Chapter 6 [IV.]—What Was Done in the Case of Cœlestius and Zosimus.

But what need is there for us to delay longer in speaking of this matter, when there are extant here and there proceedings and writings drawn up, where all those things just as they were transacted may be either learnt or recalled? For who does not see in what degree Cœlestius was bound by the interrogations of your holy predecessor and by the answers of Cœlestius, whereby he professed that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, and fastened by a most wholesome chain, so as not to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants is not put away in baptism? Because these are the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council: “For once,” he said, “he bore free will; but, using his advantage inconsiderately, and falling into the depths of apostasy, he was overwhelmed, and found no way whereby he could rise from thence; and, deceived for ever by his liberty, he would have lain under the oppression of this ruin, if the advent of Christ had not subsequently for his grace delivered him, and, by the purification of a new regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of His baptism.”105    Augustin’s Letters, 181, 7. What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See? To this Cœlestius professed that he assented, when it was said to him by your holy predecessor, “Do you condemn all those things that are bandied about under your name?” and he himself replied, “I condemn them in accordance with the judgment of your predecessor Innocent, of blessed memory.” But among other things which had been uttered under his name, the deacon Paulinus had objected to Cœlestius that he said “that the sin of Adam was prejudicial to himself alone, and not to the human race, and that infants newly born were in the same condition in which Adam was before his sin.”106    See On Original Sin, 3. Accordingly, if he would condemn the views objected to by Paulinus with a truthful heart and tongue, according to the judgment of the blessed Pope Innocent, what could remain to him afterwards whence he could contend that there was no sin in infants resulting from the past transgression of the first man, which would be purged in holy baptism by the purification of the new regeneration? But he showed that he had answered deceitfully by the final event, when he withdrew himself from the examination, lest he should be compelled, according to the African rescripts, absolutely to mention and anathematize the very words themselves concerning this question which he wrote in his tractate.

CAPUT IV.

6. Idem tractatur argumentum. Sed quid opus est nos de hac re loquendo diutius immorari, cum exstent hinc atque inde gesta et scripta directa, ubi possint cuncta illa, quemadmodum acta sint, vel cognosci vel recognosci? Interrogationibus enim sancti praecessoris tui, et Coelestii responsionibus quibus se beati Papae Innocentii litteris consentire professus est, quis non videat quemadmodum sit Coelestius colligatus, et vinculo saluberrimo obstrictus, ne ulterius defendere auderet in Baptismate parvulorum non dimitti originale peccatum? Venerabilis quippe Innocentii episcopi de hac re ista sunt verba ad Carthaginense concilium: «Liberum enim,» inquit, «arbitrium olim ille perpessus, dum suis inconsultius utitur bonis, cadens in praevaricationis profunda demersus, nihil quemadmodum exinde surgere posset invenit: suaque in aeternum libertate deceptus, hujus ruinae jacuisset oppressu , nisi eum post Christi pro sua gratia liberasset adventus, qui per novae regenerationis purificationem omne praeteritum vitium sui Baptismatis lavacro purgavit» (Innocent., epist. 181, n. 7, apud August.). Quid ista Sedis Apostolicae sententia clarius atque manifestius? Huic se Coelestius consentire professus est, quando cum illi a sancto praecessore tuo dictum esset, «Illa omnia damnas quae jactata sunt de nomine tuo?» ipse respondit, «Damno secundum sententiam beatae memoriae praecessoris tui Innocentii.» Inter caetera autem quae de nomine ejus jactata fuerant, diaconus Coelestio Paulinus objecerat, quod diceret, «peccatum Adae ipsi soli obfuisse, et non generi humano; et quod infantes nuper nati, in eo essent statu, in quo Adam fuit ante peccatum.» Proinde si objecta Paulini, secundum sententiam beati Papae Innocentii veraci corde atque ore damnaret; quid ei remaneret deinceps unde contenderet, nullum esse ex praeterita primi hominis transgressione in parvulis vitium, quod per novae regenerationis purificationem sacro Baptismate purgaretur? Sed illud se respondisse fallaciter novissimo exitu ostendit, cum se subtraxit 0576 examini, ne secundum Africana rescripta ipsa omnino de hac quaestione verba commemorare et anathematizare, quae in libello suo posuit, cogeretur.