viri ex praedicta alma urbe detrusus est, litteris super ejus nomine, et in Asiam, et Thessalonicam, et Carthaginem ad episcopos missis, quarum exemplaria habentes proferre sumus parati.	3. After some years, under the blessed memory of Bishop Atticus, he sought the city of Constantinople. There, he was detected in similar matters and, with great diligence on the part of that holy man, he was expelled from the aforementioned city. Letters were sent to the bishops concerning his name, both in Asia, Thessalonica, and Carthage, of which we are prepared to produce copies.
4. Praedictus tamen Coelestius etiam hinc ejectus, ad urbem Romanam sub sanctae memoriae Zosimo episcopo tota festinatione perrexit; ubi actis (quorum exemplaria habemus) interrogatus, cum ab illo cognitore aliquatenus terreretur, crebris responsionibus et prosecutionibus suis spem praeseminavit, condemnare se illa capitula de quibus apud Carthaginem fuerat accusatus promittens. Id enim et instantius jubebatur [Bal. add. ab eoque vehementius ut id faceret exspectabatur,]* atque ob hoc ipsum nonnulla illius sancti sacerdotis humanitate dignus est habitus; et sic epistolam quamdam benignitatis plenam ad Afros episcopos meruit; qua ille abusus est, vel adhuc abutitur ad multorum ignorantium deceptionem. *Baluze’s addition makes the text to read: For this reason, he was urged more insistently, [and by him even more vehemently expected to do so,] and due to this, he was regarded with a certain degree of humanity by that holy bishop.	4. The aforementioned Coelestius, however, even after being expelled from there, hurried to the city of Rome under Bishop Zosimus of blessed memory; there, when questioned (we have copies of these records), he was somewhat intimidated by the examiner. Through his frequent responses and explanations, he hinted at a willingness to condemn the articles for which he had been accused at Carthage, promising to do so. For this reason, he was urged more insistently, and due to this, he was regarded with a certain degree of humanity by that holy bishop. Thus, he earned a letter full of kindness from him to the bishops in Africa, which he abused, or perhaps still abuses, to deceive many who are unaware.
5. Episcopis vero ex Africa rescribentibus, omnemque causam quae apud eos facta fuerat exponentibus, missis etiam gestis exinde quae fuerant tunc cum illo vel de illo confecta, vocatus ad audientiam pleniorem, ut quae promiserat festinaret implere, id est, ut damnatis praedictis capitulis, sententia Afrorum pontificum, qua fuerat communione privatus, absolveretur, non solum non adfuit, sed etiam ex memorata Romana urbe profugit, atque ob hoc a beatae memoriae praedicto Zosimo episcopo scriptis amplissimis vel longissimis perdamnatus est, in quibus et ipsa capitula de quibus accusatus fuerat continentur, et omnis causa, tam de Coelestio suprascripto quam de Pelagio magistro ejus praviore, videtur esse narrata; quorum scriptorum et nos hic habemus exemplaria, et ad Orientales Ecclesias, Aegypti dioecesim, et Constantinopolim, et Thessalonicam, et Hierosolymam, similia eademque scripta ad episcopos transmissa esse suggerimus.	5. However, when the bishops from Africa wrote, explaining the entire matter that had occurred among them and sending the deeds related to him, and then, he was summoned for a more complete hearing to hasten the fulfillment of what he had promised, that is, to have himself absolved, not only did he fail to attend, but he fled from the aforementioned city of Rome. Due to this, he was strongly condemned in lengthy writings by the aforementioned Bishop Zosimus, of blessed memory. These letters contain the very chapters for which he had been accused, and the entire case, both concerning the aforementioned Coelestius and his master Pelagius, who was even more perverse. We have copies of these writings here, and we suggest that similar letters were sent to the Eastern Churches, the diocese of Egypt, Constantinople, Thessalonica, and Jerusalem.
CAPUT II De Pelagii doctrina, cujusmodi cognoscitur ex ipsius scriptis.	Chapter Two On the doctrine of Pelagius, as it is known from his own writings.
1. Ut autem et Pelagius cum ipso pariter damnaretur, istud in causa est. Ausus est memoratus ante vastationem urbis Romae in apostolum Paulum commentarios condere, et his edere, quorum amicitia praesumebat; explanare autem se putavit singula Apostoli verba vel sensus. In Epistola igitur quae est ad Romanos, cum ad illa loca venisset ubi vas electionis ita loquitur: Propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit, et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit (Rom. V, 12); hactenus credidit exponendum. Quem librum ejus habemus, et proferimus ad convincendum inimicum ejus errorem.	1. However, the reason why Pelagius was equally condemned is as follows. The mentioned person dared to compile commentaries on the apostle Paul and publish them, relying on the friendship of those he presumed. He thought he could explain each of the Apostle's words or meanings. So, in the Epistle to the Romans, when he came to the places where the vessel of election speaks as follows: "Therefore, as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned" (Romans 5:12), he believed it should be interpreted this way. We have his book, and we produce it to expose his error.
2. Ita ergo Idem ait: « Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors: Exemplo, inquit, seu imagine usus est, quia sicut cum non esset peccatum, per Adam subintravit; sic et cum non remansisset justitia apud aliquem, vita per Christum reparata est. »	2. So, the same [Pelagius] says this: "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin: He used an example or image, saying, just as when there was no sin, it entered through Adam; likewise, when there was no righteousness in anyone, life was restored through Christ."
3. « Et in omnes homines mors pertransiit: Cum sic, inquit, qui peccant similiter et moriuntur, neque enim aut in Abraham, aut in Isaac, aut in Jacob mors pertransiit, de quibus Dominus ait: Huic omnes vivunt (Luc. XX, 38). Hic autem, inquit, propterea dicit omnes mortuos, quoniam multitudine peccatorum non excipiuntur pauci justi, sicut et ibi inquit: Non est qui faciat bonitatem, non est usque ad unum (Psal. LII, 2, 4). Et iterum illud inquit: Omnis homo mendax (Psal. CXV, 11), aut certe in illos omnes pertransiit [Bal. inquit],* qui humano ritu, non coelesti, sunt conversati.» *Baluze’s addition causes the passage to read: “And again, he says: Every man is a liar (Psalm 115:11), or certainly this applies to all those, [he says], who have behaved according to human custom, not heavenly."	3. "And death passed upon all men: For in this way, he says, those who sin similarly die; for neither in Abraham, nor in Isaac, nor in Jacob did death pass, of whom the Lord says: To Him all are alive (Luke 20:38). And here he says, therefore, 'all are dead,' because by the multitude of sins, few righteous people are not excepted, as it also says there: There is none that doeth good, there is not even one (Psalms 52:2, 4). And again, it says: Every man is a liar (Psalms 115:11), or certainly, it passed upon all those who have lived according to human custom, not heavenly."
4. Et post pauca: « Sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Moysem, etiam in eos qui non praevaricaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae (Rom. V, 14): Sive cum non esset, inquit, qui inter justum et injustum discerneret, putabat mors se omnium dominari, sive in eos qui mandatum tamquam Adam praevaricati sunt, hoc est, de filiis Noe, quibus praeceptum est ut animam in sanguine non manducarent, et de filiis Abraham, quibus circumcisio mandata est; sed [Bal. add. et]* in eos qui, praeter mandatum, legem contempserant naturalem. » *Baluze’s addition causes the passage to read: “…to whom it was commanded not to eat the blood, and the sons of Abraham, to whom circumcision was commanded; but [also] over those who, besides the commandment, disregarded the natural law."	4. And after a few [things]: "But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in a similar way as Adam's transgression (Rom. 5:14): Whether there was someone who could distinguish between the just and the unjust, he believed that death ruled over all; whether among those who transgressed the commandment as Adam did, that is, the sons of Noah, to whom it was commanded not to eat the blood, and the sons of Abraham, to whom circumcision was commanded; but over those who, besides the commandment, disregarded the natural law."
5. « Qui est forma futuri (Ibid.): Quoniam, inquit, sicut Adam praeter coitum a Deo formatus est, sic et Christus a Virgine, fabricante Spiritu sancto, processit; sive, sicut quidam dicunt, forma a contrario, hoc est, sicut ille caput peccati, sic etiam iste caput justitiae est. »	5. "He is the form of the future (Ibid.): For, as he says, just as Adam was formed by God apart from coitus, so Christ also proceeded from a Virgin, crafted by the Holy Spirit; or, as some say, the form in reverse, that is, just as he was the head of sin, so also he is the head of righteousness."
6. « Sed non sicut delictum, ita et donum (Ibid. 15): Ne in forma, inquit, aequalitas putaretur. »	6. "But not as the offense, so also the gift (Ibid. 15): Lest equality should be thought of in form, he says."
7. « Si enim in unius praevaricatione multi mortui sunt, multo magis donum et gratia Dei per unum hominem Christum in multos abundavit (Ibidem). Plus valuit, inquit Apostolus, gratia in vivificando, quam peccatum in occidendo: quia Adam non se solum, sed et suos posteros interfecit; Christus vero et eos qui tunc erant in corpore, et eos qui postea futuri erant, liberavit. »	7. "For if by one man's offense many died, much more the grace and gift of God, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many (Ibidem). The Apostle says that grace was more powerful in giving life than sin was in causing death because Adam killed not only himself but also his descendants, whereas Christ liberated not only those who were then in the body but also those who would come later."
8. Hic sollicitus catholicus lector notet quid dicat, « Adam, non sibi soli, sed et posteris suis nocuisse. » Tene superiorem definitionem ejus: posteros enim hic dicit non omnes ubique et omnino totos [Bellov. non omnes omnino et ubique totos]* homines laesos illius peccato, sed illos tantum qui per imitationem similiter suis peccatis et propriis factis sunt rei praevaricationis, sicut Adam; qui sine dubio ii ipsi pronepotes ejus, et posteri esse inveniuntur. *I am not sure what or who “Bellov.” refers to but the emendation here simply changes the order of the adverbs omnino (“entirely”) and ubique (“everywhere”).	8. Let the attentive Catholic reader here note what it says, 'Adam harmed not only himself but also his posterity.' Keep in mind the earlier definition: for here it does not say that all people everywhere and entirely were injured by that sin, but only those who, through imitation, became guilty of transgression like Adam. These are undoubtedly his own great-grandchildren and descendants.
9. « Hi autem, inquit, qui contra traducem peccati sentiunt, acriter eos qui defendunt traducem, impugnare conantur: Si peccatum, inquiunt, Adae etiam non peccantibus nocuit, ergo et Christi justitia non credentibus prodest; quoniam similiter, immo plus dicit Apostolus, per unum liberari quam per unum ante perierat. Deinde dicunt: Si baptismus mundat antiquum illud veternosumque peccatum, qui de duobus baptizatis nati fuerint, debent hoc carere peccato; non enim poterunt ad posteros transmittere, quod ipsi minime habuerint [Bal. habuerunt].* In hoc addunt: Quoniam si anima non est ex traduce, sicut nec est, sed sola caro habet traducem peccati, sola et poenam meretur: injustum est enim ut hodie nata anima non ex massa Adae tam antiquum peccatum portet alienum: quin et rationabile est ut Deus, qui propria peccata dimittit, non imputet alienum. » *Baluze’s addition would cause the passage to read more definitively that the parents did not have original sin after baptism: "If baptism cleanses that ancient and ingrained sin, those born of two baptized parents ought to lack this sin; for they cannot transmit to their descendants what they themselves did not have."	9. "However, those who oppose the idea of the transmission of sin strongly challenge those who defend the concept. They argue: 'If Adam's sin harmed even those who did not sin themselves, then Christ's righteousness should benefit those who do not believe, as the Apostle says even more strongly, that one was saved through Him who had previously perished. Furthermore, they say: 'If baptism cleanses the ancient and old sin, those born from two baptized parents should be free from this sin; for they will not be able to transmit to their descendants what they themselves might not have had. In this regard, they add: 'If the soul is not from the lineage, as it is not, but only the flesh bears the sin of the lineage, then only the flesh deserves the punishment; for it is unjust that a soul born today not from Adam's substance should bear such an ancient sin. Indeed, it is reasonable that God, who forgives one's personal sins, should not impute the sins of another.'"* *As I was proofing the translation I thought that this may be an AI translation error but when I referred back to Pelagius’ actual text quoted here (Commentary on Romans, 5:15) to try and get the sense of what he meant I was left just as confused as when I read Mercator’s reference to it.
10. Et iterum in alio sermone suo idem Pelagius: « Si peccator, inquit, genuit peccatorem, ut parvulo ejus peccatum originale in baptismi acceptione solvatur: justus ergo justum gignere debuit. Si parentes, inquit, post conversionem propria peccata non laedunt, multo magis filiis eorum per eos nocere non poterunt [Bal. potuerunt].* Si priorem hominem contigit causam mortis fuisse [Bal. fecisse],** ergo per Christi adventum mori jam non oportebat. Si per peccatum Adae mors orta esset, numquam post remissionem peccatorum, quam nobis liberator donavit, moreremur. Plus ergo valuit peccatum Adae omnes omnino homines occidendo, quam Christi gratia in salvando, quae non omnibus, sed tantum credentibus profuit: neque enim omnes qui nascuntur ex Adam, ii etiam renascuntur in Christo. » Et reliqua. *Baluze’s emendation changes the tense from future indicative to past indicative, shifting the statement into the past, indicating that the matter is already resolved. It assumes the parents’ actions definitively did not harm their children in the past rather than focusing on future potential harm. Thus, it would read: "If, he says, parents after conversion do not harm themselves with their own sins, much more so, through them, they have not been able to harm their children." **Baluze’s emendation changes the passage’s reference to Adam from a passive state in which Adam was the cause of death merely by his being or existence into a more active role, emphasizing his deliberate action as the cause of death. With Baluze’s change the passage reads: “If the first man, he says, happened to have made himself the cause of death, then by the advent of Christ, there would no longer have been any need to die."	10. "Furthermore, in another of his sermons, Pelagius says, 'If a sinner begets a sinner, so that the original sin of his offspring may be dissolved at the reception of baptism, then a righteous person should have begotten another righteous person. If, he says, parents after conversion do not harm themselves with their own sins, much more so, through them, they will not be able to harm their children. If the previous man had been the cause of death, then, after the advent of Christ, it was no longer necessary to die. If death arose from Adam's sin, we would never die after the forgiveness of sins, which our liberator granted us. Therefore, Adam's sin was much more powerful in killing all human beings, than Christ's grace in saving, which profited not everyone but only those who believe. For not all who are born of Adam are also reborn in Christ.' And so on."
CAPUT III De condemnatione Pelagii et Coelestii, et Pelagii praesertim, tum a Romanis pontificibus Innocentio et Zosimo, tum a Patribus Diospolitanis et Theodoto Antiochiae episcopo.	Chapter Three On the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, especially Pelagius, both by the Roman pontiffs Innocent and Zosimus and by the Fathers of Diospolis and Theodotus, Bishop of Antioch.
1. Quae omnia suprascripta capitula, ut jam superius dictum est, continet illa beatae memoriae episcopi Zosimi epistola, quae TRACTORIA dicitur, qua Coelestius Pelagiusque damnati sunt; quae et Constantinopolim, et per totum orbem missa subscriptionibus sanctorum Patrum est roborata; cui Julianus, et reliqui complices subscribere detrectantes, consentaneosque se nolentes iisdem Patribus facere, non solum imperialibus legibus, sed et sacerdotalibus statutis depositi atque exauctorati, et [Bal. ex]* omni Italia deturbati sunt: ex quibus plurimi resipientes et a praedicto errore correcti regressi sunt supplices ad sedem apostolicam, et suscepti suas Ecclesias receperunt. *Baluze’s insertion of ex ("from" or "out of") emphasizes that Julian and his associates were physically removed out of Italy.	1. All these aforementioned chapters, as has already been stated, are contained in the epistle of the blessed memory of Bishop Zosimus, known as the TRACTORIA, by which Coelestius and Pelagius were condemned. This epistle was sent to Constantinople and confirmed throughout the entire world by the subscriptions of the holy Fathers. Julian and the other associates, who refused to subscribe and did not wish to comply with the same Fathers, were not only removed and stripped of their office according to imperial laws but also according to priestly decrees. They were driven out of all Italy. Among them, many, having repented and corrected their error, returned as supplicants to the apostolic see and, upon their return, received their Churches.
2. Praedicti sane Coelestius et Pelagius, non tunc primo a sanctae memoriae Zosimo videntur esse damnati, sed ab ejus decessore sanctae recordationis Innocentio, a quo et Julianus fuerat ordinatus, quique post illorum damnationem, usque ad praedicti Innocentii [Bal. add. episcopi]* excessum e vita, in ejus communione permanens, et perseverans in sincera sententia, et communicans damnatori praedictorum, ipse quoque sine dubio Pelagium Coelestiumque damnavit, et quid nunc desiderat, aut de quo queritur, ignoramus. *Baluze’s addition of the word episcopi (bishop), signifying that Innocent is the bishop of Rome, gives weight to Innocent’s opinion.	2. Indeed, the aforementioned Coelestius and Pelagius do not seem to have been condemned for the first time by the holy memory of Zosimus, but by his predecessor, the holy and memorable Innocent, who also ordained Julian. After their condemnation, Julian remained in communion with the same Innocent until his death. He persevered in a sincere opinion and shared in the condemnation of Coelestius and Pelagius. As for what he desires or complains about now, we do not know.
3. Ut autem a sanctae recordationis Innocentio damnarentur, talis exstitit causa. Post Romanae urbis vastationem, in Palaestina degebat Pelagius. Inventi sunt a quibusdam studiosis episcopis libri ejus, in quibus multa et varia adversus fidem catholicam conscripta esse videntur. Hi cum litteris in Africam Patribus et episcopis missi sunt, ubi tribus conciliis congregatis memorati lecti sunt libri. Exinde relationibus Romam missis, ipsis quoque libris pariter destinatis, apostolica sententia rescribentis ad praedicta concilia emanavit, quae eosdem ipsos, Coelestium Pelagiumque, ecclesiastica communione privavit, quorum scriptorum exemplaria habemus in manibus.	3. However, the reason for their condemnation by the blessed memory of Innocent was as follows: After the devastation of the city of Rome, Pelagius lived in Palestine. Certain studious bishops found books of his, in which many and varied things seemed to have been written against the Catholic faith. These books were sent with letters to the Fathers and bishops in Africa, where, in three councils convened, the mentioned books were read. From there, reports were sent to Rome, and the same books were also sent. The apostolic judgment, responding to the aforementioned councils, was issued, which deprived both Coelestius and Pelagius of ecclesiastical communion. We have the exemplars of these writings in our hands.
4. Adhuc etiam Hierosolymis constitutus Pelagius accusatus fuit apud synodum, et primo quidem tergiversando, ambiguis quibusdam se professionibus tegens, et prosequens dubia, vel respondens, illam tunc videtur episcoporum audientiam delusisse.	4. Moreover, Pelagius, even when he was in Jerusalem, was accused before a synod. At first, he evaded the accusations, covering himself with some ambiguous professions and continuing to avoid, delay, or respond to the doubts. He appears to have deceived the bishops' assembly at that time.
5. Sed postmodum evidenter deprehensus, insistentibus accusatoribus, a posteriore synodo, cui sanctae memoriae Theodotus Antiochiae praesedit episcopus, atque detectus, a sanctis quoque et venerabilibus Hierosolymorum locis est deturbatus. Quod ejusdem [Bal. ejusdemque]* sancti Theodoti ad reverendissimum urbis Romae episcopum, et sanctae recordationis Praylii Hierosolymitani episcopi missa scripta testantur, quorum exemplaria ad documentum habemus in manibus. *Baluze’s emendation changes to passage to read thus: "And which the writings of the same holy Theodotus and of the same Praylius, sent to the most reverend bishop of the city of Rome, attest..." The addition makes the passage suggest that Theodotus and Praylius wrote their works together as opposed to writing them independently (as it reads without the emendation).	5. But afterward, being clearly exposed under the persistence of his accusers, he was condemned by a later synod, over which Bishop Theodotus of Antioch, of blessed memory, presided. Having been exposed, he was also removed from the holy and venerable places of Jerusalem. This is attested by the writings sent by the same holy Theodotus to the most reverend bishop of the city of Rome and by the writings of Praylius, the bishop of Jerusalem of holy memory, whose copies we have in hand as documentation.
CAPUT IV De communi utriusque haeretici sententia et condemnatione.	Chapter Four On the Common Belief and Condemnation of Both Heretics.
1. In ipsa autem accusatione capitulorum, quae eidem tunc Pelagio objecta sunt, etiam hoc continebatur, cum aliis exsecrandis, quae discipulus ejus Coelestius sentiebat: id est, « Infantes, etiamsi non baptizentur, habere vitam aeternam. »	1. In the very accusation of the chapters that were brought against Pelagius at that time, along with other abominable beliefs held by his disciple Coelestius, was this: namely, 'Infants, even if they are not baptized, have eternal life.'
2. Illud quoque, quod superius positum est capitulum, sentiri a Coelestio, et esse consentaneum magistri sui doctrinae memoravimus, id est, « Legem sic mittere ad regnum coelorum, sicut Evangelium; » Pelagius quibusdam scriptis suis aperte confirmat atque pronuntiat.	2. Also, that chapter which we mentioned above, namely, 'The law sends to the kingdom of heaven in the same way as the Gospel,' we have shown to be in harmony with Coelestius's beliefs, and Pelagius openly confirms and proclaims it in some of his writings.
3. Denique libellus est ejus, quem habemus in manibus, ad quamdam Livaniam viduam, sermonem continens exhortatorium, in quo ita habetur: « Simplicitatem, inquit, sequi Christi famulam decet: non hanc quae stultitia magis est quam simplicitas, sed illam de qua scripsit [Bal. Scriptura dicit]:* Benedicta anima omnis simplex (Proverb. XI, 27, sec. Septuag.); dicente alibi Scriptura: Maledictus omnis homo qui non permanet in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea (Deut. XXVII, 26). Hinc, inquit, ostenditur non esse simplicitatem veram quae Dei mandata insensata securitate contemnit, sed eam quae legis praecepta sapienti timore custodit; dicente enim, maledictum esse eum qui non permanet in his quae scripta sunt, a contrario benedictum esse non vult qui non omnia praecepta servaverit. Et si omnis simplex benedictus est, ergo simplex ille est qui omnia praecepta legis impleverit. » *Baluze’s addition changes the passage to read: 'It is fitting, he says, for a servant of Christ to follow simplicity—not that which is more foolishness than simplicity, but that about which Scripture says: Blessed is every simple soul (Proverbs XI, 27, according to the Septuagint)…”	3. Moreover, there is a booklet of his, which we have in hand, containing an exhortatory discourse addressed to a certain widow Livia, in which it is stated: 'It is fitting for the handmaid of Christ to follow simplicity,' he says. 'But not the kind that is more foolish than simple. Instead, it is the simplicity of which it is written: "Every simple soul is blessed" (Proverbs 11:27, according to the Septuagint), as another passage of Scripture says: "Cursed be the man who abides not in all that is written in the book of the Law so as to do it" (Deuteronomy 27:26). ‘From this,' he says, 'it is shown that it is not true simplicity to disregard God's commandments with senseless carelessness, but rather it is that which keeps the precepts of the Law with wise fear. For when it is said that a curse rests on the man who does not abide in those things written, from the opposite side it is implied that a blessing is not desired by the one who does not keep all the precepts. And if every simple soul is blessed, then it follows that the soul is simple which has fulfilled all the precepts of the Law.'
4. Asserere hunc illud, quod toties jam superius dictum est, « Ad regnum coelorum libros Moysis, sicut Evangelium mittere, » nullus catholicorum, qui hoc capitulum legerit, dubitat, nec intelligendo difficultatem aliquam poterit sustinere. Et quia indiscrete legem in eodem impiissimo capitulo nominavit, quod si Mosaicam, cujus testimonium maledicti posuit, aperte nos in Judaismum attrahere tentat; quod si, ad tegendum se per fallaciam, legis nomine Evangelium se dixerit nominasse, in eo quidem quod legem Evangelium appellat, non errat. Sed in eo est impius, in quo sub simili et aequali nos, qui sub Evangelio sumus, maledicto constituere non pertimescit, exaequans legi circumcisionis et omni Judaismo evangelicam gratiam: unde etiam discipulus ejus Coelestinus aperte ausus est pronuntiare: « Legem sic mittere ad regna coelorum, sicut Evangelium. »	4. To assert this, which has already been said so many times above, that 'the books of Moses should be sent to the kingdom of heaven, just like the Gospel,' no Catholic, upon reading this chapter, doubts or would have any difficulty in understanding or accepting this. But because he indiscriminately mentioned the Law in the same most impious chapter, he is openly attempting to draw us into Judaism by setting the Law of Moses, the testimony of which he considers accursed, as a standard. However, if, to conceal himself through deception, he declares that he has named the Gospel as the Law, in this matter, indeed, where he calls the Law "the Gospel," he does not err. But he is impious in the point where, not fearing to equate us who are under the Gospel, with a curse equal to the law of circumcision and all Judaism, he even dared his disciple Coelestinus to declare openly: 'To send the Law to the heavenly kingdoms, as the Gospel.'
5. Manifestum est enim, secundum Pelagium, quia si sub eodem vel simili adhuc sumus vinculo, etiam sub Evangelii tempore; et si quid tamquam homines erraverimus, aut unum de praeceptis Evangelii non impleverimus, esse nos maledictos. Quod si ita, quod absit, tamen ut ille vult sit dictum, exaequatum est legi veteri Evangelium; et ubi erit dictum Pauli Apostoli: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis factus pro nobis maledictum, quia scriptum est (Deut. XXVII, 26): Maledictus omnis homo, qui non permanet in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea (Galat. III, 10).	5. It is evident, according to Pelagius, that if we are under the same or a similar bond, even in the time of the Gospel, and if we have erred in anything as humans or have not fulfilled one of the Gospel precepts, we are cursed. If this, which is far from the truth, has been said as he wishes, the Gospel has been equated with the Old Law. And where will be the saying of the Apostle Paul: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us," because it is written (Deuteronomy 27:26): "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Galatians 3:10).
6. Quinetiam subdescendens hunc ipsum sensum latius in eodem sermone libelli hujus exsequitur, et latius eum commendat. Post multa enim ibidem ait: « Odisse, maledicere, et invidere, mentiri, detrahere, et detrahentibus credere, leve aut nullum putatur esse peccatum; sed hi qui hoc putant, obliti sunt, quoniam et levis praecepti obnoxios gehennae legimus esse mancipandos. Dixisse enim, inquit, Dominum manifestum est: Quicumque dixerit fratri suo, Fatue, vel Racha, reus erit gehennae. »	6. "Moreover, descending to a fuller explanation, he expands upon and commends this same idea more broadly in the same discourse of this book. For after much else, he says there: 'To hate, to curse, to envy, to lie, to slander, and to believe slanderers are considered [by many] to be minor or even insignificant sins; but those who think this have forgotten that we read even those guilty of lesser offenses will be consigned to hell. For it is clear,' he says, 'that the Lord has said: Whoever says to his brother, "Fool," or "Racha," will be guilty of hellfire.'”
CAPUT V Convenitur Julianus, et invitatur ad resipiscendum exemplo sociorum.	Chapter 5 Julian is summoned and invited to repent by the example of his associates.
1. Hos igitur in ejusmodi impiissimis erroribus deprehensos, Pelagium scilicet et Coelestium, ad satisfactionem Ecclesiae Julianus, et caeteri sui participes, vel modo condemnent; et si quos confidunt adversus catholicam fidem non recte sentire, nominatim designare non dubitent, et ecclesiastico ordine a nobis accipient pro nostra possibilitate responsum, aut ab eo certe, quem dicent a sensu catholico deviare.	1. Therefore, let Julian and his associates, namely Pelagius and Coelestius, who have been discovered to hold such impious errors, now condemn them to the satisfaction of the Church. And if they believe that some are not thinking correctly with respect to the Catholic faith, they should not hesitate to designate them specifically, and they will receive a response from us in accordance with the ecclesiastical order to the best of our ability, or certainly from the one whom they claim has deviated from the Catholic sense.
2. Sicut enim superius praefati sumus, jam multi qui Coelestium et Pelagium cum eo fuerant secuti, Juliani quoque participes et socii facti, derelicto eo, Pelagioque damnato, sedi apostolicae se submittentes, et poenitere super his quae male senserant profitentes, a sanctis Patribus digni habiti miseratione, suscepti sunt.	2. As we have stated above, many who had followed Coelestius and Pelagius, and had also become associates and partners of Julian, abandoned him when Pelagius was condemned and submitted themselves to the Apostolic See. They professed their repentance for the errors they had held, and, deserving compassion from the holy Fathers, they were received.