On the Proceedings of Pelagius

 1.—Introduction.

 2. [I.]—The First Item in the Accusation, and Pelagius’ Answer.

 3.—Discussion of Pelagius’ First Answer.

 4. [II.]—The Same Continued.

 5. [III.]—The Second Item in the Accusation And Pelagius’ Answer.

 6.—Pelagius’ Answer Examined.

 7.—The Same Continued.

 8.—The Same Continued.

 9.—The Third Item in the Accusation And Pelagius’ Answer.

 10.—Pelagius’ Answer Examined. On Origen’s Error Concerning the Non-Eternity of the Punishment of the Devil and the Damned.

 11.—The Same Continued.

 12. [IV.]—The Fourth Item in the Accusation And Pelagius’ Answer.

 13. [V.]—The Fifth Item of the Accusation And Pelagius’ Answer.

 14.—Examination of This Point. The Phrase “Old Testament” Used in Two Senses. The Heir of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament There Were Heirs of

 15.—The Same Continued.

 16. [VI.]—The Sixth Item of the Accusation, and Pelagius’ Reply.

 17.—Examination of the Sixth Charge and Answers.

 18.—The Same Continued.

 19.—The Same Continued.

 20.—The Same Continued. Pelagius Acknowledges the Doctrine of Grace in Deceptive Terms.

 [VII.] and for the obtaining of which we pray that we may not be led into temptation. This grace is not nature, but that which renders assistance to f

 21. [VIII.]—The Same Continued.

 21. [IX.]—The Same Continued.

 22. [X.]—The Same Continued. The Synod Supposed that the Grace Acknowledged by Pelagius Was that Which Was So Thoroughly Known to the Church.

 23. [XI.]—The Seventh Item of the Accusation: the Breviates of Cœlestius Objected to Pelagius.

 24.—Pelagius’ Answer to the Charges Brought Together Under the Seventh Item.

 25.—The Pelagians Falsely Pretended that the Eastern Churches Were on Their Side.

 26.—The Accusations in the Seventh Item, Which Pelagius Confessed.

 27. [XII.]—The Eighth Item in the Accusation.

 28.—Pelagius’ Reply to the Eighth Item of Accusation.

 29. [XIII.]—The Ninth Item of the Accusation And Pelagius’ Reply.

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

 31.—Remarks on the Tenth Item.

 32.—The Eleventh Item of the Accusation.

 33.—Discussion of the Eleventh Item Continued.

 34.—The Same Continued. On the Works of Unbelievers Faith is the Initial Principle from Which Good Works Have Their Beginning Faith is the Gift of G

 35.—The Same Continued.

 36.—The Same Continued. The Monk Pelagius. Grace is Conferred on the Unworthy.

 37—The Same Continued. John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and His Examination.

 38. [XV.]—The Same Continued.

 39. [XVI.]—The Same Continued. Heros and Lazarus Orosius.

 40. [XVII.]—The Same Continued.

 41.—Augustin Indulgently Shows that the Judges Acted Incautiously in Their Official Conduct of the Case of Pelagius.

 42. [XVIII.]—The Twelfth Item in the Accusation. Other Heads of Cœlestius’ Doctrine Abjured by Pelagius.

 43. [XIX.]—The Answer of the Monk Pelagius and His Profession of Faith.

 44. [XX.]—The Acquittal of Pelagius.

 45. [XXI.]—Pelagius’ Acquittal Becomes Suspected.

 46. [XXII.]—How Pelagius Became Known to Augustin Cœlestius Condemned at Carthage.

 47. [XXIII.]—Pelagius’ Book, Which Was Sent by Timasius and Jacobus to Augustin, Was Answered by the Latter in His Work “On Nature and Grace.”

 48. [XXIV.]—A Letter Written by Timasius and Jacobus to Augustin on Receiving His Treatise “On Nature and Grace.”

 49. [XXV.]—Pelagius’ Behaviour Contrasted with that of the Writers of the Letter.

 50.—Pelagius Has No Good Reason to Be Annoyed If His Name Be at Last Used in the Controversy, and He Be Expressly Refuted.

 51. [XXVI.]—The Nature of Augustin’s Letter to Pelagius.

 52. [XXVII. And XXVIII.]—The Text of the Letter.

 53. [XXIX.]—Pelagius’ Use of Recommendations.

 54. [XXX.]—On the Letter of Pelagius, in Which He Boasts that His Errors Had Been Approved by Fourteen Bishops.

 55.—Pelagius’ Letter Discussed.

 56. [XXXI.]—Is Pelagius Sincere?

 57. [XXXII.]—Fraudulent Practices Pursued by Pelagius in His Report of the Proceedings in Palestine, in the Paper Wherein He Defended Himself to Augus

 [XXXIII.] But I could not help feeling annoyance that he can appear to have defended sundry sentences of Cœlestius, which, from the Proceedings, it is

 58.—The Same Continued.

 59. [XXXIV.]—Although Pelagius Was Acquitted, His Heresy Was Condemned.

 60. [XXXV.]—The Synod’s Condemnation of His Doctrines.

 61.—History of the Pelagian Heresy. The Pelagian Heresy Was Raised by Sundry Persons Who Affected the Monastic State.

 62.—The History Continued. Cœlestius Condemned at Carthage by Episcopal Judgment. Pelagius Acquitted by Bishops in Palestine, in Consequence of His De

 63.—The Same Continued. The Dogmas of Cœlestius Laid to the Charge of Pelagius, as His Master, and Condemned.

 64.—How the Bishops Cleared Pelagius of Those Charges.

 65.—Recapitulation of What Pelagius Condemned.

 66.—The Harsh Measures of the Pelagians Against the Holy Monks and Nuns Who Belonged to Jerome’s Charge.

40. [XVII.]—The Same Continued.

Since, then, Pelagius was present when these passages of the Scriptures were discussed, and by his silence acknowledged having said that he entertained the same view of their meaning, how happens it, that, after reconsidering the apostle’s testimony, as he had just done, and finding that he said: “I am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God; but by the grace of God I am what I am,”129    1 Cor. xv. 9, 10. he did not perceive that it was improper for him to say, respecting the question of the abundance of the graces which the said apostle received, that he had shown himself “worthy to receive them,” when the apostle himself not only confessed, but added a reason to prove, that he was unworthy of them—and by this very fact set forth grace as grace indeed? If he could not for some reason or other consider or recollect the narrative of his holiness the bishop John, which he had heard some time before, he might surely have respected his own very recent answer at the synod, and remembered how he anathematized, but a short while before, the opinions which had been alleged against him out of Cœlestius. Now among these it was objected to him that Cœlestius had said: “That the grace of God is bestowed according to our merits.” If, then, Pelagius truthfully anathematized this, why does he say that all those graces were conferred on the apostle because he deserved them? Is the phrase “worthy to receive” of different meaning from the expression “to receive according to merit”? Can he by any disputatious subtlety show that a man is worthy who has no merit? But neither Cœlestius, nor any other, all of whose opinions he anathematized, has any intention to allow him to throw clouds over the phrase, and to conceal himself behind them. He presses home the matter, and plainly says: “And this grace has been placed in my will, according as I have been either worthy or unworthy of it.” If, then, a statement, wherein it is declared that “God’s grace is given in proportion to our deserts, to such as are worthy,”130    See above, 30 (xiv.). was rightly and truly condemned by Pelagius, how could his heart permit him to think, or his mouth to utter, such a sentence as this: “We say that God gives to the person who has proved himself worthy to receive them, all graces?”131    See above, 32. Who that carefully considers all this can help feeling some anxiety about his answer or defence?

CAPUT XVII.

40. Cum ergo Pelagius praesens, ad illa testimonia Scripturarum dixisse se ita credere tacitus agnoverit, quomodo illud Apostoli testimonium paulo superius recolens, et inveniens eum dixisse, Non sum dignus vocari apostolus, quia persecatus sum Ecclesiam Dei, sed gratia Dei sum id quod sum; non vidit, non se dicere debuisse, cum ageretur de abundantia gratiarum, quas idem accepit apostolus, «dignum fuisse qui acciperet;» cum ipse se non solum dixerit, sed et aliam causam reddens, probarit indignum, et eo ipso gratiam vere gratiam commendaverit? Sed si forte illud jamdudum a sancto Joanne narratum, cogitare vel meminisse non potuit; recentissimam suam responsionem respiceret, et quae paulo ante de Coelestio sibi objecta anathematizaverit adverteret. Nempe etiam inter illa est, quod objectum est dixisse Coelestium, «Dei gratiam secundum merita nostra dari.» Si ergo veraciter hoc Pelagius anathematizavit, quid est quod dicit, gratias omnes Apostolo secundum meritum datas? An aliud est dignum esse accipere; aliud, secundum meritum accipere? et potest aliqua subtilitate disputationis ostendere, dignum esse aliquem, sed non mereri? Verum tamen Coelestius, vel quis alius, cujus omnes superiores anathematizavit sententias, nec de hoc verbo eum nebulas obtendere atque in eis latere permittit. Urget enim et dicit: «Et ipsa gratia in mea voluntate posita est, sive dignus fuerim, sive indignus.» Si ergo recte hoc a Pelagio veraciterque damnatum est, ubi dicitur, «Dei gratiam secundum merita et dignis dari:» quo corde cogitavit, quove ore protulit quod ait, «Dicimus donare Deum ei, qui fuerit dignus accipere, omnes gratias? Quis non ista si diligenter adverterit, fiat de illius responsione vel defensione sollicitus?