" Good," says he, "are the tears which wash away sin. They upon whom the Lord at last turns and looks, bewail. Peter denied Him first, and did not weep, because the Lord had not turned and looked upon him. He denied Him a second time, and still wept not, because the Lord had not even yet turned and looked upon him. The third time also he denied Him, Jesus turned and looked, and then he wept most bitterly." Let these persons read the Gospel; let them consider how that the Lord Jesus was at that moment within, having a hearing before the chief of the priests; whilst the Apostle Peter was outside,^ and down in the hall,^ sitting at one time with the servants at the fire,'^ at another time standing,5 as the most accurate and consistent narrative of the evangelists shows. It cannot therefore be said that it was with His bodily eyes that the Lord turned and looked upon him by a visible and apparent admonition. That, then, which is described in the words, " The Lord turned and looked upon Peter," ^ was effected internally; it was wrought in the mind, wrought in the will. In mercy the Lord silently and secretly approached, touched the heart, recalled the memory of the past, with His own internal grace visited Peter, stirred and brought out into external tears the feelings of his inner man. Behold in what manner God is present with His help to our wills and actions; behold how " He worketh in us both to will and to do."
CHAP. 50. — AMBROSE TEACHES THAT ALL MEN NEED god's help.
In the same book the same St. Ambrose says again: ^ " Now if Peter fell, who said, ' Though all men shall be offended, yet will I never be offended,' who else shall rightly presume concerning himself? David, indeed, because he had said, ' In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved,' confesses how injurious his confidence had proved to himself: 'Thou didst turn away Thy face,' he says, ' and I was troubled.' " ^ Pelagius ought to listen to the teaching of so eminent a man, and should follow his faith, since 1 " In the ninth book of the same work," says St. Augustin. The reference, however, is to book x. of the editions, c. 89, on Luke xxii. 61.
he has commended his teaching and faith. Let him listen humbly; let him follow with fidelity; let him indulge no longer in obstinate presumption, lest lie perish. Why does Pelagius choose to be sunk in that sea whence Peter was rescued by the Rock? 9 CHAP. 5 I [XLVI.] AMBROSE TEACHES THAT IT IS GOD THAT DOES FOR MAN WHAT PELAGIUS AT- TRIBUTES TO FREE WILL.
Let him lend an ear also to the same godly bishop, who says, in the sixth book of this same book: '° " The reason why they would not receive Him is mentioned by the evangelist himself in these words, ' Because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem.' " But His disciples had a strong wish that He should be received into the Samaritan town. God, however, calls whomsoever He deigns, and whom He wills He makes religious." What wise insight of the man of God, drawn from the very fountain of God's grace! " God," says he, " calls whomsoever He deigns, and whom He wills He makes religious." See whether this is not the prophet's own declaration: " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will show pity on whom I will be pitiful; " '^ and the apostle's deduction therefrom: " So then," says he, " it is not of him thut willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." '3 Now, when even his model man of our own times says, that " whomsoever God deigns He calls, and whom He wills He makes religious," will any one be bold enough to contend that that man is not yet religious " who hastens to the Lord, and desires to be directed by Him, and makes his own will depend upon God's; who, moreover, cleaves so closely to the Lord, that he becomes (as the apostle says) ' one spirit * with Him?" ■* Great, however, as is this entire work of a " religious man," Pelagius maintains that " it is effected only by the freedom of the will." But his own blessed Ambrose, whom he so highly commends in word, is against him, saying, " The Lord God calls whomsoever He deigns, and whom He wills He makes religious." It is God, then, who makes religious whomsoever He pleases, in order that he may " hasten to the Lord, and desire to be directed by Him, and make his own will depend upon God's, and cleave so closely to the Lord as to become (as the apostle says) * one spirit ' with Him; " and all this none but a religious man does. Who, then, ever does so much, unless he be made by God to do it?
9 It is impossible to preserve the paronomasia of the original, which plays on the meaning of the names Pelagiits {pelago, sea) and Petrus {petra, rock).
'° It is the seventh book in the editions, c. 27, on Luke ix. 53.
*■< J Cor. vi. 17. These are the words of Pelagius, which have been already quoted above, in ch. 24.
Chap. 54.]
CHAP. 52 [XLVII.] IF PELAGIUS AGRKES WITH AMBROSE, AUGUSTIN HAS NO CONTROVERSY WITH HIM.
Inasmuch, however, as the discussion about free will and God's grace has such difficulty in its distinctions, that when free will is maintained, God's grace is apparently denied; whilst when God's grace is asserted, free will is supposed to be done away with, — Pelagius can so involve himself in the shades of this obscurity as to profess agreement with all that we have quoted from St. Ambrose, and declare that such is, and always has been, his opinion also; and endeavour so to explain each, that men may suppose his opinion, to be in fair accord with Ambrose's. So far, therefore, as concerns the questions of God's help and grace, you are requested to observe the three things which he has distinguished so very plainly, under the terms "ability," "will," and "actuality," that is, "capacity," "volition," and " action." ' If, then, he has come round to an agreement with us, then not the " capacity " alone in man, even if he neither wills nor performs the good, but the volition and the action also, — in other words, our willing well and doing well, — things which have no existence in man, except when he has a good will and acts rightly: — if, I repeat, he thus consents to hold with us, that even the volition and the action are assisted by God, and so assisted that we can neither will nor do any good thing without such help; if, too, he believes that this is that very grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ which makes us righteous through His righteousness, and not our own, so that our true righteousness is that which we have of Him, — then, so far as I can judge, there will remain no further controversy between us concerning the assistance we have from the grace of God.
CHAP. 53 [XLVIII.] — IN WHAT SENSE SOME MEN MAY BE SAID TO LIVE WITHOUT SIN IN THE PRESENT LIFE.
But in reference to the particular point in which he quoted the holy Ambrose with so much approljation, — because he found in that author's writings, from the praises he accorded to Zacharias and Elisabeth, the opinion that a man might possibly in this life be without sin; ^ although this cannot be denied if God wills it, with whom all things are possible, yet he ought to consider more carefully in what sense this was said. Now, so far as I can see, this statement was made in accordance with a certain standard of conduct, which is among men held to be worthy of approval and praise, and which no human being could justly call in question for the purpose of laying accusation or censure.
' See above, ch. 4. ' Ambrose on St. Luke, Book i. c. 17.
Such a Standard Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth are said to have maintained in the sight of God, for no other reason than that they, by walking therein, never deceived people by any dissimulation; but as they in their sincerity appeared to men, so were they known in the sight of God. 3 The statement, however, was not made with any reference to that perfect state of righteousness in which we shall one day live truly and absolutely in a condition of spotless purity. The Apostle Paul, indeed, has told us that he was " blameless, as touching the righteousness which is of the law; " * and it was in respect of the same law that Zacharias also lived a blameless life. This righteousness, however, the apostle counted as " dung " and "loss," in comparison with the righteousness which is the object of our hope,' and which we ought to " hunger and thirst after," '' in order that hereafter we may be satisfied with the vision thereof, enjoying it now by faith, so long as " the just do live by faith." 7 CHAP. 54 [XLIX.] — AMBROSE TEACHES THAT NO ONE IS SINLESS IN THIS WORLD.
Lastly, let him give good heed to his venerable bishop, when he is expounding the Prophet Isaiah,** and says that " no man in this world can be without sin." Now nobody can pretend to say that by the phrase " /« this world'' he simply meant, in the love of this world. For he was speaking of the apostle, who said, "' Our conversation is in heaven; " 9 and while unfolding the sense of these words, the eminent bishop expressed himself thus: " Now the apostle says that many men, even while living in the present world, are perfect with themselves, who could not possibly be deemed perfect, if one looks at true perfection. For he says himself: ' We now see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known.' '° Thus, there are those who are spotless in this world, there are those who will be spotless in the kingdom of God; although, of course, if you sift the thing minutely, no one could be spotless, because no one is without sin." That passage, then, of the holy Ambrose, which Pelagius applies in support of his own opinion, was either written in a qualified sense, probable, indeed, but not expressed with minute accuracy; or if the holy and lowlyminded author did think that Zacharias and Elisabeth lived according to the highest and abso- 3 Luke i. 6; compare De Perfect. Just. ch. 38 5 Phil. lii. 8.
^ Malt. V. 6.
8 This work of Ambrose is no longer extant. It is again q^uoted by Augustin in his work, De Pccrato Ori^iiiali, c. 47 [xli ]; in his De Ntiptiis et Concupisc. i. 40 [xxxv.]; in his Contra JulinnHin, i. II [iv.J, ii. 24 [viii. 1; and in his Contra diias Efiist. Pciagianorum, c. 30 [xi.]. Ambrose himself mentions this work of his in his Exposition 0/ Luke, Book ii. c. 56, on Luke ii. 19.
[Book 1.
lutely perfect righteousness, which was incapable of increase or addition, he certainly corrected his opinion on a minuter examination of it.
CHAP. 5 5 [l.] AMBROSE WITNESSES THAT PER- FECT PURITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HUMAN NATURE.
He ondit, moreover, carefully to note that, in the very same context from which he quoted that passage of Ambrose's, which seemed so satisfactory for his purpose, he also said this: " To be spotless from the beginning is an impossibility to human nature." ' In this sentence the venerable Ambrose does undoubtedly predicate feebleness and infirmity of that natural " capacity," which Pelagius refuses faithfully to regard as corrupted by sin, and therefore boastfully extols. Beyond question, this runs counter to this man's will and inclination, although it does not contravene the truthful confession of the apostle, wherein he says: " We too were once by nature the children of wrath, even as ' See Augustin, above, De Naturd et Gratid, c. 75 [bdii.J.
Others." ^ For through the sin of the first man, which came from his free will, our nature became corrupted and ruined; and nothing but God's grace alone, through Him who is the Mediator between God and men, and our Almighty Physician, succours it. Now, since we have already prolonged this work too far in treating of the assistance of the divine grace towards our justification, by which God co-operates in all things for good with those who love Him,3 and whom He first loved-* — giving to them that He might receive from them: we must commence another treatise, as the Lord shall enable us, on the subject of sin also, which by one man has entered into the world, along with death, and so has passed upon all men,5 setting forth as much as shall seem needful and sufficient, in opposition to those persons who have broken out into violent and open error, contrary to the truth here stated.
* Rom. viii. 28.
4 I John iv. iq.
ON ORIGINAL SIN WHEREIN AUGUSTIN SHOWS THAT PELAGIUS REALLY DIFFERS IN NO RESPECT, ON THE QUESTION OF ORIGINAL SIN AND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS, FROM HIS FOL-LOWER CCELESTIUS, WHO, REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE ORIGINAL SIN AND EVEN DARING TO DENY THE DOCTRINE IN PUBLIC, WAS CONDEMNED IN TRIALS BEFORE THE BISHOPS FIRST AT CARTHAGE, AND AFTERWARDS AT ROME; FOR THIS QUESTION IS NOT, AS THESE HERETICS WOULD HAVE IT, ONE WHEREIN PERSONS MIGHT ERR WITHOUT DANGER TO THE FAITH. THEIR HERESY, INDEED, AIMED AT NOTHING ELSE THAN THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF. HE AFTERWARDS REFUTES ALL SUCH AS MAINTAINED THAT THE BLESSING OF MATRIMONY IS DISPARAGED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, AND AN INJURY DONE TO GOD HIMSELF, THE CREATOR OF MAN WHO IS BORN BY MEANS OF MATRIMONY.
CHAP. I [l.] — CAUTION NEEDED IN ATTENDING ' TO PELAGIUS' DELIVERANCES ON INFANT BAP- TISM.
Next I beg of you,' carefully to observe with what caution you ought to lend an ear, on the question of the baptism of infants, to men of this character, who dare not openly deny the laver of regeneration and the forgiveness of sins to this early age, for fear that Christian ears would not bear to listen to them; and who yet persist in holding and urging their opinion, that the carnal generation is not held guilty of man's first sin, although they seem to allow infants to be baptized for the remission of sins. You have, indeed, yourselves informed me in your letter, that you heard Pelagius say in your presence, reading out of that book of his which he declared that he had also sent to Rome, that they maintain that " infants ought to be baptized with the same formula of sacramental words as adults." ^ Who, after that statement, would suppose that one ought to raise any question at all on this subject? Or if he did, to whom would he not seem to indulge a very calumnious disposition — previous to the perusal of their plain assertions, in which they deny that infants inherit original sin, and contend that all persons are born free from all corruption?
CHAP. 2 [ll.] — CCELESTIUS, ON HIS TRIAL AT CARTHAGE, REFUSES TO CONDEMN HIS ERROR \ THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH HE GAVE TO ZOSIMUS.
Coelestius, indeed, maintained this erroneous doctrine with less restraint. To such an extent did he push his freedom as actually to refuse, when on trial before the bishops at Carthage,^ to condemn those who say, " That Adam's sin injured only Adam himself, and not the human race; and that infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was in before his transgression." •♦ In the written statement, too, which he presented to the most blessed Pope Zosimus at Rome, he declared with especial plainness, '"' that original sin binds no single infant." Concerning the ecclesiastical proceedings at Carthage we copy the following account of his words.
CHAP. 3 [ill.] — PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE AGAINST CCELESTIUS.
"The bishop Aurelius said: 'Let what follows be recited.' It was accordingly recited, ' That the sin of Adam was injurious to him alone, and not to the human race.' Then, after the recital, Coilestius said: ' I said that I was in doubt about the transmission of sin,5 but so as to yield assent ' For the persons addressed, see above, in Book i. c. i, of On the Grace of Christ.
* See above, On the Grace of Christ, ch. 35.
3 See Concerning the Proceedings of Pelagius, ch. 23.
* Pelagius, at Diospolis, condemned this position of Coelestius. Hence the comparative restraint of Pelagius, and the greater freedom in holding ihe error which is here attributed 10 Ccelestius.
5 De traduce teccati, the technical phrase to express the conveyance by birth of original sin.
[Book If.
to any man whom God has gifted with the grace of knowledge; for I have heard different opinions from those who liave been even appointed presbyters in the Catholic Church.' The deacon Paulinus ' said: * Tell us their names.' Coelestius answered: ' The holy presbyter Rufinus,^ who lived at Rome with the holy Pammachius. I have heard him declare that there is no transmission of sin.' The deacon Paulinus then asked: * Is there any one else? ' Coelestius replied: ' I have heard more say the same.' The deacon Paulinus rejoined: 'Tell us theirnames.' Ccelestius said: ' Is not one priest enough for you :> ' >' Then afterwards in another place we read: " The bishop Aurelius said: ' Let the rest of the accusation be read.' It then was recited ' That infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was before the transgression; ' and they read to the very end of the brief accusation which had been previously put in. [iv.] The bishop Aurelius inquired: * Have you, Coelestius, taught at any time, as the deacon Paulinus has stated, that infants are at their birth in the same state that Adam was before his transgression?' Ccelestius answered: 'Let him explain what he meant when he said, " before the transgression." ' The deacon Paulinus then said: ' Do you on your side deny that you ever taught this doctrine? It must be one of two things: he must either say that he never so taught, or else he must now condemn the opinion.' Coelestius rejoined: ' I have already said, Let him explain the words he mentioned, " before the transgression"'' The deacon Paulinus then said: 'You must deny ever having taught this.' The bishop Aurelius said: ' I ask, What conclusion I have on ray part to draw from this man's obstinacy; my affirmation is, that although Adam, as created in Paradise, is said to have been made immortal at first, he afterwards became corruptible through transgressing the commandment. Do you say this, brother Paulinus? ' 'I do, my lord,' answered the deacon Paulinus. Then the bishop Aurelius said: ' As regards the condition of infants before baptism at the present day, the ' This Paulinus, according to Mercator {Commonit. super notnine Ceelestii), was the deacon of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and the author of his biography, which he wrote at the instance of Augustin, According to his own showing, he lived in Africa, and wrote the L(fe of Ambrose when John was pretorian prefect, i.e. either in the year 412, or 413, or 422. The trial mentioned in the text took place about the commencement of the year 412, according to Augustin's letter to Pope Innocent (See Augustin's letter, 175, 1.6). See above, in the treatise On the Proceedings of Pclagiits, 23.
2 M creator {Commonit. adv. H ceres. Pelagii) informs us that a certain Syrian called Rufinus mtroduced the discussion against original sin and its transmission into Rome in the pontificate of Anastasius. According to some, this was the Rufinus of Aquileia, whom Jerome {in Epist. ad Ctesiphont.) notices as the precursor of Pclagius in his error about the sinless nature of man; according, however, to others, it is the other Rufinus, mentioned by Jerome in his 66th Epistle, who is possibly the same as he who rejects the transmission of original sin in a treatise On Faith, which J. Sismondi published as the work of Rufinus, a presbyter of the province of Palestine. It is, at any rate, hardly possible to suppose that the Aquileian Rufinus either went to Rome, or lodged there with Pammachius, in the time of Pope Anastasius.
deacon Paulinus wishes to be informed whether ' it is such as Adam's was before the transgression; and whether it derives the guilt of transgression from the same origin of sin from which it is ] born? ' The deacon Paulinus asked: ' Let him deny whether he taught this, or not.' Ccelestius answered: 'As touching the transmission of sin, I have already asserted, that I have heard many persons of acknowledged position in the catholic Church deny it altogether; and on the other hand, others affirm it: it may be fairly, deemed a matter for inquiry, but not a heresy. I have always maintained that infants require baptism, and ought to be baptized. What else does he want? ' " CHAP. 4. — ■CCELESTIUS CONCEDES BAPTISM FOR IN- FANTS, WITHOUT AFFIRMING ORIGINAL SIN.
You, of course, see that Coelestius here conceded baptism for infants only in such a manner as to be unwilling to confess that the sin of the first man, which is washed away in the laver of regeneration, passes over to them, although at the same time he did not venture to deny this; and on account of this doubt he refused to condemn those who maintain " That Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human race; " and " that infants at their birth are in the same condition wherein Adam was before the transgression."
CHAP. 5 [v.] — ccelestius' BOOK WHICH WAS PRO- DUCED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AT ROME.
But in the book which he published at Rome, and produced in the proceedings before the church there, he so speaks on this question as to show that he really believes what he had professed to be in doubt about. For these are his words: ^ " That infants, however, ought to be baptized for the remission of sins, according to the rule of the Church universal, and according to the meaning of the Gospel, we confess. For the Lord has determined that the kingdom of heaven should only be conferred on baptized persons; •♦ and since the resources of nature do not possess it, it must necessarily be conferred by the gift of grace." Now if he had not said anything elsewhere on this subject, who would not have supposed that he acknowledged the remission of original sin even in infants at their baptism, by saying that they ought to be baptized for the remission of sins? Hence the point of what you have stated in your letter, that Pelagius' answer to you was on this wise, " That infants are baptized with the same words of sacramental formula as adults," and that you were rejoiced to hear the very thing which you were desirous of hearing.
1 3 See above, On the Grace of Christ, ch. 36.
* John iii. 5.
Chap. 9.]
and yet that you preferred holding a consultation with us concerning his words.
CH.-VP. 6 [VI.] — CCELKSTIUS THE DISCIPLE IS IN THIS WORK BOLDER THAN HIS MASTER.
Carefully observe, then, what Coelestius has advanced so very openly, and you will discover what amount of concealment Pelagius has practised upon you. Coelestius goes on to say as follows: " That infants, however, must be baptized for the remission of sins, was not admitted by us with the view of our seeming to affirm sin by transmission. This is very alien from the catholic meaning, because sin is not born with a man, — it is subsequently committed by the man: for it is shown to be a fault, not of nature, but of the will. It is fitting, therefore, to confess this, lest we should seem to make different kinds of baptism; it is, moreover, necessary to lay down this preliminary safeguard, lest by the occasion of this mystery evil should, to the disparagement of the Creator, be said to be conveyed to man by nature, before that it has been committed by man." Now Pelagius was either afraid or ashamed to avow this to be his own opinion before you; although his disciple experienced neither a qualm nor a blush in openly professing it to be his, without any obscure subterfuges, in presence of the Apostolic See.
CHAP. 7. — POPE ZOSIMUS KINDLY EXCUSES HIM.
The bishop, however, who presides over this See, upon seeing him hurrying headlong in so great presumption like a madman, chose in his great compassion, with a view to the man's repentance, if it might be, rather to bind him tighdy by eliciting from him answers to questions proposed by himself, than by the stroke of a severe condemnation to drive him over the precipice, down which he seemed to be even now ready to fall. I say advisedly, " down which he seemed to be ready to fall," rather than "over | which he had actually fallen," because he had already in this same book «f his forecast the subject with an intended reference to questions of this sort in the following words: " If it should so happen that any error of ignorance has stolen over us human beings, let it be corrected by your decisive sentence."
CH.AP. 8 [VII.] — CCELESTIUS CONDEMNED BY ZOSIMUS.
The venerable Pope Zosimus, keeping in view this deprecatory preamble, dealt with the man, puffed up as he was with the blasts of false doctrine, so as that he should condemn all the objectionable points which had been alleged against him by the deacon Paulinus, and that he should yield his assent to the rescript of the Apostolic See which had been issued by his predecessor of sacred memory. The accused man, however, refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon, yet he did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed Pope Innocent; indeed, he went so fiir as to " ]iromise that he would condemn all the i)oints which the Apostolic See condemned." Thus the man was treated with gentle remedies, as a delirious patient who required rest; but, at the same time, he was not regarded as being yet ready to be released from the restraints of excommunication. The inter\'al of two months being granted him, until communications could be received from Africa, a place for recovery was conceded to him, under the mild restorative of the sentence which had been pronounced. For in truth, if he would have laid aside his vain obstinacy, and be now willing to carrj' out what he had undertaken, and would carefully read the very letter to which he had replied by promising submission, he would yet come to a better mind.
But after the rescripts were duly issued from the council of the African bishops, there were very good reasons why the sentence should be carried out against him, in strictest accordance with equity. What these reasons were you may read for yourselves, for we have sent you all the particulars.
CHAP. 9 [VIII.] — PELAGIUS DECEIVED THE COUN- CIL IN PALESTINE, BUT WAS UNABLE TO DECEIVE THE CHURCH AT ROME.
Wherefore Pelagius, too, if he will only reflect candidly on his own position and writings, has no reason for saying that he ought not to have been banned with such a sentence. For although he deceived the council in Palestine, seemingly clearing himself before it, he entirely failed in imposing on the church at Rome (where, as you well know, he is by no means a stranger), although he went so far as to make the attempt, if he might somehow succeed. But, as I have just said, he entirely failed. For the most blessed Pope Zosimus recollected what his predecessor, who had set him so worthy an example, had thought of these very proceedings. Nor did he omit to obsen-e what opinion was entertained about this man by the trusty Romans, whose faith deserved to be spoken of in the Lord,' and whose consistent zeal in defence of catholic truth against this heresy he saw prevailing amongst them with warmth, and at the same time most perfect harmony. The man had lived among them for a long while, and his opinions could not escape their notice; moreover, they had so completely found out his disciple Coelestius, as to be able at once to adduce the most trustworthy and irrefragable evidence • Rom. i. 8.
[Book IL on this subject. Now what was the solemn judgment which the holy Pope Innocent formed respecting the proceedings in the Synod of Palestine, by which Pelagius boasts of having been acquitted, you may indeed read in the letter which he addressed to me. It is duly mentioned also in the answer which was forwarded by the African Synod to the venerable Pope Zosimus, and which, along with the other instructions, we have despatched to your loving selves.' But it seems to me, at the same time, that I ought not to omit producing the particulars in the present work.
CHAP. 10 [iX.] — THE JUDGMENT OF INNOCENT RESPECTING THE PROCEEDINGS IN PALESTINE.
Five bishops, then, of whom I was one, wrote him a letter,^ wherein we mentioned the proceedings in Palestine, of which the report had already reached us. We informed him that in the East, where this man lived, there had taken place certain ecclesiastical proceedings, in which he was thought to have been acquitted on all the charges. To this communication from us Innocent replied in a letter which contains the following among other words: " There are," says he, " sundry positions, as stated in these very Proceedings, which, when they were objected against him, he partly suppressed by avoiding them, and partly confused in absolute obscurity, by wresting the sense of many words; whilst there are other allegations which he cleared off, — not, indeed, in the honest way which he might seem at the time to use, but rather by methods of sophistry, meeting some of the objections with a flat denial, and tampering with others by a fallacious interpretation. Would, however, that he would even now adopt what is the far more desirable course of turning from his own error back to the true ways of catholic faith; that he would also, duly considering God's daily grace, and acknowledging the help thereof, be willing and desirous to appear, amidst the approbation of all men, to be truly corrected by the method of open conviction, — not, indeed, by judicial process, but by a hearty conversion to the catholic faith. We are therefore unable either to approve of or to blame their proceedings at that trial; for we cannot tell whether the proceedings were true, or even, if true, whether they do not really show that the man escaped by subterfuge, rather than that he cleared himself by entire truth." ^ You see clearly from these words, how that the most blessed Pope Innocent without doubt speaks of this man as of one who was by no means unknown to him.
' Albina, Pinianus, and Melania. Literally, they are here addressed as "your Love."
* Epistle 177, in the collection of Augustin's letters.
3 Innocent's letter occurs amongst the epistles 0/ Augustin, latter 183. 3, 4.
You see what opinion he entertained about his acquittal. You see, moreover, what his successor the holy Pope Zosimus was bound to recollect,— as in truth he did, — so as to confirm without hesitation the judgment of his predecessor in this case.
CHAP. II [x.] — HOW THAT PELAGIUS DECEIVED THE SYNOD OF PALESTINE.