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

Let us now see what were the two points out of all that were alleged which Pelagius was unwilling to anathematize, and admitted to be his own opinions, but to remove their offensive aspect explained in what sense he held them. “That a man,” says he, “is able to be without sin has been asserted already.” Asserted no doubt, and we remember the assertion quite well; but still it was mitigated, and approved by the judges, in that God’s grace was added, concerning which nothing was said in the original draft of his doctrine. Touching the second, however, of these points, we ought to pay careful attention to what he said in answer to the charge against him. “Concerning the fact, indeed,” says he, “that before the Lord’s coming there were persons without sin, we now again assert that previous to Christ’s advent some men lived holy and righteous lives, according to the teaching of the sacred Scriptures.” He did not dare to say: “We now again assert that previous to Christ’s advent there were persons without sin,” although this had been laid to his charge after the very words of Cœlestius. For he perceived how dangerous such a statement was, and into what trouble it would bring him. So he reduced the sentence to these harmless dimensions: “We again assert that before the coming of Christ there were persons who led holy and righteous lives.” Of course there were: who would deny it? But to say this is a very different thing from saying that they lived “without sin.” Because, indeed, those ancient worthies lived holy and righteous lives, they could for that very reason better confess: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”73    1 John i. 8. In the present day, also, many men live holy and righteous lives; but yet it is no untruth they utter when in their prayer they say: “Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors.”74    Matt. vi. 12. This avowal was accordingly acceptable to the judges, in the sense in which Pelagius solemnly declared his belief; but certainly not in the sense which Cœlestius, according to the original charge against him, was said to hold. We must now treat in detail of the topics which still remain, to the best of our ability.

26. Unde nunc duo illa videamus, quae noluit anathematizare Pelagius, qui etiam sua esse cognovit; sed ut illud, quod in eis offendebat, auferret, quomodo ea sentiret exposuit. «Posse quidem,» inquit, «hominem sine peccato esse, dictum est superius.» Dictum sane, et nos meminimus: sed ideo mitigatum, et a judicibus approbatum, quod addita est Dei gratia, quae in illis capitulis tacebatur. De hoc autem altero quemadmodum responderit, diligentius intuendum est. «De illo autem,» inquit, «quod fuerint ante adventum Domini homines sine peccato, dicimus et nos quoniam ante adventum Christi vixerunt quidam sancte et juste, secundum sanctarum Scripturarum traditionem.» Non est ausus dicere, Dicimus et nos quoniam ante adventum Christi fuerunt homines sine peccato; cum hoc illi de Coelestii dictis fuisset objectum; sensit enim quam esset periculosum et molestum: sed ait, «Dicimus et nos quoniam ante adventum Christi vixerunt quidam sancte et juste.» Quis hoc negaverit? Sed aliud est hoc, et aliud fuisse sine peccato: quia et illi sancte justeque vivebant, qui veraciter tamen dicebant, Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est (I Joan. I, 8). Et hodie multi juste sancteque 0336 vivunt. nec tamen in oratione mentiuntur, cum dicunt, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris (Matth. VI, 12). Hoc ergo judicibus placuit, quemadmodum se dicere asseveravit Pelagius; non quemadmodum objiciebatur dixisse Coelestius. Nunc ea quae restant pertractemus, ut possumus.