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.

65.—Recapitulation of What Pelagius Condemned.

Let us now, by a like recapitulation, bestow a little more attention on those subjects which the bishops said he rejected and condemned as “contrary;” for herein especially lies the whole of that heresy. We will entirely pass over the strange terms of adulation which he is reported to have put into writing in praise of a certain widow; these he denied having ever inserted in any of his writings, or ever given utterance to, and he anathematized all who held the opinions in question not indeed as heretics, but as fools.171    See above, 16. The following are the wild thickets of this heresy, which we are sorry to see shooting out buds, nay growing into trees, day by day:—“That172    See above, 24. Adam was made mortal, and would have died whether he had sinned or not; that Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the human race; that the law no less than the gospel leads to the kingdom; that new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before the transgression; that the whole human race does not, on the one hand, die in consequence of Adam’s death and transgression, nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise again through the resurrection of Christ; that infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life; that rich men, even if baptized, unless they renounce and surrender everything, have, whatever good they may seem to have done, nothing of it reckoned to them, neither can they possess the kingdom of God; that173    See above, 30. God’s grace and assistance are not given for single actions, but reside in free will, and in the law and teaching; that the grace of God is bestowed according to our merits, so that grace really lies in the will of man, as he makes himself worthy or unworthy of it; that men cannot be called children of God, unless they have become entirely free from sin; that forgetfulness and ignorance do not come under sin, as they do not happen through the will, but of necessity; that there is no free will, if it needs the help of God, inasmuch as every one has his proper will either to do something, or to abstain from doing it; that our victory comes not from God’s help, but from free will; that from what Peter says, that ‘we are partakers of the divine nature,’174    2 Pet. i. 4. it must follow that the soul has the power of being without sin, just in the way that God Himself has.” For this have I read in the eleventh chapter of the book, which bears no title of its author, but is commonly reported to be the work of Cœlestius,—expressed in these words: “Now how can anybody,” asks the author, “become a partaker of the thing from the condition and power of which he is distinctly declared to be a stranger?” Accordingly, the brethren who prepared these objections understood him to have said that man’s soul and God are of the same nature, and to have asserted that the soul is part of God; for thus they understood that he meant that the soul partakes of the same condition and power as God. Moreover in the last of the objections laid to his charge there occurs this position: “That pardon is not given to penitents according to the grace and mercy of God, but according to their own merits and effort, since through repentance they have been worthy of mercy.” Now all these dogmas, and the arguments which were advanced in support of them, were repudiated and anathematized by Pelagius, and his conduct herein was approved of by the judges, who accordingly pronounced that he had, by his rejection and anathema, condemned the opinions in question as contrary to the faith. Let us therefore rejoice—whatever may be the circumstances of the case, whether Cœlestius laid down these theses or not, or whether Pelagius believed them or not—that the injurious principles of this new heresy were condemned before that ecclesiastical tribunal; and let us thank God for such a result, and proclaim His praises.

65. Nunc similiter recapitulando illa paulo attentius videamus, quae illum contraria reprobare et anathematizare dixerunt. In hoc enim potius tota haeresis ista consistit. Exceptis ergo illis, quae in adulatione nescio cujus viduae in libris suis posuisse dictus est, quae ille «neque in libris suis esse, neque talia unquam se dixisse» respondit; «et eos qui talia saperent, non tanquam haereticos, sed tanquam stultos anathematizavit:» haec sunt quibus haeresis illius dumeta quotidie pullulare, imo jam silvescere dolebamus. «Adam mortalem factum, qui sive peccaret, sive non peccaret, moriturus esset. Quod peccatum Adae ipsum solum laeserit, et non genus humanum. Quod Lex sic mittat ad regnum, quemadmodum et Evangelium. Quod infantes nuper nati in illo statu sint, in quo Adam fuit ante praevaricationem. Quod neque per mortem vel praevaricationem Adae omne genus hominum moriatur, neque per resurrectionem Christi omne genus hominum resurgat. Quod infantes, etsi non baptizentur, habeant vitam aeternam. Quod divites baptizati, nisi omnibus abrenuntient, si quid boni visi fuerint facere, non eis reputetur, neque regnum Dei possint habere. Quod gratia Dei et adjutorium non ad singulos actus detur; sed in libero arbitrio sit, et in lege atque doctrina. Quod Dei gratia secundum merita nostra detur; et propterea ipsa gratia in hominis sit posita voluntate, sive dignus fiat , sive indignus. Quod filii Dei non possint vocari, 0358 nisi omnino absque peccato fuerint effecti. Quod oblivio et ignorantia non subjaceant peccato; quoniam non eveniant secundum voluntatem, sed secundum necessitatem. Quod non sit liberum arbitrium, si indigeat auxilio Dei; quoniam propriam voluntatem habeat unusquisque aut facere aliquid, aut non facere. Quod victoria nostra ex Dei non sit adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio. Quod ex illo, quod ait Petrus, divinae nos esse consortes naturae, consequens sit ut ita possit esse anima sine peccato, quemadmodum Deus.» Hoc enim in undecimo capitulo libri, non quidem habentis auctoris sui titulum, sed qui perhibetur esse Coelestii, his verbis positum ipse legi: «Quomodo quispiam,» inquit, «illius rei consortium suscepit, a cujus statu et virtute esse extraneus definitur?» Ideo fratres qui haec objecerunt, sic eum intellexerunt, tanquam ejusdem naturae animam et Doum, et partem Dei dixerit animam: sic enim acceperunt, quod ejusdem status atque virtutis eam esse cum Deo senserit. In extremo autem objectorum positum est: «Quod poenitentibus venia non detur secundum gratiam et misericordiam Dei, sed secundum meritum et laborem eorum, qui per poenitentiam digni fuerint misericordia.» Haec omnia, et si quae argumentationes ad ea confirmanda interpositae sunt, sua negantem, et anathematizantem Pelagium judices approbaverunt: et ideo pronuntiaverunt, eum contraria ecclesiasticae fidei reprobando et anathematizando, damnasse. Ac per hoc quomodolibet ea Coelestius posuerit aut non posuerit, vel Pelagius senserit aut non senserit, tanta mala tam novae hujus haeresis illo ecclesiastico judicio damnata gaudeamus, et Deo gratias agamus, laudesque dicamus.