Chapter 69 [LIX.]—Pelagius Puts Nature in the Place of Grace.

In opposition, however, to those who ask, “And who would be unwilling to be without sin, if it were put in the power of a man?” he rightly contends, saying “that by this very question they acknowledge that the thing is not impossible; because so much as this, many, if not all men, certainly desire.” Well then, let him only confess the means by which this is possible, and then our controversy is ended. Now the means is “the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ;” by which he nowhere has been willing to allow that we are assisted when we pray, for the avoidance of sin. If indeed he secretly allows this, he must forgive us if we suspect otherwise. For he himself works this result, who, though encountering so much obloquy on this subject, wishes to entertain the secret opinion, and yet is unwilling to confess or profess it. It would surely be no great matter were he to speak out, especially since he has undertaken to handle and open this point, as if it had been objected against him on the side of opponents. Why on such occasions did he choose only to defend nature, and assert that man was so created as to have it in his power not to sin if he wished not to sin; and, from the fact that he was so created, definitely say that the power was owing to God’s grace which enabled him to avoid sin, if he was unwilling to commit it; and yet refuse to say anything concerning the fact that even nature itself is either, because disordered, healed by God’s grace through our Lord Jesus Christ or else assisted by it, because in itself it is so insufficient?

CAPUT LIX.

69. Idem tractatur argumentum. Quod vero contra eos disputat, qui dicunt, «Et quis nolit sine peccato esse, si hoc in hominis esset positum potestate?» Recte quidem disputat, «hoc ipso eos confiteri non esse impossibile, quia hoc vel multi, vel omnes volunt:» sed hoc unde sit possibile confiteatur, et pax est. Ipsa est enim gratia Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qua omnino iste nos orantes adjuvari ut non peccemus, nusquam dicere voluit. Quod si forte latenter sentit, ignoscat aliter suspicantibus. Ipse enim hoc facit, qui cum tantam de hac re patiatur invidiam, sentire id vult, et confiteri vel profiteri non vult. Quid erat magnum ut hoc diceret, cum praesertim sibi hoc tanquam ex persona adversariorum oppositum tractare et aperire susceperit? Cur illic solam naturam defendere voluit, et quia homo ita creatus est, ut non peccare posset, si peccare noluisset, asseruit, ac per hoc quod ita creatus est, eam possibilitatem ad gratiam Dei pertinere definivit, qua possibilitate si noluerit peccare, non peccat; et noluit aliquid dicere de eo, quod ipsa natura gratia Dei per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum vel sanatur quia vitiata est, vel quia sibi non sufficit adjuvatur?