One of the most extensive resources on the internet
for the study of early Christianity
“Augustine - Pelagius and his denial of Original Sin”
From Augustine: De Peccato Originali, 13
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more about our use of cookies here. Click here to read at earlychurchtexts.com in the original Latin (with dictionary lookup links). The English translation below is from the NPNF series. earlychurchtexts.com
Try out the feature
rich subscription version of the Early Church Texts website for just $5
for a trial period or $30 for a year ($15 student rate). Click
here for more information. Check out the video demo of the site. Click here to go to the Early Church Texts Home Page
for the publicly available version of the site which has just the original Greek and Latin texts with dictionary lookup links. |
Relevant
books Many Augustine
translations A selection below
Augustine Four Anti-Pelagian Writings (Fathers of the Church) -------------- Gerald Bonner See particularly chapters "Pelagianism and Augustine" "Augustine and Pelagianism" -------------- Peter Brown Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine See the
chapter -------------- Theodore De Bruyn -------------- J. Patout Burns The development of Augustine's doctrine of operative grace -------------- Robert Dodaro (See chapter See the chapter by James Wetzel: Snares of Truth: Augustine on Free will and Predestination.) -------------- John Ferguson Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study -------------- B.R. Rees -------------- B.R. Rees -------------- James Wetzel -------------- Robert Van De Weyer The Letters of Pelagius (Early Christian Writings) -------------- Ed. R. Williams (See chapters by R. A. Markus, The Legacy of Pelagius; and L. Wickham, Pelagianism in the East.) |
I see, however, that it may be most justly demanded of
me, that I do not defer my promised demonstration, that he actually entertains
the same views as Cœlestius. In the first book of his more recent work, written
in defence of free will (which work he mentions in the letter he despatched to
Rome), he says: “Everything good, and everything evil, on account of which we
are either laudable or blameworthy, is not born with us but done by us: for we
are born not fully developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; and we are
procreated as without virtue, so also without vice; and previous to the action
of our own proper will, that alone is in man which God has formed.” Now you
perceive that in these words of Pelagius, the dogma of both these men is
contained, that infants are born without the contagion of any sin from Adam. It
is therefore not astonishing that Cœlestius refused to condemn such as say that
Adam’s sin injured only himself, and not the human race; and that infants are at
their birth in the same state in which Adam was before the transgression. But it
is very much to be wondered at, that Pelagius had the effrontery to anathematize
these opinions. For if, as he alleges, “evil is not born with us, and we are
procreated without fault, and the only thing in man previous to the action of
his own will is what God has formed,” then of course the sin of Adam did only
injure himself, inasmuch as it did not pass on to his offspring. For there is
not any sin which is not an evil; or a sin that is not a fault; or else sin was
created by God. But he says: “Evil is not born with us, and we are procreated
without fault; and the only thing in men at their birth is what God has formed.”
Now, since by this language he supposes it to be most true, that, according to
the well-known sentence of his: “Adam’s sin was injurious to himself alone, and
not to the human race,” why did Pelagius condemn this, if it were not for the
purpose of deceiving his catholic judges? By parity of reasoning, it may also be
argued: “If evil is not born with us, and if we are procreated without fault,
and if the only thing found in man at the time of his birth is what God has
formed,” it follows beyond a doubt that “infants at their birth are in the same
condition that Adam was before the transgression,” in whom no evil or fault was
inherent, and in whom that alone existed which God had formed. And yet Pelagius
pronounced anathema on all those persons “who hold now, or have at any time
held, that newborn babes are placed by their birth in the same state that Adam
was in before the transgression,”—in other words, are without any evil, without
any fault, having that only which God had formed. Now, why again did Pelagius
condemn this tenet also, if it were not for the purpose of deceiving the
catholic Synod, and saving himself from the condemnation of an heretical
innovator? |
Mac Users please note that the site may not work with Safari versions lower than version 4. (It has been tested with version 4.0.3.) It will work with Firefox, which can be downloaded from here.
Please note that for all features of the site to work correctly javascript must be enabled and the operation of "pop-up" windows must not be blocked. Click here for more information.
original Latin text
From Augustine: De Peccato Originali, 13
On Original Sin
Pelagius' views about original sin
Pelagius and Pelagianism
Augustine debate with Pelagius
Migne Latin
Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus
Patrologia Latina