30. [XIV.]—The Tenth Item in the Accusation. The More Prominent Points of Cœlestius’ Work Continued.

After this we find objected against Pelagius some other points of Cœlestius’ teaching,—prominent ones, and undoubtedly worthy of condemnation; such, indeed, as would certainly have involved Pelagius in condemnation, if he had not anathematized them in the synod. Under his third head Cœlestius was alleged to have written: “That God’s grace and assistance is not given for single actions, but is imparted in the freedom of the will, or in the law and in doctrine.” And again: “That God’s grace is given in proportion to our deserts; because, were He to give it to sinful persons, He would seem to be unrighteous.” And from these words he inferred that “therefore grace itself has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it. For if we do all things by grace, then whenever we are overcome by sin, it is not we who are overcome, but God’s grace, which wanted by all means to help us, but was not able.” And once more he says: “If, when we conquer sin, it is by the grace of God; then it is He who is in fault whenever we are conquered by sin, because He was either altogether unable or unwilling to keep us safe.” To these charges Pelagius replied: “Whether these are really the opinions of Cœlestius or not, is the concern of those who say that they are. For my own part, indeed, I never entertained such views; on the contrary, I anathematize every one who does entertain them.” Then the synod said: “This holy synod accepts you for your condemnation of these impious words.” Now certainly there can be no mistake, in regard to these opinions, either as to the clear way in which Pelagius pronounced on them his anathema, or as to the absolute terms in which the bishops condemned them. Whether Pelagius or Cœlestius, or both of them, or neither of them, or other persons with them or in their name, have ever held or still hold these sentiments,—may be doubtful or obscure; but nevertheless by this judgment of the bishops it has been declared plainly enough that they have been condemned, and that Pelagius would have been condemned along with them, unless he had himself condemned them too. Now, after this trial, it is certain that whenever we enter on a controversy touching opinions of this kind, we only discuss an already condemned heresy.

CAPUT XIV.

30. Hinc jam objiciuntur Pelagio alia Coelestii capitula capitalia, et sine dubitatione damnanda, quae nisi anathematizasset, cum his sine dubio damnaretur. In tertio capitulo scripsisse Coelestium, Gratiam Dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus dari, sed in libero arbritrio esse, vel in lege ac doctrina. Et iterum, Dei gratiam secundum merita nostra dari, quia si peccatoribus illam det, videtur esse iniquus: et his verbis intulisse, Propterea et ipsa gratia in mea voluntate posita est, sive dignus fuerim, sive indignus. Si enim per gratiam omnia facimus; quando 0338vincimur a peccato, non nos vincimur, sed Dei gratia, quae voluit nos adjuvare omni modo, et non potuit. Et iterum ait: Si gratia Dei est, quando vincimus peccata; ergo ipseest in culpa, quando a peccato vincimur, quia omnino custodire nos aut non potuit, aut noluit. Ad ista Pelagius respondit: Haec utrum Coelestii sint, ipsi viderint qui dicunt ea Coelestii esse; ego vero nunquam sic tenui, sed anathematizo qui sic tenet. Synodus dixit: Recipit te sancta Synodus, ita verba reproba condemnantem. De his certe omnibus, et Pelagii eadem anathematizantis manifesta responsio est, et episcoporum ista damnantium absolutissima judicatio. Utrum ea Pelagius, an Coelestius, an uterque, an neuter illorum, an alii sive cum ipsis, sive sub nomine illorum senserint, sive adhuc sentiant, sit dubium vel occultum: satis tamen hoc judicio declaratum est, esse damnata, et Pelagium simul fuisse damnandum, nisi haec etiam ipse damnaret. Nunc certe post hoc judicium, quando contra hujusmodi sententias disputamus, adversus damnatam haeresim disputamus.