4. After Pelagius had been admitted, all of you with one mind asked whether he realized that he taught things against which Bishop Augustine had responded. He answered at once, "And who is Augustine to me?" Even though everyone shouted that he was blaspheming against the bishop from whose mouth the Lord has bestowed the healing medicine of unity to all Africa, and that he ought to be expelled not merely from the present assembly but also from the Church as a whole, Bishop John immediately ordered Pelagius, who was clearly a layman in a gathering of priests and a culprit guilty of flagrant heresy in the midst of Catholics, to be seated, and then said, "I am Augustine!" so that naturally, by assuming the role of Augustine as if he were present, he might pardon Pelagius more freely from the authority of the very one who was being injured and restrain the passions of those feeling aggrieved. [...]
Here follows the doctrinal discussion, especially on the teachings of Pelagius that "a person could be without sin and could easily observe God’s commandments if he so wished." Bishop Johns tries to turn the assembly into a formal trial in which he could act as a judge in order to pass a judgment favourable to Pelagius. Orosius opposes this and declares that the doctrine upheld by Pelagius has already been condemned by the bishops (it is an allusion to the condemnation of Caelestius in Carthage in 411). Presbyters cannot contest the decision of their "fathers", i.e. the bishops.
6. [Bishop John] debated this for a considerable time and when, because of the inexperience of an interpreter unknown to us - an interpreter whom such leading citizens and devout individuals as the presbyters Passerius and Avitus, and Domnus, a former notable, had proven time and again either to be giving an erroneous translation or to be withholding much of what was being said or suggesting different implications for various statements made - and when, as I said, because of this our statements had been either altered on most occasions or passed over in silence, Bishop John said: “If Pelagius were to say that a person could do this without God's assistance, then that would be most wicked and deserving of condemnation; now, however, when he adds that a person can be without sin, but not without God's assistance, what do you say to that? Or do you perhaps deny God's assistance?” In answer to this, I replied, "As you and the previously named men have witnessed and are even now testifying to, a person who denies God's assistance should be anathematized. Certainly I do not deny this, especially since, on the contrary, I have refuted the heretics." Then, once this "judge" had been exposed and the interpreter betrayed, when we shouted that the heretic was a Latin-speaking individual, that we were Latin-speaking, that the heresy was more widely known to the Latin-speaking parts of the Empire and ought to be discussed by Latin-speaking judges, and when that one person in particular [Pelagius], the very suspect, kept forcing himself upon us as judge in an all but shameless manner—although we were not the accusers—it was necessary for most of us to say, “The same person cannot be heretic, advocate, and judge." [...]
Forty-seven days later Orosius approaches Bishop John and unexpectedly is accused by him of saying on the assembly described above that "a person can be without sin even with God's assistance." Orosius reproaches John for delivering such a judgment although he did not understand Latin (see ).
7. [...] And then there is the fact that in that same assembly the presbyters Avitus and Vitalis sat together with me on one side; on the other side sat that "unknown" interpreter; and next to him were men esteemed by both the world and God, Passerius the presbyter and Domnus, the former notable. Both of these last two were considered worthy to be present as interpreters because of their skill and their faith, and met with us after being invited and brought there by your circle of clerics with the agreement of Bishop John himself. Indeed, in your midst was the very one who in that situation was not less heard than seen.
(trans. Hanson 1999: 119, 121-123, slightly changed)